City of San Diego
General Plan
Final Public Review Draft
October 2006
City Planning and Community Investment Department
www. sandiego. gov
Jerry Sanders
Mayor
October 2006 - Draft I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ i
San Diego’s Planning History .................................................................................................... i
A New General Plan.................................................................................................................. ii
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK............................................................................... SF- 1
Role and Purpose of The General Plan ................................................................................ SF- 2
City of Villages Strategy...................................................................................................... SF- 3
Regional Planning/ Inter- Jurisdictional Coordination .......................................................... SF- 5
Guiding Principles................................................................................................................ SF- 6
Element Summaries .............................................................................................................. SF- 7
Land Use and Community Plan Element ............................................................................. SF- 7
Mobility Element ............................................................................................................... SF- 10
Urban Design Element....................................................................................................... SF- 12
Economic Prosperity Element ............................................................................................ SF- 13
Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element................................................................... SF- 16
Recreation Element ............................................................................................................ SF- 20
Conservation Element........................................................................................................ SF- 23
Historic Preservation Element ........................................................................................... SF- 25
Noise Element .................................................................................................................... SF- 26
Housing Element................................................................................................................ SF- 27
Implementation .................................................................................................................. SF- 28
LAND USE AND COMMUNITY PLANNING ELEMENT.......................................... LU- 3
A. City of Villages Strategy........................................................................................... LU- 6
B. General Plan Land Use Categories ......................................................................... LU- 11
C. Community Planning .............................................................................................. LU- 20
D. Plan Amendment Process ........................................................................................ LU- 24
E. Planning For Coastal Resources .............................................................................. LU- 27
F. Consistency............................................................................................................. LU- 29
G. Airport Land Use Compatibility ............................................................................. LU- 30
H. Balanced Communities and Equitable Development .............................................. LU- 33
I. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................. LU- 36
J. Proposition ‘ A’ – The Managed Growth Initiative ( 1985) ...................................... LU- 39
K. Annexations............................................................................................................. LU- 41
Table of Contents
II The City of San Diego General Plan
MOBILITY ELEMENT ................................................................................... ME- 3
A. Walkable Communities............................................................................................ ME- 6
B. Transit First ............................................................................................................ ME- 16
C. Street and Freeway System .................................................................................... ME- 20
D. Intelligent Transportation Systems ........................................................................ ME- 32
E. Transportation Demand Management................................................................... ME- 34
F. Bicycling................................................................................................................. ME- 37
G. Parking Management ............................................................................................ ME- 39
H. Airports .................................................................................................................. ME- 42
I. Passenger Rail......................................................................................................... ME- 46
J. Goods Movement/ Freight...................................................................................... ME- 48
K. Regional Coordination and Financing ................................................................... ME- 51
URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT ........................................................................... UD- 3
A. General Urban Design ............................................................................................. UD- 5
B. Distinctive Neighborhoods and Residential Design.............................................. UD- 16
C. Mixed- Use Villages and Commercial Areas .......................................................... UD- 20
D. Office and Business Park Development ................................................................. UD- 26
E. Public Spaces and Civic Architecture .................................................................... UD- 28
F. Public Art and Cultural Amenities ......................................................................... UD- 30
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY ELEMENT .................................................................. EP- 3
A. Industrial Land Use .................................................................................................... EP- 5
B. Commercial Land Use.............................................................................................. EP- 13
C. Regional and Subregional Employment Areas ......................................................... EP- 17
D. Education and Workforce Development ................................................................. EP- 18
E. Employment Development ...................................................................................... EP- 20
F. Business Development.............................................................................................. EP- 23
G. Community and Infrastructure Investment .............................................................. EP- 25
H. Military Installations ................................................................................................ EP- 26
I. Visitor Industries ...................................................................................................... EP- 27
J. International Trade, Maritime Trade, and Border Relations .................................... EP- 29
K. Redevelopment......................................................................................................... EP- 32
L. Economic Information, Monitoring, And Strategic Initiatives ................................ EP- 34
Table of Contents
October 2006 - Draft III
PUBLIC FACILITIES, SERVICES AND SAFETY........................................................ PF- 3
A. Public Facilities Financing .......................................................................................... PF- 5
B. Public Facilities and Services Prioritization ............................................................. PF- 11
C. Evaluation of Growth, Facilities, and Services ......................................................... PF- 14
D. Fire- Rescue ............................................................................................................... PF- 17
E. Police........................................................................................................................ PF- 21
F. Wastewater............................................................................................................... PF- 24
G. Storm Water Infrastructure ...................................................................................... PF- 28
H. Water Infrastructure ................................................................................................. PF- 30
I. Waste Management ................................................................................................. PF- 33
J. Libraries.................................................................................................................... PF- 39
K. Schools..................................................................................................................... PF- 41
L. Information Infrastructure ........................................................................................ PF- 44
M. Public Utilities.......................................................................................................... PF- 46
N. Regional Facilities..................................................................................................... PF- 50
O. Healthcare Services And Facilities ........................................................................... PF- 52
P. Disaster Preparedness............................................................................................... PF- 53
Q. Seismic Safety .......................................................................................................... PF- 55
RECREATION ELEMENT.................................................................................. RE- 3
A. Recreational Opportunities ........................................................................................ RE- 6
B. Preservation.............................................................................................................. RE- 11
C. Accessibility ............................................................................................................. RE- 13
D. Joint Use and Cooperative Partnerships .................................................................. RE- 16
E. Open Space Lands and Resource- Based Parks ......................................................... RE- 19
F. Park and Recreation Guidelines ............................................................................... RE- 23
CONSERVATION ELEMENT............................................................................. CE- 3
A. Sustainable Development.......................................................................................... CE- 4
B. Open Space and Landform Preservation................................................................... CE- 8
C. Coastal Resources.................................................................................................... CE- 13
D. Water Resources Management................................................................................ CE- 16
E. Urban Runoff Management .................................................................................... CE- 21
F. Air Quality .............................................................................................................. CE- 26
G. Biological Diversity................................................................................................. CE- 29
H. Wetlands ................................................................................................................. CE- 30
I. Energy Independence.............................................................................................. CE- 32
J. Urban Forestry ........................................................................................................ CE- 34
Table of Contents
IV The City of San Diego General Plan
K. Mineral Production ................................................................................................. CE- 37
L. Agricultural Resources............................................................................................. CE- 39
M. Border/ International Conservation.......................................................................... CE- 40
N. Environmental Education........................................................................................ CE- 44
NOISE ELEMENT ......................................................................................... NE- 3
A. Noise and Land Use Compatibility ......................................................................... NE- 6
B. Motor Vehicle Traffic Noise................................................................................... NE- 10
C. Trolley and Train Noise.......................................................................................... NE- 11
D. Aircraft Noise.......................................................................................................... NE- 12
E. Commercial and Mixed- Use Activity Noise........................................................... NE- 16
F. Industrial Activity Noise ......................................................................................... NE- 17
G. Construction, Refuse Vehicles, Parking Lot Sweepers
and Public Nuisance Noise ..................................................................................... NE- 18
H. Event Noise............................................................................................................. NE- 19
I. Typical Noise Attenuation Methods....................................................................... NE- 19
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT ............................................................... HP- 3
A. Identification and Preservation of Historical Resources ......................................... HP- 10
B. Historic Preservation, Education, Benefits and Incentives...................................... HP- 14
APPENDICES – TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................. AP- 3
Appendix A - Strategic Framework Element............................................................ AP- 5
Appendix B - Land Use and Community Planning Element .................................. AP- 19
Appendix C - Economic Prosperity Element ......................................................... AP- 31
Appendix D - Conservation Element .................................................................... AP- 41
Appendix E - Historic Preservation Element.......................................................... AP- 43
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ GL- 3
October 2006 - Draft V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MAYOR
Jerry Sanders
CITY COUNCIL
Council President Scott Peters
Councilmember Kevin Faulconer
Councilmember Toni Atkins
Councilmember Tony Young
Councilmember Brian Maienschein
Councilmember Donna Frye
