By Robert Campbell
On Tuesday, July 7th, we saw something spectacular. Councilmember Henry Foster III and County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe’s defense of the Emerald Hills “Radio Towers” development which relied heavily on a well-substantiated historical truth: that large lot zoning was historically used as an exclusionary tool to keep minorities out of wealthy, white neighborhoods. But applying that historical framework to the Radio Towers project is a profound misdirection.
Their impassioned argument has left the community deeply puzzled, not because the history is wrong, but because the application of it in this instance is completely inverted.
Selective Application of Housing Density
The claim that dismantling large-lot restrictions is an act of racial and economic equity will leave you scratching your head when looking at a map of San Diego. The policy enacted here, Footnote 7, was a direct shot at Emerald Hills and Encanto, historically minority-majority neighborhoods. If the goal truly were to use smaller lot sizes to desegregate and dismantle historical exclusion, that policy would be aggressively targeted at the predominantly white, high-resource neighborhoods that actually practiced that exclusion. Instead, those wealthy neighborhoods in San Diego remain entirely intact and protected with their large lots, while two minority-majority neighborhoods are now forced to absorb density and lose their remaining open space to this density that white neighborhoods are not required to do.
The Divide in Public Testimony
A look at who actually stood at the microphone on July 7 reveals a stark divide between outside special interests and local residents:
In Support of the Project: The voices pushing for approval were not a grassroots groundswell of local families seeking homes. They were individuals with direct connections to the developer or institutional pro-density groups, including board members from the San Diego YIMBY Democrats.
In Opposition: The voices fighting to protect the space were local community members speaking passionately about Environmental Justice (EJ).
Emerald Hills residents outlined clear, documented EJ concerns regarding air quality, infrastructure deficits, and the loss of the neighborhood’s sparse natural canopies. Yet, both Foster and Montgomery Steppe along with 7 of the remaining council members completely ignored these Environmental Justice arguments during the hearing, offering no explanation or counter-analysis to the community’s concerns.
Footnote 7 and the Reality of the “Settlement”
To add salt to a fresh wound, Councilmember Foster actively directed the City Attorney to ensure that the ongoing legal challenges regarding Footnote 7 were buried within this project’s approval. Foster made a point to highlight that the local planning group had settled its lawsuit with the City, presenting it as a validation that Footnote 7 was legal.
What he failed to mention, and what the community knows all too well, is the true reason for that settlement: a severe lack of funds to continue. Pitting a volunteer, low resource local community planning group against the unlimited legal reserves of the City of San Diego is not a fair fight, and a settlement forced by financial exhaustion should never be weaponized as proof of community consensus but it was on Tuesday, our own council member against his own community.
Where is the Reform for Wealthy, Whiter Neighborhoods?
If Councilmember Foster and Supervisor Montgomery Steppe along with most of the rest of the council are genuinely moved by the historical injustice of exclusionary zoning, their legislative record should reflect a citywide campaign. Yet, no policy has emerged from either office targeting the large lot sizes in San Diego’s wealthiest, predominantly white neighborhoods that have RS-1-2 zoning. If large-lot restrictions are an equity barrier, why have they been left completely intact in the coastal and northern pockets of the city?
Instead of crafting a comprehensive, citywide reform to open high-resource areas to working-class families, they crafted a hyper-local policy that uniquely targets a minority-majority neighborhood, historically redlined neighborhoods, forcing them to bear the burden of high-density development, then trying to shame us for advocating for the same zoning white neighborhoods have in San Diego?
The Mirage of “Generational Wealth” for District 4 Families
Another glaring flaw in the council’s justification of this project was the total absence of a mechanism to deliver on its core promise. The project, as approved, carries no legal requirement to provide homeownership opportunities to existing local community members. The market will dictate who buys these homes, not the council’s impassioned speeches.
The harsh economic reality of San Diego’s housing market exposes the fantasy of this “equity” argument:
- The median household income in the 92114 ZIP code sits at $97,794.
- The current median price for a single-family market-rate home in San Diego has climbed to $1,074,000.
A household earning the neighborhood average cannot qualify for a million-dollar mortgage. Because there are no local preference protections, there is a high likelihood that wealthier buyers from outside the area will purchase these new properties. Built on the high ground of the Radio Towers site, this development sets up a painful visual dynamic of a wealthier, newly arrived demographic literally looking down upon the existing minority-majority community that has lived there for decades who had fought for a park and healthier environment. Using the rhetoric of wealth building for marginalized families to approve a project that will likely be well outside their budget and price them out isn’t equity, it’s called gentrification.
