By Kate Callen
The City of San Diego had a one-time-only opportunity to compensate Southeastern San Diego for decades of neglect and broken promises. It has thrown that away to hand an iconic community parcel over to a national developer with a checkered history.
On July 7, by an 8-1 vote, the City Council denied an appeal to stop D.R. Horton, which is facing class action lawsuits across eight states, from building 123 homes on a 31-acre hilltop plateau in Emerald Hills.
The future owners of those homes will have exclusive access to a beloved natural asset: a stunning panoramic 360-view of the San Diego-Tijuana coastal region. People in the surrounding communities, who have long treasured the vista from the Radio Towers Hill, will be shut out.
And their dream of building a landmark destination like the Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles that would bolster the local economy has now collapsed.
Communities across the city have endured similar heartaches when iconic properties, like the Little Red Bungalow in Mission Hills, are razed by out-of-town developers.
But the Emerald Hills loss is uniquely tragic. It happened because in 2019, someone inside City Hall targeted Southeastern communities by slipping the infamous “Footnote 7” into the municipal code.
The mysterious footnote, as Rob Campbell reported in a November 17 Rag post, “shrinks minimum lot size from 20,000 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft but only in historically redlined Black and Latino neighborhoods like Emerald Hills and Encanto.” Without Footnote 7, the Horton development could not be built.
The City Council unanimously repealed the footnote in 2025, but the damage was done. As with the reformed Bonus ADU program, developers rushed their projects into the pipeline before the crackdown. Horton was one of them.
Monica Montgomery Steppe was the District 4 Councilmember who passed Footnote 7. Her parents own a construction company, and her mother works in real estate. Now a County Supervisor, she urged the Council to approve the Horton project: “I want others to have access to the same opportunity that I had in life, a chance to grow up in a home that I knew would always be there for me to dwell in.”
The community’s response to the “we need housing” argument was: Why here? Why must this cherished parcel be taken away from Southeastern neighborhoods?
“This is not about housing,” said Marry Young of the Chollas Valley Community Planning Group. “We are asking for a space to honor our community’s legacy.”
The fury in Southeastern is like a smoldering brushfire that will not go out anytime soon. Looking down the road, it may affect the political futures of two councilmembers in two very different ways.
Henry Foster III, who was Montgomery Steppe’s chief of staff when she passed Footnote 7, succeeded her in the D4 seat and is now running for re-election. He was already facing a tough fight against challenger Martha Abraham when he voted with seven colleagues for the Horton project.
When Foster and Abraham face off in debate before the November election, guess what topic will be front and center?
District 7 Councilmember Raul Campillo once again was the lone “No” vote on an issue that has inflamed public sentiment. He based his opposition on the illegality of Footnote 7’s targeting of minority neighborhoods. He has called projects enabled by the loophole “fruit of the poisoned tree,” a phrase that has become a rallying cry.
“Supporting housing does not require the Council to approve every and any project on every and any site,” he said. “How can a city grant property rights while simultaneously violating state and federal law?”
Campillo is looking like an early favorite for mayor in 2028. In recent weeks, community activists who have been ride-or-die supporters of upstart Richard Bailey are looking at Campillo in a new light, and they like what they see.
The appeal was conducted by the City Council acting as quasi judicial hearing officer. I wrote the Council and testified at the appeal hearing asking that each Council member declare that they were unbiased and had taken the additional Judicial oath. Only Council President Joe LaCava declared that he personally was unbiased. He did not include his staff assistant employees.
No Councilperson took the additional judicial oath!
The entire Appeal hearing process needs to be reformed. It now costs $2, 380 dollars to appeal . The “progressive” working man advocate Democrats all voted to raise the already outrageous $1,000 fee to $2,380 . I guess they feel that this high fee will keep the peasants away from City Hall
They are also quasi gagging us from public comments now. This BS change in ceding time, giving presentations and non-agenda comments, is just one more obstacle in the way of public participating in our own government.
Quasi gagging?
