San Diego Chargers stadium proposals

There have been several proposals to build a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers of the National Football League (NFL), replacing Qualcomm Stadium as the franchise's home venue. In August 2016, it was announced that the Citizens’ Initiative for the Chargers' stadium was officially named Ballot Measure C.^[1]

During the 2003 NFL season and even beforehand, there was much talk of the Chargers replacing the increasingly obsolete (by NFL standards) Qualcomm Stadium with a more modern, Super Bowl-caliber football stadium, mainly due to obsolete features of the stadium as well as severe maintenance issues with the facility.^[2]

The team and city have both attempted to bring business partners in on a proposed $800 million project,^[3] which was supposed to be located in the parking lot of the current stadium and include upgrades to the area and infrastructure, but all efforts have failed.

After failed attempts by the Chargers and the city of San Diego to come to an agreement on the new stadium, mainly due to the city’s inability to fund a stadium,^[4] the Chargers organization has considered other places in San Diego County, notably Chula Vista, Oceanside, and Escondido, and most recently Downtown San Diego.^[5][6]

In the wake of a decisive defeat at the ballot for stadium public funding 57%-43%, the Chargers reportedly plan to exercise their option to join the Rams in Los Angeles in 2017 to share City of Champions Stadium with them when it finishes in 2019, the first time since 1960 that the two teams will play again together in the same city and stadium.

San Diego Stadium Coalition

The San Diego Stadium Coalition^[7] is a grassroots community organization formed in January 2009 with the singular objective of facilitating the development of a new stadium in San Diego County. Citing the economic benefits of constructing a new stadium and a desire to keep the San Diego Chargers in the region, they continue to work with taxpayers groups, developers, politicians and the Chargers to move the stadium effort forward. By leveraging social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter along with traditional media outlets and interactive public forums, they have amassed a sizeable following in a brief amount of time. Their website ^[8] serves as the hub for their effort and they are now focused on the Chargers' Citizens' Initiative for a new mixed-use convention center and stadium facility (Convadium) in downtown San Diego.

Planning and financing

The cost of stadium construction would be financed by the Chargers, who would pay for construction with the profits of an adjoining development. The team would require a large tract of land either for free or at nominal cost to make the project economically feasible. Based on the site that is selected, the adjoining development would be a combination of commercial, residential and retail uses.^[9]

Based on the site chosen, the Chargers will largely rely on mass transit to take fans to and from the stadium on game days since it is unlikely that any of the proposed sites would provide enough land for a stadium, real estate development and surface-level parking lots. The golf course site in Oceanside, for example, is approximately 71 acres (see below), less than half the size of the Qualcomm site (166 acres (0.7 km²)) that was initially proposed by the Chargers. Plus the necessary widening of I-5 will not begin until at least 2020 according to Caltrans.

Ballot Measure C

In August 2016, it was announced that the Citizens’ Initiative sponsored by the Chargers was officially named Ballot Measure C.^[1] The complete text of the proposal is 119 pages and is set to appear inside sample ballots which will be mailed to voters before the November 2016 election. As of August 23, 2016, the full text of the ballot measure is not available to the public.^[10]

Proposed location

This initiative sets the stadium in the Tailgate Park space, across the street from the Padres stadium in downtown San Diego.^[10]

Ballot Measure D

Measure D, also known as the Briggs Initiative, is an alternative measure to Measure C and was written by Cory Briggs, a public-interest attorney. Ballot Measure D would permit the Chargers to build a stadium in either downtown or Mission Valley. It would require another vote if it uses public funds. The measure would raise San Diego's tax on hotel stays from 12.5 percent to 15.5 percent (14 percent for small hotels).^[11]

Ballot Measure D is not sponsored by the Chargers.^[11]

It is opposed by the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and the San Diego Tourism Authority. It is favored by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, as well as San Diego Representative Scott Peters, the Building Trades Council, and a fan group known as the San Diego Stadium Coalition.^[11]

Proposed location

The proposed locations in Ballot Measure D are downtown and Mission Valley.^[11]

Support

On July 28, 2016, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Chargers’ downtown stadium ballot measure.^[12]

Chairman of the Chargers Dean Spanos hired several private consultants, including Robin Hunden, an economic development expert, to analyze the plan. Their preliminary results show that the new stadium would supply an estimated additional 200,000 visitors yearly for conventions. The analysis stated their surveys show that raising the hotel tax from its current 12.5 percent up to 16.5 percent will not cause harm to the tourism economy, countering claims by the opposition that the additional tax would cause fewer tourists to come to San Diego.^[13]