If that was not weird enough, around 81% of the community is already single family homes, it’s not like we have a shortage of them in our area. Many of our homes have been bought by investors who saw opportunity to capitalize on Bonus ADUs.
A Unified Front for Environmental Justice, Completely Ignored
The dismissive handling of Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns by Councilmember Foster, Supervisor Montgomery Steppe and the rest of the council becomes even more egregious when looking at the depth of the coalition they chose to ignore. The appeal against this project was not a fringe, localized complaint. It was a massive, unified front of local grassroots organizers, regional environmental advocates, and official city-sanctioned bodies, including:
- The Hold The Hill Initiative and Groundwork San Diego-Chollas Creek, groups deeply rooted in the local neighborhood’s watershed and environmental health.
- The Chollas Valley Community Planning Group and
- the city-wide San Diego Community Planners Committee, representing the democratically elected voices of neighborhood planning.
- The San Diego County Democrats for Environmental Action, a major regional political group advocating for climate equity.
Every single one of these organizations brought forward critical arguments regarding the loss of rare urban open space, degraded air quality, heat island effects, and the systemic environmental deficits already plaguing our District 4 communities. For Steppe and the rest of the council to sit silent and offer absolutely no explanation, counter-analysis, or engagement with this wall of testimony is a profound betrayal of the very Environmental Justice laws they are sworn to uphold.Conclusion
True equity is not achieved by using the language of the Civil Rights movement to override the explicit Environmental Justice demands of historically marginalized neighborhoods today. By continuing to shield wealthy white neighborhoods from density while forcing it onto Emerald Hills and Encanto while dismissively burying valid legal and environmental concerns, the City Council did not dismantle a historical wrong, history will prove that they simply repeated it. It’s one of the oldest phrases in the books, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Where is the policy to remove large lot zoning from historically white, wealthy neighborhoods? Where is Environmental Justice? I’ll continue waiting.
Footnote 7 will rank with 101 Ash as a permanent stain on the San Diego government and a battle cry for a furious public. We cannot trust the Council and City staff. We must scrutinize everything they do. We must doubt everything they tell us. Thank you, Rob, for being a formidable watchdog. Let’s keep the pressure on.
The opportunity to repeat and reinforce an old lie, as the foundation for profit and new lies.
Thank you for this piece. I watched the livestream of the meeting and specifically Foster’s comments, including his “Footnote 7 timeline” that was submitted late. Once again, the council took pains to explain why they are correct and righteous, while the opposition is wrong and misguided. The council seems irrelevant at this point. They cannot stand up to the state legislature or developers. There is no vision or connection to ordinary residents. At least one of the commenters asked why there couldn’t be a compromise. Maybe a smaller project AND more park for the community? Seems that Horton could be held to the fire a bit seeing as they are well known for crap construction and ripping people off. But there is no advocacy for the community whatsoever. My guess is that Foster et al won’t be demanding smaller lot sizes in the rest of San Diego anytime soon. The La Jolla secession movement is pretty strong and if small lots are forced over there, backlash will be fierce. I knew someone that lived in Pacifica, and when the owner of a house across the street died, they joined forces with some neighbors to purchase the property to protect their view. That is what people with means do when they don’t want to lose something in their neighborhood, and that is what people in wealthy neighborhoods will do if they’re threatened by smaller lot sizes. If you have never been to Emerald Hills, drive down to 60th Street to see the hill with your own eyes before it’s gone. Very sad this open space is going away.
Is La Jolla Village Dr and the 805 La Jolla? Those are very large lots filled with what looks like mega apartments.
I think if polled the residents might prefer a house on any lot over a warehouse for a room to rent, next to a freeway.
I could be wrong
Thanks very much, Robert, for this detailed explanation and analysis of these really important issues.
Please email this story to all council members, council staff, and the mayor’s office.
Those in power in this city need to read your perspective, which is shared by so many of your neighbors.
Thanks again for all your work on this important issue, and for the work done by all the other community volunteers.
Paul Krueger
It is terribly disturbing to read, yet again, how local voices of passion, facts and reason are being ignored in order to “reward” developers in San Diego who claim to be providing “affordable” housing. Coincidentally, I received this email from the Sierra Club this morning, and am sending it along to you in case you want to learn more about advocating for our neighborhoods/state/country. I hope we can gather together for the greater good in the face of untold amounts of money/influence achieving results that do not benefit us as a community or a nation. The lessons being taught by the Sierra Club may inspire you to get involved on a local level or beyond. We cannot give up!
