San Diego Approves 300% Density With No Infrastructure Money: What the Abandoned Tiered Growth Model Means for Pacific Beach Coastal Development Permits in 2026

On February 17, 2026, San Diego State University Professor Emeritus Nico Calavita published a deeply sourced analysis in the San Diego Union-Tribune with an uncomfortable conclusion: San Diego is systematically approving massive residential density increases while having quietly abandoned the planning discipline that once tied new development to available infrastructure capacity. For coastal builders, this governance failure lands directly in the Coastal Development Permit conditions attached to every new project. The piece, cross-published in the OB Rag, reads as a warning written by someone who spent decades teaching the very principles the city is now violating.

For Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Mission Beach, Bird Rock, and Tourmaline-area builders, the significance of Calavita's argument is not abstract. When a city approves 300% density increases with no roads, no parks, no fire stations, and no stormwater financing to match, the costs of that infrastructure gap do not disappear. They migrate. They surface as conditions of approval on individual Coastal Development Permits. They become your project's problem.

This article explains exactly how that migration works, what the policy failure behind it looks like, and what Pacific Beach builders can realistically expect from San Diego's Development Services Department on coastal permits in 2026.

The Tiered Growth Model San Diego Once Had

In the early 1970s, San Diego hired urban planning consultant Robert Freilich to design a growth management framework for Mayor Pete Wilson's administration. Freilich created what became known as the tiered growth model, a three-tier system that divided the city by development readiness and infrastructure capacity.

• Urbanized areas (generally south of Interstate 8): Already-developed neighborhoods where infill was encouraged. To keep infill financially attractive, the city waived development impact fees in these zones.
• Planned urbanizing areas (northern suburbs like Mira Mesa): Areas where growth was approved but required developers to fully fund necessary facilities under a “pay-as-you-grow” policy.
• Future urbanizing areas: Undeveloped land held for later phases of citywide expansion.

The logic was sound. Dense infill in established neighborhoods made sense where infrastructure already existed. New suburban growth required developers to actually pay for the schools, roads, parks, and fire stations their projects would demand.

The problem, as Professor Calavita documents, is that waiving impact fees in urbanized areas proved catastrophic. Developers flooded into older neighborhoods precisely because the cost advantage was so attractive. They built faster than the existing infrastructure could absorb. By 1990, the public facilities deficit in San Diego's urbanized areas had reached $1 billion. That was in 1990 dollars.

By 2026, the deficit in the city's older areas, typically lower-income and communities of color, has reached $6.5 billion. The infrastructure the tiered model was designed to protect never got built. The fees that were supposed to generate the revenue were waived, came too little, and arrived far too late.

San Diego's $7.8 Billion Infrastructure Hole and Why It Keeps Growing

The $6.5 billion figure Calavita cites for older urbanized areas is a subset of a larger crisis. San Diego's own five-year capital needs analysis, released in February 2026, puts San Diego's $7.8 billion infrastructure gap at a record $7.8 billion for the FY 2027-2031 planning window. That is a nearly 20% increase from the prior year and a 62% increase from just two years ago.

The breakdown exposes how comprehensively every category of city infrastructure is underfunded:

Source: City of San Diego Five-Year Capital Needs Analysis, FY 2027-2031, via San Diego Union-Tribune, February 17, 2026

The city's own report describes its stormwater infrastructure as “largely past its useful life, resulting in system deterioration and failure.” In Pacific Beach and Mission Beach, where storm drains dating to the 1940s and 1950s still carry runoff from properties with significantly more impervious surface than those systems were built to handle, that deterioration is not an abstraction. It is the standing water on Garnet Avenue after a moderate rain event. It is the reason the city committed $37 million to Mission Beach storm drain upgrades.

The question Calavita forces is not simply how San Diego got here. It is what the city is doing to prevent the gap from compounding further. And the answer, in 2026, is not encouraging.

The College Area Case Study: 300% More People, Zero Infrastructure Financing

On December 16, 2025, the San Diego City Council voted 7-1 to approve the College Area Community Plan Update. The plan is striking in its ambition and its silence on infrastructure.

Under the approved update:

• The College Area's population is projected to grow from approximately 19,700 residents to over 74,000, a population increase of nearly 300%.
• Housing units would more than quadruple, from 8,200 to approximately 34,000.
• Up to 17,750 net new homes would be added to a neighborhood that currently has no dedicated fire station, one 1.6-acre neighborhood park, persistent parking access problems at the College-Rolando Library, and sidewalk infrastructure described as unsafe by community members.

Councilmember Raul Campillo cast the lone dissenting vote, citing the area's “relative lack of resources.” Councilmember Joe LaCava stated publicly: “I'm really concerned that our community plans' updates are becoming housing plans and not fulfilling the original vision.”

Community Planning Group chair Robert Montana was more pointed: “The last thing you want to do is increase density in an area that is going to put more people at risk.”

