Our reporting relies on your support. Contribute today! 

Help us reach our goal of $250,000. The countdown is on!

A few loose ends to tie up before filing away the Chargers stadium report:

  • What’s next? The Oceanside report on the viability of using high-end office space to help finance the football stadium should be out by the end of the month; the Chargers say they have a series of community meetings set up around Chula Vista to gauge public reaction to the two sites on the table.
  • One important thing to keep in mind is that neither of these sites outlined today will likely just hold a football field. The Chargers hope to help finance the stadium through ancillary development. That means that, depending on the site you could see houses, condos, retail, entertainment and/or offices along side these stadiums. And, as the report pointed out, the goal would be to create the sort of development that keeps people coming to the area regardless of whether or not there’s a football game.

And, while the Chargers say the stadium will be privately financed, at least one or more government entities will likely be asked to contribute something (such as land) to help the financing pencil out and the development be built.

  • The report unveiled today by Chula Vista and Chargers officials breaks down the city’s stadium options into two sites, the location of the current South Bay Power Plant and a site on the city’s undeveloped eastside off of State Route 125 and Hunte Parkway. While the pros and cons of those two sites were generally known, the report provides more specifics. Here’s an outline:

Power Plant Site

Pros: It’s on the waterfront, close to public transit, and exactly where Chula Vista and port officials hope to spur redevelopment. Cons: The site is governed by a horde of public agencies, including the Coastal Commission and California Independent System Operator, which will be the ultimate decider whether the power plant can come offline. City officials hope the power plant is gone by 2010.

Otay Site

Pros: It’s on raw, undeveloped land in an area that could support the ancillary development and close to where city officials dream of putting a four-year university and a tech park. Cons: It’s kind of out in the boonies and isn’t serviced by bus routes or a major expressway.

And, if you missed it, check out this voiceofsandiego.org audio explainer.

Update: I finally got a PDF version of the report, so here it is. It’s also got some photos to give you a better idea of where the sites are.

ANDREW DONOHUE

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.