City of San Diego

General Plan

July 2024

⬚ figure

2008

Mayor

Jerry Sanders

City Council

Scott Peters, Council President, District 1 Kevin Faulconer, District 2 Toni Atkins, District 3 Tony Young, District 4 Brian Maienschein, District 5 Donna Frye, District 6 Jim Madaffer, District 7 Ben Hueso, District 8

City Attorney

Michael Aguirre

Planning Commission

Barry J. Schultz Kathleen Garcia Robert Griswold Eric Naslund Gil Ontai Dennis Otsuji Michael Smiley

⬚ figure

2024

⬚ figure

Mayor

Todd Gloria

City Council

Joe LaCava, District 1 Jennifer Campbell, District 2 Stephen Whitburn, District 3 Henry Foster III, District 4 Marni von Wilpert, District 5 Kent Lee, District 6 Raul Campillo, District 7 Vivian Moreno, District 8 Sean Elo-Rivera, Council President, District 9

City Attorney

Mara W. Elliot

Planning Commission

Matthew Boomhower Farah Mahzari Ted Miyahara Kenneth Malsbrough Dennis Otsuji Kelly Modén William Hofman

Honoring the land's original stewards

The City of San Diego acknowledges that we are on the traditional territory of the Kumeyaay, Luiseño, Cupeño and Cahuilla.

Today, the Kumeyaay people continue to maintain their political sovereignty and cultural traditions as vital members of the San Diego community. We are honored to share this space with them and we thank them for their stewardship.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

2008

City Planning & Community Investment (CPCI)

William Anderson, FAICP, DCOO: Executive Director Betsy McCullough, AICP, Assistant to the Director Mary Wright, AICP, Deputy Director

General Plan Staff

Nancy Bragado, General Plan Program Manager Marco Camacho, Facilities Financing Jean Cameron, Economic Development Melissa Devine, Community Planning Cecilia Gallardo, AICP, Community Planning Tait Galloway, Transportation Planning Maureen Gardiner, P.E., Transportation Planning Howard Greenstein, RLA, Park Planning Sara Lyons, Community Planning Marlon Pangilinan, Community Planning Deborah Sharpe, RLA, Park Planning Cathy Winterrowd, Historic Preservation

Graphic Design and Maps

Jan Atha, Mapping Rick Brown, Graphic Design Mike Klein, Mapping

Support Staff

Shirley Atencio, Administrative/Support Jacqueline Dominguez, Administrative Services Anne Havin, Administrative Services Brian McGarrigle, Administrative Services

Contributing Staff

CPCI

Raynard Abalos, Community Planning Patsy Chow,¹ Community Planning Coleen Clementson,¹ Planning Jennifer Duval,¹ Planning Kristen Forburger, Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Charlene Gabriel, Facilities Financing Russell Gibbon, Economic Development S. Gail Goldberg,¹ Planning Keith Greer,¹ Planning Samir Hajjiri, P.E., Transportation Planning Gary Halbert,¹ Planning Jeff Harkness, RLA, Park Planning Melanie Johnson,¹ MSCP Diane Kane,¹ Historic Preservation Jeanne Krosch, MSCP Bill Levin,¹ Planning Linda Marabian, P.E., Transportation Planning Betsy Miller, MSCP Monica Munoz, Communications Michael Prinz, Planning Randy Rodriguez,¹ Planning Kelley Saunders, Historic Preservation Nancee Thomas, Proofreader John Wilhoit,¹ Community Planning

Development Services

Kelly Broughton Dan Joyce Werner Landry Amanda Lee Robert Manis¹ Anna McPherson

Commission for Arts and Culture

Victoria L. Hamilton Dana Springs

Engineering and Capital Projects

Richard Leja¹

Environmental Services

Tom Blair Linda Pratt Lisa Wood

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Fire-Rescue

Tracy Jarman Javier Mainar Sam Oates* Monica Orton

Homeland Security

Donna Faller

Library Department

Meryl Balko Mary Ann Tilotta

Metropolitan Wastewater

Joe Harris Andrew Kleis Chris Zirkle

Park and Recreation

Stacey LoMedico April Penera*

San Diego Police Department

Marta Williams

Water Department

George Adrian Jeffery Pasek Leonard Wilson

Former Planning Commissioners

William Anderson Bruce Brown Carolyn Chase Anthony J. Lettieri Mark Steele

Other Contributors

Anthony J. Lettieri, FAICP Dennis Ryan, Formatting Editor Andy Spurlock, President Spurlock Poirier Landscape Architects Students from the NewSchool of Architecture and Design

Participating Boards and Commissions

Commission for Arts and Culture Community Forest Advisory Board Historical Resources Board Housing Commission Park and Recreation Board Redevelopment Project Area Committee Chairs San Diego Housing Commission Science and Technology Commission Senior Affairs Advisory Board Small Business Advisory Board Wetlands Advisory Board

Community Planners Committee (CPC)

CPC General Plan Subcommittee Leo Wilson, CPC and Subcommittee Chair Steve Laub, Former CPC Chair Lee Campbell Cynthia Conger Eric Germain Buzz Gibbs Kathy Mateer Lee Rittiner Patricia Shields Jim Varnadore

Community Planning Groups

Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Council Carmel Valley Community Planning Board Centre City Advisory Committee City Heights Area Planning Committee Clairemont Mesa Planning Committee College Area Community Council Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board Eastern Area Planning Committee Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Group Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Greater North Park Planning Committee Kearny Mesa Community Planning Group