I live in Emerald Hills and own district rep (Henry Foster) blocked me on his official government IG because I called him a coward for limiting comments on his statement and telling him I was eager to vote him out of office.
Wow, that’s too bad. It’s all about money the property taxes on 123 houses will provide for the City and the residents don’t count! I don’t know why people keep voting for Montgomery. She’s not for the people no matter what district she runs in.
Where do we donate to the appeal?
It would hurt less, if they treated all areas of San Diego equally. For some reason, La Jolla is allowed to only build 18 homes on a property the same size as Radio Towers. Emerald Hills/Encanto is forced to build 123 gated/ HOA homes (of which there are currently none in the area). Every Council Member admitted at the hearing that they never even went to see the Radio Towers property before deciding against the appeal. They have no firsthand knowledge of this property, so they can never envision the potential we see. The City and State are encouraging people to build 2 ADUs in their backyard. With ADUs that would be
54 for La Jolla vs. 378 Us
This isn’t “smart growth” it’s “urban sprawl”. There is no mixed-use housing, no public transportation, no truly affordable units (currently you would need to make a minimum of $120,000 to qualify for the “affordable” housing , it will probably be higher by the time it’s built and ready to sell). This gated/HOA community will be completely out of character for our area and priced out of reach for the majority of people living here.
I’m honestly concerned for the people who buy these homes. They will be DR Horton homes. Just a quick search will pull up all you need to know about their class action law suits, fraud, poor building practices and lack of warranty follow throughs. Not to mention how trapped they will be on top of that high fire hazard hill top, with no quick escape routes and just a stop sign for traffic control.
Footnote 7, which this build is permitted under, so blatantly singled out Emerald Hills/Encanto area for a 400% density increase, that it was eventually removed after activated community outrage brought it into the light. Then, the City allowed developers to believe they could buy up houses in our area and turn them into mini apartment complexes with no parking, under the Bonus ADU program, until we made them realize that the City has neglected the infrastructure in our area for so long that our streets are not safe, much less ADA compliant – no curbs, sidewalks or storm drains. Not being able to monetize the Bonus ADU program, these houses sat empty, until they weren’t. Criminal elements became aware of the empty houses and are now using them for drug and sex trafficking, child endangerment, setting fires, threatening neighbors and creating an unsafe atmosphere.
So, yeah I don’t think it’s too much to expect the City Council to stick by the Community Plan that was accepted back in 2015, that shows Radio Towers as future park space. From the red lining of the past to the concentration of density now – it’s no real surprise there will be no Legacy Park on Radio Towers Hill for the future, but the disappointment does hurt – especially when your own elected representatives call your ideas racist.
We don’t have a housing shortage, we have an affordability crisis. SB79 is about to add 500,000 new homes, vacancy rates are up and so are move-in incentives. Park space inequity in San Diego is real and so is the inequity in the City’s treatment of certain neighborhoods. https://www.tpl.org/city/san-diego-california
Maria, these are right-on comments, thank you.
Your comment is well written and clearly shows that though the Grand Jury enforced the City to address equity, After the historical inequity in District 4 was proven.
This injustice for Emerald Hills shows that Equity Forward is just meaningless.
The more I read about Campillo the more I like. Nice to read there is at least one person with integrity on the city council. Hope he is our next mayor. Not surprising to see how the self proclaimed advocate for those residing south of his imaginary boundary of El Cajon Blvd voted. In a moment of truth he voted for developers over community. Keep working on that enemies list Elo.
There’s a reason D.R. Horton houses are sold as affordable, watch:
“House From Hell – Our investigation into D.R. Horton and Lennar”: https://youtu.be/Yaw5iTfCFxY?is=GvSlVmdKQp4AEPVb.
Or read the article, “House from Hell” — How America’s Largest Homebuilders Shift the Cost of Shoddy Construction to Buyers. Includes photos of the same houses Horton will build and sell in Emerald Hills:
https://hntrbrk.com/investigations/homebuilders
Further, multiple nationwide class action suits charge the developer with misleading homebuyers through a bait-and-switch scheme where D.R. Horton makes its homes appear more affordable than competitors, and qualifies homebuyers for homes that cost more than they understand they can afford. The litigation against this questionable developer are numerous, all charging Horton with taking advantage of homebuyers.