Opposition

Voice of San Diego reported on March 11, 2015, that a new Chargers' stadium would likely not make San Diego money, citing that the city still owes millions in tax dollars for the renovations to Chargers' Qualcomm Stadium repairs from 1997, and is currently paying about $12 million yearly for Qualcomm. The article states that San Diego taxpayers currently subsidize Qualcomm stadium with over $10 million a year because the Chargers and other stadium events don’t generate enough revenue to cover costs. Qualcomm stadium also costs taxpayers almost $2 million each year for police and fire services at Chargers games, as well as repairs to the stadium, costs which are not compensated for by the Chargers.^[14]

On May 31, 2016, the American Institute of Architects San Diego wrote an article in opposition to a downtown stadium for the Chargers, because of "significant, unanswered questions about potential cost overruns and environmental impacts that may cost San Diego taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."^[15]

The “No Downtown Stadium – Jobs and Streets First” coalition was formed in June 2016. They announced they were opposed to the Citizens' Initiative and have published several opinion pieces in local newspapers.^[16][17]

The coalition has defined their central idea as, "We should not raise taxes to build a stadium and subsidize a billion-dollar corporation, especially when we have so many needs in San Diego, including street repairs. Additionally, this tax measure puts our economy and tourism jobs at risk, and it threatens an important revenue source the City relies on to pay for street repairs, 911 dispatchers, libraries and other neighborhood services. All this to help a billionaire build a new workspace for millionaires."^[18]

The No Downtown Stadium group has said the project would create less property tax revenue and new jobs than alternative developments such as offices or housing, and would ultimately cost the city money.^[10]

On July 28, 2016, Ted Molter, the Tourism Authority chairman, expressed in a statement that Comic-Con officials are opposed to the stadium proposal because the site is located on a different site than the convention center. He also said that the new hotel tax would make San Diego have one of the highest hotel tax rates in the nation.^[12]

On July 29, 2016, the “East Village South Focus Plan” was released by a group of volunteer architects and planners as an alternative to the stadium in the Tailgate Park space. The plan is estimated to generate $55.2 million in annual taxes and create 5,590 permanent jobs. This plan includes 4.5 million square feet of development, including housing, offices, restaurants, parks, plazas and a convention annex or arena. The cost of the plan is estimated at $1.8 billion, which is about the same as the estimated cost for the stadium.^[19]

On August 8, 2016, Chris Cate, a San Diego Council member, said in a segment for NBC 7 San Diego that if the Chargers build the stadium at Tailgate Park that the city would have to build new Padres parking.^[20][21] The chairman of the group which owns the San Diego Padres, Ron Fowler, noted that a new stadium at Tailgate Park would force San Diego to spend millions of tax dollars on new parking for the Padres.^[22]

It has been estimated that the additional parking for the Padres would cost $75 million on top of the Chargers' proposal.^[10][13][23]

Fowler also stated that Ballot Measure C would break a city sign ordinance because it would allow large digital billboards to be erected outside the stadium, lighting up East Village with light from the billboards until 2 a.m. each day.^[22] Some local residents are concerned it would be across the street from the San Diego Central Library.^[24]

Some critics believe building the stadium would put San Diego in risk of losing Comic Con because the proposed site would be more than half a mile away from the convention center. Comic Con officials claim the large separation makes the stadium unusable to Comic Con, and believes there needs to be a contiguous expansion of the convention center.^[10] John Rogers, Comic-Con board president, has written a message in the convention’s souvenir book that they are opposed to any expansion that isn't contiguous with the current convention center.^[25]

On August 15, 2016, the Public Resources Advisory Group published an independent report which estimated the stadium plan would require a public contribution of $2.3 billion over 30 years, which was more than twice as much as the estimate of $1.1 billion by the Chargers.^[26]

A Chicago-based consulting firm, HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting, released a study saying that despite claims by the Chargers, the stadium would only generate about $2.3 million extra in additional hotel tax revenue each year, but estimated the annual public costs would be $67 million for the operation and constructions of the project.^[27] They also stated that attempts in other cities to combine a convention center with a football stadium have largely failed, citing Indianapolis, St. Louis and Atlanta.^[10]

On August 21, 2016, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association announced its opposition to Ballot Measure C. The association claimed the project could cost the city at least $400 million and probably more, and the city would likely have to pay the difference using the general fund.^[28][29]

Controversy

Cory Briggs, the attorney who authored the Citizens’ Plan, has stated that Ballot Measure C does not create a new special tax on San Diegans, and therefore requires only a simple majority of votes for the measure to be approved. San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith publicly announced on August 5, 2016, that since it allocated taxes towards a specific project, instead of a general fund, that Ballot Measure C was a new special tax on San Diego, and would need a 2/3 majority of votes to pass.^[30]