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Kensington-Talmadge Planning Committee La Jolla Community Planning Association Linda Vista Community Planning Committee Midway Community Planning Advisory Committee Mira Mesa Community Planning Group Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee Mission Beach Precise Planning Board Mission Valley Unified Planning Organization Navajo Community Planners Inc. Normal Heights Community Planning Committee Ocean Beach Planning Board Old Town Community Planning Committee Otay Mesa – Nestor Planning Committee Otay Mesa Planning Committee Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee Peninsula Community Planning Board Rancho Bernardo Community Planning Board Rancho Penasquitos Planning Board Sabre Springs Planning Group San Pasqual – Lake Hodges Planning Group San Ysidro Planning and Development Group Scripps Ranch Community Planning Group Serra Mesa Planning Group Skyline – Paradise Hills Planning Committee Southeastern San Diego Planning Committee Tierrasanta Community Council Torrey Hills Community Planning Board Torrey Pines Community Planning Group University Community Planning Group Uptown Planners

Stakeholders

Air Pollution Control District Association of Environmental Professionals Bicycle Coalition Building Industry Association Burnham Real Estate BID Council BioCom California Air Resources Board California Department of Transportation Center on Policy Initiatives Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 Community Parking Districts Community Planners Advisory Committee on Transportation Council of Design Professionals Dow Chemical Company Economic Research Associates Endangered Habitats League Environmental Health Coalition Gen-Probe Industrial Environmental Association Kiwanis Club of Old San Diego Kyocera Land Use and Housing Committee’s Technical Advisory Committee Ligand Pharmaceuticals Manager’s Parking Task Force Metropolitan Transit System National Association of Industrial and Office Properties New School of Architecture & Design Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce Otay Mesa Community Planning Coalition Park and Recreation Board Pedestrian Master Plan Working Group Qualcomm Redevelopment Project Area Committee Chairs San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Association of Realtors San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce San Diego Community College District San Diego County Air Pollution Control District San Diego County Department of Environmental Health San Diego Highway Development Association San Diego Housing Federation San Diego Labor Council San Diego Organizing Project

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

San Diego Port Tenants Association San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified School District San Diego Workforce Partnership San Diego Working Waterfront Save Our Heritage Organisation Sierra Club Small Business Advisory Board Society of American Military Engineers Society of Architecture and Engineering Solar Turbines Uptown Partnership United States Green Building Council United States Marine Corps United States Navy Walk San Diego

2024

City Planning Department

Heidi Vonblum, Director Kelley Stanco, Deputy Director Tait Galloway, Deputy Director Sameera Rao, Assistant Deputy Director Rebecca Malone, AICP, Program Manager Coby Tomlins, Program Manager Anisha Gianchandani, Program Manager Marlon Pangilinan, Program Coordinator Seth Litchney, Program Manager Mike Klein, GISP, Program Coordinator Julia Chase, Chief Resilience Officer Sean McGee, Development Project Manager III Alex Frost, Development Project Manager III Jonathan Avila, Development Project Manager III Kristy Forburger, Development Project Manager III Jeff Ryan, Development Project Manager III Nathen Causman, Senior Planner Suchi Lukes, AICP, Senior Planner Shannon Corr, Senior Planner Dan Monroe, Senior Planner Paola Boylan, Senior Planner Cristhian Barajas, Senior Planner Lesley Henegar, Senior Planner Elena Pascual, Senior Environmental Planner Jordan Moore, Senior Environmental Planner Greg Johansen, Senior Environmental Planner Natalie Koski-Karell, Associate Planner Apharna Padmakumar, Associate Planner Ashley Dulaney, Associate Planner Saba Raisesmaili, Associate Planner Kusum Mamtani, Associate Planner Christopher Carrillo, Associate Planner Selena Sanchez Bailon, Junior Planner Tara Ash-Reynolds, Associate Environmental Planner Edgar Ramirez Manriquez, Associate Environmental Planner Zaira Marquez, Associate Environmental Planner Scott Sandel, Park Designer Wendy Wang, Park Designer Kelly Mathiesen, Park Designer Chris Deuchars, Geographic Information Systems Analyst IV Michael Bouvet, Geographic Information Systems Analyst II Michael DiCamillo, Community Planning Management Intern Curren Orr, Community Planning Management Intern Mallory Harris, Mapping & IT Services Management Intern Audrey Rains, Public Spaces Management Intern

Sustainability and Mobility Department

Phil Trom, Program Manager Maureen Gardiner, Senior Traffic Engineer Claudia Brizuela, Senior Traffic Engineer Christine Mercado, Senior Traffic Engineer Leo Alo, Senior Traffic Engineer

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Emanuel Alforja, Associate Traffic Engineer Gerald Chacon, Associate Traffic Engineer Gustavo Negrete, Assistant Traffic Engineer Genoveva Romero-Marquez, Assistant Traffic Engineer

Parks and Recreation Department

Erika Ferreira, Deputy Director Laura Ball, Project Officer II Mark Berninger, Senior Planner

Engineering and Capital Projects

Nancy Graham, AICP, Program Manager

Development Services Department

Brian Schoenfisch, Deputy Director

Fire-Rescue Department

Anthony Tosca, Deputy Chief/ Fire Marshal Dan Hypes, Assistant Fire Marshal Stephanie Bracci, Project Officer II

Office of the City Attorney

Corrine Neuffer, Chief Deputy City Attorney

Communications Department

Tara Lewis, Supervising Public Information Officer Richard Berg, Public Information Officer

City of San Diego Consultants

WSP USA RECON Environmental, Inc. CityThinkers Spurlock Landscape Architects City Works People + Places Busby Environmental LeSar Development Consultants Kounkuey Design Initiative, inc.

Community Partners

SR-15 Transportation Equity & Affordable Housing Task Force Urban Collaborative Project Casa Familiar Bikes del Pueblo Bayside Community Center City Heights Community Development Corp.

