One of San Diego's most recognizable breakfast restaurants is taking City Hall to court, alleging that a prolonged municipal construction project turned its busy Hillcrest neighborhood into a maze of road closures, disappearing parking spaces and dust-filled streets, costing the business tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue every month.
Hash House A Go Go, a longtime Fifth Avenue institution famous for its enormous portions and elaborate breakfast creations, claims the City of San Diego's storm drain replacement project effectively choked off customer access for months, leaving the restaurant to absorb the financial consequences of a public infrastructure project it had no control over.
The lawsuit represents an escalation of a dispute that has frustrated Hillcrest business owners since construction began in late 2025. While the City has an obligation to maintain and replace aging infrastructure, Hash House A Go Go contends that the manner in which the work was performed imposed an unreasonable burden on nearby businesses, interfering with their operations and depriving them of customers who could no longer easily reach the neighborhood.
According to the complaint, the storm drain replacement project transformed portions of Fifth Avenue into an extended construction zone, restricting vehicle traffic, eliminating convenient parking, generating dust and disrupting access to surrounding streets. The restaurant alleges that the problems continued through June 2026, encompassing approximately seven months of disruption during which customers faced substantial obstacles simply trying to reach the business.
The financial consequences were significant, according to the restaurant's previously submitted claim against the City. Hash House A Go Go reported that its February 2026 revenue fell more than $40,000 below its three-year rolling average, representing a 17.8% decline. In May, the restaurant reported approximately $28,000 in lost revenue compared with its historical average, a decrease of 9.5%.
Those figures illustrate why the restaurant is pursuing compensation, although the claimed losses have not been independently established by a court. Revenue declines measured against historical averages also do not, by themselves, establish that every dollar of the difference was caused by construction rather than other economic or operational factors.
The lawsuit nevertheless argues that the disruption went beyond the ordinary inconvenience associated with street repairs. Hash House A Go Go alleges that the City's conduct repeatedly interfered with the restaurant's ability to use and enjoy its property, particularly as construction activity and related street restrictions continued for months.
The restaurant previously joined other Hillcrest businesses in filing claims with the City seeking reimbursement for losses allegedly suffered between December 2025 and June 2026. After the City rejected those claims, Hash House A Go Go pursued litigation, placing the dispute before the courts rather than accepting the losses as an unavoidable cost of municipal construction.
The dispute is not limited to one restaurant. Other Hillcrest merchants have complained that construction projects have discouraged visitors, complicated deliveries and made it harder for customers to find their businesses, raising broader concerns about the financial toll of prolonged public works projects on neighborhood commercial districts.
Among them is Divo Diva Cafe, whose owner, Victoria Robertson, previously described the difficulty of navigating months of construction while attempting to keep her business operating. Robertson told Times of San Diego in June that although her cafe had suffered financial losses, she was reluctant to pursue litigation because doing so would mean spending even more money after an already difficult period.
Robertson said she was instead trying to move forward now that the fencing, construction equipment and other visible disruptions had been removed. Her comments reflect the predicament facing small businesses that may lack the resources or appetite for a legal battle even when they believe government construction has damaged their bottom lines.
The project at the center of the controversy is more substantial than a routine street resurfacing. City procurement records identify the Fifth Avenue and Brookes Avenue Storm Drain Upgrade as a $4.73 million construction contract awarded to L.B. Civil Construction Inc. in January 2025.
According to the City's project documents, the work involves installing approximately 1,457 linear feet of reinforced concrete storm drainage pipes along Fifth Avenue and Brookes Avenue, with additional infrastructure extending toward a nearby canyon. The project area includes Fifth Avenue between Pennsylvania Avenue and Brookes Avenue, along with portions of Brookes Avenue between Fifth and Sixth avenues.
Some excavation along Fifth Avenue was designed to reach depths of up to 17 feet, illustrating the complexity of replacing aging drainage infrastructure beneath an established commercial neighborhood. The City also determined that the project qualified for a statutory exemption from additional environmental review under provisions applicable to certain pipeline installation and replacement work.
The lawsuit represents an escalation of a dispute that has frustrated Hillcrest business owners since construction began in late 2025. While the City has an obligation to maintain and replace aging infrastructure, Hash House A Go Go contends that the manner in which the work was performed imposed an unreasonable burden on nearby businesses, interfering with their operations and depriving them of customers who could no longer easily reach the neighborhood.
