OB Rag

By David Garrick / San Diego Union-Tribune / August 1, 2025 

A county watchdog panel is raising new concerns about how San Diego spends and keeps track of the many millions of dollars that developers contribute to help the city pay for parks, libraries, fire stations and other infrastructure projects.

The grand jury says San Diego has chronically violated the California law that allows cities to collect those developer impact fees — including with its longstanding practice of keeping fees beyond a five-year state limit.

In a 43-page report, the grand jury says San Diego should quickly refund $179 million it has kept beyond five years and make it a practice of refunding such fees in the future when it can’t justify holding money beyond that limit.

The report also says the city should be more transparent about how much money it has collected, how much it spends, which projects money is assigned to and how close those projects are to being fully funded.

In a tone that borders on exasperated, the report says city officials have been made aware their practices violate state law several times but have repeatedly ignored those warnings.

Voice of San Diego reporter MacKenzie Elmer explains that when pressed as to why SeaWorld’s summer fireworks are still with us after saying they had to go a year ago, City Council President Joe LaCava answers, “It’s complicated.” Here is Elmer’s full report:

After some nesting birds nearby died last year following back-to-back pyrotechnics for the Fourth of July, the most powerful person on the San Diego City Council said SeaWorld’s nightly summertime fireworks have got to go.

Almost a year later and Mission Bay is still booming night after night.

When asked what San Diego City Council President Joe LaCava’s done so far to make good on his promise, his office told me it’s complicated.

By Kate Callen / August 1, 2025

A year ago, after hearing countless stories about monstrous accessory dwelling units (ADUs), OB Rag staff wanted to find out how bad things were. So we launched a “Worst ADU in San Diego” contest on August 9. And we sat back and waited for entries.

By the August 23 contest deadline, the Rag received over 50 submissions from 20 communities across the city. Our panel of five judges drove around town looking at one eyesore after another. It was depressing work.

The three top prizewinners were announced September 12: Gold at 4578 Jicarillo Avenue in Bay Ho, Silver at 4974 54th Street in College, and Bronze at 5732-36 Dorothy Drive, also in College.

The combined awfulness of the projects prompted us to add 12 “Dishonorable Mentions.”

The 15 contest “winners” fell into two categories of greed. In the first, predatory developers crammed multiple units onto a single lot for maximum profit. In the second, selfish property owners built gigantic structures onto small lots for maximum living space.

The second category included the Bronze recipient. The judges commented, “This demonstrates how a single ADU can have an overwhelming neighborhood impact. Our first thought was: Could this be any uglier? Our second thought was: Is this an architectural middle finger to the surrounding neighborhood?”

S.D. puts Mission Bay land use issue on hold – Review of step toward redevelopment pushed back to September

By Jeff McDonald / SD Union-Tribune / July 31, 2025

The San Diego City Council isn’t signing off yet on a plan by Mayor Todd Gloria that would declare dozens of acres of commercial property in Mission Bay Park surplus so it can be offered to developers.

On a 7-1 vote after an hour of debate and criticism of the plan from members of the public, the council agreed this week to revisit the proposal in September, after their August recess.

Council President Joe LaCava voted no on delaying the proposal; Councilmember Vivian Moreno was absent.

San Diego’s decades-old long-term master plan for Mission Bay Park calls for a hotel in the area of the three proposed surplus sites.

A top aide to Gloria acknowledged the city had been approached about building a hotel on the largest of the three parcels — currently the 23-acre site of the Marina Village banquet and conference center. The other sites are home to the Dana Landing Marina on nearby Ingraham Street and the Sportsmen’s Seafood restaurant just down Quivira Way.

“The city did recently receive an unsolicited proposal for one of the three parcels,” said Christina Bibler, the city’s director of economic development.

From Point Loma-OB Monthly

ArtWalk Liberty Station returns for its 20th year this weekend with more than 175 artists from around the United States and Mexico showcasing their paintings, photography, glass, ceramics, jewelry and sculptures.

The event will be from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 2, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 3, at Ingram Plaza in Liberty Station’s Arts District at 2751 Dewey Road, Point Loma. Admission is free.

A ticketed preview party where guests can get an early look at the artwork and mingle with the artists is set for 5 to 8 p.m. Friday, Aug. 1. Tickets are $25 (free for children 12 and younger) and include live music by Fleetwood Max and James Taylor tribute act Never Die Young. Food and beverages will be available for purchase.

Live music also will be offered all weekend by performers including San Diego Music Awards nominees and winners.

Here’s the musical lineup:

A few days ago, KPBS ran a story entitled “San Diego is building a lot of new homes, but not always in places that need them most” by Jake Gotta, which was picked up by their media partners at Voice of San Diego. Gotta interviewed our good friend Bonnie Kutch, the head of UC Peeps who is also a steering committee member of the San Diego Community Coalition.

However, mainly Gotta quoted Colin Parent extensively, the head of Circulate San Diego, a group that masquerades as pro-envirionment and pro-mass transit advocates but who are mainly paid lobbyists and pro-development shrills. Gotta made Kutch out to be the “bad guy” in his totally uncritical “gotcha” YIMBY piece. Here below, Bonnie responds:

Hi Jake:

In case you’re doing more stories focusing on housing issues, I wanted to make a few points that weren’t covered in your story that aired today.  I wasn’t clear on what the focus of today’s story would be, thinking it was housing in general, so I failed to point out a few things:

• First, the City of San Diego spent $2.1 billion of taxpayer money building the Blue Line Trolley Expansion alone so it could supposedly bring people who work in UTC back and forth.  Yet, the City has failed to advocate for new affordable housing near all 62 trolley stops to serve that purpose.  Building all the housing in UTC or Sorrento Valley alone is a huge waste of the trolley expense and negates its intended purpose.

