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.
The Klauber Devlopment
During the July 15 City Council meeting, councilmembers were asked to approve a plan to subdivide four large lots into 23 smaller lots on 1362 Klauber Avenue in the Encanto neighborhood. The plan includes:
- 23 single-family homes
- A private dog park (maintained by a Homeowners Association)
- Two private roads
All units would be 100% market rate, meaning 0 homes would be marked as affordable housing.
The developer behind this project, La Mesa-based Klauber Development Corp., has been eying this five-acre green space lot for years.
In August 2021, CEO of Klauber Development Corp., Cindy Phan, uploaded onto her Instagram page a video advertising the property, stating it had already been approved for 25 housing units and is awaiting entitlement.
“This is a rare opportunity for investors and developers to bring this community into life,” Phan says in the video reel.
Per the city’s Development Services Department, the project was not officially approved until nine months later, in April 2022.
Typically, a development of this scale would not be permitted in this rural neighborhood. It’s not zoned for it. However, the footnote provided an exception to this rule, effectively clearing the way for the project despite zoning restrictions.
Most of the surrounding neighbors would not be informed of this project until years later in 2024. Although the 5.66-acre green space is privately owned, many residents had long envisioned it as a future public park. That vision was at the heart of the opposition when Klauber Development Corp. brought its proposal to City Council years later.
A Parkland Promised, Then Lost
“Encanto is a community that’s been in the shadows of other communities. This should have been a park. Please help us have a community that we can be proud of,” said District 4 resident Eric Becerra.
In Nov. 2024, councilmembers rejected the project after siding with residents who brought forward an appeal, citing concerns on the loss of potential park space, lack of public input, and public health and fire safety concerns. Opponents also pointed to the absence of a full environmental review, a process that examines a project’s impact on traffic, air quality, noise, and surrounding natural areas.
Following the rejection, the developer returned to the drawing board. The revised proposal now includes 23 housing units instead of 25, and features a privately owned and operated dog park to placate some of the community’s concerns.
However, many community members still pushed back, specifically on the principle behind the project, which was Footnote 7.
“If Footnote 7 is no longer valid, then projects depending on it should not be given a pass. Let’s uphold the standards we claim to value: narratives, transparency, equitable development,” said resident and Chair of the Community Planners Committee, Victoria LaBruzzo.
“This project is morally corrupt. This project is a reflection of corporate greed… If you vote yes for this, you are aiding and abetting in the disenfranchisement of this community,” said Emerald Hills resident Martha Abraham.
Members of the local community planning group have even taken the steps to raise over $20,000 to hire an attorney to help them with this fight. For the July 15 hearing, community members submitted a 17-page objection letter from Craig A. Sherman Law Corporation outlining legal grounds for rejecting the project—including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations, lack of vested rights, and inconsistency with the Encanto Community Plan—arguing the development is unconstitutional and should not proceed.
Even then, those efforts would not be enough.
Legal Risks vs. Community Rights
During the hearing, District 4 Councilmember Henry Foster sided with community concerns, arguing that the project lacked meaningful community engagement and did not serve the interests of District 4 residents.
“To advance a truly balanced housing strategy, we must confront discriminatory zoning policies that have long protected wealthier areas while concentrating poverty in communities such as District 4,” said Councilmember Foster.
As a result, after numerous breaks for recess and discussions with city staff, Councilmember Foster made a motion to deny the staff recommendation for the project’s approval on legal grounds related to steep hillsides and environmental regulations.
District 7 Councilmember Raul Campillo seconded Councilmember Foster’s motion.
“It is sad to see that what a community for years has thought was going to be park space, never saw the city even try to live up to that. I believe that Footnote 7 from its inception was improper, and any fruit that comes from that vine should be denied,” said Councilmember Campillo.
However, the city attorney and other councilmembers expressed doubt that the challenges presented against the development would hold up in court, warning that a denial of the project could expose the city to potential litigation later down the line.
“State law requires the council to base the decision to deny the project on a written finding that there is a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and no feasible method to mitigate or avoid that impact,” said Assistant City Attorney Leslie FitzGerald during the hearing.
‘There needs to be a change’
Councilmembers Foster, Campillo, and Joe LaCava ultimately voted to reject the project. In the end, however, the concerns raised were not enough to sway the majority of the board. As a result, the project was approved 6-3.
The meeting closed on a defiant note, with many expressing eroded trust towards city leadership and their role in getting Footnote 7 on the books in the first place. Some residents believe the District 4 office was involved in the footnote’s creation, pointing to lobbyist records and email threads between Councilmember Foster and developers during the hearing.
“What we’re witnessing is our own councilmember turning his back on the community, using footnote seven to quietly sell off our neighborhood,” said Martha Abraham.
His office denies those claims, and District 1 Councilmember Sean Elo Riveria came to his defense during the hearing.
“I have a real problem with the frustrations about a project that is in front of us being turned into a personal attack on my colleague, especially when I see how hard he [Councilmember Foster] fights for his community on a daily basis.”
In his conclusion, Councilmember Foster called for an end to the systemic disregard of historically marginalized communities in city planning.
“In short, there needs to be change. I will be looking to the planning department to go through the Municipal Code, look at our processes, and come back with some improvements. We can’t continue to go through this. I don’t think it’s fair to the public,” said Councilmember Foster.