Professor Calavita's analysis of the College Area plan is unsparing. He notes the plan increases residential densities “with practically no public facilities” and lacks “adequate financing mechanisms for future infrastructure.” The density bonus programs embedded in the plan, including the “complete communities” framework, compound the problem by adding residential capacity beyond what the base plan already approves, again with no accompanying infrastructure financing. Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera acknowledged the area's infrastructure deficits and pledged to work with Mayor Todd Gloria to address them. There is no funded mechanism in the adopted plan to do so, and the San Diego budget crisis impacting Development Services makes near-term improvement even less likely.

The College Area is not an outlier. According to Calavita, it is the template. The city is applying the same approach across multiple community plan updates simultaneously: approve the density, defer the infrastructure, and let the gap compound. Two experienced planners cited in Calavita's analysis stated that “upgraded neighborhood infrastructure must precede any appreciable increase in residents.” That principle has been functionally abandoned.

How San Diego Development Impact Fees Have Failed to Close the Infrastructure Gap

Development impact fees are the primary tool California cities use to require developers to fund the infrastructure their projects demand. San Diego's system has been structurally broken for decades.

A 2022 iNewsource investigation found that of the $1.8 billion collected in development impact fees citywide since 1998, the geographic distribution was strikingly unequal. The top seven communities, including University City ($239 million), Carmel Valley ($227 million), and Pacific Highlands Ranch ($199 million), accounted for 72% of all collections. Wealthier northern communities raised fees at rates as high as $26,000 per resident at Del Mar Mesa. By contrast, Skyline/Paradise Hills raised just $30 per resident.

The reason ties directly to the failed tiered growth model: impact fees were waived or minimized in urbanized areas to incentivize infill, while northern suburban developments paid full freight. The communities that needed infrastructure investment most received the least fee revenue to fund it.

The 2024-2025 San Diego County Grand Jury investigated the city's management of development impact fees and reached a damning finding: the city had “chronically violated” California's Mitigation Fee Act by holding fees beyond the five-year statutory limit. The Grand Jury identified approximately $179 million in fees that may need to be refunded to property owners because they were held too long without being spent on the infrastructure they were collected to fund.

The city acknowledged that its annual Development Impact Fee reports have not been published within the required 180-day deadline since at least FY 2015, a span of nine consecutive years. The city is targeting impact fee system reforms for City Council consideration in 2026, but those reforms have not been adopted as of this article's publication date.

For Pacific Beach builders, the practical implication is direct: the fees your project pays do not generate sufficient infrastructure revenue to justify streamlined permit conditions. The fee pool is underfunded, geographically misallocated, and legally compromised.

How Policy Failure Becomes Your CDP Conditions

Here is the mechanism that transforms a city-level governance failure into a specific permit condition on your coastal project.

When San Diego approves density without infrastructure investment, it does not create a neutral permitting environment. Cumulatively, it creates what DSD plan checkers see when they open your coastal zone application: a neighborhood where stormwater capacity is already overloaded, where the nearest fire station is further away than code prefers, where the street network is deteriorating, and where the city has no funded plan to fix any of it.

In that context, the conditions of approval on your Coastal Development Permit are not bureaucratic formalities. They are the city attempting to recover, project by project, the infrastructure mitigation it failed to collect at the policy level. The cost-recovery mechanism available to DSD is your conditions of approval.

In the Pacific Beach coastal zone, Coastal Development Permit requirements in Pacific Beach in 2026 commonly include:

Stormwater and Drainage Conditions
All projects in the Coastal Overlay Zone are required to submit a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). In Pacific Beach, where existing storm drain infrastructure is aging and the city's $5.1 billion stormwater gap means no systemic relief is coming, plan checkers have limited tolerance for projects that add impervious surface without demonstrating fully engineered on-site retention, treatment, or conveyance. Biofiltration planters, underground detention chambers, and permeable pavement systems that were once suggested as best practice are now effectively standard conditions of approval. Costs for compliant BMP systems on Pacific Beach properties typically range from $15,000 to $40,000 depending on lot size, impervious coverage, and proximity to the municipal storm drain system.

Utility Undergrounding Conditions
Published CDP decisions for coastal Pacific Beach properties, including projects in the Diamond Street area processed by DSD's Hearing Officer division, have required that all onsite utilities serving the project be undergrounded. This condition adds cost and construction complexity that must be accounted for at the design phase, not during permit review after architectural drawings are complete.

Construction Management Conditions
On Pacific Beach's narrow grid streets, Garnet Avenue, Cass Street, Grand Avenue, and approaches to Tourmaline-area lots along Balboa Avenue and Dawes Street, CDP conditions increasingly specify construction traffic management plans, haul route restrictions during peak hours, and street damage deposit requirements. These conditions reflect the city's documented inability to fund street repaving ($678 million gap) and its corresponding interest in preventing additional pavement deterioration from construction vehicle loading. Along Tourmaline's northern approaches on Balboa Avenue and Dawes Street, DSD has additionally required project-specific staging plans that address conflicts with surf parking access and the Tourmaline Surfing Park public beach access corridor.