“Over the last few weeks, Sierra Club has been organizing a Summer of Action to protect public lands, make polluters pay for their role in the climate crisis, and protect our air, water, and future. Together, we’re attending nationwide rallies, town halls, canvasses, hikes, clean-ups, and community gatherings!
We’re approaching a crucial moment where our elected representatives will be leaving Washington DC to spend time with their constituents in their home districts during August Recess. Now is the time for members of Congress to hear from you.
You’re invited to join us for a training on how best to tell your story to your elected representatives, whether it is through a face-to-face lobby meeting, a townhall, or letters. Join us on Zoom on July 20 at 6 pm ET / 3 pm PT.
https://act.sierraclub.org/events/details?id=701Po00001xWZwFIAW&formcampaignid=701Po00001x4D7RIAU&data=654a0ff8e42bf8c40ec6a6f20c82a2d544e19e553cfed51d691e8af77986bcf1b8d531aae0da97614a483654759e540f&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sierraclub&utm_content=summer-action-story
Meeting with your member of Congress or their district staff during the August recess is powerful. Legislators pay attention to organized, in-person constituent pressure — especially during recess, when they are back home and more accessible. This is our opportunity to take collective action that strengthens our environment, our communities, and our democracy.
If you’re new to grassroots lobbying, it might feel scary. But don’t worry, we’ve got you covered! At our training we’ll be joined by the expert Sierra Club lobbyists who’ve come up with some tips and a guide to make it simple. Register here to come learn how to tell your story directly to decision makers.
We’ll cover everything you need to speak directly to your representatives:
How to Request and Prepare for a Meeting
What to Do During a Meeting
How to Follow up Afterwards
This is your chance to put a human face on the issues and make your representative feel the weight of community concern before they return to Washington after Labor Day.
We are showing up at congressional offices — neighbor alongside neighbor — to fight for an affordable clean energy future, safer and healthier communities and live and work in, and access to the public lands and waters that we can enjoy and explore.
We hope to see you on July 20th,
Sierra Club”
We need to ask Henry Foster and Monica Montgomery if they will assure us long after they are kicked out of office for this disastrous decision, if the homes will be affordable for the median income of the community; not San Diego at large? We know the answer and we cannot forget this continued degradation of all our communities when the community’s needs are ignored over corporate developers.
I thank you Robert for your very thorough analysis here.
And as usual, the residents who are the true stakeholders here are being pushed aside for a large corporate housing developer. The stakeholders will have to suffer the ‘intended’ consequences that neither Foster or Montgomery have considered. I thought the city council was opposed to corporate home ownership which only increases cost of land and the economic divide on housing affordability.
VOTE MARTHA ABRAHAM FOR DISTRICT 4 CITY COUNCIL.
The D4 community survival and economically viable future depend on a new Councilmember with fresh ideas. Vote Martha!
What would those ideas be from anyone who has no ties to communities they did not bother to stand up and make a 1 minute comment to defend.
Every community has silenced voices from the mob. The loud and angry people that only want to hear those that agree with their viewpoints. Thumbs down is their option because they can’t listen to anyone who thinks different.
History shows time and time again how mobs react. Time and time again we have seen how people react when a group run up on someone blindsiding them. Today we have cameras everywhere and the ability to stage interactions clipping out the beginning and the end, those 15 seconds go viral.
The silence from the want to be leadership while the leadership comes prepared to face the music. Facing a mob who interrupt them when it’s their turn to speak because the mob is the only voice that can be considered.
Will this same want to be leader speak up when the police mob attack a teenager, will they speak up when teenagers are sitting on the curb for the police, will they speak up to a Mayor that cuts funding for parks but adds more money for police.
When will they speak up for communities that are over policed
Just for the record, Steve, I have made prior public comments on this issue and have encouraged those on my community newsletter to do the same.
Those who are on my newsletter reside in all districts but we all advocate for one another. Our unified coalition creates loud voices the council may chose to ignore but we as informed voters have the power to affect change to protect all out communities from this wreckless city council.
A one-minute public comment is not the only opportunity to raise one’s voice.
Steve — your demeaning attitude towards the community and grassroots people who oppose this project is criminal — you demean them with your label “mob.” You just violated our comment policies.
The City Council is required to do what the Law requires and they did. You can try and argue the merits of 20,000 sq ft lots and as the City Attorney showed in their 8 pages of case law documentation the people trying to overturn the project were wrong.
