By Nico Calavita / Op-Ed SD Union-Tribune / February 17, 2026
When I was a professor at SDSU in the Graduate Program in City Planning, I taught my students that one of the most important goals for planners is to ensure that growth is accompanied by public facilities and infrastructure; otherwise, a city’s quality of life will suffer.
The recently approved College Area Community Plan, when measured against such a principle, fails in catastrophic ways. It significantly increases residential densities in an area with practically no public facilities and without adequate financing mechanisms for future infrastructure. The only, single-minded goal appears to be to increase residential building capacity; lack of infrastructure be damned.
This approach is a reversal of a long tradition of planning in San Diego based on accommodating growth where public facilities were available or would become available as growth occurred; with a notable, tragic omission. Let me explain.
This long-standing principle originated with Robert Freilich, a consultant hired in the early 1970s by Mayor Pete Wilson to devise a growth management strategy for San Diego. The result was a “tiered” approach to growth, based on the availability of public facilities and infrastructure. The designated tiers were: “urbanized,” “planned urbanizing” and “future urbanizing.”
In the urbanized tier — generally the area south of Interstate 8 — infrastructure and public facilities capacity was, presumably, amply available. Here, infill was encouraged by not levying development impact fees on development. In the planned urbanizing tier, the northern suburban fringe of the city where growth was taking place haphazardly (e.g., Mira Mesa), a “pay-as-you grow” policy was adopted. Developers were required to fully pay for the necessary facilities. In the future urbanizing area (the then-undeveloped area now along State Route 56), growth would be phased in the future.
To avoid paying fees, developers descended en masse in the urbanized areas with insensitively designed developments, easily overtaking what — it was discovered too late — little infrastructure capacity was there, quickly creating a public facilities deficit calculated to be $1 billion in 1990. Around that time, in reaction to mounting discontent in the city core’s older neighborhoods, the City Council approved fees in the urbanized tier. But it was too little and far too late.
The original decision not to impose fees in the urbanized communities has created a fractured city. The newer sections enjoy ample facilities while the older areas, usually poorer and Browner, face a public facilities and infrastructure deficit now calculated at $6.5 billion. This mounting deficit has hampered planning in San Diego ever since.
Take, for example, “City of Villages.” This was a promising planning effort begun in 2002 to direct growth into compact and vibrant mixed-use villages in urbanized communities. The Villages would enjoy better mass transit, employment and commercial uses, parks and public spaces and narrower streets with wider sidewalks.
The plan assumed that financing would be created to pay for the public infrastructure deficit. A consultant was hired to identify possible sources of funding, but at a fateful meeting in Balboa Park that I attended, the City Council, fearful of putting tax increases in front of the voters, refused to even discuss the consultant’s report. The urbanized communities affected vociferously opposed City of Villages without public facilities.
As a Union-Tribune article commented in 2021, the City of Villages “didn’t turn out as planned because of a lack of city resources, among other things.” More recently, a December U-T commentary pointed out that the City of Villages Strategy did not actually upzone anything. The public facilities deficit was the main reason.
Now, in a ruinous turnaround, the city has decided that, when updating community plans, adequate infrastructure doesn’t matter anymore. To make things worse, additional planned densities are compounded by “density bonus” programs, such as “complete communities.”
Should no development, then, be allowed in the urbanized communities? Of course not. But planning should be a comprehensive process, with infrastructure and public facilities an important factor in deciding land uses and their intensities. Recently, two experienced, longtime planners in a U-T commentary pointed out that “Upgraded neighborhood infrastructure must precede any appreciable increase in residents.”
A comprehensive planning approach would also consider that increasing residential capacity by more than 300% in the College Area, while making no provision for economic development and job creation, would add to the massive pollution spewing traffic jams resulting from most jobs in San Diego being north of I-8.
More Community Plan Updates are underway. It is time for the city to make the planning process comprehensive again.
Calavita is professor emeritus in the Graduate Program in City Planning at SDSU. He was chair of the City of San Diego Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees and board member of the City Heights Community Development Corp. He is co-author of the book “Inclusionary Housing in International Perspective” and lives in Berkeley.
Thx much, Editor Dude, for reposting this very insightful and important commentary about the need to budget for and provide adequate infrastructure when it approves new residential projects. I hope Rag readers will share this post with friends, neighbors, and perhaps most importantly, their council member and the mayor.
Hmmm, wonder how the professor weighs this against the continued expansion of SDSU into the community with little regard to the neighborhood. CSU has population growth increases factored in yearly. And the “campus town lifestyle” continues without SDSU contributing to infrastructure.
San Diegans have been regretting incompetent City leadership’s complete disregard for all infructure, for decades now.