So many questions…. Why was this Emerald Hills project rushed through and heavily supported by officials who added footnote 7 enabling the developer to build more houses than the area was zoned to accommodate? Was D.R. Horton thoroughly vetted? Were there other companies bidding on the property? Did the city seek or entertain other offers, or did they just accept Horton’s? Why?
Is there an active outside investigation into the footnote 7 matter, and any potential conflicts of interest?
And when the D.R. Horton project fails the homeowners in cases as above, because all of this is public, will they sue the city? The officials? Will the taxpayers end up footing the bill for the footnote?
Anyway, it’s just a thought. Y’all have a nice day.
8-1 is pretty definitive.
Unfortunately, the city council had little choice but to deny the appeal.
The question before them was whether or not the proposed development was properly approved by the Planning Commission as in compliance with all applicable city land use requirements. The answer is a simple “yes it does.”
Moreover, the scale of the development is entirely consistent with the surrounding single-family neighborhood, replicating the identical density and single-family use. Had the Council overturned the Planning Commission’s approval, the property owner and development would have a sure-thing lawsuit against the city.
Land use decisions aren’t based on popularity. They are based upon whether or not the proposal complies with the rules. That’s been the constitutional and case law standard for decades.
Of course, the irony here is that, given all the hyperventilating against big box apartments going in all over town, this is a single-family subdivision. One would think the community would prefer that.
I understand that at one time the city had envisioned the site as public park and open space. A great idea, especially for this location. But in order for that to have happened, the city would have to own the property. It doesn’t. Consequently, the private owner of the property has a constitutional right to develop the property in accordance with city codes in place at the time a permit application is filed.
I dearly wish people expressing anger and outrage about this knew even a little bit about California State land use law. Apparently, they don’t.
You are exactly right. When people are emotional over an issue, it’s hard for them to see the facts correctly as you just did.
Yessiree, emotions can get in the way of the perception of reality. All those farmers who congregated at the Lexington-Concord greens 250 years ago were just too damn emotional. And their emotions cost them lives …. but they won a country.
And apparently you don’t have much understanding of the land in question, the community in question and the half century of efforts to make this land a neighborhood park, and you didn’t even mention the infamous “footnote 7”. The community was sold out … in favor of developers once again. This scenario has played out in San Diego time and time again (as well as other locales as well). Developers have ruled this city for over a century with the so-called rules greased for them by the politicians they support.
Plus, you didn’t even mention the racist attitude most of San Diego’s elites have had for southeastern San Diego, a community denied infrastructure, parks, schools, firestations – the list goes on.
I am fully aware of the nature of the site and its history. My point is simple…the development proposal complies with all applicable regulations and requirements.
Footnote 7 relates to the fact that the permit application was vested under different rules than after it was repealed in March of 2025. But during the six years it was in place, the property owner was entitled to smaller lot sizes.
This kind of thing happens all the time all across the country. It’s called “grandfathering.” It’s actually based upon the due process provisions of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and substantiated by case law for decades.
Due process entitles developers to have their projects reviewed under the statutory requirements in place at the time permits are properly applied for. We have seen this same set of circumstances with respect to recent changes to the ADU regulations. Complete applications already in the pipeline are vested to proceed with the rules in place at the time of submission.
While history in this matter is both convoluted and unfortunate, the only question in front of the council for this appeal was whether or not the Planning Commission properly found the proposal complied with all applicable development standards and requirements. It does, so that’s it.
If Footnote 7 was illegal, then anything passed under it is also illegal. Just like in the law, if law enforcement commits a crime in violating someone’s 4th Amendment, then any evidence discovered because of that violation is not admissible in court. The fruit of the poisoned tree.
Don, you sound like a developer’s rep. Do you happen to work in the industry?
Frank, Footnote 7 was not “illegal.” In fact, it took city council action at a duly noticed public hearing to repeal it. That would not have been necessary if it was “illegal.”