*Former City Staff

Table of Contents

General Plan

Introduction ..............................................................................XX Strategic Framework ..................................................................... SF-2

Land Use and Community Planning Element

Introduction ............................................................................. LU-5 A. City of Villages Strategy............................................................... LU-11 B. General Plan Land Use Categories ..................................................... LU-23 C. Community Planning................................................................... LU-35 D. Plan Amendment Process................................................................ LU-45 E. Planning for Coastal Resources.......................................................... LU-53 F. Consistency............................................................................ LU-57 G. Airport Land Use Compatibility.......................................................... LU-61 H. Balanced Communities and Equitable Development......................................... LU-69 I. Proposition A - The Managed Growth Initiative (1985) .................................... LU-77 J. Annexations and Reorganizations.......................................................... LU-85

Mobility Element

Introduction ............................................................................. ME-5 A. Walkable Communities.................................................................. ME-15 B. Bicycling.............................................................................. ME-27 C. Shared Use Mobility ................................................................... ME-33 D. Transit ............................................................................... ME-39 E. Complete Streets....................................................................... ME-49 F. Intelligent Transportation Systems....................................................... ME-69 G. Transportation Demand Management....................................................... ME-75

Table of Contents

H. Parking and Curb Space Management........................................................... ME-79 I. Airports................................................................................................................ ME-87 J. Goods Movement/Freight.............................................................................. ME-95 K. Regional Coordination and Financing.......................................................... ME-101 L. Emerging Technologies.................................................................................. ME-105

Urban Design Element

Introduction ........................................................................................................... UD-5 A. General Urban Design .................................................................................... UD-11 B. Mixed-Use Villages & Commercial Areas...................................................... UD-27 C. Distinctive Inclusive Neighborhoods and Residential Design .................... UD-37 D. Office & Business Park Development............................................................ UD-45 E. Public Spaces & Design................................................................................... UD-51 F. Public Art & Cultural Amenities...................................................................... UD-57

Economic Prosperity Element

Introduction ........................................................................................................... EP-5 A. Industrial Land Use.......................................................................................... EP-11 B. Commercial Land Use...................................................................................... EP-23 C. Regional Center and Subregional Employment Areas ................................ EP-31 D. Education and Workforce Development ....................................................... EP-35 E. Employment and Development....................................................................... EP-41 F. Business Development..................................................................................... EP-47 G. Community and Infrastructure Investment................................................... EP-51 H. Military Installations ......................................................................................... EP-57 I. Visitor Industries............................................................................................... EP-61

Table of Contents

J. International Trade, Maritime Trade, and Border Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-67 K. Economic Information, Monitoring, and Strategic Initiatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-73

Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-5 A. Infrastructure and Public Spaces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-11 B. Public Facilities Financing and Evaluation of Growth, Facilities and Services . . . . . . PF-15 C. Public Facilities and Services Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-25 D. Fire-Rescue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-31 E. Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-47 F. Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-53 G. Storm Water Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-59 H. Water Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-65 I. Waste Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-73 J. Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-81 K. Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-87 L. Information Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-95 M. Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-99 N. Regional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-105 O. Healthcare Services and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-109 P. Hazard Mitigation & Disaster Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-113 Q. Seimic Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-123

Recreation Element

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE-5 A. Park and Recreation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE-11

Table of Contents

B. Recreation Opportunities ............................................................................................................ RE-21 C. Preservation ................................................................................................................................. RE-25 D. Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. RE-31 E. Joint Use and Cooperative Partnerships .................................................................................. RE-37 F. Open Space Lands and Resource-Based Parks ........................................................................ RE-43

Conservation Element

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... CE-5 A. Climate Change & Sustainable Development .......................................................................... CE-13 B. Open Space and Landform Preservation ................................................................................... CE-23 C. Coastal Resources ....................................................................................................................... CE-31 D. Water Resources Management ................................................................................................... CE-37 E. Urban Runoff Management ......................................................................................................... CE-45 F. Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... CE-53 G. Biological Diversity ....................................................................................................................... CE-59 H. Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... CE-65 I. Sustainable Energy ........................................................................................................................ CE-69 J. Urban Forestry ............................................................................................................................... CE-73 K. Mineral Production ....................................................................................................................... CE-79 L. Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................. CE-85 M. Border/International Conservation ........................................................................................... CE-91 N. Environmental Education ............................................................................................................ CE-97

Noise Element

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... NE-5 A. Noise and Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................................. NE-11

Table of Contents

B. Motor Vehicle Traffic Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-17 C. Trolley and Train Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-21 D. Aircraft Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-25 E. Commercial and Mixed-Use Activity Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-33 F. Industrial Activity Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-37 G. Construction, Refuse Vehicles, Parking Lot Sweepers, and Public Activity Noise . . . NE-41 H. Event Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-45 I. Typical Noise Attenuation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NE-49

Historic Preservation Element

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HP-5 A. Identification and Preservation of Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HP-17 B. Historic Preservation, Education, Benefits, and Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HP-25

Environmental Justice Element

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-5 A. Inclusive Public Engagement in City Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-19 B. Pollution Exposure and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-29 C. Active Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-47 D. Promoting Healthy Food Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-61 E. Safe and Healthy Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-73 F. Climate Change and Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-93 G. Public Facilities and Infrastructure Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-103

Table of Contents

Appendices and Glossary

Appendix A: Strategic Framework Element ..................................................................... AP-5

Appendix B: Land Use Element........................................................................................ AP-19

Appendix C: Economic Prosperity Element...................................................................... AP-31

Appendix D: Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element............................................. AP-37

Appendix E: Conservation Element................................................................................. AP-41

Appendix F: Historic Preservation Element...................................................................... AP-45

Glossary.......................................................................................................................... GL-67

