By Macy Meinhardt, V&V Staff, CA Local News Fellow
Community members from District 4 are celebrating a small, but notable “win” after San Diego City Council voted to remove the controversial Footnote 7 from municipal code on Tuesday Jan. 28.
The win comes not just from the footnote removal, but also because the topic has garnered the council’s attention on other problematic development practices taking place in the area, such as the city’s bonus ADU program.
However, the fight for justice in the Encanto and Southeastern communities is far from over. As Voice & Viewpoint has previously reported, the community’s mission wasn’t just to get rid of the footnote, but to also halt development projects that relied on the regulation for approval. This specifically includes two housing projects planned for Emerald Hills and Encanto: the Klauber Development and the Radio Tower Project.
“Doing the right thing is defined as making a motion to add an amendment to not allow any projects to use Footnote seven, no matter where they are in the process,” said Emerald Hills resident Martha Abraham.
|
Community members argued that the footnote reinforced inequitable housing practices by exclusively concentrating additional density in the city’s most underserved district.
“The laws, codes, footnotes and projects you approve are feeding into structural racism, whether you know it or not,” said Abraham.
Yet, halting the projects was not on the table at the latest council meeting, and a recent analysis released by the City Attorneys office upholds the city’s argument that Footnote 7’s implementation was not illegal nor discriminatory.
This analysis by the City Attorney is a sharp contrast with a dissenting opinion on Footnote 7 written by Voice & Viewpoint Publisher, Dr. John E. Warren.
“The real issue is found in the fact that Footnote 7 violates the equal protection clause by how it affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner,” wrote Dr. Warren, who served as a Law Clerk to both the San Diego County Counsel’s Office and the San Diego City Attorney’s Office.
“The very fact that the City Council is willing to consider repealing Footnote 7 is proof positive that the inequality has been found and noted. Question: How do you correct the problem without providing the necessary remedy to correct the harm done?” said Warren.
Check out the full version of our publishers dissenting legal analysis, in this week’s editorial section.
Two separate hearings for the projects will be taking place in the near future for an ultimate vote by councilmembers.
Meanwhile, in his motion to dismiss the footnote from city code, District 4 Councilmember Henry Foster shifted the focus by adding a request for city staff to come back in 60 days with an action to remove the city’s bonus ADU program.
About These ADU’s..
In order to fulfill the region’s housing needs, the state has been pushing the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) known as “granny flats” onto single family lots. This is happening in all cities across the state, although San Diego has taken an aggressive approach towards this by implementing a one of a kind Bonus ADU program.
The program permits unlimited bonus units on properties designated as affordable and located near public transit. This allows developers to pack multiple two-story buildings on lots originally zoned for single-family homes. In Encanto, residents are alarmed by the sudden discovery of 11 separate proposed ADU projects coming to their neighborhood, earmarked to increase density by 2,000%, they claim.
The largest project set for Encanto appears to be on the end of Tarbox St., where the developer plans to pack 22 two-story ADU’s on the lot, creating 43 units.
Similar to complaints about the footnote, opposing neighbors argue that the unchecked development strains infrastructure, overcrowds neighborhoods, creates safety hazards, and worsens quality of life.
“Is your plan to just dump these projects on the shoulders of Encanto and just leave us to figure it out after the fact? The only explanation for this is that there is a collaboration between the city and the developers,” said Encanto resident Becca Bautista.
Other councilmembers raised concerns about excessive ADU production in their neighborhoods as well. The topics of ADU’s, however, were not agendized nor given public notice. The City Attorney warned this could subject the city to a Brown Act violation.
Despite the City Attorney’s caution, Foster’s motion passed unanimously 8-0 with District 1 Councilmember Sean Elo Rivera absent.
Audience members, clad in yellow t-shirts, clapped and waved mini American flags when the motion went through. But, as members filed out of the council chambers and began to process amongst one another, it was apparent that emotions were mixed.
Residents such as Andrea Hetheru, Chair of the Chollas Valley Community Planning Group, viewed the move as political leverage on Foster’s part.
“Councilmember Foster was able to successfully move the focus from the retroactive repeal of Footnote 7 to ADU’s,” said Hetheru, “it was pure hypocrisy.”
Hetheru criticizes the inconsistency with city council cherry-picking which laws and legal advice they follow. “When it comes to the City Attorney’s advice on whether or not to retroactively repeal Footnote 7, you say that you have to defer to the City Attorney’s opinion, and you can’t do it,” Hetheru said. Yet, when it comes to the legal warning of bringing up ADU’s–even when it is not on the agenda–all of the sudden it becomes “debatable”.
Foster’s office has faced mounting pressure and backlash from constituents over both the footnote controversy and ADU developments.
He stated on the record that while he does not agree with the implementation of Footnote 7, he sides with the fact that smaller lot sizes increase home ownership opportunities for his district.
It is unclear how councilmembers will vote when the two projects come back to them, or how the mayor will respond to councilmembers request to dismiss the Bonus ADU program.
Overall, political agendas, divisions, and discrepancies are definitely at play, sowing deep distrust between community members and city officials. Voice & Viewpoint will continue to follow how the city engages and works with the Southeastern community while navigating the regional housing crisis.