Come Inside to Order Your San Diego Community Coalition T-shirt

By Carl Yaeckel / Op-Ed San Diego Union-Tribune / July 31, 2025 

Climate change is coming.

This year climate seems to be the forgotten topic (there are a few other things going on!). But ignoring something doesn’t make it go away.

Have you heard that due to climate change impacts (fire, flood, storm) in “10 or 15 years, there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage,” quoting Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s recent testimony to Congress?

Did you know during the last year the United States spent 3% of its GDP on recovery from climate disasters? That’s a trillion dollars. Throw in increased insurance premiums and the figure goes higher. Oh, about insurance, particularly homeowners insurance: it’s required for a mortgage and the price is going up, particularly in areas more prone to fire, flood and storm. Premiums have doubled since 2017.

Got kids (or grandkids)? A recent study published in the journal Nature concludes that “children and young people born in the present decade face exposure to heatwaves, crop failures, floods, droughts, wildfires and tropical cyclones, in a way that their parents and grandparents never did — and that this applies pretty much anywhere in the world.”

Climate change is coming, even if you believe, hope or pretend it isn’t.

Tuesday, the 29th of July, witnessed another vote by the San Diego City Council. This vote — a unanimous one — crystalized the city handing over, as Jennifer Van Grove at the UT, described as “its asbestos-plagued office tower at 101 Ash St.” for a 60-year lease to the development team headed by none other than Kelly Moden, the chair of the City’s Planning Commission. She heads MRK Partners and Create Dev LLC.

Moden gushed, “Today’s council approval gives us the green light to transform a city-owned liability into a legacy. We are honored to have the trust and confidence of the San Diego City Council as we turn our attention to meeting September’s state and federal affordable housing deadlines, which will keep our timeline and financing moving forward.”

As Van Grove reported:

The project presumably raises ethical concerns because of Moden’s involvement.

Michael Aguirre and Maria Severson, partners at Aguirre & Severson LLP who have sued the city over its past dealings with the building, threatened additional litigation. They alleged violations related to public noticing requirements and argued that Moden’s financial participation in the deal is illegal.

On Tuesday, July 29, the San Diego City Council voted overwhelmingly to continue the issue of Mission Bay “surplus land” into September. This was upon former councilmember Donna Frye’s request, as expressed both in her letter to the Council and in her statements in the OB Rag.

The issue was initially on the Consent Calendar of the council’s agenda for the day, which would have only called for a simple vote and no discussion of this important issue by councilmembers. Councilmember Marni von Wilpert pulled the item from the Consent Agenda and made the motion to deny the staff — the Mayor’s — recommendations.

After some discussion, the final vote was 7 for the continuance and one opposed. Councilmember Joe LaCava was the sole vote in opposition.

To their credit, councilmembers Jen Campbell, Stephen Whitburn, Henry Foster, von Wilpert, Kent Lee, Raul Campillo and Sean Elo-Rivera voted for the continuance. Councilmember Vivian Moreno was absent (again).

The reasoning of most of the Councilmembers and of the public speakers was that this was too important an issue for an immediate vote and that the public needed to be more informed and brought up to date on the matter; that a vote on it should be put off a couple of months.

LaCava’s argument for not supporting the continuance was a slap in the face to the public as he derided the idea that the city’s citizens needed to be more informed

Murder trial could last a month for Ocean Beach ‘Superman punch’

A man suspected of killing a man in Ocean Beach with a single “Superman punch” that caused head injuries when his head hit the pavement will have a month-long murder trial, a prosecutor told a judge on July 22.

In the same court appearance, Andrew Phillip Restrepo, 34, received a new attorney, Danesh Tanden, and his attorney, who had defended him so far, Brandon Roesler, was relieved. Restrepo is accused of killing Sean Ellis Glenn, 34, after Glenn brushed past him on May 10, 2023, at a pizza shop in the 5000 block of Newport Avenue. The two men were strangers to each other, and Restrepo confronted Glenn outside the shop for Glenn touching him. Glenn said he didn’t know what he was talking about at 10:51 p.m.

Without warning, Restrepo punched Glenn in the face so hard that he fell backwards onto the street, lapsing into unconsciousness when his head hit the pavement, according to detectives at his April 9 preliminary hearing. Glenn went into a coma at a hospital and died months later from brain injuries. One witness described the one punch by Restrepo as “A Superman punch” because it caused Glenn to hit the pavement. It is unusual for a single punch to cause death. Restrepo left the scene, but took photos from his phone and sent them to five people, according to testimony in the preliminary hearing.

When a majority rules without offering a rationale, we can’t know if they are following the law.

By Erwin Chemerinksy / Contributing writer Los Angeles Times / July 23, 2025

“Because I said so” never is persuasive or satisfying. And it certainly should not be regarded as acceptable when it is the Supreme Court resolving important issues — up to and including matters of life and death — without the slightest explanation. Yet, that has been the pattern in recent weeks, as in a series of significant cases the court has handed down rulings without opinions or explanation.

For example, on June 23, in Department of Homeland Security vs. D.V.D., the court majority lifted a district court order that prevented individuals from Venezuela and Cuba who were in the U.S. from being deported to South Sudan. The district court had issued a preliminary injunction against so-called third country deportation, finding that the individuals were not given due process: They were not provided sufficient notice or a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation based on their fears for their safety. The judge was understandably concerned the individuals could be subjected to torture or death upon arrival. Federal law is specific on where people can be deported to, and there is a strong argument that the Trump administration would violate the law in sending these individuals to a country where they had no prior contacts.