Category: San Diego

by: Brooke Miller, Barbara Machado of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP / National Law Review / July 1, 2025

On June 16, 2025, the San Diego City Council voted 5-4 to cap the number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that can be built on single-family lots. The decision reverses the City’s 2020 implementation of a program allowing developers to build a nearly unlimited number of ADUs—a robust incentive previously heralded as a solution to the City’s burgeoning housing affordability crisis. This program rollback reflects local jurisdiction’s struggles in addressing the lack of affordable housing supply and meeting Housing Element requirements while facing stark community opposition to high-density development.

Background
On October 30, 2020, the San Diego City Council unanimously approved amendments to the San Diego Municipal Code regarding ADU and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) development.[1] Several key provisions were included in the amendments, including allowing the construction of one bonus ADU for every deed-restricted affordable ADU, with no limit on the number of bonus ADUs in a transit priority area (within a half-mile radius of a transit station);[2] no minimum ADU/JADU lot size;[3] no ADU/JADU density limitations;[4] and no parking requirements for ADUs in a transit priority area.[5]

By Lisa Mortensen

Hello Mr. Gloria and Councilmembers:

After my post yesterday, Who’s minding the store, San Diego? I didn’t think I’d be writing a Part 2 today — but so it goes.

Two more issues to bring to your attention.

Item #1:   First off, the subject of Mr. Gloria’s obsession with hiring high-paid middle managers.  As stated in the OB Rag article “there are five times as many high-paid middle managers at the city as there were a decade ago.”   Which begs the question “how will this alleviate our deficit?”

I was pleasantly surprised that the majority of the city council pushed back on this and overrode the mayor’s veto to their revisions of his 2026 budget where he kept all these 393 positions intact.  But what was really shocking even after their override, was that the mayor has chosen to ignore this limited legislative power that the city council possesses and did not terminate any positions recommended by council

“Which of the 393 Middle Managers Was Responsible for Oversight of DIF Accounting?”

By Lisa Mortensen

Greetings to our elected officials at city hall:

The article below regarding the $178 million in unspent development impact fees is eye-popping on the total dysfunction and lack of accountability by our elected officials at city hall.

We have a $6.5 billion infrastructure deficit and a $300 million budget shortfall and nearly $200 million sitting around in unused DIFs?  How can you even consider a salary increase in September ( totaling a salary increase of 61% since 2020) when you have failed in your job duties of protecting the health, safety and welfare of our city and its citizens?

by: Kasia Gregorczyk / Fox5 San Diego / Jul 15, 2025 

— The city of San Diego may be on the hook to refund nearly $200 million in development impact fees due to not following state guidelines on how to spend and track that money properly, according to a recently published San Diego grand jury report.

“It’s a year of our lives that we pour into these reports and we hope they make a difference,” said jury foreperson James Tuck.

The grand jury is calling into question the city’s collection of development impact fees meant to go toward things like new parks, fire stations, libraries, and roads to offset the impact of new development.

Tuck explains why so much money is at stake.

“Because the city has not reported out and met its reporting requirement since 2021, it could be at risk of having to return this $178 million that’s been languishing in DIF accounts for more than five years back to current property owners.”

by Macy Meinhardt / San Diego Voice & Viewpoint / July 16, 2025

If you’ve been following our housing coverage over the past year, you’ve likely come across several mentions of a convoluted zoning policy known as Footnote 7.

Approved in 2019 without community input, Footnote 7 changed the minimum lot size in certain Southeastern San Diego planning areas—from 20,000 square feet per lot to just 5,000. This change was made to allow for more housing developments, but community backlash led to the footnote’s removal in April.

It was considered a partial win for a community that felt the zone change was discriminatory and discreet, as it only applied to Southeastern San Diego, a region known for concentrated poverty and minority populations.

Although the footnote was removed for future projects, it still applies to developments that were already in the approval process when the rule was in place.

Which takes us to where we are today: the Klauber Development debate.

By Robert Campbell / Special to the OB Rag

In a 6-3 vote that has left all Encanto community members and advocates stunned and deeply dismayed, the San Diego City Council approved the controversial Klauber Project last night, July 15, ignoring a mountain of critical legal case law and policy violations laid out in detail by land use attorney Craig Sherman. The site is located at 1362 Klauber Avenue.

The vote bypassed not only dozens of inconsistencies with state and local law, it also faced overwhelming opposition from residents of the Chollas Valley including the Encanto and Emerald Hills neighborhoods — historically underserved, low-resource, and environmentally burdened communities.  Not a single person spoke in favor of the development, with over 60 minutes of public testimony against the project and an additional 30 written statements submitted against approval. The developer declined to make any presentation or statement.