Councilmember Jim Madaffer
Councilmember Ben Hueso
CITY ATTORNEY
Michael Aguirre
PLANNING COMMISSION
Barry J. Schultz, Chairperson
Kathleen Garcia, Vice Chairperson
Carolyn Chase
Robert Griswold
Eric Naslund
Gil Ontai
Dennis Otsuji
CITY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT
William Anderson, FAICP, Director
Betsy McCullough, AICP, Deputy Director
GENERAL PLAN STAFF
Nancy Bragado, Program Manager
Marco Camacho, Senior Management Analyst
Jean Cameron, Senior Planner
Tait Galloway, Senior Planner
Maureen Gardiner, P. E., Associate Traffic Engineer
Bill Levin, Senior Planner
Marlon Pangilinan, Senior Planner
Cecilia Williams, AICP, Program Manager
Cathy Winterrowd, Senior Planner
GRAPHIC DESIGN AND MAPS
Jan Atha, Principal Engineering Aide
Rick Brown, Graphic Designer
Mike Klein, Information Systems Analyst II
SUPPORT STAFF
Shirley Atencio, Administrative Aide II
Jacqueline Dominguez, Clerical Assistant II
Anne Havin, Word Processing Operator
Nancee Thomas, Proofreader
CONTRIBUTING STAFF
CITY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT
Charlene Gabriel, Facilities Financing
Russell Gibbon, Community and Economic
Development
Samir Hajjiri, P. E., Transportation Planning
Melanie Johnson, Multiple Species Conservation
Program
Diane Kane, PhD, AICP, Historical Resources
Jeanne Krosch, Multiple Species Conservation
Program
Linda Marabian, P. E., Transportation Planning
Kelley Saunders, Historical Resources
Michele St. Bernard, Community and Economic
Development
COMMISSION FOR ARTS AND CULTURE
Victoria L. Hamilton
Dana Springs
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Kelly Broughton
Werner Landry
Amanda Lee
Robert Manis
ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS
DEPARTMENT
Richard Leja
Acknowledgments
VI The City of San Diego General Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Tom Blair
Linda Pratt
Lisa Wood
FIRE- RESCUE DEPARTMENT
Tracy Jarman
Sam Oates
HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT
Donna Faller
LIBRARY DEPARTMENT
Mary Ann Tilotta
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT
Joe Harris
Andrew Kleis
Michael Scahill
Chris Zirkle
PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Joshua Garcia
Howard Greenstein
Jeff Harkness
April Penera
Deborah Sharpe
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Marta Williams
WATER DEPARTMENT
Jeffery Pasek
Leonard Wilson
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS
Anthony J. Lettieri, FAICP
Dennis Ryan, Formatting Editor
Andy Spurlock, President Spurlock Poirier Landscape
Architects
FORMER PLANNING STAFF:
Patsy Chow
Coleen Clementson
Jennifer Duval
S. Gail Goldberg
Keith Greer
Gary Halbert
Dan Joyce
Anna McPherson
Monica Munoz
Randy Rodriguez
Anna Shepherd
Noah Stewart
John Wilhoit
FORMER PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
William Anderson
Bruce Brown
Anthony J. Lettieri
Mark Steele
PARTICIPATING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Commission for Arts and Culture
Community Forest Advisory Board
Historical Resources Board
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
Technical Advisory Committee to the Land Use and
Housing Committee
Wetlands Advisory Board
Acknowledgments
October 2006 - Draft VII
COMMUNITY PLANNERS COMMITTEE ( CPC)
COMMUNITY PLANNERS COMMITTEE GENERAL
PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE
Steve Laub, CPC Chair
Leo Wilson, Subcommittee 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
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
Rancho Penasquitos Planning Board
Sabre Springs Planning Group
Peninsula Community Planning Board
Rancho Bernardo Community Planning Board
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
BioCom
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Transportation
Center on Policy Initiatives
Citizens Coordinate for Century 3
Community Forest Advisory Board
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
Industrial Environmental Association
Kiwanis Club of Old San Diego
Kyocera
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
Otay Mesa Community Planning Commission
Acknowledgments
VIII The City of San Diego General Plan
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 Commission
San Diego Housing Federation
San Diego Labor Council
San Diego Organizing Project
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
Science and Technology Commission
Sierra Club
Small Business Advisory Board
Society of American Military Engineers
Society of Architecture and Engineering
Solar Turbines
Technical Advisory Board of Development Services
University Community Planning Group
Uptown Partnership
Urban Council
United States Green Building Council
United States Marine Corps
United States Navy
Walk San Diego
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
i
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 fi rst 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 preservation of unique neighborhoods, good jobs
and housing for all San Diegans, protection and enhancement of the environment, development
of a diverse economy, an effi cient 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 fi rst
Progress Guide and General Plan, and in 1967 the City Council adopted and the electorate
ratifi ed that document as the fi rst 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 infl uence on the subsequent comprehensive update of the
Progress Guide and General Plan adopted in 1979.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
ii
The City experienced both signifi cant growth and a serious recession over the two following
decades. Residential development reached the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. 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.
A New General Plan
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.
The Strategic Framework is a section of the General Plan. It incorporates the Strategic
Framework Element vision statement, presents ten guiding General Plan principles, summarizes
the City of Villages strategy, and provides an overview of the General Plan elements. Specifi c
policies, fi gures, tables, and appendices are found in the complete General Plan document. For
the reader’s convenience, the General Plan Land Use and Street System Map ( Land Use Element,
Figure LU- 3) and the Transit/ Land Use Connections Map ( Mobility Element, Figure ME- 1) are
reprinted in the Strategic Framework section. The complete General Plan is available to the
public on the City of San Diego’s website ( www. sandiego. gov), on compact disc ( enclosed as a
part of the Strategic Framework publication), and as a printed document.
A century after Nolen, San Diego is once again anticipating its future and defi ning 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 new
General Plan.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 1
Strategic Framework
We are stewards of a remarkable resource, a City on the Pacifi c 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 defi ne 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 Pacifi c 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 fi rst General
Plan in the City’s continuing history that
must address most future growth without
expansion onto its open spaces. It establishes
the strategic framework for how the City
grows while maintaining the qualities that best
defi ne San Diego.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 2
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 fl exibility 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 ten elements: Land Use
and Community Planning; Mobility; Economic Prosperity; Public Facilities, Services and Safety;
Urban Design; Recreation; Historic Preservation; Conservation; Noise; and Housing. 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
confl ict with one another, and that no one element may take precedence over another.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 3
City of Villages Strategy
The City of Villages strategy
focuses growth into mixed-use
activity centers that are
pedestrian- friendly districts
linked to an improved
regional transit system. 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.
A “ village” is defi ned 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 streets and public spaces. 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. Over time, villages will connect to each other via an expanded regional transit system.
Implementation of the City of Villages strategy relies upon the designation and development
of village sites. There are many factors to consider when designating village sites including the
capacity for growth, existing and future public facilities, transportation options, community
character, and environmental constraints. Precise village boundaries, the specifi c mix of uses,
architectural form, needed public facilities, and the type of public space within proposed village
areas will be determined through community plan updates or amendments. The hierarchy of
village types and development areas is shown and described below.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 4
Community and
Neighborhood
Village Centers are
locally- oriented
mixed- use commercial
and residential
districts where residents and visitors come
together. They are staging areas for transit.
Community and Neighborhood Village Centers
can range in size from just a few to more than
100 acres. Community Village Centers serve a
larger area than Neighborhood Village Centers
and may have a more signifi cant employment
component than a neighborhood village.
Downtown San Diego a has a unique role to play in
the 21st century development of the San Diego region.
In addition to being the administrative, legal, cultural
and entertainment center in the region, downtown
also offers the most convenient and extensive transit
connections and has emerged as an exciting pedestrian
environment.
Subregional Employment Areas are
major employment and/ or commercial
areas within the region containing
corporate or multiple- use offi ce,
industrial, and retail uses with some
adjacent multifamily residential uses.
Existing Subregional Employment
Areas include the Mission Valley/
Morena/ Grantville and University/
Sorrento Mesa areas.
The City contains commercial corridors that are lively and vital;
pedestrian- friendly; home to a rich variety of small businesses,
restaurants, and homes; and served by higher frequency transit
service. Transit corridors provide valuable new housing
opportunities with fewer impacts to the regional freeway system
because of their available transit service. Some corridors would
benefi t from revitalization.
Urban Village Centers are higher- density nodes within subregional
employment areas. They cluster more intensive employment, residential,
commercial, and civic uses, integrated with public spaces, to encourage
walking and to support transit.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 5
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, infi ll, and new
growth to be targeted into compact, mixed- use, and walkable villages that are connected to a
regional transit system. Villages should increase personal transportation choices and minimize
transportation impacts through design that pays attention to the needs of people traveling by
transit, foot, and bicycle, as well as the automobile. Focused development and density adjacent
to transit stops that link where people live to where people work, shop, and recreate helps make
transit convenient for more people. It 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 helps support the use 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 fold- out map,
Mobility Element, Figure ME- 1). This map identifi es 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.
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 Unifi ed Port District, the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG), 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 offi cials serving on the SANDAG
Board of Directors, staff participation on SANDAG advisory committees, and direct public
participation in the process.
The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted a Regional Comprehensive Plan ( RCP) in 2004
that provides a strategic planning framework for the San Diego region. The RCP encourages
cities and the county to increase residential and employment concentrations in areas with the
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 6
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.
The updated General Plan translated these organizing
principles into new policy direction in the ten 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 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 manage the City’s
continued growth over the long term.
best existing and future transit connections, and to preserve important open spaces. The RCP
includes an Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy and serves as a unifying document for
a number of other regional initiatives covering topics such as housing, economic prosperity,
habitat preservation, and environmental resource protection. The RCP 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 RCP.
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 refl ect 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 transit, roadways, and freeways that
effi ciently 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.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 7
Element Summaries
Land Use and Community Planning Element
Purpose
To guide future growth and development into a sustainable citywide development pattern,
while maintaining or enhancing quality of life in our communities.
The Land Use and Community Planning Element ( Land Use Element) provides policies to
implement the City of Villages strategy within the context of San Diego’s community planning
program. The Element addresses land use issues that apply to the City as a whole and identifi es
the community planning program as the mechanism to designate land uses, identify site- specifi c
recommendations, and refi ne citywide policies as needed. The Land Use Element establishes a
structure that respects the diversity of each community and includes policy direction to govern
the preparation of community plans. The Element addresses zoning and policy consistency,
the plan amendment process, airport- land use planning, balanced communities, equitable
development, and environmental justice. The Land Use Element also has sections covering the
California Coastal Act and its implementation in San Diego, and the history and implementation
of Proposition A – the Managed Growth Initiative of 1985. Information on how San Diego’s plan
relates to regional planning efforts is provided on page SF- 5.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 8
Land Use and Street System
The Land Use Element identifi es seven General Plan land use categories: Parks, Open Space and
Recreation; Agriculture; Residential; Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services; Industrial
Employment; Institutional, Public, and Semi- Public Facilities; and Multiple Use. These land uses
are displayed on the General Plan Land Use and Street System Map ( see fold- out map, Land Use
Element, Figure LU- 2). This map also identifi es the planned street system, freeways, expressways,
arterials, and collector streets needed to serve vehicular transportation demand resulting from the
development of the City in accordance with this General Plan. The map is based upon a composite
of the more detailed land use and circulation system maps adopted for each community.