According to the complaint, the storm drain replacement project transformed portions of Fifth Avenue into an extended construction zone, restricting vehicle traffic, eliminating convenient parking, generating dust and disrupting access to surrounding streets. The restaurant alleges that the problems continued through June 2026, encompassing approximately seven months of disruption during which customers faced substantial obstacles simply trying to reach the business.
The financial consequences were significant, according to the restaurant's previously submitted claim against the City. Hash House A Go Go reported that its February 2026 revenue fell more than $40,000 below its three-year rolling average, representing a 17.8% decline. In May, the restaurant reported approximately $28,000 in lost revenue compared with its historical average, a decrease of 9.5%.
Those figures illustrate why the restaurant is pursuing compensation, although the claimed losses have not been independently established by a court. Revenue declines measured against historical averages also do not, by themselves, establish that every dollar of the difference was caused by construction rather than other economic or operational factors.
The lawsuit nevertheless argues that the disruption went beyond the ordinary inconvenience associated with street repairs. Hash House A Go Go alleges that the City's conduct repeatedly interfered with the restaurant's ability to use and enjoy its property, particularly as construction activity and related street restrictions continued for months.
The restaurant previously joined other Hillcrest businesses in filing claims with the City seeking reimbursement for losses allegedly suffered between December 2025 and June 2026. After the City rejected those claims, Hash House A Go Go pursued litigation, placing the dispute before the courts rather than accepting the losses as an unavoidable cost of municipal construction.
The dispute is not limited to one restaurant. Other Hillcrest merchants have complained that construction projects have discouraged visitors, complicated deliveries and made it harder for customers to find their businesses, raising broader concerns about the financial toll of prolonged public works projects on neighborhood commercial districts.
Among them is Divo Diva Cafe, whose owner, Victoria Robertson, previously described the difficulty of navigating months of construction while attempting to keep her business operating. Robertson told Times of San Diego in June that although her cafe had suffered financial losses, she was reluctant to pursue litigation because doing so would mean spending even more money after an already difficult period.
Robertson said she was instead trying to move forward now that the fencing, construction equipment and other visible disruptions had been removed. Her comments reflect the predicament facing small businesses that may lack the resources or appetite for a legal battle even when they believe government construction has damaged their bottom lines.
The project at the center of the controversy is more substantial than a routine street resurfacing. City procurement records identify the Fifth Avenue and Brookes Avenue Storm Drain Upgrade as a $4.73 million construction contract awarded to L.B. Civil Construction Inc. in January 2025.
According to the City's project documents, the work involves installing approximately 1,457 linear feet of reinforced concrete storm drainage pipes along Fifth Avenue and Brookes Avenue, with additional infrastructure extending toward a nearby canyon. The project area includes Fifth Avenue between Pennsylvania Avenue and Brookes Avenue, along with portions of Brookes Avenue between Fifth and Sixth avenues.
Some excavation along Fifth Avenue was designed to reach depths of up to 17 feet, illustrating the complexity of replacing aging drainage infrastructure beneath an established commercial neighborhood. The City also determined that the project qualified for a statutory exemption from additional environmental review under provisions applicable to certain pipeline installation and replacement work.
The infrastructure improvements were not undertaken without a public purpose. Earlier reporting by ABC 10News established that the work stemmed from a legal settlement requiring the City to upgrade stormwater infrastructure along Fifth Avenue, adding another dimension to the dispute between the municipality's obligations and the economic interests of surrounding businesses.
But the existence of a legitimate public infrastructure project does not automatically resolve questions about how construction is managed or whether neighboring businesses may be entitled to compensation. California law recognizes certain circumstances in which government activities that substantially interfere with private property rights can support claims for damages, although ordinary construction inconvenience or reduced customer traffic does not necessarily create liability.
That distinction will likely be important as the litigation progresses. Hash House A Go Go will need to establish the factual and legal basis for its claims, including the nature of the alleged interference, the extent of its losses and whether the City's conduct gives rise to compensable damages rather than merely the temporary inconvenience commonly associated with public improvements.
The City has not publicly presented its legal defenses in the reporting available so far. A City representative declined to comment to Times of San Diego, citing the pending litigation, and there has been no reported judicial determination that the municipality acted unlawfully.