Despite urgent pleas from all community members and advocates in attendance, including myself as the Chair of the Chollas Valley Community Planning Group, along with a comprehensive legal memo from attorney Craig Sherman exposing the project’s many legal violations, the council moved forward with a decision that reflects a troubling pattern: the prioritization of development over equity, environmental justice, and community voice.

By David Garrick / San Diego Union-Tribune / July 15, 2025

San Diego finalized a controversial plan Monday to replace hundreds of thousands of trash and recycling bins — many of them new or only a few years old — and send the $65 million bill to customers.

City officials say the move is part of upgrading service just as San Diego begins levying its first-ever trash pickup fee.

They contend the new cans will boost dependability, reliability and accountability because they are equipped with special tracking chips and will look different than the old cans so that crews can recognize them.

At last count, the newly formed San Diego Community Coalition comprised 25 San Diego communities plus multiple organizations that have united to exert concerted pressure on elected San Diego officials to address two intersecting issues: 1) Overbuilding incompatible ADU complexes and towers in residential neighborhoods; and 2) City Hall’s flagrant disrespect for constituents and communities.

The popular OB Rag serves as the platform for the San Diego Community Coalition, posting accessible news and updates. You can also follow timely news on its Facebook page HERE.

Stay tuned for news on our upcoming protests, including one planned against the 14-story high-rise in Midtown at 3677 Columbia Street. Click HERE for more information about this highly contested Complete Communities project.

Our next general and public meeting will be held on Saturday, July 26th from 10 to noon, at the Pacific Beach Library in the community room at 4275 Cass St San Diego 92109 .

First the bad news:

A divided San Diego City Council approved a controversial housing development in Encanto on Tuesday, July 15, even as they acknowledged the 23-home project was made possible by a since-repealed policy that critics call racist.

The council voted 6-3 in favor of the project after Councilmember Henry Foster, who cast one of the “no” votes, searched unsuccessfully for grounds to reject it that were legally sound enough to satisfy his colleagues.

Council members who voted to approve the project said they had no choice, because the allegedly racist policy that had paved the way for it wasn’t repealed until April — long after the project had gotten far enough into the city’s approval pipeline to be deemed a complete proposal.

People in Encanto are very upset with this vote — which the Rag plans to cover. In the meantime ….

During the hearing, Paul Krueger spoke on behalf of the newly-formed San Diego Community Coalition. Paul is a long-time San Diego journalist, member of the influential Neighbors for a Better San Diego, and occasional contributor to the Rag. Here are his remarks as transcribed by a Rag writer:

By City News Service – 10News /July 15, 2025

A public records lawsuit was filed Monday seeking documents from the city of San Diego related to the recent $250 million proposal to transform the blighted 101 Ash St. building into affordable housing units.

The city’s Land Use and Housing Committee recently voted unanimously to recommend approving a deal to enter into a 60-year lease to convert the long- vacant property into nearly 250 residential units for families earning between 30% and 80% of the area’s median income.

Copies of the ground lease and disposition and development agreement — which were not available at the time of the committee’s vote — are being sought in a new lawsuit filed on behalf of city resident John Gordon, who previously sued the city over its lease-to-own agreement for the 101 Ash St. property.

“City officials are attempting to approve the 101 Ash Street (disposition and development agreement) and ground lease and related documents while concealing their essential terms from public scrutiny,” the complaint filed in San Diego Superior Court reads.

By Donna Frye / Special to OB Rag

I have never seen the words “surplus lands” used in the same sentence as Mission Bay Park and it was shocking to say the least.

I had no idea that dedicated public parkland was subject to the Surplus Lands Act until I read Geoff Page’s July 9 article about Mission Bay Park in the OB Rag.

After doing some research, I learned that the “surplus lands” issue in Mission Bay Park was heard at a July 2, 2025 Land Use and Housing Committee meeting as Item Number 11.

Included in the documents was a Notice of Availability soliciting lease proposals for the three Mission Bay Park properties which states in part:

“If the City receives more than one letter of interest for any of the Properties during the 60-day response period, it will give first priority to entities proposing to develop housing where at least 25 percent of the units will be affordable to lower income households. If more than one such proposal is received to ground lease any of the Properties, the City will give priority to the proposal with the greatest number of lower income affordable units. If more than one proposal specifies the same number of lower income affordable units for any of the Properties, priority will be given to the proposal that has the lowest average affordability level.”

I took 10 minutes to make calls! You can do this!

Every action, every voice matters! Danna wrote an article in the OB RAG that will help your voice be heard. The article is titled:
Proposed SB 79 Makes SB 10 and Bonus ADUs Look Like ‘Gentle Density’ — Contact Our Assembly Members Today to Oppose It

Take 5 minutes to read the article in the Rag, and another 5-10 minutes to call all of the assembly people listed, and ask them to vote no on SB 79. They will ask for your full name and Zip Code.