The seven land use categories permit a general, citywide view of land use distribution. For greater
specifi city, the General Plan identifi es 26 “ Recommended Community Plan Designations” that are to
be applied during community plan updates and amendments. These 26 designations were derived
from grouping some 160 existing ( 2006) community plan designations that share similar defi nitions
( see Appendix B, LU- 2). Standardized designations were developed so that over time, community
plans will share a common terminology.
Community Planning
The City of San Diego has more than fi fty planning areas ( see Land Use Element, Figure LU- 3).
The community planning program has a long and diverse history with the earliest community plans
being adopted in the 1960s. Each document is a unique refl ection of the issues and trends facing the
community and includes corresponding strategies to implement community goals.
Community plans represent a vital component of the City’s Land Use Element because they
contain more detailed land use designations and describe the distribution of land uses better
than is possible at the citywide document level. San Diego is one of the few jurisdictions in the
state that has the size, diversity, and land use patterns that necessitate community- based land
use plans. The community- specifi c detail found in community plans is also used in the review
process for both public and private development projects. While the community plan addresses
specifi c community needs, its policies and recommendations must remain in harmony with other
community plans, the overall General Plan, and citywide policies.
Community plans are also the vehicle for implementing state laws pertaining to provision of
housing opportunities, and meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs. As community
plans designate land uses and assign densities, they must preserve or increase planned density
of residential land uses to ensure that the City is able to meet its share of the region’s housing
needs. Implementation of community- based goals may cause a shift in densities within or between
community planning areas but together they must maintain or increase overall housing capacity.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 9
Community plans and other adopted land use plans are implemented through application of a
broad range of zones, regulations and programs.
Balanced Communities and Equitable Development
“ Balanced communities” have a diverse mix of housing types that are suitable for households
of various income levels. Balanced communities can contribute toward achievement of a
fair and equitable society, and have the additional advantage of providing more people with
the opportunity to live near their work. City initiatives that work toward more balanced
communities and to increase the supply and distribution of affordable housing include the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ( 2003), the City of Villages strategy ( 2002), the Housing
Element update ( 2006) and the remainder of the General Plan update ( 2007). The City of
Villages strategy strives to increase housing supply and diversity through the development of
compact, mixed- use villages in specifi ed areas. This strategy also helps to achieve some of the
jobs/ housing benefi ts of balanced communities at a broader scale by encouraging better links
from homes to jobs and services throughout the region.
The City of Villages strategy also includes a commitment to equitable development and
environmental justice. Equitable development is concerned with the creation and maintenance
of economically and socially diverse communities, and environmental justice strives for fair
treatment of all people with respect to development and implementation of environmental laws,
policies, regulations and practices.
Measures to support attainment of equitable development will occur as a part of village master
plans or other long- range plans as appropriate. General Plan policies call for working toward
environmental justice through broadening public input, prioritizing and allocating citywide
resources to benefi t communities in need, and striving for equity in environmental protection and
in the location of undesirable land uses, among other initiatives.
mural by Eddie L. Edwards, Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Center
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 10
Mobility Element
Purpose
To improve mobility through development of a balanced, multi- modal
transportation network.
The Mobility Element contains policies that promote a balanced, multi- modal transportation
network that gets us where we want to go and minimizes environmental and neighborhood
impacts. A balanced network is one in which each mode, or type of transportation, is able to
contribute to an effi cient network of services meeting varied user needs. For example, the
element contains policies that will help walking become more attractive for short trips, and for
transit to more effectively link often visited destinations, while still preserving auto- mobility. In
addition to addressing walking, streets, and transit, the element also includes policies related to
regional collaboration, bicycling, parking, the movement of goods , and other components of our
transportation system. Taken together, these policies advance a strategy for relieving congestion
and increasing transportation choices in a manner that strengthens the City of Villages land use
vision.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 11
The Land Use and Community Planning, and Mobility Elements of the General Plan are closely
linked. The Land Use and Community Planning Element identifi es existing and planned land uses.
The Mobility Element identifi es the proposed transportation network and strategies which have
been designed to meet the future transportation needs generated by these land uses. Mobility
Element policies related to project design and multi- modal facilities will be implemented through
public and private development and capital improvement projects.
The City’s transportation strategies and policies cannot be discussed in isolation. The General
Plan is a part of a larger body of plans and programs that guide the development and management
of the transportation system.
• The Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP), prepared and adopted by the San Diego Association
of Governments ( SANDAG), is the region’s long- range mobility plan. The RTP plans for and
identifi es projects for multiple modes of transportation in order to achieve a balanced regional
system. It establishes the basis for state funding of local and regional transportation projects,
and its adoption is a prerequisite for federal funding. SANDAG prioritizes and allocates the
expenditure of regional, state and federal transportation funds to implement RTP projects.
• The region’s Congestion Management Program ( CMP), also prepared by SANDAG,
serves as a short- term element of the RTP. It focuses on actions that can be implemented in
advance of the longer- range transportation solutions contained within the RTP. The CMP
establishes programs for mitigating the traffi c impacts of new development and monitoring the
performance of system roads relative to Level of Service ( LOS) standards. It links land use,
transportation, and air quality concerns.
The Mobility Element, the RTP, and the CMP all highlight the importance of integrating
transportation and land use planning decisions, and using multi- modal strategies to reduce
congestion and increase travel choices. The Mobility Element Section K, and Public Facilities,
Financing and Safety Element Section B, contain policies on how to work effectively with
SANDAG to help ensure that City of San Diego transportation priorities are implemented. More
information on regional planning is included on page 5.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 12
Urban Design Element
Purpose
To guide physical development toward a desired image that is consistent with the social,
economic and aesthetic values of the City.
Urban Design Element policies capitalize on San Diego’s natural beauty and unique
neighborhoods by calling for development that respects the natural setting, enhances the
distinctiveness of our neighborhoods, strengthens the natural and built linkages, and creates
mixed- use, walkable villages throughout the City.
Urban design describes the physical
features that defi ne the character or
image of a street, neighborhood,
community, or the City as a
whole. Urban design is the visual
and sensory relationship between
people, and the natural and built
environment. The built environment
includes buildings, walkways and
streets, and the natural environment
includes features such as shorelines,
canyons, mesas, and parks as they
shape and are incorporated into the
urban framework.
Each resident and visitor may perceive San Diego’s aesthetic character differently, although there
are several basic design elements that are commonly recognized by all. San Diego’s distinctive
character results from its natural setting, including beaches, bays, hills, canyons and mesas that
allow the evolution of geographically distinct neighborhoods. The network of small human-scaled
canyons creates a natural open space system that extends through many parts of the City.
The topography and San Diego’s year- round climate are ideal for outdoor pedestrian activity of
all kinds.
There are several urban design principles relating to the existing City form and a compact and
environmentally sensitive pattern of development envisioned in the City of Villages strategy.
These principles are identifi ed below to provide a framework for the goals of the Urban Design
Element:
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 13
• Contribute to the qualities that distinguish San Diego as a unique living environment;
• Build upon our existing communities;
• Direct growth into commercial areas where a high level of activity already exists, and
• Preserve stable residential neighborhoods.
The Urban Design Element addresses urban form and design through policies that respect San
Diego’s natural environment, work to preserve open space systems and target new growth into
compact villages. Urban form and how it functions becomes increasingly important as increases
in density and intensity occur over time. The urban design principles established in this Element
are intended to help achieve an identity for the City as a whole while encompassing its physical,
social and cultural diversity. A higher overall quality of urban design is another fundamental
goal. Urban design applies at multiple levels from citywide to community to neighborhood and
ultimately to individual projects. Urban design is a process to foster quality in the built and
natural environment as the City of San Diego changes.
Urban Design Element policies help support and implement land use and transportation decisions,
encourage economic revitalization, and improve the quality of life in San Diego. Ultimately,
the General Plan’s Urban Design Element infl uences the implementation of all elements of the
General Plan and community plans as it establishes goals and policies for the pattern and scale
of development and the character of the built environment. The urban design policies will be
further supplemented with site- specifi c community plan recommendations.
Economic Prosperity Element
Purpose
To increase wealth and the standard of living of all San Diegans with policies that support a
diverse, innovative, competitive, entrepreneurial, and sustainable local economy.
The structure of San Diego’s economy infl uences the City’s physical development and capacity to
fund essential services. A strong economy creates wealth that makes continued investment in, and
maintenance of, San Diego’s infrastructure possible. Over the past several decades the structure of
the City’s economy has shifted from a production- based economy to one that is increasingly based
on creativity and innovation. The Economic Prosperity Element seeks to help create an environment
that fosters this creativity and allows San Diego to better compete in the regional, national, and
global economic setting. The Element links economic prosperity goals with land use distribution
and employment land use policies. The Element also expands the traditional focus of a general plan
to include economic development policies that have a less direct effect on land use. These include
policies aimed at supporting existing and new businesses that refl ect the changing nature of industry,
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 14
creating the types of jobs most benefi cial to the
local economy, and preparing our workforce to
compete for these jobs in the global marketplace.
The Element also describes how the formation
of redevelopment project areas can be used to
help implement community goals.