For the record, I am not a “developer’s rep” and never have been. While I am now retired, the first half of my professional career was running planning and building departments for city and county governments. So, I am pretty familiar with how land use law and decision-making works – in multiple states.
And please do not misunderstand my remarks as support for the project or the developer. I am simply stating the facts of the situation that this article failed to include. A real journalist would have researched and included that information. There’s a reason why the vote was eight to one to deny the appeal.
The City Council didn’t tell the folks in Encanto to “go f*** yourselves.” They followed the law and I’m sure they didn’t enjoy disappointing the crowd in attendance.
While we may not always like the results, our Constitution guarantees property owners and developers the same rights to due process as every other individual. Perhaps a better result would have been a subdivision with about half the density. But the City Council had no authority to require that of the property owner and developer.
Fact – City Council snuck Footnote 7 into zoning codes. They had to remove it, but not before they allowed DR Horton to sneak this project in. Let’s see who in this cast of characters ends up building. Whoever it is, better not have any ties to Monica Montgomery or Henry Foster III.
When legality trumps morality we end up with situations like this.
Thanks Frank Gormlie!
Its nice to read your comment, with inaccurate facts that recogized the inequity.
This project absolutely does not match the density of the surrounding area and those stating such obviously never even driven thru this area!
Moderate Income is not the same as low income, and if majority of residents in D4 wanted their Gen X kids to purchase a home it would need to be sold for very low income not moderate income.
The overall density of the proposed project is slightly less than four dwelling units per acre which is entirely consistent with the overall density of the single-family areas abutting the property and consistent with what the Community Plan for the area calls for.
Lot sizes range from 5,000 to 9,172 square feet and average almost 6,000 square feet. This is slightly smaller than the existing average for the surrounding area, but that’s because nearly 8 of the 31 acres, about 25% of the site, is dedicated as open space/parkland.
Of course, all of this is discussed in the official staff report for the project appeal and I recommend reading it:
https://sandiego.hylandcloud.com/211agendaonlinecouncil/Documents/ViewDocument/Staff%20Report%20for%20-%20%20().pdf?meetingId=7084&documentType=Agenda&itemId=263088&publishId=1118310&isSection=false
Don, thanks for your comments I have found them informative, even though I am not happy with this decision, but your comments add needed context.
Was the city trying to obtain the land to make this a park? I’ll be honest, based on various news coverage I didn’t realize that there were additional hurdles for this to become a park.
Thanks Jeff.
For the record, there actually already is a City of San Diego community park immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed development: Emerald Hills Neighborhood Park. It’s almost 10 acres in size, with 8 acres improved with recreation facilities.
My understanding is that at one time the community plan for Encanto designated the entire 31-acre development site for parks and open space, but this designation was removed a number of years ago and the site re-designated for single-family home development at up to 4 dwelling units per acre.
But designated parkland in a community plan isn’t particularly meaningful if the city doesn’t own the property, which is the case here. It requires a genuine commitment of public funds to purchase the site at market value.
Without such dedicated funds, the city is obligated to allow a private property to put the land to private use. That’s a Constitutional right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The city cannot “take” private land for public purposes without compensation. There is endless case law on this subject.
Don, I concur with your comments regarding th legal standards applied to this project. There were many instances across the arc of my career where the applicable standards required a recommendation of approval for an otherwise dreadful project, but the history of footnote 7 is a huge question that demands an answer. Where did it come from? Who authored it? How did no member of the staff or city Council recognize the import and implications of the footnote?
I’m not generally prone to seeing a conspiracy behind every bad land use decision (full disclosure: actually, yes I am, at least in San Diego) bit this doesn’t pass the smell test – someone got this put in without any scrutiny and we deserve to know who, how, and why.
Any reason why you can’t disclose your previous employment to give context to your comments?
Earlier, Don said: ” While I am now retired, the first half of my professional career was running planning and building departments for city and county governments. “
Paul,
As Mr. Gormlie points out, while I am now retired, the first half of my professional career was running planning and building departments for city and county governments.
