voiceofsandiego.org: Clipboard... Developer Seeks Chargers in Oceanside

A developer with plans to construct a 950,000-square-foot shopping center in Oceanside has reached out to the Chargers with hopes of adding a new football stadium to the development.

Atlanta-based Thomas Enterprises Inc. sought the team out six weeks ago to begin development discussions, according to team and company officials. They've since met twice, though both parties are quick to label any talks "preliminary."

The company owns 90 acres off of State Route 76 at the Foussat Road exit, the site of a former drive-in theater, where it has already gained City Council approval for a high-end mixed-use development.

View Untitled in a larger map

Mel Kuhnel, Thomas' vice president of West Coast development, said current economic conditions "have obviously made us be more creative and aggressive in what will create a market that works."

Adding a stadium would allow Thomas to build an even larger version of the development, which is already slated to be the size of The Forum in Carlsbad and the Encinitas Town Center combined, he said.

"It would create a catalyst for a larger venue," Kuhnel said.

Stadium talks between the Chargers and Chula Vista have stalled and few outside options have emerged as the team enters the seventh year of its new stadium search. After the team cut off talks with the cash-strapped city of San Diego three years ago, it briefly flirted with a stadium plan at the municipal golf course in Oceanside but it quickly dissipated because of lot's size and topography.

Mark Fabiani, the team's special counsel, said the team always liked Oceanside as a market because it is close to the core fan base in San Diego but also offers access to untapped markets in Orange County and Los Angeles.

Now, the team is intrigued because of the developer involved. "We like the fact that a big-time developer is in it," Fabiani said. "The developer has already shown his ability to get public approval for a major project."

The team has long sought a development partner to share the development risks. The type of high-end stadiums that owners desire typically cannot be financed on their own because they don't bring in enough revenue to cover financing costs. As such, football teams also typically look to taxpayers to contribute money, land or something else of value.

In addition to difficulties shoring up political support for a project, the Chargers as of yet have also been unable to find a development group willing to serve as a partner.

It's unclear what the public contribution would be to this nascent development idea. Fabiani said he was under the impression there was government-controlled land close to the site that could be used to expand the development.

City Councilman Jack Feller said he isn't opposed to the team being involved in talks, but said he doesn't care what's going on until he sees a proposal from the developers.

"I know right now they don’t have any tenants because of the economic crunch. They’re probably looking for anything to talk about to add some value to their project," he said. "When they said, 'Would you be opposed?' I said absolutely not."

-- ANDREW DONOHUE and ADRIAN FLORIDO

Just found out about you from an old NY Times article last year. Glad to find you. I have mixed feelings about the stadium. Would hate to see the Chargers leave, but am totally opposed to this corporate welfare that Spanos is asking for.

Posted by Soundbounder | reply to this comment
June 19, 2009 11:16 am

From the article: "The type of high-end stadiums that owners desire typically cannot be financed on their own because they don't bring in enough revenue to cover financing costs." Let's be clear; it's not just financing the project that is difficult. In reality, there is not enough revenue to cover the costs to actually build the sucker. To chalk this up to something technical like financing (defined as getting a loan to build the thing) seems like an effort to separate this decision from the fact that these stadiums aren't really worth it to the owners.

Posted by Robert Wade | reply to this comment
June 19, 2009 12:07 pm

Get rid of the Oceanside airport while you're at it! Why do both Oceanside and Carlsbad need airports?

Posted by Esklmo | reply to this comment
June 19, 2009 1:05 pm

Another ridiculous proposal from lobbyist Mark Fabiani, the master of disaster, and the Chargers. Bet you thought you were getting a scoop didn't you? Unfortunately he played all the major media for stories released on exactly the same day. There is no possiblity a stadium can go in that location so close to homes and without huge investments in freeway improvements, both on I-5 which is only 8 lanes there and the 76 Expressway which is only 4 lanes. Both are already really just about stopped during rush hour and various times on the weekend. This isn't going to happen. It's just another Fabiani strategy to squeeze Chula Vista and San Diego so the Chargers have the appearance of wanting to stay in SD. Pretty sure this is the precursor to 2012 LA Chargers.

Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
June 20, 2009 11:51 am

Good article. Creative ideas like these are what we need to keep the Chargers in San Diego county. And yes, this site is feasible. I believe there might be a few more options that we could hear about soon as well. Let's hope Oceanside steps up and can get the deal done.

Posted by Tycebrew | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 11:05 am

The Oceanside site is still in very early stages, however, it is an intriguing idea. I for one am excited about the possibility especially since Chula Vista is DOA due to the power plant. For those who believe it's impossible b/c I-5 and Hwy76 need to be widened have no fear! The 76 has already been approved for expansion all the way to I-15 - and - Since I drive it every day I can tell you that I-5 is hardly at a standstill. Yes, in the summertime southbound gets tight but once the summer fades so does most of the traffic (Coincidentally about the time football season kicks off). If you have ever been to a game at Qualcomm (or any sporting event anywhere for that matter) you would know that traffic happens, but 6-10 Sundays a year is certainly do-able.

Posted by Get informed-Keep the Bolts in | reply to this comment
June 22, 2009 8:22 pm

Actually I agree with most of your comments. Remember there are also two trains in the area if you include the newly constructed train through north county. The trains will surely be used to assist in getting people to the stadium even if some improvements have to be made there. Oceanside is still a pretty reasonable drive for San Diego residents and might attract more fans from orange county as well. The only downside is that there is no train that runs right to the stadium like we have in mission valley. I still can't figure out why we need a new stadium in the next 5 years. Plenty of teams out there don't get a superbowl and don't have brand new stadiums but are still highly successful.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
July 15, 2009 12:07 pm

The mission valley stadium seems to be in the perfect location already. I don't understand why they can't do what they did with Busch Stadium in St. Louis. They built have the stadium in the parking lot and in the following offseason demolished the old and finished the other half of the new. There really wasn't much space for tons of new development there either but somehow they managed. Gov't subsidization might work out so long as they have a plan for paying off bonds with revenue from more concerts and events.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
July 15, 2009 12:12 pm