Employment Lands
San Diego’s economic base is primarily composed of industries in the technological and
professional services, manufacturing, visitor industries, national security, and international trade
sectors. These “ base sector” industries bring new wealth into San Diego by exporting goods,
services, and intellectual property. Base sector industrial uses such as manufacturing, research
and development, and support uses are especially desirable as they provide middle- income
employment opportunities and livable wages. Non- base sector uses include public sector uses,
commercial services, and retail trade to residents. These uses provide essential services and
jobs for residents and are encouraged to locate in village and sub- regional employment areas.
Non- base sector uses are directly proportionate to the size of the population and strength of the
economic base; they cannot expand beyond the capacity of the economic base on which they are
dependent.
The General Plan includes the following approaches to encouraging base sector industrial uses to
remain, locate, and expand in San Diego:
• Community Plan Land Use Designations. A range of community plan industrial land uses
designations are provided to protect industrial lands through varying degrees of limitations on
non- industrial uses.
• Prime Industrial Lands. Prime industrial lands are employment areas that support base sector
industries. The Industrial and Prime Industrial Land Map ( see Economic Prosperity Element,
Figure EP- 1) identifi es the City’s existing industrially- designated land and the subset of these
lands that are identifi ed as Prime Industrial Lands. Residential and most non- industrial uses
are not permitted within “ prime” areas in order to protect base sector uses from potential land
use confl icts and to maintain capacity for base sector industry growth.
• Business Incentives. City incentives programs are to be revised so that they offer increased
benefi ts to projects and industries that have a demonstrated potential of providing middle-income
jobs, and contributing to community revitalization.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 15
Having an adequate supply of workforce housing is also an important factor in meeting the needs
of businesses in San Diego. The City of Villages strategy encourages higher- density housing to
be located in or near certain employment areas and village centers to better link jobs, housing
and transportation. This integration of uses is encouraged in areas outside of the Prime Industrial
Lands ( based on an analysis of area characteristics) to help meet the City’s workforce housing
needs. The Housing Element contains more detailed goals and strategies to increase the supply
and affordability of housing in San Diego.
Economic Opportunities and Investments
The Economic Prosperity Element promotes economic opportunity for all segments of the
population and development of workforce skills consistent with an evolving local economy. This
Element of the General Plan includes policies to help the private sector create jobs for local
residents, encourage career ladders and benefi ts for service sector employment, and to help
increase access to education and training to meet today’s business needs.
Additional policies are designed to encourage community revitalization through improving
access to regional and national sources of public and private investment, to target infrastructure
development to support economic prosperity, and to leverage the redevelopment process in
certain communities.
While this Element establishes economic prosperity goals and policies, it also calls for the
periodic preparation and more frequent updates of the City’s Community and Economic
Development Strategy. The strategy will identify and monitor those San Diego industries
that are growing and are globally competitive. It will also translate policies into more specifi c
programs and near to mid- term actions, in response to changes in the global economy.
The achievement of economic prosperity goals also relies on policies in the Land Use and
Community Planning Element to appropriately designate land for economic development, the
Mobility Element to provide a link between housing and jobs, and the Public Facilities, Services
and Safety Element to address the development of regional facilities needed to reinforce the
viability of our industrial areas.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 16
Public Facilities, Services, and Safety Element
Purpose
To provide the public facilities and services needed to serve the existing population and new
growth.
Providing adequate public facilities to serve the
City’s current and future population continues to
be a great challenge. The Public Facilities, Services,
and Safety Element ( Public Facilities Element)
responds to this challenge through policies that
address public fi nancing strategies, public and
developer fi nancing responsibilities, prioritization,
and the provision of specifi c facilities and services
that must accompany growth. The policies
within the Public Facilities Element also apply to
transportation, and park and recreation facilities
and services.
The 1979 Progress Guide and General Plan ( 1979 General
Plan) established a growth management program
to address the rapid growth on the periphery of the
City, and the declining growth trend in the central
areas of the City. The plan sought to revitalize
the central business district, and phase growth and
development in outlying areas in accordance with
the availability of public facilities and services.
In 1979, the City was divided into three “ tiers:” “ Urbanized,” “ Planned Urbanizing,” and “ Future
Urbanizing.” The Planned Urbanizing areas consisted of newly developing communities where
development was required to “ pay its own way” through the use of Facilities Benefi t Assessments
( FBAs), or other fi nancing mechanisms. Growth was encouraged in urbanized communities, with
the assumption that General Fund public capital improvement expenditures would be provided
in those areas. Over time, the FBAs were largely successful in providing facilities in the then-developing
communities, but the General Fund fell short in meeting the public facilities needs of
urbanized communities. In addition, the City’s Development Impact Fee ( DIF) program for the
funding of public facilities in urbanized communities was not adopted until 1987.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 17
The 2002 Strategic Framework Element identifi ed the facilities defi cit in urbanized communities,
and reaffi rmed the need to address existing and future public facility and service needs in those
areas and throughout the City. The Strategic Framework Element was also the catalyst for an
effort to identify and map certain existing facilities in each of the City’s community planning areas.
Facilities Financing
Financing Strategy. As the majority of San Diego’s communities are now primarily “ Urbanized,”
the General Plan provides a multi- faceted facilities fi nancing strategy framework to address
existing needs, provide adequate facilities to support infi ll development, and plan for the ongoing
need to fund operations and maintenance throughout the City.
Key points of the General Plan fi nancing strategy are that:
• The City and current population base are responsible for funding existing facilities
defi ciencies;
• Funding for existing public facilities defi ciencies will come through diverse funding resources;
and
• New development will pay its proportional fair- share of public facilities costs.
The Element identifi es a menu of fi nancing options that could be implemented in order for the
City to meet its responsibility to correct existing public facilities defi ciencies. To supplement
the General Plan, a more detailed strategy to identify specifi c mechanisms for fi nancing various
facility types in targeted geographic areas will be prepared and updated more frequently as needs
are reassessed and new mechanisms are developed.
Other implementation actions include
anticipated amendments to the City’s DIF
methodology and public facilities fi nancing
plans. Under impact fee methodologies
in place as of 2006, fees collected did not
keep pace with escalating facility needs
and costs, and were intended to only fund
a proportional share of new facilities. It
is expected that DIFs will need to be
applied in more communities in the future
as areas developed as planned urbanizing
communities in the past experience infi ll
development that was not anticipated in
their FBAs.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 18
Prioritization. The General
Plan establishes the framework
for an objective and systematic
approach to prioritizing the
financing of public facilities.
The aim is to strengthen
the relationship between
the City’s General Plan and
annual Capital Improvements
Program ( CIP), to maximize
effi ciencies in the annual
allocation of capital resources,
and to implement the City
of Villages strategy. Policies
call for the City to use a standardized approach to facility prioritization that includes: identifying
relevant criteria, evaluating projects based on that criteria, and producing a prioritized list of
projects by facility type. Community plan conformance and preferences are to be a part of the
prioritization process.
Evaluation of Growth, Facilities, and Services. In evaluating new growth, the General Plan
requires new development to mitigate its impacts and avoid making facility defi cits worse. Key
policies require development proposals to fully address impacts to public facilities and services,
and require projects that necessitate a community plan amendment due to increased densities
to provide or help fund physical improvements that benefi t the affected community planning
area. In addition, General Plan policies call for the establishment of a centralized development
monitoring system; and for the maintenance of up- to- date public facilities fi nancing plans to guide
the provision of public facilities.
Facilities Guidelines
The General Plan provides policies to guide the provision of a wide range of public facilities and
services, as summarized in Table SF- 1.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 19
Facility Type Topics Addressed in Policies
Fire- Rescue • Response time objectives for fi re and emergency medical services
• Annual emergency incident volume to evaluate impacts on services
Police • Average response time goals for various priority calls
• Guidelines for evaluating when additional resources are needed to
maintain service levels
Wastewater Wastewater treatment and disposal services, and infrastructure planning
Storm Water
Infrastructure
• Storm water conveyance system
• Storm water facility and service demands
Water Infrastructure Water supply and infrastructure ( see Conservation Element regarding
water conservation)
Waste Management Waste collection, reduction, recycling, and disposal
Libraries Library planning and design guidelines
Schools Coordination with districts on school design, location, and joint- use
Information
Infrastructure
Integrated information infrastructure system
Public Utilities • Collaboration with regional public utility providers in the planning
and provision of their services and facilities
• Consideration of utility investments in potential village areas
Regional Facilities Planning and implementation of regional facilities and infrastructure
investments
Healthcare Services
and Facilities
• Participation with healthcare providers in facilities siting decisions
• Integration with the City’s growth strategy
Disaster Preparedness Preparation for man- made and natural disasters, and plans for
restoration of municipal services
Seismic Safety Seismic, geologic, and structural considerations in the built environment
to protect health and safety
Table SF- 1
Public Facilities and Services Topics
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 20
Recreation Element
Purpose
To preserve, protect, acquire, develop, operate, maintain, and enhance public recreation
opportunities and facilities throughout the City for all users.
The City of San Diego has over 36,300 acres of park and open space lands that offer a diverse
range of recreational opportunities. The City’s parks, open space, trails, and recreation facilities
annually serve millions of residents and visitors and play an important role in the physical, mental,
social, and environmental health of the City and its residents. Parks can improve the quality of
life by strengthening the body and assisting in maintaining physical well- being. Mental and social
benefi ts include providing visual relief from urban development, passive recreational opportunities
that refresh the mind and provide opportunities for social interaction, and healthy activities for
youth. Park and open space lands benefi t the environment by providing habitat for plants and
animals, and space for urban runoff to percolate into the soil, while also serving to decrease the
effects of urban heat islands. In addition, the City park system supports San Diego’s tourism
industry, and enhances the City’s ability to attract and retain businesses.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 21
San Diego’s environment, its coastal location, temperate climate, and diverse topography,
contribute to creating the City’s fi rst- class recreation and open space system for San Diego’s
residents and visitors. The goals and policies of the Recreation Element have been developed to
take advantage of the City’s natural environment and resources, to build upon existing recreation
facilities and services, to help achieve an equitable balance of recreational resources, and to adapt
to future recreation needs.