Grading and Erosion Control Conditions
Coastal zone projects require detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plans submitted as part of the permit package. In Bird Rock, where canyon-edge lots face complex hillside drainage conditions, and in La Jolla, where access via Torrey Pines Road constrains heavy equipment staging, these conditions often require third-party geotechnical reports, specific grading sequencing, and on-site erosion control measures maintained throughout the construction window.

California Coastal Commission Appeal Exposure
Projects approved by DSD in the Coastal Development Permit zone are subject to appeal to the California Coastal Commission during a 10-working-day window. The Commission's review includes Coastal Act Section 30252, which requires that new development provide, where feasible, for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. In an environment where the city is approving density without infrastructure investment, the Coastal Commission may scrutinize whether conditions of approval adequately address cumulative infrastructure impacts, particularly on bluff-adjacent and beach-adjacent projects in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach.

What Pacific Beach Builders Should Do Differently in 2026

Understanding the policy environment matters only if it changes how you approach your project. Here is what the infrastructure policy context translates into for project planning.

Start with a Pre-Application Meeting at DSD
The Development Services Department offers pre-application meetings for discretionary permits including Coastal Development Permits. In the current permitting environment, this meeting is not optional for coastal zone projects. Use it to identify the specific conditions of approval that will apply to your site before committing to a design. DSD plan checkers can confirm whether your project will trigger a SWQMP, what the utility undergrounding standard is for your specific block, and whether a construction management plan will be required.

Engineer Your Stormwater System Before Design Completion
Do not treat the SWQMP as a checklist item to be resolved after architectural drawings are complete. The stormwater system needs to be integrated into site design from the start. On Pacific Beach lots, the combination of high lot coverage, proximity to aging storm drains, and the Coastal Overlay Zone's sensitivity to runoff quality means that retrofitting a compliant BMP system into a completed design is expensive and frequently requires costly plan revisions. Build the civil engineer into your design team at the schematic phase, not after design development.

Budget Realistically for Conditions of Approval
A realistic contingency for CDP conditions in Pacific Beach coastal zone projects in 2026 is $25,000 to $75,000 above standard construction costs, depending on project scale and lot complexity. This range encompasses stormwater BMP systems, utility undergrounding work, construction management compliance costs, and geotechnical reporting. Builders who budget for streamlined permitting are regularly caught underprepared when conditions of approval arrive.

Understand the Coastal Commission Appeal Window
If your CDP is approved by DSD, the California Coastal Commission appeal window begins immediately. Know whether neighboring property owners have a history of Coastal Commission appeals on projects similar to yours. The Commission's website maintains records of appealed projects by location. On high-density or visually prominent projects in Mission Beach, La Jolla, and Bird Rock, the appeal risk is real, and Commission review can extend your timeline by two to six months. ADU projects may benefit from AB 462 streamlined coastal ADU permits, which imposes a 60-day decision deadline on qualifying applications.

Document the Infrastructure Context for Disputed Conditions
When conditions of approval exceed what your project's direct impacts reasonably demand, the infrastructure policy context documented in Calavita's analysis and the city's own capital needs report provides a framework for a conditions hearing objection. If the city is imposing stormwater mitigation conditions calibrated to a systemic deficit it has failed to fund through impact fees, that argument belongs in a conditions of approval hearing. Engage a land use attorney before that hearing, not after.

The Outlook for Pacific Beach Builders in 2026 and Beyond

San Diego is weighing a November 2026 ballot measure to raise the city's sales tax as a potential mechanism for addressing the $7.8 billion infrastructure gap. The city is also exploring public-private partnerships and grant funding, though it has historically underestimated grant revenue. The city's own five-year analysis projects grants at only $53.7 million over five years, a modest fraction of the gap.

None of these potential remedies will produce infrastructure before 2027 at the earliest. The community plan updates the city is approving now, College Area and others in the pipeline, will generate density that arrives before any infrastructure financing does. The gap will widen before it narrows. The Mission Beach infrastructure crisis illustrates how deferred investment accumulates into a compounding liability for coastal neighborhoods.

For Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Mission Beach, Bird Rock, and Tourmaline-area builders, the policy environment in 2026 is structurally unfavorable for streamlined coastal permitting. The tiered growth model that once provided a rational framework for linking density to infrastructure capacity has been abandoned. The impact fee system that was supposed to generate infrastructure revenue is underfunded, mismanaged, and legally challenged. The city's governing posture, approve growth and defer infrastructure, means the cost of that gap will continue to surface in individual permit conditions on your projects.

The builders who navigate this environment successfully are not the ones who fight every condition of approval in isolation. They are the ones who understand why the conditions exist, budget for them at the project outset, engage DSD early through the pre-application process, and design with the infrastructure context built in from the beginning.

Pacific Beach Builder has been working in these neighborhoods since 2008. We pull permits in Pacific Beach, La Jolla, Mission Beach, Bird Rock, and along Tourmaline's northern approaches. We understand what DSD is looking at when they open a coastal zone application in 2026, and we design our projects accordingly from the first site visit. If you are planning a construction project in the coastal zone and want to understand what conditions of approval to expect before committing to a design, call us at (858) 290-1842 or request a pre-permit consultation.