In August 2016, the Chargers purchased Facebook ads^[31] targeted towards Chris Cate, a Republican City Council member, for his opposition to Ballot Measure C. The ad gave Cate's office phone number accompanied by the text, “Why does Chris Cate want the Chargers to leave San Diego? Please call and ask him.”^[32]

In a statement, Cate said his office received approximately 200 calls in response to the ad. He claimed that many of the calls were polite, "some that were belligerent" and "one threat that was referred to the police." Cate says he's a Chargers fan, but "I just think this is a bad deal for the city and San Diegans.”^[33]

Previously proposed stadium sites

Oceanside

The Oceanside City Council agreed to have talks with the Chargers about building a stadium in Oceanside. The Center City Golf Course, also known as "Goat Hill", is currently under consideration as a possible stadium location. The golf course site is northeast of the Interstate 5/Oceanside Boulevard interchange. The city owns an adjoining 4 acres (16,000 m²) to the north of the golf course, which would provide a development footprint of more than 75 acres (300,000 m²). The site also offers easy access to two major freeways as well as two passenger rail lines.

Oceanside also has an advantage considering that 8,800 of the team's season ticket holders already come from North County, 8,500 are from Orange and Riverside counties, and 4,500 come from outside the state.^[34] A stadium built at this site can attract more fans from Orange County, Riverside County, and Los Angeles.

There are problems with the site if a stadium is to be built there. The golf course is zoned parkland, and voters would have to approve a zoning change for a stadium to be built. Also some believe that the stadium, if built, can cause traffic and environmental issues to the area, especially during game days. However the Chargers are currently working with traffic, environmental and land-use consultants to determine whether the golf course site is viable. The Chargers have already acknowledged that the golf course site may not be large enough to sustain a development profitable enough to offset the cost of stadium construction. In that case, they would seek to obtain additional real estate in Oceanside or elsewhere in San Diego County to further develop.^[35]

Chula Vista

Chula Vista officials are discussing multiple sites where the Chargers can build a stadium. Two privately owned sites on the city's east side and two near the waterfront.

• One Chula Vista site is located near State Route 125, southwest of the Chula Vista Olympic Training Center. The site has the land that a stadium would require, as well as transportation options for reaching such a venue. However, there are concerns about the site’s distance from main transit lines.
• One site rests on Chula Vista’s bayfront which was used to be occupied by the South Bay Power Plant.
• Another site rests in a vacant B.F. Goodrich site adjacent to the property that's already been designated for the Chula Vista Bayfront, a $750 million convention center and hotel complex. The project is set to break ground next year.
• Another Chula Vista option falls on private property, owned by residential homebuilder, HomeFed Corp, which owns 3,000 acres (12 km²) in the Otay Ranch area, has conducted talks with the Chargers.^[5]
• A new site became questionably available after expected developments on Chula Vista's bayside were disbanded by Gaylord Entertainment.

Possible name change

The mayor of Chula Vista has suggested that a stadium deal could involve the team being re-branded as the "Chula Vista Chargers". The team's spokesman did not completely reject the notion, but indicated that such a condition would only be considered if the stadium were entirely publicly financed.^[36]

National City

The proposed National City site is west of Interstate 5 and south of Bay Marina Drive, located east of the 24th Street Marine Terminal. The Port of San Diego has studied the dimensions of the site and come to the conclusion that a stadium could be built on the 52-acre (210,000 m²) site without disturbing the Port's mission to promote maritime jobs and commerce. Any potential development proposal would require the Port's approval.

Planning discussions are being discussed among the Port, National City and waterfront businesses to reconfigure the layout of the site to make it more efficient with or without a stadium. National City officials believe the benefit of a new stadium would spur new developments around it, generating tax dollars while also boosting the city's profile.^[5]

On May 12, 2007, National City dropped its new stadium proposal, citing problems with land ownership.^[37]

Downtown San Diego

There have been three notable proposals for Downtown San Diego. The first and most notable was the plan by Doug Manchester to replace the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal with a stadium complex.^[38] An alternative to the 10th Avenue site was to place the stadium on the waterfront behind the San Diego Convention Center. Finally the East Village was recently proposed by the Chargers due to less legal concerns from local Environmental Activists.