It has become an increasing challenge to meet the public’s park and recreational needs as resident
and visitor populations grow and the availability of vacant land decreases. The City faces
increased demand on existing park lands and an inequitable distribution of parks citywide. The
problems are especially acute in the older, urbanized communities. The Recreation Element
contains policies to address these challenges and to work toward achieving a sustainable,
accessible, and diverse park and recreation system.
The City’s Parks and Open Space System
The City of San Diego provides three categories of parks and recreation for residents and
visitors: population- based, resource- based, and open space. These three categories of recreation,
including land, facilities and programming, constitute the City of San Diego’s municipal park and
recreation system.
• Population- based parks ( commonly known as Neighborhood and Community parks), facilities
and services are located in close proximity to residential development and are intended to
serve the daily needs of neighborhoods and communities. When possible, they adjoin schools
in order to share facilities, and ideally are within walking distance of many residences within
their service area.
• Resource- based parks are located at, or centered on, notable natural or man- made features
( beaches, canyons, habitat systems, lakes, historic sites, and cultural facilities) and are intended
to serve the citywide population, as well as visitors.
• Open space lands are city- owned land located throughout the City consisting of canyons,
mesas, and other natural landforms. This open space is intended to preserve and protect
native plants and animals, while providing public access and enjoyment through use of hiking,
biking, and equestrian trails.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 22
Park and Recreation Guidelines
The Recreation Element provides policies to guide the City’s vision and goals for park and
recreation facilities citywide and within individual communities. It provides guidelines for the
provision of population- based, resource- based, and open space parks and calls for the preparation
of a comprehensive Parks Master Plan. Recreation Element policies also support joint use and
cooperative agreements; protection and enjoyment of the City’s canyonlands; creative methods
of providing “ equivalent” recreation facilities and infrastructure in constrained areas; and,
implementation of a fi nancing strategy to better fund park facility development and maintenance.
Population- based parks are to be provided at a minimum ratio of 2.8 usable acres per 1,000
residents. Some of San Diego’s newer communities come close to meeting this standard, but
communities that were developed prior to the 1979 General Plan fall well short of this goal.
It is diffi cult to acquire parklands in already developed communities due to the cost of land
and the desire to avoid displacement of existing land uses. In recognition of the City’s land
constraints, it is proposed that some of the 2.8 acres could be satisfi ed through the application of
“ equivalencies.” “ Equivalencies” are alternative ways to meet population- based park standards.
Equivalencies are further identifi ed as “ alternatives,” a category of improvements that provide
additional park land acreage or recreation facility space; and “ enhancements” which provide
physical improvements to park lands currently owned or controlled by the City. While the
provision of increased park acreage in underserved communities will still be aggressively sought,
the application of “ equivalencies” provides a fl exible tool for satisfying community- specifi c needs
and demands in a timely manner.
The proposed Parks Master Plan is intended to provide criteria on how the “ equivalencies” would
be applied. In any case, the use of equivalencies is limited to no more than 50 percent of the
required parklands. Equivalency determinations are to occur as part of the discretionary project
review process with input from the community.
Parks Master Plan
The Recreation Element calls for the preparation of a citywide Parks Master Plan that will
establish a citywide parks network, inventory and evaluate all City park lands, recreational
uses, facilities, and services; set priorities for protection and enhancement of existing park
and recreation assets, develop implementation strategies to meet community needs; address
inequitable access to recreational resources; and establish the basis for a sound fi nancing
mechanism to develop, enhance and maintain the City’s park network and recreational resources.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 23
Park Financing
In addition to facing land constraints, the City has been continually challenged with fi nancial
constraints regarding park development, maintenance and operations. Therefore, it is essential
that new parks and recreation facilities, and improvements to existing parks and facilities, be
designed and constructed to endure their intended use with minimal funding for maintenance or
upgrades during the expected useful life of the facility. Sustainable development features including
the application of water and energy conservation measures, “ green” building technology, low-maintenance
plantings, and design that is sensitive to local environmental conditions can help
reduce long- term costs ( see also the Conservation Element, Section A).
The key to providing increased recreation opportunities on a long- term basis is to identify and
ensure adequate fi nancing for park development, maintenance and staffi ng. The Recreation
Element calls for the City to collect land and/ or appropriate park fees for population- based park
and recreation facilities to serve future residents.
The Recreation Element is interconnected to other elements of the General Plan. In particular,
the Conservation Element provides additional policies for protecting and preserving our
recreational natural resources, canyons, and open spaces, and the Public Facilities Element
provides policies on public facilities fi nancing, prioritizing, and development impact fees. Overall,
the City of Villages strategy reinforces the importance of recreation as an essential quality- of- life
factor that needs to be integrated into every community.
Conservation Element
Purpose
To become an international model of sustainable development. To provide for the long- term
conservation and sustainable management of the rich natural resources that help defi ne the
City’s identity, contribute to its economy, and improve its quality of life.
Conservation is the planned management, preservation, and wise utilization of natural resources
and landscapes. The Conservation Element contains policies to guide the conservation
of resources that are fundamental components of San Diego’s environment, that help defi ne
the City’s identify, and that are relied upon for continued economic prosperity. San Diego’s
resources include, but are not limited to: water, land, air, biodiversity, minerals, natural materials,
recyclables, topography, viewsheds, and energy. Over the long- term, conservation is the most
cost- effective strategy to ensure that there will be a reliable supply of the resources that are
needed now and in the future.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 24
“ Sustainable development is
development that meets the
needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own
needs.” 1 The City is implementing
sustainable development policies
that will reduce its environmental
footprint, including: conserving
resources, following sustainable
building practices, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, and
encouraging clean technologies.
In sustainable development practices, economic growth is closely tied with environmental, “ clean,”
or “ green” technologies and industries. Clean technologies incorporate practices and/ or produce
products that ultimately meet the goals of a sustainable community. San Diego is well positioned
to become a leader in clean technology industries due to its highly qualifi ed workforce, world-class
universities and research institutions, and established high technology industries. Clean
technology industries demonstrate that environmental protection and economic competitiveness
goals are aligned and mutually benefi cial.
Multiple conservation challenges and their solutions are inextricably linked. For example, almost
sixty percent of the energy used by the City of San Diego is utilized for pumping water and
sewage, so policies for water conservation also help us save energy, which in turn reduces fossil
fuel consumption and air pollution. The City of Villages strategy to direct compact growth in
limited areas that are served by transit is, in itself, a conservation strategy. Compact, transit-served
growth is an effi cient use of urban land that reduces the need to develop outlying areas
and creates an urban form where transit, walking and bicycling are more attractive alternatives to
automobile travel. Reducing dependence on automobiles reduces vehicle miles traveled which, in
turn, improves water quality by decreasing automobile- related oil and gas leaks that pollute water
bodies throughout the City.
The Conservation Element refl ects key goals contained in many other City and regional plans
and programs and will help guide their future updates. Examples of City planning documents
and programs that currently address conservation issues are included in Appendix D, CE- 1. The
Conservation Element sets forth a citywide vision that ties these various natural resource- based
plans and programs together using a village strategy of growth and development. It contains
policies for sustainable development, preservation of open space and wildlife, management of
resources, and other initiatives to protect the public, health, safety and welfare.
1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland Report, 1987.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 25
Historic Preservation Element
Purpose
To guide the preservation, protection, restoration and rehabilitation of historical and cultural
resources and maintain a sense of the City. To improve the quality of the built environment,
encourage appreciation for the City’s history and culture, maintain the character and identity
of communities, and contribute to the City’s
economic vitality through historic preservation.
No city can hope to understand its present or to forecast
its future if it fails to recognize its past. By tracing
and preserving its past, a city can gain a clear sense
of the process by which it achieved its present form
and substance. San Diego’s rich and varied historical
and cultural resources include buildings, structures,
objects, landscapes, districts, archaeological sites, and
traditional cultural properties that possess historical,
scientifi c, architectural, aesthetic, cultural, or ethnic
signifi cance. Although not always easily distinguishable,
these resources, with their inherent ability to evoke the
past, represent important aspects of the history of San
Diego and the region, from the time before and during
European contact with Native Americans to the recent
past. The identifi cation, evaluation, registration, and protection of these resources, and thereby the
preservation of San Diego’s past for its current and future residents, are the essential components of
San Diego’s historic preservation program.
The continuing challenge is to integrate effective historic preservation into the larger planning
process. As future growth in San Diego shifts attention from building on open land to a focus on
reinvestment in existing communities, there will need to be a continued effort to protect historical
and cultural resources.
The City’s commitment to historic preservation results in multiple economic benefi ts. It is
widely recognized that where preservation is supported by local government policies and
incentives, designation can increase property values and pride of place. Revitalization of historic
downtowns and adaptive reuse of historic districts and buildings conserves resources, uses
existing infrastructure, generates local jobs and purchasing, supports small business development
and heritage tourism, and enhances quality of life and community character.
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 26
Noise Element
Purpose
To protect people living and working in the City of San Diego from excessive noise.
Noise at excessive levels can affect our
environment and our quality of life.
Noise is subjective since it is dependent
on the listener’s reaction, the time
of day, distance between source and
receptor, and its tonal characteristics.
