There were several proposals to build a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers of the National Football League (NFL), replacing San Diego Stadium as the franchise's home venue.
The team and city both attempted to bring business partners in on a proposed $800 million project, 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 failed.
In August 2016, it was announced that the Citizens’ Initiative for the Chargers' stadium was officially named Ballot Measure C. In the wake of a decisive defeat at the ballot for stadium public funding 57%-43% during the 2016 United States elections, the Chargers announced in January 2017 their intention to relocate to Los Angeles, joining the Rams, who had also relocated from St. Louis the previous year. Both teams now share SoFi Stadium. The venue's opening in 2020 marked the first time since 1960 that the two teams would play again together in the same city and stadium.
History During the 2003 NFL season and even beforehand, there was much talk of the Chargers replacing the increasingly obsolete (by NFL standards) San Diego 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.
San Diego Stadium Coalition The San Diego Stadium Coalition, 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 worked 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 amassed a sizeable following in a brief amount of time. Their website served as the hub for their effort.
Planning and financing The cost of stadium construction would have been financed by the Chargers, who would have paid for construction with the profits of an adjoining development. The team would have required 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 have been a combination of commercial, residential and retail uses.
Based on the site chosen, the Chargers would have largely relied 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 have provided enough land for a stadium, real estate development and surface-level parking lots. A proposed golf course site in Oceanside, for example, was approximately 71 acres (see below), less than half the size of the Qualcomm site () that was initially proposed by the Chargers. Plus the necessary widening of I-5 will not begin until at least 2020 according to Caltrans.
Proposed Stadium Sites National City The proposed National City site was west of Interstate 5 and south of Bay Marina Drive, located east of the 24th Street Marine Terminal. The Port of San Diego studied the dimensions of the site and come to the conclusion that a stadium could be built on the site without disturbing the Port's mission to promote maritime jobs and commerce. Any potential development proposal would have required the Port's approval.
Planning discussions were 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 believed the benefit of a new stadium would spur new developments around it, generating tax dollars while also boosting the city's profile.
On May 12, 2007, National City dropped its new stadium proposal, citing problems with land ownership.National City Abandons Stadium Plan
Downtown San Diego There were 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. 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 at the Port of San Diego and the idea never publicly passed the preliminary design phase.You can find out more info on the proposed project here: http://media.utsandiego.com/news/documents/2012/01/21/newstadiumplan.pdf http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/jan/23/waterfront-plan-revives-debate/ https://www.portofsandiego.org/about-us/general-press-releases/663-port-of-san-diego-board-opposes-initiative-to-redevelop-the-tenth-avenue-marine-terminal.html
Waterfront Convadium One proposed plan, known as the Phase 4 Expansion, 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 stadium could have been used during major events such as San Diego Comic-Con. 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. The Chargers' current Convadium design would fit in this proposed location if the East Village site is not selected.
East Village The Chargers 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 had been seen as the most viable option, few if any steps had 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 was left in limbo. Former mayor Jerry Sanders explored numerous options to build the stadium in the East Village. Making the project a part of the San Diego Convention Center's expansion had been one option. On February 23, 2016, the Chargers announced that they were focusing efforts on downtown San Diego for a multi-use stadium/convention center in addition to a citizen's initiative that would include a stadium.
Outside the city of San Diego After many 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,"San Diego mayor says city can't afford new Chargers stadium," 21 April 2006. the Chargers organization considered other places in San Diego County, notably Chula Vista, Oceanside, and Escondido.
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", was 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 to the north of the golf course, which would have provided a development footprint of more than . The site also offered easy access to two major freeways as well as two passenger rail lines.
Oceanside also had an advantage considering that 8,800 of the team's season ticket holders already came from North County, 8,500 were from Orange and Riverside counties, and 4,500 come from outside the state. A stadium built at this site was seen as having the ability to attract more fans from Orange County, Riverside County, and Los Angeles.
There were problems with the site if the Chargers chose to build the stadium there. The golf course is zoned parkland, and voters would have had to approve a zoning change for a stadium to be built. Also some believe that the stadium, if it was built, had the possibility of causing traffic and environmental issues to the area, especially during game days. The Chargers acknowledged that the golf course site may not have been large enough to sustain a development profitable enough to offset the cost of stadium construction. In that case, they would have sought to obtain additional real estate in Oceanside or elsewhere in San Diego County to further develop.Chargers aim to choose stadium site by year's end – North County Times – Coastal
Chula Vista Chula Vista officials discussed 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 proposed Chula Vista site was located near State Route 125, southwest of the Chula Vista Olympic Training Center. The site had the land that a stadium would require, as well as transportation options for reaching such a venue. However, there were concerns about the site's distance from main transit lines. One proposed site rested on Chula Vista's bayfront which was used to be occupied by the South Bay Power Plant. Another proposed site rested in a vacant B.F. Goodrich site adjacent to the property that had already been designated for the Chula Vista Bayfront, a $750 million convention center and hotel complex. Another proposed Chula Vista option fell on private property, owned by residential homebuilder, HomeFed Corp, which owns 3,000 acres (12 km2) in the Otay Ranch area, had conducted talks with the Chargers. A new proposed 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 suggested that a stadium deal could have involved 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 have been considered if the stadium was entirely publicly financed.
The Ballot Measures 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 were 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.
Ballot Measure C In August 2016, it was announced that the Citizens’ Initiative sponsored by the Chargers was officially named Ballot Measure C. The ballot measure went on to a decisive defeat at the polls 57%-43%. The initiative set the stadium in the Tailgate Park space, across the street from Petco Park in downtown San Diego.
Ballot Measure D