Use of the Encanto Community Plan while trying to argue the merits of Footnote 7 has Section 7 diagram 7.2 as it’s Community guidelines.
The Note in the diagram gives 2 options back in 2015 and the City did not exercise the purchase option or make a bid on the tower space.
The fault of the lack of purchase goes to the Council person and Community at that time. The process was moved forward and someone purchased the property to develop and without Footnote 7 they still qualify for the exact same project under the Encanto Community Plan adopted in 2015.
The open space in that area remains along with the fire hazards associated with it as well. The additional fees raised by this project can be used for a variety of things beneficial to the immediate community.
The existing park space needs serious upgrades yet the City lacks the funds to maintain parks in the Community and no other Council members want to reduce their funding request so Emerald Hills can aquire more for their park on the same hilltop.
Rather than continue to push for a divide in the Community the focus can be shifted to something more productive like police reform, Community development or economic development projects to boost the options for healthy food.
Emerald Hills while disappointed trying to pull Encanto into the fight has concluded in a loss. Rather than continue down the road of discontent it might be better to move to the side of bringing as many local residents into the next phase and try and get as many local residents employed on the project as possible.
These projects have the ability to provide stability to the District keeping the dollars earned flowing in the District promoting the business district on depressed Imperial Avenue.
It serves no purpose to continue to berate the reputation of the current leadership unless there is a hidden agenda in the OB Rage.
20,000 square foot lots are racism in a quiet form.
Adhering strictly to minimum legal standards or relying on a single interpretation of the 2015 Plan ignores the legitimate role of community intent. Zoning guidelines are meant to serve the neighborhood, and dismissing legal challenges without addressing the underlying policy flaws ignores valid community grievances regarding density and land use.
The claim “but Footnote 7 was the law” does not make it ethical or right. Sometimes the law is not okay and requires acknowledgement of that. Racially Restrictive Covenants were legally binding clauses inserted directly into property deeds by developers and homeowners. They explicitly prohibited the property from ever being sold, leased, or occupied by specific minority groups. If a white homeowner tried to sell to a Black family, neighboring properties could sue to void the sale. By the 1940s, large swaths of major American cities were legally locked down by these deeds. That was the law.
SB 1000 is state law and yet you make no mention of it or its complete lack of application in approval of this project.
Raul Campillo had the lone decanting view on Tuesday. He argued that Footnote 7 is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” asserting that because Footnote 7 itself was fundamentally flawed and discriminatory, any subsequent housing projects approved under it were inherently tainted.
Raul also argued that supporting the production of new housing does not obligate the City Council to blindly approve every individual project on every site, questioning how the city could grant property rights based on a mechanism that violated broader legal protections.
Legal Federal Redlining was established by the National Housing Act of 1934, the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created “Residential Security Maps” for over 200 cities. These maps color-coded neighborhoods based on perceived lending risk. Areas with minority populations were explicitly marked in red “hazardous,” automatically denying residents access to federally backed mortgages. This institutionalized a system where minorities were locked out of buying homes, while white neighborhoods received massive federal investment. This was the law. It was not right and it was not okay.
Blaming leadership from 2015 for missing a purchase option does not absolve current leaders of their responsibility to protect community space today. Present-day leadership should actively seek creative solutions to preserve land or mitigate development impacts rather than passing the buck to a decade-old administration.
Relying on developer fees to patch up existing parks is a short-sighted strategy. The addition of a new development will increase density and strain local infrastructure further, worsening the park deficit.
Temporary construction jobs and a vague promise of neighborhood spending rarely outweigh the permanent loss of open space or a neighborhood’s established character. Our community already has significant spending leakage. Demanding that the community stop fighting ignores the fact that community advocacy is exactly how long-term, equitable development is shaped.
Equating the defense of 20,000-square-foot lots inherently with institutional racism oversimplifies the issue. In many historically marginalized or semi-rural communities, large lot sizes are valued to preserve open space, manage environmental risks, and prevent density that often triggers gentrification and displacement.
“Blaming leadership from 2015 for missing a purchase option does not absolve current leaders of their responsibility to protect community space today. Present-day leadership should actively seek creative solutions to preserve land or mitigate development impacts rather than passing the buck to a decade-old administration.”
Well put! My exact thoughts. The current council does not work with constituents to craft meaningful solutions. “Solutions” are tailored to corporate interests and lobbying groups like AirBnB and Circulate.
