Two Chula Vista stadium sites discussed

Adjust font size

Thursday, Nov 29, 2007
By Tom Shanahan, Chargers.com

Two artist renderings greeted people that entered the Chula Vista Public Library auditorium Wednesday night for the Chula Vista Stadium Study Town Hall meeting.

One depicted a stadium on the Chula Vista bay front. The other was a similar stadium on vacant land in the east side of town in Otay Mesa along State Route 125.

When both ideas were explained to the audience, the plans were met with applause, especially after Chargers Special Counsel Mark Fabiani and Chula Vista Counsilman John McCann, an advocate of the project, emphasized no public funding would be used for the privately built stadium.

“I’m for a new stadium and keeping the Chargers in San Diego County,” said Mike Cain, a Chula Vista resident that arrived early to sit up front. “I just wanted to know there will be no tax dollars used.”

In Chula Vista, the debate appeared to be more about where to build the stadium than should the city proceed as a partner with the Chargers to build that would be a state-of-the-art stadium. Such a facility would be home to the Chargers, San Diego State football, the Holiday Bowl and Poinsettia Bowl, possible future Super Bowls and other sporting events.

At the end of the meeting, a member of the public called for a vote by a show of hands. Approximately 45 people voted for the bay front site and 20 for the eastside. Seven people voted against the stadium. There were 20 hands raised that to vote they wanted a stadium but didn’t care which site.

McCann said that once the Chargers agreed to pay for the study of the project, at a cost of $200,000, and agreed to not negotiate with any city outside of San Diego County, the city began studying its options.

“We want this process to be transparent,” McCann said. “The bottom line is the city of Chula Vista has not spent any taxpayer money on processing these plans. The Chargers have paid for the study and it has not cost Chula Vista any money.”

Fabiani also explained that it has been the Chargers’ goal since the beginning to privately fund the project.

“We’re going to put everything about this project on the ballot,” Fabiani said. “There won’t be anything left to guesswork.”

McCann discussed plusses and minuses to both sites.

He described the aging power plan on the water front as an eyesore that could be replaced by the new stadium with a 100-acre park surrounding it. He explained the waterfront site offers more existing infrastructure with Interstate-5 and the trolley lines. Another advantage of the site is there are no residential homes to be knocked down and displace people.

The park would be used year-round with cars parking on the grass on game days. This would be in contrast to a paved over parking lot that sits empty most of the year as is the case with the Qualcomm Stadium site where the Chargers play now.

McCann and Fabiani also said the trolley lines could be expanded to the stadium site and the Coaster commuter trains from North County could be extended to Chula Vista. He also said people could enter the stadium site on a ferry from Coronado.

“Can we be the impetus that finally results in the elimination of the power plant on the bay front more quickly than it would otherwise?” Fabiani said. “If so, is that worth something to you? Can we be the the reason a park is built around the stadium instead of a parking lot?”

Laura Hunter of the Environmental Health Coalition and Jim Peugh of the Audubon Society both spoke at the meeting, objecting to building projects of any kind on the bay front site.

McCann said a benefit of building the stadium on the east side of town is the stadium would fit in with the nearby Olympic Training Center. He also said a stadium, that would also be used by San Diego State, could be an anchor to a south campus for San Diego State or another four-year school campus.

“There is no four-year university south of Highway 94,” McCann said. “I don’t know of another population area as large as ours without a four-year university for the community.”

Most of the questions raised at the town hall meeting centered on assurances there would be no public funding and the appropriate infrastructure would be included in the planning to prevent traffic congestion.

Victor Contreras was another citizen attending the meeting. He wanted to know if the stadium construction project could be connected to the Sweetwater Union High School District to provide vocational training as well as jobs for local construction companies.

“I think this can be a win for the school district and a win for the community,” Contreras said. “I would be extremely interested in seeing that kind of development. And it’s a win for the Chargers.”

Contreras’ idea was met with applause, and Fabiani, who opened the town hall meeting by saying he was there to hear ideas from the public, asked him for his card to explore his ideas.

“One of the things that’s exciting about this project is we’ll be starting from scratch,” Fabiani said. “We can do things that have never been done before. We can build a “green” stadium that is environmentally neutral. It’s been done in Europe with soccer stadiums with current technology. We want to design something for the community that makes a lot of sense.”

Have an opinion on this story? Share it on the team's official message boards.

Visit the forums

Find out what others are saying about the Chargers. Visit Daily Clips.

Already registered? Login here.