I hold a master’s degree in public administration with an emphasis in urban affairs.
My first entry level planning job was with the City of Del Mar. I then moved on to county government in northern Arizona. For most of my early career I worked in the Pacific northwest in planning and community development for city, county and state governments. I even had a hand in the development and implementation of Washington State’s landmark Growth Management Act.
My final two decades of public service was as a county executive running county governments on behalf of elected county commissions in Washington and Oregon before retiring and returning to San Diego about seven years ago.
While the exact history of Footnote 7 is a bit murky, its introduction and consideration occurred in duly noticed public hearings before the San Diego City Council. It was likely something councilmembers, perhaps in the land use committee, asked for staff to draft up for their consideration.
Its purported purpose was to increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households by allowing developers to create smaller lots, yielding a greater density with their projects. That’s actually a noble goal and now a recommended best practice by the American Planning Association.
However, it doesn’t appear that many city constituents were paying attention when Footnote 7 was considered in public session by the council. As a result, community outrage ensued as development applications in reliance upon the amendment began to surface.
The city staff, recognizing the hornets’ nest Footnote 7 created, brought forward a measure in late 2024 to repeal it. In doing so, the city staff and councilmembers lauded its goals, but agreed that not enough community outreach and engagement occurred at the time of its adoption.
However, during the three years Footnote 7 was in full force and effect, the subdivision application for this development was submitted, vesting the project to be reviewed in accordance with the rules in effect at the time of filing.
There is nothing about this that is conspiratorial. Stuff like this happens under what are sometimes arcane and case law driven planning rules and regulations. Most folks are unfamiliar with how land use law works and so are prone to suspect conspiracies that don’t actually exist. I’ve seen it all before.
My motivation in being so vocal here is to counter the false narrative that the council’s action to deny the appeal was somehow corrupt.
The convoluted arguments attempting to paint that portrait ignore the fact that the council had one simple choice in front of them – whether of nor the City Planning Commission correctly found the project complied with all applicable land use and development rules and regulations.
The simple answer is yes and because of that the council had little choice but to deny what was a frivolous appeal.
Don, yes, and I agree with you that there is nothing illegal about the Council’s action, but I disagree that the history and origin are just business as usual. From what I understand this was added at the last minute with little or no discussion and received little attention. I still think that it would be of interest to many of us as to who actually drafted the language. As you and I both know language is often drafted by developers and their consultants. Sometimes even professional staff do not fully understand the ramifications of language that has been placed before them. If it is all so innocent lets shine a bright light on this and see what we learn. That’s all I am asking.
The Council’s actions adopting Footnote & and denying the appeal were only legal if they were done without conflicts of interests and free of bias. Since the Council did not take the Judge’s Oath the actions maybe illegal. The requirement from freedom of conflict and bias would extend down through their employee agents -Council Assistants.
PS The first place to cut and free up needed services funding is the some $12 million dollars that is spent on the compensation of these political assistants.
Friends, It is the City Mayor and Councilpersons duty and job to take those actions necessary to carry out the community plan. Council should have bought the 32 acres.
D4 has had not had a get it done Councilperson since George Stevens.
I have yet to see the city look into who penned the infamous “footnote 7” , and how it was allowed to seep into the housing regulations without any indications of authorship or city acknowledgement and/or approval. If this issue were to be examined and found to be illegal or underhanded that might give grounds to revisiting whether this deal with Horton is unchallengable
It’s not all that relevant who actually “penned” Footnote 7 in 2019, when it was first publicly introduced. It was probably written by some obscure staff person. It was item #335 on the December 17, 2019 City Council’s public agenda.
What is relevant is that in late 2021, the City Council approved Footnote 7 following a public hearing on the proposed code amendments. It wasn’t “allowed to seep” in. It was all very public.
However, the subsequent outrage led to the City Council repealing Footnote 17 in March 2025.
At this point the Emerald Hills project is a done deal, unless the developer decides not to move forward. Local opponents could attempt to file a lawsuit against the decision, but it’s not likely they would get anywhere with it and would likely be subject to a SLAPP lawsuit for pursuing frivolous litigation.