At excessive levels, people typically
perceive noise as being intrusive,
annoying, and undesirable.
The most prevalent noise sources in San
Diego are from motor vehicle traffi c
on interstate freeways, state highways,
and local major roads generally due
to higher traffi c volumes and speeds.
Aircraft noise is also present in many
areas of the City. Rail traffi c and
industrial and commercial activities
contribute to the noise environment.
The City is primarily a developed and urbanized city, and an elevated ambient noise level is a
normal part of the urban environment. However, controlling noise at its source to acceptable
levels can make a substantial improvement in the quality of life for people living and working in
the City. When this is not feasible, the City applies additional measures to limit the affect of noise
on future land uses, which include spatial separation, site planning, and building design techniques
that address noise exposure and the insulation of buildings to reduce interior noise levels.
The Noise Element provides goals and policies to guide compatible land uses and the
incorporation of noise attenuation measures for new uses to protect people living and working
in the City from an excessive noise environment. This purpose becomes more relevant as the
City continues to grow with infi ll and mixed- use development consistent with the Land Use and
Community Planning Element.
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 27
Housing Element
Purpose
To create a comprehensive plan with specifi c measurable goals, policies and programs to
address the City’s critical housing needs.
San Diego faces a severe housing affordability crisis. Not only are low- income people and special
needs populations having diffi culty fi nding adequate affordable housing, but now many working
people are fi nding it diffi cult to remain in San Diego due to the high cost of housing. The Housing
Element identifi es and analyzes the City’s housing needs, establishes reasonable goals, objectives
and policies based on those needs, and sets forth a comprehensive fi ve- year program of actions to
achieve, as fully as possible, the identifi ed goals and objectives. The Housing Element includes
objectives, policies and programs for the following fi ve major goals:
• Provision of an adequate site inventory and new construction capacity
• Maintenance and conservation ( including preservation of existing low- income housing and
rehabilitation of existing housing stock)
• Reduction of governmental constraints that are no longer necessary
• Provision of affordable housing opportunities
• Implementation of administrative goals ( including fair share and community balance, use of
redevelopment set- aside funds, reduction of housing discrimination, and energy conservation)
City of San Diego General Plan
Strategic Framework
SF- 28
The Housing Element is intended to assist with the provision of adequate housing to serve San
Diegans of every economic level and demographic group.
State law directs that a Housing Element shall be updated at fi ve- year intervals and shall “ consist
of standards and plans for the improvement of housing and for the provision of adequate sites
for housing,” and shall “ make adequate provision for the housing needs of all segments of the
community.” The Housing Element is provided under separate cover from the rest of the General
Plan due to the need for frequent Housing Element updates, and to facilitate compliance with the
state reporting requirements. It must remain consistent with the other elements of the General
Plan and incorporate the City of Villages strategy as one of its key component of the City’s
housing strategy.
Implementation
Community plans will play a major role in the implementation of the General Plan. They provide
the site- specifi c recommendations that translate policies into actions. Other major implementation
initiatives include the Public Facilities Financing Strategy, Economic Development Strategy,
Parks Master Plan, and Housing Strategy. There are also specifi c legislative, regulatory,
administrative, and collaborative implementation actions that will be needed. These actions are
outlined in the City’s Strategic Framework Action Plan. The Action Plan outlines a fi ve- year work
program proposed to implement the General Plan and will be updated on a regular basis. While
the Action Plan identifi es near- and mid- term implementation actions, the General Plan contains
additional proposals that will be actively pursued and implemented over the long term.
The General Plan will be monitored to measure its effectiveness in achieving goals. The General
Plan Monitoring Report measures progress through: 1) the Action Plan item implementation
tracking 2) San Diego Sustainable Community Program Indicators, and 3) community economic
indicators. In addition, SANDAG produces a comprehensive Monitoring Report that presents
detailed data to measure performance toward implementing goals from each of the chapters of the
RCP.
The City of Villages strategy will continue to help meet the long- term needs of the City
through the incremental redevelopment of aging buildings and sites. Some of the urban nodes
contemplated as future villages are currently experiencing demand for intensifi ed use and have
infrastructure or fi nancing for infrastructure available. These nodes 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 village- like neighborhoods or districts 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
October 2006 - Draft
Strategic Framework
SF- 29
uses. As the villages become more fully developed, their individual personalities will become more
defi ned 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 the rate at which infrastructure defi ciencies can be remedied and public
support strengthened. 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 defi ciencies 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 diversifi ed 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 signifi cant factor that will infl uence 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 infl uenced in part by population growth pressures. A demographic trend that could
infl uence 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 to, or 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.
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- specifi c guidance to implement many of the General Plan
policies, and the continued involvement of an engaged citizenry to monitor its implementation.
Land Use
and Community
Planning Element
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 3
Land Use and Community Planning Element
Purpose
To guide future growth and development into a sustainable citywide development pattern, while
maintaining or enhancing quality of life in our communities.
Introduction
The Land Use and Community Planning
Element ( Land Use Element) provides policies
to guide the City of San Diego's growth and
implement the City of Villages strategy within
the context of San Diego's community
planning program. The Land Use Element
addresses land use issues that apply to the City
as a whole. The community planning program
is the mechanism to refine citywide policies,
designate land uses, and make additional site-specific
recommendations as needed. The
Land Use Element establishes the structure to respect the diversity of each community and
includes policy direction to govern the preparation of community plans. The element also
provides policy direction in areas including zoning and policy consistency, the plan amendment
process, coastal planning, airport- land use planning, balanced communities, equitable
development, and environmental justice.
Land Use - Present and Planned
Parks, open space, and recreation areas comprise nearly 28 percent of the existing land uses in
the City of San Diego. Residential acreage forms the next largest use of land, at nearly 24 percent
of the total City acreage. Tables LU- 1 and LU- 2 summarize the City’s acreage distribution in
terms of existing uses and planned land use designations as they are grouped into seven General
Plan land use categories ( see Section B for information on what is included in these categories).
Existing uses represent those uses as they are currently found throughout the City. Planned land
uses are the recommended land use designations as identified in the adopted community plans. It
should be noted that existing uses may not always match the planned land use designations for
certain sites as specified in the adopted community plans. For example, a site may have
agricultural uses on it while the planned land use designation calls for residential use. Existing
uses may be located on sites with planned land use designations that allow other types of uses
that have not yet been implemented in accordance with the adopted community plans.
Land Use and Community Planning Element
LU- 4 The City of San Diego General Plan
TABLE LU- 1 Existing Land Uses ( May 2006)
Existing Uses
General Plan Land Use Category
Acres % of Total
Agriculture 6,055 2.8
Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services 7,887 3.6
Industrial Employment 8,928 4.1
Institutional, Public and Semi- Public Facilities 1 37,103 16.9
Multiple Use -- --
Park, Open Space and Recreation 2 60,654 27.6
Residential 52,389 23.9
Roads / Freeways / Transportation Facilities 3 31,291 14.3
Water Bodies 3 6,932 3.2
Vacant 3 8,002 3.6
Total 219,241 100.0
1 This land use category includes 26,547 of existing acres of military use.
2 This land use category includes 2,578 acres of water bodies that are recreational areas and located within park and open
space areas.
3 Not a General Plan land use category, however, it is included to provide an accurate account for total acreage in the City.
Water bodies identified here are not for recreational purposes.
Source: SANDAG’s Regional Land Use Database
TABLE LU- 2 Planned Land Uses
Existing Uses
General Plan Land Use Category
Acres % of Total
Agriculture 3,670 1.7
Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services 6,114 2.8
Industrial Employment 12,278 5.6
Institutional, Public and Semi- Public Facilities 1 36,545 16.7
Multiple Use 4,534 2.1
Park, Open Space and Recreation 2 62,686 28.5
Residential 55,987 25.5
Roads / Freeways / Transportation Facilities 3 30,495 13.9
Water Bodies 3 6,932 3.2
Vacant 3 – –
Total 219,241 100.0
1 This land use category includes 26,547 of existing acres of military use.
2 This land use category includes 2,578 acres of water bodies that are recreational areas and located within park and open
space areas.
3 Not a General Plan land use category, however, it is included to provide an accurate account for total acreage in the City.
Water bodies identified here are not for recreational purposes.
Source: SANDAG’s Regional Land Use Database
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 5
A review of Tables LU- 1 and LU- 2 reveal the following land use changes if planned land use
designations are implemented in accordance with adopted community plans:
• Agriculture– which is currently mostly located in the extreme northern and southern portions
of the City, will experience a decline.
• Multiple use– this category will emerge within the central urbanized communities and
downtown area. ( Additional areas of multiple use development would be anticipated as
community plans are updated and village sites are designated.)
• Residential– this category will experience the greatest change in terms of increase in use.
• Industrial– these lands are mostly found in the northern and southern portions of the City
where research and development, manufacturing, warehouse and distribution facilities have
traditionally been established due to availability of large parcels of land and ease of access to
major freeway corridors. A small increase in industrial land area would occur upon
community plan implementation.
• Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services– these uses are evenly distributed throughout
the City in order to address the commercial related needs of the various community planning
areas, and will continue to be evenly dispersed in the City per adopted land use plans.
• Institutional, Public and Semi- Public Facilities– this category will experience the least amount
of change, as the majority of lands designated for these types of facilities are being fully
utilized to accommodate these uses.
Vacant land that is identified on Table LU- 1 is comprised of lands considered to be developable
( for example, stand alone parking lots not associated with a specific use), as well as
undevelopable vacant land in the City.