10th Avenue Marine Terminal replacement

This proposal was by far the most ambitious. Local philanthropist and real estate developer Doug Manchester proposed building the new stadium on the site of the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. This was opposed by Port Commissioners^[39] at the Port of San Diego and the idea never publicly passed the preliminary design phase.^[40]

Waterfront Convadium

One proposed plan, known as the Phase 4 Expansion,^[41] would have put the stadium on the waterfront behind the San Diego Convention Center. This would have allowed for the Phase 3 expansion of the Convention Center to continue. The facility could have to be used during major events, such as Comic Con, the San Diego Auto Show or other major events. The new stadium would have also allowed for San Diego to host the Super Bowl again and it would have given the city the option of applying to host the 2028 or 2032 Summer Olympics.^[42] The Chargers' current Convadium design^[43] would fit in this proposed location if the East Village site is not selected.

East Village

The Chargers have had talks with the City of San Diego regarding a site south of Petco Park in the East Village Area of Downtown San Diego. Although this site has been seen as the most viable option, few if any steps have taken place. Coupled with the NFL labor situation, lack of funds through the NFL G3 Program and California Gov. Jerry Brown's proposals for the review of redevelopment funds in the state the Downtown Proposal is in limbo. Former mayor Jerry Sanders explored numerous options to build the stadium in the East Village. Making the project a part of the convention center's expansion has been one option. On February 23, 2016, the Chargers announced that they are focusing efforts on Downtown San Diego for a multi-use stadium/convention center in addition to a citizen's initiative will include a stadium. On April 21, 2016, the Chargers unveiled renderings of a stadium/convention center adjacent to Petco Park. On April 23, 2016, the San Diego Chargers launched their initiative effort with a rally in Downtown with an estimated 4,000 people attending; among the people who attended this event for Chargers chairman Dean Spanos, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, quarterback Philip Rivers, former running back Ladainian Tomlinson, and coach Mike McCoy. On June 10, 2016, the Chargers announced that they had collected 110,786 signatures, enough to put the stadium proposal on the ballot in November; these signatures however needed verification. On July 9, 2016, San Diego City Clerk Liz Maland announced that the downtown stadium initiative has secured enough valid signatures to be on the November 2016 ballot. On July 18, 2016, the San Diego City Council voted to allow both the Chargers stadium plan and the Citizens Plan on the November ballot.

Comic Con has rejected the idea of a campus expansion in the East Village. 10News interviewed David Glanzer,^[44] who is the Director of Public Relations at Comic Con. He explained in the interview that “Anything that is a separate building really; we don’t view it as an expansion. It’s another separate building and there are challenges to that.” ^[45] On July 28, 2016, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce announced its support for the Chargers downtown stadium-convention center proposal in a press conference that included Dean Spanos, Jerry Sanders, Nick Hardwick, and Margie Newman (a business owner). On August 19, 2016, the Chargers stadium initiative was given an official name "Ballot Measure C". On October 3, 2016, Mayor Kevin Faulconer officially endorsed the Chargers stadium plan. On November 8, 2016, Measure C was voted down 57% to 43%.

Relocation possibilities

If the Chargers do not succeed in building a stadium in Greater San Diego, the team could be headed back to Los Angeles. The Chargers played their inaugural season in the AFL as the Los Angeles Chargers before moving to San Diego in 1961. Edward P. Roski, a part-owner of the Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Kings, had announced plans for a new stadium, tentatively titled Los Angeles Stadium, on the northern side of the interchange of State Routes 57 and 60 (almost 22 miles (35 km) east of downtown Los Angeles) with the purpose of attracting a team to the Los Angeles region. Roski, who built the Staples Center, stated that the new 75,000-seat stadium would be privately financed and would be the centerpiece of a new entertainment complex in City of Industry.^[46][47] There was also a plan by AEG to move the Chargers to the proposed Farmers Field in downtown Los Angeles next to the Staples Center and the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Another location the Chargers have been looking at is the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas which was built in 1993 for the San Antonio Spurs which have since moved to AT&T Center.^[48] However, this is mostly speculation. Dean Spanos, the owner of the Chargers, has expressed intent to keep the team in San Diego numerous times.

On February 19, 2015, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders announced that they would build a privately financed $1.7 billion stadium in Carson, California, if they were to move to the Los Angeles market.^[49] Both teams stated that they would continue to attempt to get stadiums built in their respective cities.^[50]

On April 22, 2015, the Carson City Council bypassed the option to put the stadium to public vote and approved the plan 3–0.^[51] The council voted without having clarified several issues, including who would finance the stadium, how the required three-way land swap would be performed, and how it would raise enough revenue if only one team moved in as tenant.^[52] On January 12, 2016, in Houston, Texas, the NFL owners voted 30–2 to allow the St. Louis Rams to return to Los Angeles; they gave the Chargers an option to join the Rams in Inglewood, California, and share a stadium with them. If the Chargers decline to exercise the offer the Raiders have the option to exercise it instead.

References