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Figure LU-1 Village Climate Goal Propensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LU-17 Figure LU-2 General Plan Land Use and Street System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LU-27 Figure LU-3 Planning Areas and Prospective Annexation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LU-37 Figure LU-4 Proposition A Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LU-83 Figure ME-1A Transit Land Use Connections with Plan Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . ME-8 Figure ME-1B Transit Land Use Connections with Village Propensity . . . . . . . . . ME-9 Figure ME-2 Existing and Proposed Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ME-29 Figure ME-3 Airport Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ME-90 Figure EP-1 Industrial and Prime Industrial Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-15 Figure EP-2 Regional Center and Subregional Employment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . EP-29 Figure EP-3 Educational Attainment Levels by Race - San Diego Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-37 Figure EP-4 Educational Attainment Levels of the Over 25 Population - San Diego Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-37 Figure EP-5 Employment Growth by Industry Sector - City of San Diego 2020- 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-44 Figure EP-6 Top 10 Occupations with the Greatest Growth: San Diego Region 2018-2028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-44 Figure EP-7 Value of San Diego Region Exports: 1992 to 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EP-69 Figure PF-1 Fire and Lifeguard Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-39 Figure PF-2 Police Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-51 Figure PF-3 Wastewater Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-56 Figure PF-4 Library Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-84 Figure PF-5 School Districts with Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-92 Figure PF-6 Geo-Technical Relative Risk Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PF-126 Figure RE-1 Community Plan Designated Open Space and Parks Map . . . RE-7 Figure CE-1 Steep Slopes and 200 Ft. Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-28 Figure CE-2 Multi-Habitat Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-29 Figure CE-3 Coastal Zone Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-34

Table of Contents

Figure CE-4 San Diego Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-42 Figure CE-5 Flood Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-48 Figure CE-6 Generalized Mineral Land Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CE-81 Figure EJ-1 Environmental Justice Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-9 Figure EJ-2 Environmental Justice Communities - Northern San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-10 Figure EJ-3 Environmental Justice Communities - Central & Southern San Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-11 Figure EJ-4 Environmental Justice Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-13 Figure EJ-5 Particulate Matter 2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-34 Figure EJ-6 Diesel Particulate Matter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-35 Figure EJ-7 Planned Residential Uses Containing Incompatible Industrial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-38 Figure EJ-8 Diabetes Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-50 Figure EJ-9 Obesity Prevalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-51 Figure EJ-10 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Public Assistance Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-64 Figure EJ-11 Proximity to Grocery Stores and Certified Farmers Market . . EJ-65 Figure EJ-12 Childhood Opportunity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-75 Figure EJ-13 TCAC Opportunity areas and Deed- Restricted Affordable Homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-79 Figure EJ-14 Significantly Housing Burdened Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-83 Figure EJ-15 Gentrification & Displacement Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-85 Figure EJ-16 Tree Canopy & Cool Zone Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-97 Figure EJ-17 Energy Cost Burden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-98

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table LU-1 Existing Land Uses (as of 2023) ........................................ LU-7

Table LU-2 Adopted Community Plan Land Uses.................................. LU-8

Table LU-3 Breakdown of Vacant Developable Land in Terms of Existing Community Plan Land Use Designations (April 2023)........................ LU-9

Table LU-4 General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Category Descriptions LU-28

Table ME-1 Pedestrian Improvement Toolbox....................................... ME-21

Table ME-2 Traffic Calming Toolbox.................................................... ME-59

Table ME-3 Parking Strategies Toolbox ............................................... ME-79

Table ME-4 Airports Within and Near the City of San Diego ..................... ME-86

Table PF-D.1 Deployment Measures to Address Future Growth by Population Density per Square Mile............................................... PF-40

Table PF-D.2 Deployment Measures to Address Future Growth by Population Clusters ..................................................................... PF-41

Table PF-1 Water Storage and Capacity ............................................ PF-67

Table PF-2 Water Treatment and Capacity ........................................... PF-67

Table CE-1 Issues Related to Climate Change Addressed in the General Plan ........................................................................... CE-9

Table CE-2 Sources of Ozone Precursor Emissions (VOC + NOx in the San Diego Region)........................................... CE-56

Table NE-1 Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels .......................... NE-7

Table NE-2 Related Regulations and Plans Used to Implement the Noise Element Outdoor Noise Levels ....................................................... NE-8

Table NE-3 Land Use - Noise Compatibility Guidelines ............................ NE-14

Table NE-5 Typical Noise Attenuation Methods to Insulate the Noise Receiver.......................................................................... NE-52

Table NE-6 Potential Noise Attenuation Methods ................................... NE-53

Table HP-1 Regional History ........................................................... HP-13

Table EJ-1 Percentage of each Community Plan Area included in EJ Communities. ........................................................................ EJ-14

Table of Contents

Table EJ-2 Additional Policies in the General Plan Addressing Pollution Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-43

Table EJ-2 Additional Policies in the General Plan Addressing Pollution Issues (Continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-44

Table EJ-3 Additional Policies in the General Plan Addressing Public Spaces and Physical Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-56

Table EJ-4 Modified Gentrification, Displacement, and Exclusion Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-86

Table EJ-5 Additional Policies in the General Plan Addressing Housing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-87

Table EJ-6 Tree Canopy Coverage, Heat Risk and Energy Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-96

Table EJ-7 Additional Policies in the General Plan Addressing Public Facilities and Infrastructure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EJ-108

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Introduction

Introduction

San Diego has the location and the physical foundation in general for an important, perhaps a great, city. Its people are awake to its needs, and are resolved to meet them.

~ John Nolen, 1908

City Planner John Nolen wrote these words as a preface to San Diego’s first grand vision statement of the 20th century. He looked at a young city with a population of less than 40,000 and imagined what it could become.

Against the backdrop of what Nolen considered San Diego’s “permanent attractiveness beyond all other communities,” he envisioned development of a civic center of downtown public buildings, more urban open space, parks and playgrounds, and a bayfront with promenades and public amenities. He urged San Diegans to build a city that capitalized on its many natural assets and enviable climate. Nolen’s goals are still relevant today and they advised many of the planning decisions that shaped San Diego in the past century.

