Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants appeal, sends Clobber subdivision back to staff amid questions about "footnote 7" and community notice
Summary
After extensive public comment, the council granted an appeal of the CEQA exemption for the Clobber development in Encanto, finding the proposed 25‑lot subdivision exceeds community‑plan density and returning the matter to Development Services for further analysis; community speakers urged removal of municipal code Table "footnote 7," which they said changed lot‑size rules for select neighborhoods without adequate process.
The City Council on Nov. 12 granted an appeal of the environmental determination for the Clobber subdivision in the Chollas Valley/Encanto area and remanded the project to Development Services Department (DSD) for further review.
DSD project manager Andrew Murillo summarized the procedural history and said staff's updated analysis shows the proposal for 25 single‑family units exceeds the Encanto community plan's intended density (0–4 dwelling units per acre) by two units. Staff therefore recommended upholding the appeal and returning the project to DSD for additional evaluation and processing.
Appellants and dozens of residents said the project rests on a contested municipal-code footnote — commonly known in testimony as "footnote 7" — that allows minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet in sections of Encanto and Southeastern San Diego where the community plan otherwise indicates larger minimum lots (20,000 sq ft for RS‑12). Appellants argued the footnote was adopted without adequate community notice or review, disproportionately affects historically redlined neighborhoods, and effectively raises allowable density in low‑resource areas. Appellants requested that the council pause projects relying on footnote 7 and remove the footnote from the code.
Community speakers also urged better notice and more time for local planning groups to evaluate large code updates; several speakers said they did not receive mailed notices or did not see a posted notice on the property. Staff responded that it had followed the noticing rules that applied at each procedural step but acknowledged confusion and said staff would meet with the planning group and bring a proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission to remove or clarify footnote 7.
Councilmember Foster moved to grant staff's recommendation to uphold the appeal and remand the CEQA determination to DSD; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously (recorded as 8–0 with one member absent). Councilmembers emphasized the need to work with the community on next steps and for staff to expedite review of the footnote's status.
