After nearly a month of debate over the proposed location for a Navy commercial vehicle inspection station along the west side of Catalina Boulevard across from Rosecroft and Trudy lanes, Capt. Mark Patton declared that the site would no longer be an option. Patton, commanding officer of the Naval Base Point Loma, made the announcement at a community meeting Wednesday, Nov. 15.
“I will commit to you right now that we will not place this facility at the location that was initially proposed,” Patton told community members.
District 2 City Councilman Kevin Faulconer began the meeting at the base by hinting at the imminent news.
“I appreciate the captain’s openness and responsiveness to this Point Loma community,” Faulconer said. “In other places, that’s not always the case.”
He continued praising the combined efforts of the community and the Navy since the first meeting held on Oct. 23.
“We left that meeting with myself stating that I didn’t believe that this location was appropriate … but also [with] the idea that let’s work with the Navy, let’s try and figure out another location. That would not have happened unless Capt. Patton, I think, had the right attitude,” he continued. “He was willing to do what he could, and I think that is reflective of the role that he’s tried to have with us here in Point Loma.”
Patton spoke to the crowd of roughly 75 people, reiterating that the inspection station is not a bomb detection station.
He explained why he believed that the proposed site was the best for the facility, noting that it is located before entering the base and that the proposed section of Catalina is a five-lane road that would allow for the vehicle to pull over to the side.
“I was surprised that there was this much concern about it,” Patton said. “We would not have proposed this and gone forward on it if we didn’t think that this facility could operate in harmony with the local neighborhood.”
Patton explained that the Navy went back to another site that was studied, located one mile into the base at Woodward Road and Cabrillo Memorial Drive. The site was previously discounted, mostly due to costs.
The new project site has a soil deficit and would require the Navy bring in soil before construction. Patton noted that there would also need to be paving on either side of the road and a widening of the road – since the facility would be located on the base – to allow for inspected vehicles to turn around to go to their desired entrance.
The new site would also require the installation of traffic lights, costing approximately $100,000 to $150,000.
“It’s a more expensive option,” Patton said.
He also explained that despite the Navy’s research into alternatives, he had not wanted to publicly state that the initial site was off the table until a viable second option became available.
“When we balanced the risk, cost and the importance of working with the public, we came up with this solution,” Patton said. “I apologize for the angst that this has caused, but I hope you’ll understand where I’m coming from about why we had to make sure that we had an alternative before we could come out and publicly say this.”
The announcement of the revised location was met by applause as community members expressed their approval.
“We are most grateful for the efforts that Capt. Patton and his staff, Jeremiah Glover and all the rest who made initial plans but were willing to take our interest into consideration,” said John Sands, a retired captain of the Navy’s Medical Corps who led community opposition to the original site. “I do appreciate the hard work that they’ve done and the more work that we’ve made them do.”
Faulconer, Patton and Sands all mentioned the complex relationship between the Navy and the community and acknowledged the importance of communication.
“When you get two entities such as the Navy and a large civilian population living in close proximity to each other, it’s a little bit like two blind men in a closet,” Sand said. “You’ve got to do an awful lot of feeling around before you figure out what the other fellow is up to.”