TABLE LU- 3 Breakdown of Vacant Developable Land
in Terms of Planned Land Use Designations ( May 2006)
General Plan Land Use Category
Planned Land Uses
Vacant
Developables
Acres
% of Total
Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services 617 9.1
Industrial Employment 2,107 31.2
Institutional, Public and Semi- Public Facilities 702 10.4
Multiple Use 423 6.3
Residential 2,907 43.0
Total Acres ( Vacant Developable) 6,756 100.0
Land Use and Community Planning Element
LU- 6 The City of San Diego General Plan
Table LU- 3 includes data specific to developable vacant land in the City and how it is designated
per the adopted land use plans in order to allow for future growth and development. It shows
that 43 percent of the total vacant developable land in the City is designated for residential uses
while another 31 percent is designated for industrial related uses.
As the majority of the City is developed, infill development and redevelopment will play an
increasingly significant role in providing needed housing, jobs, and services in our communities.
Guidance for how this development should occur is provided by the City of Villages strategy.
A. City of Villages Strategy
Goal
♦ Mixed- use villages located throughout the City and connected by high quality transit.
Discussion
The City of Villages strategy is to focus growth into mixed- use activity centers that are
pedestrian- friendly, centers of community, and linked to the regional transit system. The strategy
draws upon the strengths of San Diego’s natural environment, neighborhoods, commercial
centers, institutions, and employment centers. The strategy focuses on 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.
What is a Village?
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 streets and public spaces. These spaces will vary from village
to village and may consist of: public parks or plazas, community meeting spaces, outdoor
gathering spaces, passive or active open space areas that contain desirable landscape and
streetscape design amenities, or outdoor dining and market activities. Individual villages will offer
a variety of housing types and rents/ prices. Over time, villages will be increasingly connected to
each other by an expanded regional transit system. The mix of land use should also include
needed public facilities such as schools, libraries, or other community facilities as appropriate in
each community.
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 7
Village Types and Locations
Implementation of the City of Villages strategy relies upon the designation and development of
village sites. The hierarchy of village types and development areas is described below.
Downtown - Downtown San Diego has a unique role to play in the 21st century development of
the San Diego region. In addition to being the administrative, legal, cultural and entertainment
center in the region, Downtown also offers the most convenient and extensive transit connections
and has emerged as an exciting pedestrian environment.
Subregional Employment Areas - Subregional Employment Areas are major employment and/ or
commercial districts within the region containing corporate or multiple- use office, industrial, and
retail uses with some adjacent multifamily residential uses. Existing Subregional Districts include
the Mission Valley/ Morena/ Grantville and University/ Sorrento Mesa areas.
Urban Village Centers - Urban Village Centers are higher- density/ intensity areas located in
subregional employment districts. They are characterized by a cluster of more intensive
employment, residential, regional and subregional commercial uses that maximize walkability and
support transit.
Community and Neighborhood Village Centers - Community and Neighborhood Village Centers
should be located in almost every community plan area. They are community- and neighborhood-oriented
areas with local commercial, office, and multifamily residential uses, including some
structures with office or residential space above commercial space. Village Centers will contain
public gathering spaces and/ or civic uses. Uses will be integrated to the maximum extent possible
in order to encourage a pedestrian- oriented design and encourage transit ridership. Community
and Neighborhood Village Centers range in size from just a few acres to more than 100 acres.
Community Village Centers are intended to serve a larger area than Neighborhood Village
Centers. Community Village Centers may also have a more significant employment component
than a neighborhood village.
Transit Corridors - The City contains commercial corridors that are lively and vital; pedestrian-friendly;
home to a rich variety of small businesses, restaurants, and homes; and served by higher
frequency transit service. Transit corridors provide valuable new housing opportunities with fewer
impacts to the regional freeway system because of their available transit service. Some corridors
would benefit from revitalization.
Figure LU- 1. Village Propensity Map
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 9
Factors to consider when locating village sites include: community plan- identified capacity for
growth, existing public facilities or an identified funding source for facilities, existing or an
identified funding source for transit service, community character, and environmental
constraints. The methodology used for determining village propensity can be found in Appendix
B, LU- 1. Some of these factors, including the location of parks, fire stations, and transit routes
have been mapped as shown on Figure LU- 1, the Village Propensity Map. This figure also shows
existing and community plan- designated land uses. By overlaying the facilities factors with the
land uses, the Village Propensity Map illustrates existing areas that already exhibit village
characteristics, and areas that may have a propensity to develop as village areas. It is an
illustrative tool, not a land use map; actual village locations will be designated in community
plans with the input from recognized community planning groups and the general public.
Community plans will also contain site- specific design guidelines to ensure the successful
implementation of each site.
Policies
Village Types and Locations
LU- A. 1. Designate a hierarchy of village sites for citywide implementation.
a. Affirm the position of Downtown San Diego as the regional hub by maintaining
and enhancing its role as the major business center in the region and encouraging
its continued development as a major urban residential center with the largest
concentration of high- density multifamily housing in the region.
b. Encourage further intensification of employment uses throughout Subregional
Employment Districts. Where appropriate, consider collocating medium- to high-density
residential uses with employment uses ( see also Economic Prosperity
Element).
c. Designate Neighborhood and Community Village Centers in community plans
throughout the City.
d. Revitalize transit corridors through the application of plan designations and
zoning that permits a higher intensity of mixed- use development. Include some
combination of: residential above commercial development, employment uses,
commercial uses, and higher density- residential development.
LU- A. 2. Identify sites suitable for mixed- use village development that will complement the
existing community fabric or help achieve desired community character, with input
from recognized community planning groups and the public- at- large.
Land Use and Community Planning Element
LU- 10 The City of San Diego General Plan
LU- A. 3. Identify and evaluate potential village sites considering the following physical
characteristics:
• Shopping centers, districts, or corridors that could be enhanced or expanded;
• Community or mixed- use centers that may have adjacent existing or planned
residential neighborhoods;
• Vacant or underutilized sites that are outside of open space or community- plan
designated single- family residential areas;
• Areas that have significant remaining development capacity based upon the
adopted community plan; and
• Areas that are not subject to major development limitations due to topographic,
environmental, or other physical constraints.
LU- A. 4. Evaluate whether a proposed village site can be served by existing or planned public
facilities and services, including transit services.
LU- A. 5. Require environmental review and additional study for potential village locations,
with input from community planning groups and the public, to determine if these
locations are appropriate for mixed- use development and village design.
Village Land Use Mix and Design
LU- A. 6. Recognize that various villages may serve specific functions in the community and
City; some villages may have an employment orientation, while others may be major
shopping destinations, or primarily residential in nature.
LU- A. 7. Determine the appropriate mix and densities/ intensities of village land uses at the
community plan level, or at the project level when adequate direction is not provided
in the community plan, with attention to:
• The role of the village in the City and region;
• Surrounding neighborhood uses;
• Uses that are lacking in the community;
• Community preferences;
• Public facilities and services;
• The availability of transit services and;
• Balanced communities goals ( see Section H).
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 11
LU- A. 8. Determine at the community plan level where commercial uses should be intensified
within villages and other areas served by transit, and where commercial uses should
be limited or converted to other uses.
LU- A. 9. Integrate public gathering spaces and civic uses into village design.
LU- A. 10. Design transit corridor infill projects along transit corridors to enhance or maintain a
“ Main Street” character through attention to site and building design, land use mix,
housing opportunities, and streetscape improvements.
LU- A. 11. Design and evaluate mixed- use village projects based on the design goals and policies
contained in the Urban Design Element.
B. General Plan Land Use Categories
Goal
♦ Land use categories and designations that remain consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Categories as community plans are updated and/ or amended.
Discussion
As of 2006, the City’s community plans used approximately 160 different land use designations
to plan for the intensity and distribution of land uses. However, many of these designations share
similar definitions. To retain the diversity of plan land uses, while striving for citywide
consistency in nomenclature, these 160 community plan designations have been grouped into 26
recommended community land use designations. For purposes of illustrating land use distribution
at the citywide level, these 26 designations are further grouped into seven General Plan land use
categories as follows: Parks, Open Space and Recreation; Agriculture; Residential; Commercial
Employment, Retail, and Services; Industrial Employment; Institutional, Public and Semi- Public
Facilities; and Multiple Use.
The General and Community Land Use Categories Table ( Table LU- 4) establishes the linkage
between General Plan land use categories and a menu of 26 standardized community plan
designations that are to be applied through the community plan process. Table LU- 4 also
includes descriptions, special considerations, and General Plan density and intensity ranges for
each of the designations. These standardized designations will be applied as community plans are
updated or amended. Uses can be further tailored to meet community needs through specific
recommendations in plan text and/ or footnotes on a land use map to denote emphasis or to limit
uses. The relationship between the 26 land use designations compared to the existing ( 2006)
community plan land use designations can be found in Appendix B, LU- 2.
Figure LU- 2. Planning Areas
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 13
General Plan Land Use and Street System Map
The General Plan Land Use and Street System Map ( see Figure LU- 2) depicts the distribution of
the General Plan land use categories and identifies the planned freeways, expressways, arterials,
and collector streets needed to serve vehicular transportation demand resulting from the buildout
of the City in accordance with this General Plan. The map is based upon a composite of the
more detailed land use and circulation system maps adopted for each community. The land use
categories are not precise enough to guide project level development; however, together they
serve as a tool to assist in citywide and regional analysis.