Since the Nolen Plan was commissioned, San Diego has grown from a small border town to a thriving metropolis of nearly 1.3 million people, complete with many distinct and diverse neighborhoods. The City’s growth and evolution have served as a catalyst for the development of numerous planning visions and plan documents. Through the years, all of the plans have shared a somewhat common vision. They have sought to promote unique neighborhoods, good jobs and housing for all San Diegans, protection and enhancement of the environment, development of a diverse economy, an efficient and useful public transit system, well-maintained public facilities and services, and careful management of the growth and development of the City.

San Diego’s Planning History

During the 1960s, the City engaged in a comprehensive planning process to prepare the first Progress Guide and General Plan, and in 1967 the City Council adopted and the electorate ratified that document as the first General Plan for the City of San Diego. In 1974, planning consultants Kevin Lynch and Donald Appleyard, funded through a grant from the prominent San Diego Marston family, produced Temporary Paradise? This groundbreaking study focused upon the natural base of the City and region; it recommended that new growth complement the regional landscape to preserve its precious natural resources and San Diego’s high quality of life. Temporary Paradise? served as a major influence on the subsequent comprehensive update of the Progress Guide and General Plan adopted in 1979.

The City experienced both significant growth and a serious recession over

the two following decades. Residential development reached the City’s jurisdictional boundaries which also expanded during this period. The City’s economic base evolved from tourism and defense to include high technology research and manufacturing, and international trade. The citizens of San Diego reacted to the growth and change by participating in numerous visioning efforts. They produced several documents, ballot initiatives, and programs including: the Urban Form Action Plan, the Regional Growth Management Strategy, the Livable Neighborhoods Initiative, Towards Permanent Paradise, the Renaissance Commission Report, and many others.

Based upon the planning principles and shared common values in all of these documents, the City Council adopted the Strategic Framework Element in 2002 to guide the comprehensive update of the entire 1979 Progress Guide and General Plan. These efforts culminated in a new General Plan in 2008.

The General Plan

While the General Plan Refresh maintains many goals and strategies of the 2008 General Plan, the year 2024 finds the City of San Diego and its citizens facing increased challenges: most notably, a lack of housing that is affordable, particularly in high resource areas, and a changing climate that poses environmental hazards to San Diegans. Further, the City is partially shaped by an existing pattern of sprawl that results in homes located far away from places of work, school, and other daily needs. This pattern has resulted in significant traffic congestion and harmful pollutants, including greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), that worsen our environment and air quality. The City of San Diego is addressing these challenges through policy and action, including a Climate Action Plan that calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicular travel.

The City’s Climate Action Plan calls for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicular travel through a variety of strategies. While all strategies in the Climate Action Plan are critical to the City achieving its climate goals, the most significant reductions are anticipated to come from reducing the amount of distance that people need to drive to meet their daily needs. There are two critical components to reducing the distance that people need to drive: 1) planning for new homes and businesses in places where people are most likely to drive less, particularly in areas located close to transit, and 2) increasing the amount of travel that San Diegans do by walking/rolling, biking, and transit by making investments in infrastructure and programs designed to help people use these other travel modes safely , conveniently and enjoyably.

The General Plan addresses both of these critical components: the former with the ‘City of Villages’ strategy and land use policies that encourage new

homes in areas with access to transit, jobs, and amenities; and the latter with mobility policies in this element that prioritize the most vulnerable modes of transportation so that all road-users can safely, conveniently and enjoyably reach their desired destinations.

This General Plan provides policy guidance to balance the needs of a growing city while enhancing quality of life for current and future San Diegans. It provides a strategy, the City of Villages, for how the City can enhance its many communities and neighborhoods as growth occurs over time. It presents ten elements that overall provide a comprehensive “blueprint” for the City of San Diego’s growth over the next twenty plus years.

A century after Nolen, San Diego is once again anticipating its future and defining new strategies for the way we will live on the land for the next 20-50 years. The challenges require new approaches, sound public policies, and innovative and achievable solutions – in sum, a refreshed General Plan.

San Diego Profile

San Diego is the second largest city in California and eighth largest in the United States with a population of approximately 1.4 million in 2022. The City covers 342.5 square miles and stretches nearly 40 miles from north to south. There are 93 miles of shoreline including bays, lagoons and the Pacific Ocean. Elevations mostly range from sea level to 600 feet. High points include Mt. Soledad in La Jolla and Cowles Mountain in the eastern part of the City which is nearly 1,600 feet high.

San Diego has a unique and varied topography composed mostly of mesas intersected by canyons. Mission Valley is a prominent geographical feature near the center of the City. There are rather dramatic climate variations within the City. In the beach areas, summer high temperatures average in the low 70s while inland areas average in the mid to upper 80s. Rainfall averages only 10 inches per year.

San Diego has a varied economy with both high and low wage industries prominent. The higher wage economic sectors include international trade, telecommunications, software, biotech and higher education. The tourism and visitor sectors of the economy provide many of the lower wage jobs. There are relatively few middle-income jobs resulting increasingly in an hourglass economy. Both manufacturing and the military have long been mainstays of the local economy offering middle income jobs, although neither are as dominant as they once were: defense industry and manufacturing jobs have declined in the past two decades.

San Diego is a major tourist and convention destination. The most visited sites are Balboa Park, the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park, SeaWorld, Cabrillo National Monument, and Old Town State Historic Park. The village area of La

Jolla, Little Italy and the Gaslamp Quarter downtown are also popular destinations.

San Diego’s population grew rapidly from 1940 to 1960 and again from 1970 to 1990. The population was approximately 200,000 in 1940, 700,000 in 1970 and over 1.22 million in 2000 – around half a million new residents every 30 years. Since 2000, the rate of population growth in the City has slowed dramatically – only 200,000 residents have been added over the last 20 years, with 200,000 more projected by 2050 (1.6 million residents projected by 2050). Lack of vacant land and high housing costs relative to local incomes have deterred growth.

