SANDAG’s Transit Plan Misses the Mark for Ocean Beach and Point Loma

When fantasy maps meet real neighborhoods, communities pay the price.

By Mandy Havlik

Over the past few months, as I’ve participated in community meetings about Bonus ADUs and high-density housing programs, I’ve repeatedly heard a common concern from residents across Ocean Beach, Point Loma, Pacific Beach, and beyond: the Sustainable Development Area (SDA) and Transit Priority Area (TPA) maps are wrong, wildly overreaching, and far too ambitious for what actually exists on the ground.

Whether it was long-time homeowners, small business owners, or renters worried about parking and infrastructure, the message was the same: our neighborhoods are being redefined by maps that seem more imaginary than informed.

As a proud resident of our coastal community, I fully support the need for a robust regional transit system, one that connects San Diegans efficiently, equitably, and sustainably. But SANDAG’s latest regional transit plan, and its accompanying map designating so-called “major transit stops,” raises serious concerns not just locally, but citywide.

Neighborhoods like Mission Beach, Ocean Beach, Point Loma, Pacific Beach, and La Jolla are directly affected by these designations. The plan identifies areas along Cable Street, Rosecrans Street, Mission Boulevard, La Jolla Boulevard, and potentially even Torrey Pines Road as “major transit stops.”

This classification carries significant planning consequences under state law. Areas within a one-mile radius of these stops are automatically classified as Transit Priority Areas, enabling higher-density housing and streamlined development approvals, whether or not the transit infrastructure actually exists.

In theory, this framework supports smart growth. In practice, these designations are misleading, premature, and potentially harmful to neighborhoods like ours.

Under AB 2097, local, rapid, and express bus routes that share the same path, known as “colinear line families”, are treated as a single route for calculating service frequency. These combined services count toward meeting the law’s requirement for buses to stop at least every 20 minutes during peak hours. However, to qualify as a major transit stop, the intersection must be served by at least one additional, separate bus route outside the same line family.

A “major transit stop,” by state definition, must offer high-frequency service and actual access to regional mobility. It must intersect with another major bus line, a ferry terminal served by transit, or a station with existing rail or Bus Rapid Transit. Bus Rapid Transit in particular requires dedicated bus lanes to meet these criteria.

But on the ground, there’s a critical flaw: many parts of Cable Street, Rosecrans Street, La Jolla Boulevard, and others simply lack the physical space for Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure. These are narrow, aging corridors that cannot reasonably accommodate dedicated bus lanes without significant and disruptive reconstruction. The implementation of these features would be not only logistically nightmarish, it could directly conflict with existing California Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines, which require that transit-linked development be tied to actual, verifiable service.

Labeling these corridors as major transit hubs without the required infrastructure is not visionary, it’s misleading. It invites overdevelopment based on hypothetical transit, pushing denser housing into areas with no guarantee of the upgrades needed to support it. Residents could soon face more traffic, reduced parking, overcrowded infrastructure, and no meaningful increase in mobility options.

Another reality that planners seem to have overlooked is that Point Loma, Ocean Beach, and the Midway District are located on a peninsula- effectively a cul-de-sac. This geographic constraint means limited access points, limited transit routing options, and greater vulnerability to congestion. The idea that these neighborhoods could support high-capacity, rapid-transit corridors on narrow roads with only one way in or out is not just unrealistic, it’s irresponsible.

One of the most troubling aspects of the plan is how the Sustainable Development Area is defined. Despite aiming to promote walkable, transit-connected communities, the SDA uses a one-mile walking distance from existing or future transit stops to draw its boundaries.

This contradicts decades of research. Federal, state, local, and academic studies consistently show that nearly all people who walk to transit live within a half-mile of a stop. In San Diego County, 92 percent of transit users fall within this range. The one-mile standard isn’t just misguided, it’s a policy error that defies both evidence and basic planning principles.

As a result, the SDA vastly expands the Transit Priority Area, opening over 5,200 additional acres, including some located far from actual or feasible transit service, to unlimited Accessory Dwelling Units, Complete Communities towers, and other high-density development programs. These tools, intended for strategic infill, are instead being bluntly applied in areas that simply can’t support them.

As the watchdog group Neighbors for a Better San Diego aptly put it:

“In San Diego, ‘Sustainable Development’ really means ‘sustaining the development industry.’”

That’s the heart of the problem. A policy designed to encourage thoughtful, transit-oriented growth has been co-opted into a developer giveaway, disconnected from infrastructure, transit, and reality.

We should not allow vague promises and aspirational maps to dictate the future of our neighborhoods. Transit planning must be rooted in real-world conditions, not modeling assumptions or political convenience. The community deserves honesty, transparency, and genuine engagement.

Instead of labeling streets like Cable, Rosecrans, and La Jolla Boulevard as “major transit stops” before the infrastructure exists, SANDAG should adopt a phased, evidence-based approach. That means aligning designations with actual service levels and available street capacity. It also means prioritizing areas where Bus Rapid Transit can physically work.

In lower-capacity corridors like Ocean Beach and Point Loma, a more realistic strategy would be enhancing standard bus service, improving frequency, and investing in last-mile solutions like protected bike lanes, community shuttles, or micro transit. These are strategies that can actually be implemented within the physical and cultural fabric of our communities without bulldozing through our main streets or eliminating the limited parking that residents and small businesses rely on.

To move forward responsibly, I urge SANDAG to pause the current transit stop designations and initiate a neighborhood-level feasibility review before assigning powerful planning labels. I’ve begun consulting with urban planning professionals and policy advocates who agree that without accurate, feasible transit infrastructure, these designations may not only be unjustified, they may also violate state standards.

We need a plan that meets the moment, not just on paper, but on the street. Let’s build a future that’s transit-ready, not just transit-labeled, by planning smarter, engaging deeper, and working together.

Mandy Havlik is a candidate for the District 2 council seat and a resident of Point Loma.