The origin of footnote 7 is relevant to southeast SD residents. It’s origin and motivation is entirely relevant to those voters.
Don, you can bury yourself in legalize all you want, but you’re missing the giant point: city council ignored a history of lack of environmental equity, the wide coalition and history of opposition to this project, and the best moral stand.
Frank, one ignores the “legalize” at one’s peril – potentially to the tune of treble damages. And the best moral stand is to uphold the law. That’s what city councilors pledge an oath to do. If the law doesn’t do enough, then amend the law to do the job you want it to do. That’s how democratic institutions are supposed to work.
Don,
For the appeal the City Counselors act as judges. They were asked, by me, to take the Judges oath to certify that they were acting without conflict or bias. They did not and created an appealable issue.
John, I agree that it’s prudent for city councilmembers, when serving in a quasi-judicial position, to expressly declare their lack of bias and conflicts, especially if there have been accusations to the contrary.
But they are not required by law to do so each time they serve in that capacity. That’s because councilmembers are required to state and sign an oath of office at the beginning of their respective terms.
Still, such declarations can improve general conduct of a quasi-judicial hearing.
Don,
Thank you for your legal opinion. I guess we have a case of dueling lawyers. I believe that the Judicial Oath is required and deffers from the general public office oath
As a retired lawyer, I have to warn you Don, that the law can be awfully wrong. The law prevented women from voting; the law of Jim Crow prevented African-Americans from voting; property-less men couldn’t vote by law; Richard Nixon used the law to quash dissent; on and on. The best moral stand is one of fairness and justice.
Don, I have looked at the council agenda you referenced and it appears to be one of the city’s mega land development code updates. Every thing I see has to do with flood management zone changes, with no c!ear reference to footnote 7.
I’m away from home at the moment and don’t have the time or resources to investigate further until I return home tomorrow but nothing about this agenda item says “major changes that increase density” on the affected parcel. At best it appears that it was lumped in with a lot of other changes and wasn’t highlighted in any way. Our bad for not noticing it, I guess.
Paul,
Your observations and questioning are reasonable. I would agree that not enough attention was given to the potential consequences of the change. The City’s Development Services Director publicly agreed with that assessment as well when she recommended repeal of Footnote 7.
But it’s less evidence of corruption and more a suggestion of ineptness. Or more accurately – immaturity.
My observation about the city is that at the executive and policy development level there are a lot of very talented and motivated young professionals. These people are very skilled and constantly come up with provocative new big ideas filled with good intentions. They are on a fast track to make a difference. But they lack the maturity that comes with long term experience in the trenches.
Combine that with the fact that term limits results in a high turnover on the city council, and you’ve a recipe for a governing entity that doesn’t always think through the consequences of their great big ideas. My bet is that Footnote 7 was one of those “great big ideas.”
We’ve seen this problem repeated with the Balboa Park parking fee debacle, the rates for trash collection, the enactment of density bonuses for ADUs and the several homeless services projects that failed before they began.
I’m a big fan of bike lanes and I support the city’s efforts in that regard, but the roll out of the Mayor’s “sexy streets,” no matter how seductive, was like a teenage boy on his first date.
My own advice to city leaders is that they slow down, don’t rush to judgment and take their time thinking through the changes they want to make. Don’t take on too much at once. And work hard to listen first and act later.
My two cents as a retired old public administrator.
My two cents as a retired old planner and former planning board member. My interactions with City staff over the last few years have demonstrated two kinds of staff – experienced mature professionals who are stifled by their superiors from actually saying what they think who are doing the best they can but are following the party line to keep their jobs, and young ideologues who mouth things that they really don’t understand or grasp the ramifications of.
I find it hard to believe that F7 was just a “big idea” that got carried away. I truly believe it was inserted at someone’s behest, particularly the way it was presented to the council . I will say no more as there are too many litigious people and organizations in our world for my comfort.
It would probably be fun for us to get together and trade war stories over coffee, or something stronger.