San Diego’s population is diverse. Slightly less than half the population is composed of non-Hispanic whites. Hispanics make up approximately 30 percent of the population. Approximately 15 percent of the population has Asian and Pacific Island origins and about 6 percent are Black. The Hispanic population is younger and is continuing to increase; the non-Hispanic White population is also increasing but skews older. The Black, American Indian, and Asian American & Pacific Islander populations are relatively stagnant. The overall average age of 37.6 years has been increasing, with the fastest growing segment being people over the age of 65. (See City of San Diego Fast Facts below, and Appendix B of the Housing Element for more demographic information).

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Kids at play across San Diego.

City of San Diego Fast Facts

Physical Characteristics

Population Trends (1980 - 2020)

Population Characteristics (2021 Estimates)

2050 Population, Housing and Employment Forecast

Source: Demographic data provided by SANDAG, 2016-2023

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

San Diego has a diverse and varied topography, ranging from its highest point of Cowles Mountain (top) to sea level (bottom).

(blank page)

⬚ figure

Strategic Framework

Strategic Framework

We are stewards of a remarkable resource, a City on the Pacific of great cultural and physical diversity. In the 21st century, San Diego must continue to evolve in harmony with its exceptional natural environment, always treasuring the unique character of its neighborhoods, striving for equity, and celebrating the rich mosaic that is San Diego.

~ Strategic Framework Element Vision Statement, 2002

San Diego is a city in a region with unique and varied landscapes – ocean and beaches, estuaries and river valleys, canyons and mesas, hills and mountains, and desert. These landscapes and the City’s transportation networks define San Diego’s communities, each with their own character, history, and scale. These communities, and the landscapes and transportation networks that frame and link them, are the City’s basic building blocks.

San Diego is a prominent California city, adjacent to Mexico, on the Pacific Rim. It is an international city, economically and culturally. It is a creative city with exceptional strength in science, commerce, education, and art. It is an important city in the nation’s defense.

Building such a city across this special landscape has always been and will continue to be San Diegans’ urban planning challenge. This General Plan sets out the City’s policies for wise land use and the provision of services to maintain, and where necessary improve, San Diego’s natural and built environments, and its residents’ quality-of-life.

Over the last two centuries, San Diego has grown by expanding outward onto land still in its natural state. This is the first General Plan in the City’s continuing history that must address most future growth without expansion onto its open lands. It establishes the strategic framework for how the City grows while maintaining the qualities that best define San Diego.

Role and Purpose of the General Plan

The City’s General Plan is its constitution for development. It is the foundation upon which all land use decisions in the City are based. It expresses community vision and values, and it embodies public policy for the distribution of future land use, both public and private.

State law requires each city to adopt a general plan to guide its future development and mandates that the plan be periodically updated to assure its continuing relevance and value. It also requires the inclusion of seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space, and Safety. However, state law permits flexibility

in the presentation of elements and the inclusion of optional elements to best meet the needs of a particular city. The City of San Diego’s General Plan addresses state requirements through the following eleven elements: Land Use and Community Planning; Mobility; Economic Prosperity; Public Facilities, Services and Safety; Urban Design; Recreation; Historic Preservation; Conservation; Noise; Housing; and Environmental Justice. More information on mandatory and optional elements is found in Appendix A, SF-1. State law requires internal consistency, meaning that policies within the components of the General Plan cannot conflict with one another, and that no one element may take precedence over another.

City of Villages Strategy

The City of Villages strategy focuses growth into mixed- use activity centers that are pedestrian-friendly districts linked to the regional transit network. It was first adopted as a part of the Strategic Framework Element of the General Plan in 2002. It was developed through an intensive process of public collaboration over a three- year period. The strategy draws upon the character and strengths of San Diego’s natural environment, neighborhoods, commercial centers, institutions, and employment centers. The strategy is designed to sustain the long-term economic, environmental, and social health of the City and its many communities. It recognizes the value of San Diego’s distinctive neighborhoods and open spaces that together form the City as a whole. The General Plan 2024 identifies village areas that will help to meet climate, housing and equity goals.

A “village” is defined as the mixed-use heart of a community where residential, commercial, employment, and civic uses are all present and integrated. Each village will be unique to the community in which it is located. All villages will be pedestrian-friendly and characterized by inviting, accessible and attractive complete streets that support walking, biking, and transit usage. Public spaces will vary from village to village, consisting of well-designed public parks or plazas that bring people together. Individual villages will offer a variety of housing types affordable for people with different incomes and needs. Villages will connect to each other through investements in the active transportation network and the regional transit network.

Transportation and Land Use Planning

Implementation of the City of Villages growth strategy is dependent upon close coordination of land use and transportation planning. The strategy calls for redevelopment, infill, and new growth to be targeted into compact, mixed-use, and walkable villages that are connected to a regional transit network. Villages should increase personal transportation choices and minimize transportation impacts through design that pays attention to the needs of people traveling by foot, bicycle, and transit. Focused development and density adjacent

to high-quality transit that link where people live to where people work, shop, and recreate, helps make transit convenient for more people and allows for a more cost-effective expansion of transit services.

Housing in mixed-use commercial areas provides opportunities for people to live near their place of work and the places that they need to access for daily life, which helps support the vitality of neighborhood shops and services. As such, the City of Villages land use pattern is both a transportation and land use strategy. The integration of transit and land use planning is illustrated by the Transit/Land Use Connections Map (see Mobility Element, Figure ME-1a). This map identifies existing and community plan designated activity centers, commercial centers and corridors, and multifamily residential areas that are along the region's higher frequency existing and planned transit services.