The controversy also arrives amid broader frustration over construction throughout Hillcrest. Separate projects, including work associated with the neighborhood's Pride Promenade, have generated complaints from merchants about accessibility, construction schedules and the cumulative effects of repeated disruptions to a district heavily dependent on restaurants, retail businesses and pedestrian activity.
For restaurants in particular, access can be a critical part of the business model. Customers deciding where to eat breakfast or brunch have numerous alternatives, and a street filled with construction barriers, limited parking and uncertain traffic patterns can make even a well-established destination less attractive.
That is especially consequential for a restaurant such as Hash House A Go Go, which has operated for decades at 3628 Fifth Avenue and developed a reputation extending well beyond Hillcrest. Known for its oversized portions, towering breakfast presentations and Midwest-inspired comfort food, the restaurant has become a familiar destination for both San Diego residents and visitors.
The lawsuit therefore presents a larger question than whether one popular breakfast restaurant lost customers during roadwork. It raises the issue of who should bear the economic burden when a government infrastructure project benefits the broader community while allegedly imposing concentrated financial harm on the businesses located directly alongside it.
For Hash House A Go Go, the answer is that the City should be held financially accountable for the losses the restaurant attributes to the construction. For San Diego, the case could provide another test of how municipal infrastructure obligations intersect with the survival of neighborhood businesses already confronting rising operating costs and economic uncertainty.
The restaurant remains in operation, and no court has determined that the City is responsible for its reported revenue losses. But with its administrative claims denied and litigation now underway, one of Hillcrest's best-known breakfast destinations is asking the courts to decide whether the price of improving San Diego's streets should include compensating the businesses that say they paid for those improvements through months of lost customers.
Originally published October 7, 2026. Additional reporting based on City of San Diego public works records, ABC 10News and Times of San Diego.
But the existence of a legitimate public infrastructure project does not automatically resolve questions about how construction is managed or whether neighboring businesses may be entitled to compensation. California law recognizes certain circumstances in which government activities that substantially interfere with private property rights can support claims for damages, although ordinary construction inconvenience or reduced customer traffic does not necessarily create liability.
That distinction will likely be important as the litigation progresses. Hash House A Go Go will need to establish the factual and legal basis for its claims, including the nature of the alleged interference, the extent of its losses and whether the City's conduct gives rise to compensable damages rather than merely the temporary inconvenience commonly associated with public improvements.
The City has not publicly presented its legal defenses in the reporting available so far. A City representative declined to comment to Times of San Diego, citing the pending litigation, and there has been no reported judicial determination that the municipality acted unlawfully.
The controversy also arrives amid broader frustration over construction throughout Hillcrest. Separate projects, including work associated with the neighborhood's Pride Promenade, have generated complaints from merchants about accessibility, construction schedules and the cumulative effects of repeated disruptions to a district heavily dependent on restaurants, retail businesses and pedestrian activity.
For restaurants in particular, access can be a critical part of the business model. Customers deciding where to eat breakfast or brunch have numerous alternatives, and a street filled with construction barriers, limited parking and uncertain traffic patterns can make even a well-established destination less attractive.
That is especially consequential for a restaurant such as Hash House A Go Go, which has operated for decades at 3628 Fifth Avenue and developed a reputation extending well beyond Hillcrest. Known for its oversized portions, towering breakfast presentations and Midwest-inspired comfort food, the restaurant has become a familiar destination for both San Diego residents and visitors.
The lawsuit therefore presents a larger question than whether one popular breakfast restaurant lost customers during roadwork. It raises the issue of who should bear the economic burden when a government infrastructure project benefits the broader community while allegedly imposing concentrated financial harm on the businesses located directly alongside it.
For Hash House A Go Go, the answer is that the City should be held financially accountable for the losses the restaurant attributes to the construction. For San Diego, the case could provide another test of how municipal infrastructure obligations intersect with the survival of neighborhood businesses already confronting rising operating costs and economic uncertainty.
The restaurant remains in operation, and no court has determined that the City is responsible for its reported revenue losses. But with its administrative claims denied and litigation now underway, one of Hillcrest's best-known breakfast destinations is asking the courts to decide whether the price of improving San Diego's streets should include compensating the businesses that say they paid for those improvements through months of lost customers.
Originally published October 7, 2026. Additional reporting based on City of San Diego public works records, ABC 10News and Times of San Diego.