Developers live in a bubble, they look at the beach, and Mission Bay, especially at low tide and all they see is “undeveloped land”
City counselors are submerged by San Diego problems, infrastructure, bad investments and choices, not just the actual peeps, but their predecessors too, who created a lot of our development problems, while dining
in nice restaurants with the developer lobbyists…
We, the people, who pay taxes which pay for all things, we say, “hold your horses” , our city is not yours to give away
Another thought for councilpeeps, San Diego should consider more “city agriculture” in the front and back yards that remain, for future local survival,
Because 23 story buildings of luxury apts on the beach ain’t gonna provide anything but shade…
Like I tell people about San Diego: sunny weather, shady politics
THIS. The city has a long history of real estate boondoggles going back to the first tracts touting sunny days all winter. Unfortunately, San Diego is no longer a sleepy beach town with a navy base anymore. The city strives to be a world class city but is dragging a debt of past sins. The fair weather politician is no friend to entire generation that cannot afford housing nor an ally of home owners who cannot afford to pay for the infrastructure backlog. In the meantime, city land policy continues the fire sale on building permits. Repeal Complete Communities, fulfill the promise to Promise Zones, and get rid of the Strong Mayor system.
WOW! Excellent article. Thank you, Nico Calavita. The communities have been telling the mayor and clowncil very similar things, and they don’t pay any attention at all.
You, on the other hand, have the experience, education, and knowledge to lay it out in a comprehensive article to explain the what’s and whys.
Thank you,
Streets, water, and sewers are totally missing from planning. In Golden Hills, 3 old houses are being replaced by 189 units. In the same block, sewer lines are iffy for other buildings that have been there since the early 1900s. Rec centers are nice; water a little more of a necessity. Let’s hope the residents are all friends with each other; parking means nobody will ever be able to visit them again.
Great Article, Thanks!
Why would the public trust the City to responsibly use funds if the public approved new taxes?
Jamacha, geographical area, lacks infrastructure, abysmall riad conditions, old cast iron pipes, it is still waiting for undergrounding.
LISBON VISTA HEIGHTS
Yet, the City approved a descretionary level 5, housing project, 24 homes, only 1 Affordable ( for tax benefits) Lisbon Vista Heights, 7108-7115 Lisbon St. Which has added eleven ADUs as the ADU Bonus regulations did not address adding ADU Bonus in descretionary projects with a deviation of minimum 5000 sq ft lots, just to add 24 homes! A deviation for a 16 foot retaining wall on lot alleged to have no steep grades.
Then increases to 37 homes. With new lot turned into a new street, to avoid the required street frontage.
1441 WOODROW AVE, PRJ- 1128933,
Godavari, LLC/LP & Pro Cal Permitting, ProCal Design & Engineering
Inaccurate application responses, and City has not required submitral of new and accurate application.
Instead it is moving full speed ahead with 13 new homes, despite what may constitute perjury by Godavari?
Applicant falsely states ” Empty Lot” the 1965, 4 bed, 2 ba home still exists, photos sent.
Applicant falsely states ” No” to Code Violations, when parcel has had multiple unresolved Notices of Abatements, numerous cases 12/2021- 2025, SDPD and Fire complaints.
Applicant falsely states ” No” to home over 45 years, the existing house is 60 years old.
Applicant falsely states ” No” to steep grades over 25%.
Applicant applied for DEMOLITION permit PRJ-1151468, in 2/26, on a ” Empty Lot”
Applicant is replacing 1,299 sq ft single family home with a 448 sq ft single family home (Not ADU) The 12 ADU Bonus are 430sqft- 448 sq ft.
Applicant falsely stated ” No” to geographical hazards, in Slide Prone area (27).
Applicant falsely stated ” No” to Steep Grades 25% and over, the lot APN#576-701-0100, has 3 or more areas.
KEILLER NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Keiller Neighborhood Park in Jamacha geographical area, was declared out of compliance with ADA in 2005! This park, 7400 Lisbon St. does not even have one flat belt swing! It only has a infant basket swing for under 25 pounds.
Yet, they have built, and/or improved multiple parks since 2005, while failing to upgrade Keiller. The is no disabled parking spot within reasonable walking/rolling distance of the existing entrance.
The City shows ongoing disregard for ADA, failing to represent ALL residents, and All property tax payers!
VIOLATIONS OF COMMUNITY PLAN
The City of San Diego cannot be relied upon to comply with the Skyline- Paradise Hills Community Plan, June 30, 1987. Which still has not been fully implemented with 1987 identified needs for Infrastructure in 2026.
The public cannot even trust the City of San Diego, to create accurate maps of San Diego. They created a fake area by merging two separate geographical areas, with separate boundaries, into Jamacha- Lomita.
The Neighborhood Element, has Figure 21, but City maps exclude GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS, ( Jamacha) approved in 1987, listed in the community plan, (pg. 126) Which has six, areas, Jamacha, North Bay Terrace, Skyline, Lomita, South Bay Terrace, and Paradise Hills.
The City is violating the Transportation Element- Bicycle Map, by adding bike lanes on Lisbon St. instead of near the South Chollas Creek branch, near Jamacha Drainage Channel.
LAWSUITS
The City lost the Baker etc Lawsuit, due to discriminatory practices with violations of their own policies.