Four San Diego City Council members are preparing to offer Chargers owner Dean Spanos a lease of $1 a year for 99 years for the Qualcomm Stadium site as a starting point for negotiations for a new stadium.

The offer will be in a letter due to be sent to Spanos Tuesday, with copies going to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the 31 other NFL owners.

It comes six weeks after a Chargers-written ballot measure asking for $1.15 billion in increased hotel taxes for a new downtown stadium was soundly defeated, the latest twist in the team’s long attempt to replace Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley.

The Chargers have until Jan. 15 to exercise an option to join the Rams in a stadium in Inglewood scheduled to open in 2019.


Councilman Scott Sherman, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium, shared a copy of the letter with the Associated Press on Monday night.

“The hour is late, and the time to find a stadium solution is getting dangerously short,” the letter started.

The last two paragraphs read: “Before leaving 60 years of tradition and loyal fans, let’s give one last concerted effort to come to the table and hammer this out face to face, working together toward a common goal of keeping the NFL in America’s Finest City. If we fail to come to an agreement, at least we will know that nothing was left untested and we can part ways knowing that we gave it our all.

“We ask that the Chargers give San Diego fans another chance


The letter will be signed by Sherman and Lorie Zapf, once the language is finalized, said Sherman spokesman Jeff Powell. They plan to have the backing of Chris Cate and new City Council President Myrtle Cole. Mayor Kevin Faulconer has been briefed on the letter, Powell said, but is not supporting it as of yet.

Sherman and Cate opposed Measure C but want the Chargers to stay in San Diego, preferably in Mission Valley.

The Chargers rejected a city-county plan for a new stadium at the Qualcomm Stadium site in 2015, and then voters rejected Measure C on Nov. 8.

The Chargers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.


The tricky part, of course, is coming up with a plan to pay for a new stadium.

Sherman and Cate said they’d like to see the Chargers, the NFL and a development partner build a stadium. Both council members said they hoped it could get done with no public money.

“At the end of the day, 166 acres in the geographic center of the eighth-largest city in the country is the perfect spot to develop,” Sherman said. “I’m convinced we could get over 50 percent (of a vote) with that. This is all just a starting point to start the discussion. The way we laid it out with the lease, it’s a large incentive to come to the table.

In 2004, the Chargers failed in their attempt to get the city to give them a large chunk of the Qualcomm Stadium property in exchange for privately developing a stadium.


The cheap lease deal “is as close as getting the land given to you as possible,” Sherman said.

The Chargers walked away from talks with the city and county in June 2015 and focused on a plan to build a stadium in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson with the Oakland Raiders. That plan was rejected by NFL owners in January in favor of the Rams’ Inglewood plan, but the Chargers were given the option of joining the Rams. If they decide to move, they’ll have to make a deal with either the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the 27,000-seat StubHub Center as a temporary home.

Faulconer has had private talks with Spanos and a team representative in recent weeks. Details of those talks weren’t made public.

The team has said in recent weeks that it will not publicly discuss stadium matters until after the football season. However, Spanos said before the election that he had no interest in pursuing the existing Qualcomm Stadium site for a future stadium if Measure C failed.


“I’m not a believer in Mission Valley — I don’t think I would ever go back there,” Spanos told the Union-Tribune’s editorial board during a Sept. 29 interview.

Cate told the AP: “We need to hear from the organization what their concerns are, and if they’re even open to having a discussion for Mission Valley.

“We haven’t been able to have a discussion as a council with them. This lets them know we’re willing to have that conversation.”

Wilson writes for The Associated Press. Union-Tribune staff writer David Garrick contributed to this report.

Advertisement