Policies
LU- B. 1. Apply land use designations as needed to meet the needs of the community and City
through community plan updates and amendments ( see also Section C on
Community Planning).
a. Use the Recommended Community Plan Designations identified on Table LU- 4
so that over time, all community plans will use a common nomenclature to
describe similar land uses and densities/ intensities.
b. Use community plan text and graphics to provide greater specificity than is
provided on Table LU- 4, as needed.
1. Identify the upper end of allowable densities/ intensities in community plans,
with environmental review.
2. Use icons to identify various types of institutional uses.
LU- B. 2. Identify a more refined street system than is included in the General Plan Land Use
and Streets Map through the community plan update and amendment process ( see
also the Mobility Element, Section C).
LU- B. 3. Plan for and develop mixed- use projects where a site or sites are developed in an
integrated, compatible, and comprehensively planned manner involving two or more
land uses.
Land Use and Community Planning Element
Figure LU- 3 General Plan Land Use Map – Planned Land Use and Street System
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 15
TABLE LU- 4
General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Categories
General
Plan
Land
Use
Recommended
Community Plan
Designation
Use
Considerations Description
General Plan
Intensity/ Density
Building Intensity
Range ( du/ ac or FAR1)
Open Space Applies to land or water areas generally free from
development or developed with very low- intensity
uses that respect natural environmental
characteristics. Open Space is generally non- urban
in character and may have utility for: park and
recreation purposes, primarily passive;
conservation of land, water, or other natural
resources; or historic or scenic purposes.
N/ A
Population- based
Parks
Provides for areas designated for passive and/ or
active recreational uses, such as community parks
and neighborhood parks. It will allow for facilities
and services to meet the recreational needs of the
community as defined by the community plan.
N/ A
Resource- based
Parks
Provides for recreational parks to be located at, or
centered on, notable natural or man- made features
( beaches, canyons, habitat systems, lakes, historic
sites, and cultural facilities) and are intended to
serve the citywide population as well as visitors.
N/ A
Park, Open Space, and Recreation
Private/ Commercial
Recreation
Provides for private recreational areas or
commercial recreation areas that do not meet the
definition of population- based or resource- based
parks, but that still provide recreational
opportunities.
N/ A
Agriculture1
Agriculture Provides for areas that are rural in character and
very low- density or areas where agricultural uses
are predominant. This designation is intended to
accommodate a wide range of agriculture and
agriculture- related uses such as: dairies;
horticulture nurseries and greenhouses; raising and
harvesting of crops; raising, maintaining and
keeping of animals; separately regulated agriculture
uses; and single dwelling units when applicable.
( Low- density residential
estates) 1 du/ 10 ac - 1
du/ ac
Land Use and Community Planning Element
LU- 16 The City of San Diego General Plan
TABLE LU- 4
General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Categories ( continued)
General
Plan
Land
Use
Recommended
Community Plan
Designation
Use
Considerations Description
General Plan
Intensity/ Density
Building Intensity
Range ( du/ ac or
FAR1)
Residential - Very Low Provides for single- family housing within
the lowest- density range.
0 - 4 du/ ac
Residential - Low Provides for both single- family and
multifamily housing within a low- density
range.
5 - 9 du/ ac
Residential - Low Medium Provides for both single- family and
multifamily housing within a low- medium-density
range.
10 - 14 du/ ac
Residential - Medium Provides for both single and multifamily
housing within a medium- density range.
15 - 29 du/ ac
Residential - Medium High Provides for multifamily housing within a
medium- high- density range.
30 - 44 du/ ac
Residential1
Residential - Very High Provides for multifamily housing within a
high- density- range.
45 - 74 du/ ac
Residential Permitted Provides local convenience shopping, civic
uses, and services serving an approximate
three mile radius. Housing may be allowed
only within a mixed- use setting.
.25 to 4.0 FAR
15 to 44 du/ ac
Neighborhood
Commercial
Residential
Prohibited
Provides local convenience shopping, civic
uses, and services serving an approximate
three mile radius.
.25 to 2.0 FAR
Residential Permitted Provides for shopping areas with retail,
service, civic, and office uses for the
community at large within three to six
miles. It can also be applied to Transit
Corridors where multifamily residential
uses could be added to enhance the
viability of existing commercial uses.
.25 to 4.0 FAR
30 to 74 du/ ac
Community Commercial
Residential
Prohibited
Provides for shopping areas with retail,
service, civic, and office uses for the
community at large within three to six
miles.
.25 to 2.0 FAR
Residential Permitted Serves the region, from five to 25- plus
miles, with a wide variety of uses,
including commercial service, civic, retail,
office, and limited industrial uses.
Residential uses may occur only as part of a
mixed- use ( commercial/ residential) project.
.25 to 2.0 FAR
30 to 74 du/ ac
Commercial Employment, Retail, and Services1,2,3,5
Regional Commercial
Residential
Prohibited
Serves the region, from five to 25- plus
miles, with a wide variety of uses,
including commercial service, civic, retail,
office, and limited industrial uses.
.25 to 1.0 FAR
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 17
TABLE LU- 4
General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Categories ( continued)
General
Plan
Land
Use
Recommended
Community Plan
Designation
Use
Considerations Description
General Plan
Intensity/ Density
Building Intensity
Range ( du/ ac or
FAR1)
Office Commercial Residential Permitted Provides for office employment uses with
limited, complementary retail uses.
Residential uses may occur only as part of a
mixed- use ( commercial/ residential) project.
.25 to 3.0 FAR
15 to 44 du/ ac
Visitor Commercial Residential
Permitted
Provides for the accommodation, dining,
and recreational uses for both tourists and
the local population. This designation is
intended for land located near employment
centers and areas with recreational
resources or other visitor attractions.
Residential uses may occur only as part of a
mixed- use ( commercial/ residential) project.
.25 to 2.0 FAR
30 to 74 du/ ac
Heavy Commercial Residential
Prohibited
Provides for retail sales, commercial
services, office uses, and heavier
commercial uses such as wholesale,
distribution, storage and vehicular sales
and service. This designation is appropriate
for transportation corridors where the
previous community plan may have
allowed for both industrial and commercial
uses.
.25 to 2.0 FAR
Institutional and Public and
Semi- Public Facilities4
Institutional Provides a designation for uses that are
identified as public or semi- public facilities
in the community plan and which offer
public and semi- public services to the
community. Uses may include but are not
limited to: airports, military facilities,
community colleges, university campuses,
landfills, communication and utilities,
transit centers, water sanitation plants,
schools, libraries, police and fire facilities,
cemeteries, post offices, hospitals, park-and-
ride lots, government offices and civic
centers.
N/ A
Multiple Use
Neighborhood Village Residential Required Provides housing in a mixed- use setting
and convenience shopping, civic uses as an
important component, and services serving
an approximate three mile radius.
.25+ FAR ( the upper
limit is to be
determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances)
15 to 44 du/ ac
Land Use and Community Planning Element
LU- 18 The City of San Diego General Plan
TABLE LU- 4
General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Categories ( continued)
General
Plan
Land
Use
Recommended
Community Plan
Designation
Use
Considerations Description
General Plan
Intensity/ Density
Building Intensity
Range ( du/ ac or
FAR1)
Community Village Residential Required Provides housing in a mixed- use setting
and serves the commercial needs of the
community at large, including the
industrial and business areas. Integration of
commercial and residential use is
emphasized; civic uses are an important
component. Retail,
professional/ administrative offices,
commercial recreation facilities, service
businesses, and similar types of uses are
allowed.
.25+ FAR ( upper limit is
to be determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances)
30 to 74 du/ ac
Urban Village Residential Required Serves the region with many types of uses,
including housing, in a high- intensity,
mixed- use setting. Integration of
commercial and residential use is
emphasized; larger, civic uses and facilities
are a significant component. Uses include
housing, business/ professional office,
commercial service, and retail.
.25+ FAR ( the upper
limit is to be
determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances)
30+ du/ ac ( upper limit
is to be determined by
the adopted land use
plan and associated
implementing
ordinances)
Business Park Office Use Permitted Allows office, research & development, and
light manufacturing uses. This designation
would not permit warehouse, wholesale
distribution, or storage uses except as
accessory to the primary use. It is
appropriate to apply in areas primarily
characterized by single- and multi- tenant
office development with some light
industrial uses.
.25 to 2.0+ FAR
( the upper limit is to be
determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances, upon
evaluation of impacts)
Industrial Employment1,2
Business Park- Residential Office Use Permitted Applies in areas where employment and
residential uses are located on the same
premises or in close proximity. Permitted
employment uses include those listed in
the Business Park designation. Multifamily
residential uses are optional with the
density to be specified in the community
plan. Development standards that address
health and compatibility issues will be
included in future zones.
.25 to 2.0+ FAR
( the upper limit is to be
determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances, upon
evaluation of impacts)
Land Use and Community Planning Element
October 2006 - Draft LU- 19
TABLE LU- 4
General Plan and Community Plan Land Use Categories ( continued)
General
Plan
Land
Use
Recommended
Community Plan
Designation
Use
Considerations Description
General Plan
Intensity/ Density
Building Intensity
Range ( du/ ac or
FAR1)
Scientific Research Office Use
Limited
Provides for activities limited to scientific
research, product development and testing,
engineering and any other basic research
functions leading to new product
development with limited light
manufacturing. Office uses, except
corporate headquarters, are not permitted,
except as accessory to the primary use or
as direct support for scientific research
uses. This designation would not permit
wholesale distribution, warehouse, or
storage uses.
.25 to 2.0+ FAR
( the upper limit is to be
determined by the
adopted land use plan
and/ or associated
implementing
ordinances, upon
evaluation of impacts)
Technology Park Office Use Limited Allows uses related to electronics or
applied