Coffee sometime sounds like fun.
Cheers,
Don
Your comment about footnote 7 is very interesting. Doesn’t a footnote have to meet the requirement of addressing a detail about what it is a footnote TO? If so, then it didn’t qualify as a footnote to start with. Any English professors here?
Leaders like Andrea Hetheru, whom I talked to at length, were working on a public-private plan to develop the site as a regional destination that would have transformed Southeastern San Diego. This has become a best practice for community-led development that preserves natural assets. City Hall, which professes to care about the underserved — “This For All! That For All!” — gave them the cold shoulder.
Going forward, visionary politicians will start working with communities from Day 1 to explore options for developing sites that are important to the public. Any takers?
Don – the Tower development is not DR Horton’s first rodeo in Emerald Hills. DRHorton also is in the middle of the Klauber Ave. development (having acquired the property from Klauber Development) – same MO: take 4 lots and subdivide them into 25, to allow for 23 SFRs – all market rate. Somehow Fn7 inexplicably opened doors to developers outside the norm of housing policy. And the developer started with low hanging fruit in Encanto. Fn7 was implemented with the help of District 4 councilmember at the time – Monica Montgomery-Steppe elected in 2018. [AI}: “Policy Focus: Because of her father’s work in construction and her mother’s work in real estate, she has focused on housing and infrastructure in her political career. She has consistently pushed to bring new jobs and investments to historically underserved neighborhoods in her district.” Against the wishes of her constituents. Beleaguered Chollas Valley is forced to continue their fight with lawsuits: https://chollasvalleycommunityplanning.com/lawsuits
Unfortunately, none of that history is relevant to what was the City Council’s decision last Tuesday.
No matter what the motives or circumstances were in 2021 when the then Council enacted Footnote 7, the simple fact is that it was legally enacted after a duly noticed public hearing by the full City Council, not just Ms. Montgomery-Steppe.
And frankly, her father’s and mother’s careers are completely irrelevant to any vote she cast in favor of the amendment or public testimony she gave in favor of the project. It’s a huge stretch of the imagination for people here make that the issue or somehow construe her vote or testimony as an act of “corruption.” Talk about grasping at straws.
The only thing relevant to this current City Council was whether or not the project complies with all applicable development standards and regulations as was determined by the City Planning Commission. It doesn’t matter how awful DR Horton may be. It doesn’t matter that the property was once thought to be a prime candidate for a public park and open space. Nor does it matter what Ms. Montgomery-Steppe testified to at the hearing – words the First Amendment of our Constitution gives her the absolute right to express.
My question is because Stepp has family members in construction and real estate, in this community, does that constitute a conflict of interest?
Pats says: “My question is because Stepp has family members in construction and real estate, in this community, does that constitute a conflict of interest?”
The simple answer is “no” it is not a conflict of interest simply because she has family members in the construction and real estate business.
Ms. Montgomery-Steppe, herself, would have to have a genuine and specific financial benefit resulting from a government decision she made or participated in for there to be disqualifiable conflict of interest.
Her giving public testimony to a government body she doesn’t belong to could not possibly be a conflict of interest because she’s not a decision-maker for the appeal.
Now if she was to receive a real financial benefit for her participation in the city council’s 2021 decision to enact Footnote 7, that could be a conflict of interest. But there would have to be a clear and specific correlation between the decision and a genuinely real financial benefit, not speculation. That doesn’t appear to be the case.
Here are the California rules regarding conflicts of interest for public officials:
https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/conflicts-of-interest-rules/
Friends,
In the end it all comes down to “Sustainability”.
The Tijuana/San Diego region is a very resource limited coastal desert area. It has very limited water supplies and until recently fuel/energy supply [Solar energy for transportation and heating and cooling has changed some of the reliance on carbon fuels]. Resources for industry, housing construction, manufacturing must generally be imported from far distances and again require fossil fuels and more water.
The native KUMEYAAY never developed large populations , large structures, or significant industry or agriculture largely because of the limitations of the regional resources.
