Navy Says ‘Build 10,000 Units and High-Rise Business Towers’ at NAVWAR Site – Public Comment Period Begins

by on May 18, 2021 · 9 comments

in Ocean Beach, San Diego

On Friday, May 14, the Navy recommended that the NAVWAR site in Old Town be redeveloped with 10,000 high-density residential units and high-rise business towers – and, oh yes, a transit facility.

The Navy’s “preferred alternative” in the draft environmental impact report for the World War II-era bomber plant calls for over 100 buildings, 10,000 residences and 2.5 million square feet of office and retail space. The tallest buildings would be 32 stories high, creating a new skyline in the Midway area over a 30-year development period.

Renderings released by the Navy display different options, but most show a stark over-developed new skyline that would dramatically change the entire area. The Navy stressed that they were “conceptual at this early stage.”

And now, it’s time for the “public comment” period, which runs from May 14 through July 13, 2021.

The Navy said the plan “meets the purpose and need for modernized facilities for NAVWAR, includes efficient access to mass transit for NAVWAR employees and visitors, and provides the most flexibility for future design of development.”

Other alternatives featured lower buildings, less housing and no transit center, despite the proximity of railroad and trolley lines and the airport.

Release of the draft environmental impact report begins a period of public comment through July 13.

The Navy will hold two virtual public meetings to provide information about the plan:

  • 5:30 to 8 p.m. June 8
  • 5:30 to 8 p.m. June 23

Copies of the Draft EIS and selected meeting materials will be on display at:

  • Mission Hills-Hillcrest/ Knox Library: 215 West Washington St., San Diego
  • Point Loma/Hervey Library: 3701 Voltaire St., San Diego
  • San Diego Central Library: 330 Park Blvd., San Diego


Source: Times of San Diego

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

Frank Gormlie May 18, 2021 at 3:59 pm

Letter to editor in today’s UT: Project would create a 350-foot-high wall of development
By U-T Letters
May 18, 2021 1:41 PM PT

Re “Navy favors massive project with 10K housing units on NAVWAR site” (May 14): The assault on San Diego’s quality of life is now facing another hit of staggering proportions. First it was vacation rentals, then “granny flats,” then up-zoning single-family lots to four units, then eliminating the coastal height limitation for a massive sports arena site development.

Now the Navy is proposing a colossal development on its 17-acre NAVWAR site adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. Its plan provides for a private firm to create a development of 19.6 million square over 109 buildings, which will include hotels, office and commercial space, a transit center, 10,000 living units, a new 1.7 million square foor Navy facility and 14,400 parking spaces. The project upon full completion will generate an additional 70,000 vehicle trips a day.

But wait, that’s not all. The envisioned project would create a 350-foot-high wall of development that will obliterate views and dwarf its surroundings. Welcome to Miami.

Keith Behner
Point Loma


Geoff Page May 19, 2021 at 9:06 am

Keep in mind everyone, these plans are not the Navy’s, these are private development plans. The Navy is running the EIR for all possible proposals they have already received as a result of an RFP process, but all they want out of the whole thing are some facilities for themselves on a small part of the property. The Navy is not building anything at all.


Douglas Blackwood May 18, 2021 at 11:43 pm

How many apt’s are earmarked for seniors/fixed income?
Scary: wall & high rise?
Who makes this decision?


sealintheSelkirks May 19, 2021 at 12:13 pm

The pictures are surreal. So it’ll be like living in downtown St. Louis with not a hint of an ocean in view any longer? Just…big inner city buildings. How awful is that?

Oh, and just WHERE is the Rose Canyon Faultline situated to where these monstrosities will be? And the ground beneath Midway district is composed of what kind of soil? Oh wait, it’s the original San Diego Riverbed and they want to put up huge heavy ugly towers of concrete? Are they going to follow the far more rigorous building policies of Japan which are MUCH better but far more costly? Somehow I doubt it because we know how that pricks at the grasping profiteers who only want one thing…

I picked up a book titled Full-Rip 9.0 The Next Big Earthquake in the Pacific Northwest and boy has the body of science grown on earthquakes. Very informative, dead-on science as best the seismologists and geologists can produce, and it applies to the entire West Coast… good book I recommend it to anyone living in an earthquake zone. The Richter Scale is a joke by the way to modern geologists and seismologists. I didn’t know that.

This is what comes of the absolutely stupid cancelling of the most intelligent piece of local building policy to come about in the 1970s, the 30 foot height limit. I’m so sorry that happened to my hometown.



Geoff Page May 19, 2021 at 12:27 pm

You bring up a very big concern, seal, no doubt. One thing though, the lifting of the height limit may not be to blame for this, the property belongs to the Navy and will even after all this. The Navy is not constrained by the 30-foot height limit, unfortunately. It would be better if they sold the land , then the community could fight back.


sealintheSelkirks May 19, 2021 at 1:42 pm

Oh wait, isn’t the Navy actually OWNED by the taxpayers? And if it’s a piece of property they really don’t need shouldn’t it be RETURNED to the owners who of course are we the taxpayers…meaning into the Commons so to speak not…well I guess rented to for-profit private enterprise? Question: Since the Navy still owns it does this mean the Navy in their infinite wisdom can take the property back when they want to? Is there a lease or rental contract being made between the private profiteers and the citizens of San Diego who are going to spend exactly how much money fixing the public spaces up, and roads and sewers and and and… Doesn’t sound like much of a good deal to me, and seeing those artist conceptions sent a shiver up my spine.

Yeah, I know Geoff, wishful thinking. As if anything taken by the government gets returned to the people that pay the bills….



Chris May 19, 2021 at 7:39 pm

From reading the UT article, the reason the Navy is dong this is they will benefit monetarily by letting 75 percent of their land be developed for private use and the remaining 25 percent they will use to put in an upgraded cyber security facility. As to your question can the Navy take it back? I don’t know the legalities but based on past situations where the DoD took back land they leased out, I imagine they can. It would behoove any commercial business that goes in and any resident that moves in to an apartment to be mindful of this.


sealintheSelkirks May 20, 2021 at 11:25 am

And OF COURSE the Navy’s share of the Pentagon budget will be chopped by the same amount they are raking in by doing this with our taxpayer-owned land they are using. Right? Same as if someone on unemployment has to declare earnings on a 1-day job that will be taken out of their UI check. Since the Navy is a socialist enterprise, a government entity entirely funded by the citizens, the rules that citizens have to live by should apply to them. Only fair I would think.

Ahahahaha! I know, back to wishful thinking. But hey, there are countries that are cutting their military budgets at the moment why can’t we? A list below:

Chile and Colombia to Move Money Out of Militaries

While the proposal for a global ceasefire during a disease pandemic has done the opposite of catching on, there are a few small signs of sanity and even of successful activism. While most big military spenders (including the super-mega-biggest one) have increased or kept their spending steady, the SIPRI numbers show a serious reduction from 2019 to 2020 in military spending by Brazil, and reductions as well by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Turkey (the only NATO member stepping out of line on this), Singapore, Pakistan, Algeria, Indonesia, Colombia, Kuwait, and Chile…continued at link



Geoff Page May 20, 2021 at 12:08 pm

Oddly enough, seal, this project might actually end up saving the tax-payers money. They have been maintaining a giant, largely unused property for years and won’t have to anymore. Their new, much smaller building requirements will not cost them anything. The rest of the property will be privately developed, probably with 99-year leases or something like that. Normally, there is not a price tag on the remaining property such as lease payments because the payment is the new building or buildings.


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: