Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves contentious 23‑home Clobber Avenue development after lengthy public testimony
Summary
After extended public comment and debate about a now‑repealed 'footnote 7', planned parkland, and steep slopes, the council approved the Clobber Avenue project (23 single‑family homes) by a 6–3 vote; opponents argued the CEQA exemption and community‑plan consistency were inadequate.
The San Diego City Council on July 15 approved the Clobber development project in the Encanto neighborhood by a 6–3 vote, adopting the environmental resolution (CEQA consistency under section 15183), a tentative map, a site development permit and a neighborhood development permit for up to 23 single‑family homes.
The project, proposed on a 5.66‑acre site, was submitted when a municipal code footnote (“footnote 7”) allowing smaller lot sizes in certain community plan areas was still in force; council heard extensive testimony about whether that footnote’s origins and application were appropriate and about whether the project had vested rights to rely on standards in effect when the application was deemed complete in 2022.
More than 50 members of the public spoke before the council. Opponents raised multiple objections: they argued the development would consume land the community plan had identified as park/open space; that steep slopes and hillside protections and geotechnical constraints were inadequately addressed in the CEQA consistency checklist; that the site has constrained ingress/egress and potential fire access challenges; and that the project lacked meaningful community engagement and benefits. Advocacy groups and the Choyas Valley/Encanto Community Planning Group submitted a detailed legal memorandum asking the council to deny the application.
Supporters and the applicant said the proposal complies with the community plan’s density (when applying vested rights) and that the redesign reduced lots and included internal walkways and a private dog park. Staff advised the council the application was submitted and deemed complete in 2022 and that footnote 7 applied to the project under vesting rules; the City Attorney reminded members that denials under state housing law require written findings demonstrating a specific adverse public‑health or safety impact and no feasible mitigation.
Councilmember Foster moved to deny the project on grounds the CEQA consistency review was inadequate and cited geotechnical/steep‑slope concerns; that motion failed. Councilmember Moreno then moved to accept staff’s recommendations; that motion passed 6–3. The project approval includes conditions and technical requirements; staff noted that additional permitting and mitigation measures will be required during the entitlement and construction phases. The council’s action closes this hearing but may be followed by further administrative appeals or legal challenges from opponents.