Village Climate Goal Areas & Community Plans

The General Plan provides a citywide policy framework for future growth and development based on the “City of Villages” Strategy that addresses housing, climate, and equity goals. The City of Villages land use strategy encourages more homes and jobs in areas that provide the greatest likelihood of transit usage and improves opportunities to walk/roll, bike and take transit for daily needs to achieve the City’s climate goals within the Climate Action Plan; these areas are described as “Climate Smart Village Areas.” The Climate Smart Village Areas will help the City identify additional opportunities for homes to help address the City’s housing goals in the Housing Element. Although land use intensities are defined by community plans, the Climate Smart Village Areas recommend focusing jobs and housing near existing and planned transit to help meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in the Climate Action Plan. This reflects the opportunity to plan for additional homes and jobs in downtown, subregional employment centers and along existing and planned transit corridors to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase active and transit trips. This will provide existing and future generations with the opportunity to live in San Diego, near where they work, with safe and convenient options for traveling around.

Community plans are a part of the General Plan and build upon the more general citywide policies established in the General Plan, with tailored policy recommendations that apply at the community and neighborhood level. The City has typically updated community plans every 20 to 30 years to address changing needs and ensure consistency between the General Plan and community’s land use policies and infrastructure strategies. As part of the community plan update process, the Village Climate Goal Area map will be used to help determine appropriate locations for future growth. Community plan land uses

Guiding Principles

The City of San Diego General Plan integrates the following basic principles which describe the essential structure of San Diego’s plan and reflect the core values that guide its development:

1. An open space network formed by parks, canyons, river valleys, habitats, beaches, and ocean;
2. Diverse residential communities formed by the open space network;
3. Compact and walkable mixed-use villages of different scales within communities;
4. Employment centers for a strong economy;
5. An integrated regional transportation network of walkways, bikeways, transit, roadways, and freeways that efficiently link communities and villages to each other and to employment centers;
6. High quality, affordable, and well-maintained public facilities to serve the City’s population, workers, and visitors;
7. Historic districts and sites that respect our heritage;
8. Balanced communities that offer opportunities for all San Diegans and share citywide responsibilities;
9. A clean and sustainable environment; and
10. A high aesthetic standard.

The guiding principles of the General Plan are based on the Strategic Framework Element vision statement and “Core Values” that address San Diego's physical environment, economy, and culture and society. These values were developed by the Strategic Framework Citizens’ Committee which included more than 40 individuals of diverse and accomplished backgrounds. In addition, thousands of others provided valuable input to the Strategic Framework Element in public hearings, public workshops, community planning group meetings, public forums, and email communications. Community planning groups provided input through their own meetings and as members of the Community Planners Committee. The complete Core Values can be found in the General Plan Appendix A, SF-2. In addition, those that contributed to the development of the SFE are acknowledged in Appendix A, SF-3.

will still occur at a granular level with an assessment of on-the-ground conditions and collaboration between the City and community members.

Regional Planning/ Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination

Regional coordination is needed to effectively guide land use and transportation planning, investment in regional-serving facilities, and preservation of open spaces that span multiple jurisdictions. The City of San Diego works closely with the County of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), regional transit operators the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Tribal Governments, and other local governments and agencies throughout the region to further common goals. The City also works with state and federal representatives on legislative, regulatory, and budgetary matters that impact the City of San Diego; and with its counterparts in Mexico on border/ binational issues.

SANDAG plays a key role in regional coordination efforts. SANDAG is the region’s transportation and planning agency (see also the Mobility Element discussion) comprised of member agencies from the region’s 19 local governments. City of San Diego interests are represented at SANDAG through the votes of the City’s elected officials serving on the SANDAG Board of Directors, staff participation on SANDAG advisory committees, and direct public participation in the process. Working with SANDAG and as an independent jurisdiction, the City of San Diego must plan for, and implement transportation projects which are essential to the growth and evolution of a major urban center, and are critical to progressive land use planning decisions.

The SANDAG Board of Directors adopts a Regional Plan every 4-years that provides a strategic planning framework for the San Diego region that considers how we will grow, where we will live, and how we will move around the region for the following 30-years. The Regional Plan serves as our region’s longterm plan used to incrementally implement transportation projects. The Regional Plan addresses San Diego’s relationships with neighboring counties, Tribal Governments, and northern Baja California. The City of San Diego General Plan is designed to complement and support the Regional Plan.

The updated General Plan translated these organizing principles into new policy direction in the eleven elements of the General Plan. Because less than four percent of the City’s land remains vacant and available for new development, the plan’s policies represent a shift in focus from how to develop vacant land to how to reinvest in existing communities. Therefore, new policies have been created to

⬚ figure

The San Ysidro Transit Center.

support changes in development patterns to emphasize combining housing, shopping, employment uses, schools, and civic uses, at different scales, in village centers. By directing growth primarily toward village centers, the strategy works to preserve established residential neighborhoods and open space, and to manage the City's continued growth over the long term.

Implementation

Action Plan

The General Plan provides a broad range of citywide policies that affect land development and overall quality of life. General plan policies are statements that guide decision making and are adopted by City Council resolution. Policies differ from Land Development Code regulations which contain specific, enforceable standards and are adopted by ordinance. The policies within the City of San Diego’s General Plan provide a framework to guide the physical development of the City and will be used to: guide community plan updates; review discretionary permits; and provide direction for public projects, master and redevelopment plans, and other implementation programs. As projects and future implementation actions are reviewed, individual actions are to be deemed consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the goals and policies of the plan and not obstruct their attainment.

The State of California General Plan Guidelines indicate that a general plan is typically implemented through zoning, subdivisions, and capital improvements. In the City of San Diego, General Plan policies are also implemented through community plan recommendations and actions. In addition, there are many specific actions or programs that the City initiates or completes consistent with General Plan direction. In order to identify and monitor a wide variety of actions found within the General Plan, community plans, and beyond, the City has created the General Plan Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan is a companion item to the General Plan which identifies action items intended to implement General Plan policies. The Action Plan will be updated, as needed, to indicate implementation progress, identify new initiatives designed to implement General Plan policies, or reflect shifting priorities over time. Upon City Council approval of a General Plan Action Plan, the Action Plan will be deemed incorporated into the General Plan by reference. However, because an implementation measure, by its nature, must be consistent with what it is implementing, Action Plan items that are updated or changed and remain consistent with the General Plan are not amendments to the General Plan. Changes to implementing actions will be ‘tracked’ to assure a clear record is maintained.