The Tijuana/San Diego region was moderately sustainable up until the 1950’s. It produced mor food than it consumed and the imports of fuel and materials were subsidized by the military. The jet travel age foster an unsustainable tourism economy which was required more fossil fuels and more water.
Our region is a Paradise lost because of overdevelopment of the region way beyond its carrying capacity. The overdevelopment bill is soon to become due.
Global Warming and Climate Change can not support 25 million jet entertainment tourist trips. If the region was wise it would start planning on a tourism fossil fuel crash and not continue to develop tourism infrastructure or unsustainable housing development
Your comment is well written and clearly shows that though the Grand Jury enforced the City to address equity, After the historical inequity in District 4 was proven.
This injustice for Emerald Hills shows that Equity Forward is just meaningless.
Kate,
Thanks for writing an accurate article that mirrors the feelings of a large majority of District 4, residents regardless if they live in the 18 separate neighborhoods/communities within District 4, or 8 other Council Districts.
It’s funny that Councilmembers failed to addressed the housing crisis related to the unfairness of the large acre lots in project in La Jolla, Foxhills?, Yet claim large loots are unfair in District 4.
Right!?! That’s an interesting spin on what’s fair. La Jolla already wants to leave the City of San Diego, because of their poor management. Can you imagine if the city forced the same density policies on them as they do for Southeast San Diego? Those would be some well-funded law suits, that wouldn’t need to be settled because they ran out of money. Let’s see if Henry follows through on rezoning the entire city.
This is would be nice if it were actually true. Very biased and not very factual. Maybe watch what the Councilman Foster actually said on the City website of the entire meeting or just what he said https://youtu.be/hUTQ6BtIS8A?feature=shared
Steve,
Thank you so much for posting that video. It is a compelling counterpoint to some of the negative commentary I’ve read about his participation in the appeal hearing. He comes across as thoughtfully curious and well informed about the issues relating to the development. I had not heard him speak before and frankly, I am impressed. He deserves to be re-elected.
What will you say then, Don, if and when Foster loses the election?
I guess we will cross that bridge in November.
For the moment he is outraising his opponent two to one. However, his infinitesimal lead in the primary means the race is too close to call for the moment. She could beat him. Although, he has the upper hand on influential endorsements.
Notably, because Abraham lives in Emerald Hills, she likely would have to had recused herself were she a sitting councilmember for the appeal.
Since I live in District 2 it’s not a race I am actively engaged in. I’m rooting for Nicole Crosby.
By the same token, what will you say if he wins re-election?
Politics is corrupted by PAC money. Labor Unions, Developers, and the rich buy Council Districts. Citizens United must be replaced by a constitutional amendment that limits contributions to only human citizens that can only contribute no more than 1% of median family income.
The election is not just based on any single item. The person running against Henry Foster III has not spoken about anything but this 1 item and that item is done.
5 months until elections and the other candidate has refused to a real open no time limit debate with the questions provided in advance.
None of the 2 minute replies to our water bills, trash rates, funding for Arts & Culture zones. Questions about budget priorities, over policing in our communities.
Candidate Foster has already recorded his issue positions by his votes.
Did it happen like I said it would ?
Black Family ownership down >50% over last 20 in #D4, while nonprofits, politicians & their family and friends get rich off the people’s backs
For shame
https://x.com/Morales4SDMayor/status/2074512925449232849
What’s old is new again or same as it ever was. Pete Wilson gave away mission landgrant land, Torrey highlands and “ North City West”( for pennies on the dollar). Now the brokers are back for the crumbs(no disrespect for the neighborhood). I did the math and 1 mile of a 4 lane boulevard( think east Chula Vista or 4S ranch) equals 50 acres. Look at a map( but don’t stop on these blvds on a bike lane)how much space is wasted under asphalt. Bonus is that utilities are already in(or nearby) “ you could be home by now”
Pete Wilson is ancient history. This is a current effort by the sitting Councilman Henry Foster, now seeking reelection. In a Democracy we get to choose our representatives. To get the results you want either join: https://martha4sandiego.com/ or https://www.henryfoster4sd.com/ .