Mayor Kevin Faulconer and his aides met with SoccerCity investors 25 times between January 2016 and this past February, meetings the city says were routine due diligence regarding the future of Qualcomm Stadium but critics see as a less-than-transparent process.

According to documents released by the Mayor’s Office, Faulconer and chief of staff Stephen Puetz held many of the SoccerCity gatherings while also meeting with the San Diego Chargers 22 times.

While most of the 25 meetings were exclusive with SoccerCity, eight included representatives from San Diego State University and Major League Soccer.

Mayoral spokeswoman Jen Lebron said SoccerCity promoter FS Investors approached the city with the idea. She said the mayor has been collecting public input on what to do with the stadium property for two years, and he and his staff have met with other interested developers.


“From a big-picture perspective, since 2015, we have been soliciting input from the public as part of the Mission Valley Community Plan Update process,” Lebron said. “The Mayor’s Office has met with every group who is interested in this property.”

Records show the mayor met with rival developers Sudberry Properties and H.G. Fenton in February 2017, after FS Investors introduced its SoccerCity concept.

Critics say the public should have been told about the meetings and future plans for the stadium property should be a matter of open debate.

“The process seems like it has been geared to the SoccerCity folks right from the beginning,” said William Sannwald, a San Diego State University management professor and former assistant San Diego city manager.


“The thing that bothers me is there are probably other developers out there who would like to have an opportunity to suggest a plan for the site,” he said. “Competition always makes things better. Maybe nobody else would come forward but at least we would have other people take a look at the property and propose something.”

He said the property is too important to the community to limit the debate to a single proposal.

“It’s such an opportunity for San Diego for the next 50, 100 years,” he said. “We should be prudent in our approach to it rather than just jump at the first proposal that comes forward.”

Former San Diego City Councilwoman Donna Frye, now an open-government advocate with the nonprofit Californians Aware, said Faulconer should not have taken so many meetings with SoccerCity without more public disclosure.


“It appears that FS got special access to a public asset and the public got no access to their own property,” Frye said. “That’s bad because the public has a right to know what is happening.”

SoccerCity was introduced publicly in late January as a $1 billion remake of the sprawling Qualcomm Stadium site north of the San Diego River. It would include a soccer stadium of up to 30,000 seats and 55 acres of riverfront parkland along with millions of square feet of offices, retail and condominiums. The project has since evolved into a $4 billion redevelopment that includes the sports venue and other amenities.

“We took the initiative and presented the city with a compelling plan that addresses their needs,” said Nick Stone, project manager for GoalSD, the committee behind the SoccerCity proposal. “It alleviates the $12 million-a-year operating loss at the stadium, generates tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue and creates an iconic river park and joint-use stadium -- all at no cost to taxpayers. I’m sure the city would have met with -- and probably did meet with -- anyone who had an opinion about the stadium site. It’s interesting to note that to date no one has presented a real alternative to developing the site.”

Critics say the SoccerCity plan offers no guarantee that the park will be developed and allows for the possibility that the city would be responsible for cleaning up contaminated soil or other pollution.


The Chargers announced they were moving to Los Angeles just two weeks before the SoccerCity project was unveiled publicly. FS Investors quickly qualified an initiative for an upcoming election.

Council President Myrtle Cole did not respond to questions about the FS meetings. Councilman David Alvarez said the meetings — and their result — were improper.

“The mayor reaching a backroom deal on this initiative is very inappropriate,” he said. “Secret meetings and backroom deals made bad public policy.”

In March, The San Diego Union-Tribune requested records of all meetings and communications between the Mayor’s Office and FS Investors or other stakeholders in Qualcomm Stadium debate — notably San Diego State, which is seeking a venue for future Aztecs football games.


Late Wednesday, the Mayor’s Office provided a timeline of all meetings and communications between Faulconer and his staff and FS Investors, San Diego State, Chargers team officials and a handful of other developers between January 2016 and late February 2017.

The Mayor’s Office has not specified what was discussed or provided any of the email communications or other correspondence requested.

In all, Faulconer and his team had 34 soccer stadium-related meetings since January 2016. The initial meeting, a lunch at the development offices of OliverMcMillan with Faulconer, FS Investors and the San Diego State president, was more than a month before the Chargers announced they preferred a stadium downtown.

The meetings continued throughout the year. Faulconer or chief of staff Stephen Puetz attended 10 soccer-related meetings in May and June alone.


“I would also like to remind you this wasn’t just discussions about a potential development plan,” Lebron said. “It was about bringing a new professional sports franchise to San Diego.”

According to the Mayor’s Office, Puetz was at virtually every meeting. Planning Director Jeff Murphy attended one FS Investors meeting. Real Estate Assets Department Director Cybele Thompson attended the same meeting and participated in a separate teleconference, the records show.

Lebron said Puetz is Faulconer’s top adviser on all matters.

“Early on, the meetings between our office, FS Investors and SDSU were high-level overviews to hear the concepts they were considering at the time,” she said. “Therefore, it was not necessary for city staff to be involved in those discussions.”


The Union-Tribune reported earlier this month that Puetz was married in 2015 at an $8.9 million bayfront estate owned by Morgan Dene Oliver, a principal in the OliverMcMillan development company.

Puetz, who paid $427 for use of the property, said Oliver was a friend and mentor who offered his home as a personal courtesy. Oliver is also one of Faulconer’s longtime political supporters.

The city ethics commission said the rental arrangement met with its conflict of interest rules, although a U-T survey found waterfront wedding venues renting for $5,000 or more.

The August 2015 wedding was held four months before Puetz, Oliver, Faulconer and FS Investors began scheduling their first meeting to discuss the SoccerCity plan.


In addition to ready access to the Mayor’s Office, the city provided FS Investors copies of reports, surveys and other materials related to the Qualcomm Stadium property that have been prepared over the years.

Lebron said the company received no special treatment.

“Those are public records and can be requested by anyone,” she said.

Separate from the meetings disclosed by the mayor in response to the U-T records request, FS Investors disclosed 25 meetings with city officials in the first quarter of this year on required lobbying forms, according to Stacey Fulhorst, executive director of the Ethics Commission.


jeff.mcdonald@sduniontribune.com (619) 293-1708 @sdutMcDonald