Because San Diego is a large and diverse city, the General Plan relies upon the community plans (legally recognized as a part of the Land Use

and Community Planning Element) to provide community-specific policies and recommendations. While community plans are in the process of being updated, there may be instances where the policies of the community plan and General Plan are not fully aligned. However, there are no land use or zoning inconsistencies between the General Plan and any given community plan because the General Plan does not change community plan land use designations. The community plans are the final arbiter on issues of land use, density, and intensity. The General Plan and community plans are to play complementary roles to ensure that quality of life is maintained, essential community character is respected, and that public facilities are provided.

The City’s adopted land use plans set the framework for the implementing regulations found in the Land Development Code. Although state law exempts charter cities from the zoning consistency requirement, it is the City of San Diego’s practice to apply zoning that is consistent with community plan land use designations to ensure their implementation. Zoning is one of the primary plan implementation measures. As the California General Plan Guidelines state, “the success of a general plan, and in particular the land use element, rests in part upon the effectiveness of a consistent zoning ordinance in translating the long-term objectives and policies contained in the plan into everyday decisions.” Zoning will be reviewed and changed as appropriate, especially at the time of a community plan update or amendment, to assure that revised land use designations or newly-applicable policies and recommendations can be implemented. New zoning options may be developed to better implement plan recommendations. Plan recommendations may also be implemented through subdivisions, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Additional implementation programs are referenced in more detail in the elements of the General Plan and Action Plan. Major implementation initiatives include master plans and strategies that offer more in-depth analysis and implementation actions associated with their topic areas than is desirable in the General Plan. However, the formation or amendment of such plans will be evaluated against the policies of the General Plan. There are also specific legislative, regulatory, administrative, and collaborative implementation actions that will be needed. The General Plan and the associated Action Plan will be monitored to measure its effectiveness in achieving goals. The General Plan Monitoring Report measures progress through: 1) Action Plan item implementation tracking, 2) San Diego Sustainable Community Program Indicators, and 3) community economic indicators.

City Budget Process

Implementation of the General Plan is accomplished through a broad range of legislative and regulatory actions that are outlined in the Action Plan. Each policy in the General Plan corresponds with an Action Plan item which identifies the implementation tool, such as a community plan update, master plan, or modification to regulations and ordinances, to help implement the policy. Although the Action Plan provides anticipated timeframes for implementing plan policies, many of the work program items are dependent on budget decisions. During the budget process new programs or additional funding for existing programs is allocated for the upcoming year. The General Plan Action Plan will be monitored to track the progress of General Plan implementation measures and help inform the budget process.

City of Villages Strategy

The City of Villages strategy will continue to help meet the long-term needs of the City through infill development in Village Climate Goal Areas. Some of the activity centers or districts that have village characteristics are currently experiencing demand for intensified use and have infrastructure or financing for infrastructure available. These areas could develop in accordance with the City of Villages strategy in the next few years through comprehensive development plans. Sites that are currently developed with other uses may be the villages of the future. Many of San Diego's communities already have districts of different scales with village-like neighborhoods that will continue to evolve. A common feature of all the villages will be the addition of vibrant public places and the increased ease of walking between residences, transit stops, public facilities, and basic commercial uses. An emphasis within villages will be on improving the overall walkability between local destinations through the provision of safe and convenient pedestrian connections, traffic calming measures, landscape, pedestrian-scale lighting, public plazas, wayfinding programs, and other measures. As the villages become more fully developed, their individual personalities will become more defined and their development patterns will become more varied and distinctive. Some of the villages may take on specialized functions that cannot be predicted at the present time.

The rate at which the City of Villages concept can be applied throughout the City will be determined largely by market demand, public support, and the rate at which infrastructure deficiencies can be remedied. Transit will be particularly crucial. As urban area transit service is improved, many potential village locations could begin to develop in accordance with the City of Villages concept.

However, even if transit deficiencies and other infrastructure needs are fully addressed in the next two

decades, it is likely that the transition from the current auto-oriented pattern of development to a more diversified pattern built with transit- and pedestrian-orientation will take many years to be fully achieved. The current automobile-dominated urban development pattern in San Diego has occurred over several decades and the incremental land use and transportation changes sought will likely take almost as long to realize.

Another significant factor that will influence the pace at which the City of Villages strategy will be implemented is the rate of future population growth in the San Diego region. The pattern of development envisioned in the City of Villages strategy will not be affected by the rate of growth, but the number of villages, and the demand for development within individual villages, will be influenced in part by population growth pressures. A demographic trend that could influence implementation of the City of Villages strategy is the steadily increasing proportion of elderly among the City’s population as the Baby Boom generation ages. Many elderly people are unable or otherwise choose not to drive as frequently. The creation of a more pedestrian- and transit-oriented urban pattern around village centers will provide more options to the elderly than the auto-oriented pattern of development that has prevailed in the past. Under the City of Villages strategy, many elderly may choose mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods that are accessible by transit or walking to a full-range of services and facilities.

It should also be noted that future environmental, political, and economic conditions, and other factors that cannot be predicted at the present time could affect the rate and scale of San Diego’s growth and development

Conclusion

The General Plan is intended to provide an enlightened strategy for the future development of the City – a strategy that values the distinctiveness of our communities while recognizing that San Diego is a major metropolis. The plan builds upon what is good in San Diego’s communities, protects the City’s canyons and open spaces, strives for a sustainable use of resources, and seeks to preserve a high quality-of-life for future generations. The General Plan relies upon the community plans to provide the site-specific guidance that will lead to implementation of many of the General Plan policies, and the continued involvement of an engaged citizenry to monitor its implementation.