There’s a lot to unpack here. The author’s article is a bit of a mixed fruit salad attempting to weave together multiple unrelated points.
First, let me be clear…I agree with the author’s main premise that action to allow smaller lot sizes should be citywide, including San Diego’s wealthiest and predominantly white neighborhoods, if our genuine motives are to eliminate exclusionary zoning. This is, in fact, now considered a best practice by the American Planning Association across the country.
But what’s missing in the article is that Councilmember Foster himself supported smaller lot sizes citywide in his public remarks during the appeal hearing. He said that he hoped to see that conversation in the future.
The biggest weakness in the article is that it assumes the city council could have tendered favor to the wishes and aspirations of the community opponents to the project and approved their appeal. That is simply not the case.
The city council’s sole job was to determine whether or not the city planning commission was correct when it determined the project complied with all applicable city development standards and requirements and approved the project. They do not have the discretion to take a poll of those sitting in the audience to determine who is for and who is against and act accordingly. In fact, relying upon such a measure would render their decision subject to righteous litigation from the applicant.
There is a reason why land use permitting processes are not subject to the ballot box. Our Constitution guarantees that citizens are not deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Consequently, development approval and denial processes affecting private property are bound to rigorous quasi-judicial criteria and sideboards that are the antithesis of popularity contests. They are not subject to the fickle whims of the public at large.
Of course, in this case we don’t even truly know the measured whims of the public at large. All we know is that there is a large group of neighbors opposing the project. No actual count all those with standing, pro or con, had been taken. Perhaps a truly fair vote among the residents of Encanto and Emerald Hills might yield an unexpected result. WE don’t know because no such tally exists.
Be that as it may, my remarks here should not be interpreted as supporting the project. Instead, my remarks are intended to make the point that our city council acted legally, ethically and properly when it overwhelmingly denied the appeal. The derisive criticism being directed their way here and elsewhere is without merit and undeserved. Given the constitutional requirements of due process, they did what they had to do.
I am sure this wasn’t easy for any of them. It is profoundly difficult to stand in front of an angry crowd and know you are compelled to act in a way that won’t make them happy. So, for me, kudos to those eight councilmembers who acted with principle and stayed true to their oath of office to follow the law.
Okay, Don, you’re now repeating yourself; your position is clear.
Don, all due respect. But there was one person on the city council who voted no. That person is a Harvard law graduate and former city attorney. Suspect he knows the law and his oath of office very well. “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?”
Point is this. The city council did have a choice. They just lack the will, being diplomatic , for the fight. Just like they lacked the will to take Cisterra to litigation re Ash St. I’m sure your right , rejecting development relative to footnote 7 would most likely result in litigation. But because you can sue doesn’t mean you will win. And that is something I know a little something about. Cheers.
You’re right that it’s unfair to hit District 4 with this while La Jolla and the north coast keep their big lots. No argument there. But “mirage of generational wealth” is where you lose me.
You put 92114’s income next to the median home price for all of San Diego, but that citywide figure is dragged way up by the rich coastal zips. Compare apples to apples and 92114’s own median sale price is around $765K. That’s still a lot on a local income, sure. It’s also about $300K under the number you used. When your whole argument is that these new homes will be hopelessly out of reach, that missing $300K matters.
Also building beats not building when it comes to generational wealth. Turn that site into a park and every house around it goes up in value. Great if you already own. Rough if you’re the one trying to get in. And smaller lots cost less, because you’re buying less land. That’s a cheaper way in the door, not a harder one. Doing nothing doesn’t put a single local family in a home; it just raises the value of existing homes. Which I understand is exactly why the neighbors fight to stop the development.
This isn’t a good-guys-bad-guys story. Nobody wants more traffic or less parks, and owners like it when their house is worth more. All reasonable. The problem is that when every neighborhood makes that same reasonable call, you get what we’ve got now: sky high home prices, people forced to make long commutes, and a generation that feels like the ladder was pulled up on them. What’s more is that rental becomes the only option for many since ownership is out of reach.
None of this means you have to love this particular project. I just think the article’s affordability argument is wrong and that Foster is right that the project will help give the opportunity to build generational wealth (and certainly more opportunity than not building).
What was the genesis of Footnote 7? Who crafted it, what city department approved it, and what was the reason for the footnote??.. Perhaps, this has all been written about and I missed it, but it seems strange to me that this item “crept into the legislation”, and no one has claimed responsibility for it. If it has no legitimacy, why is it still compelling??
Excellent questions, Deborah, and the Rag will be posting an answer to them all later today.