By Branda Gorgies
Photos by Branda Gorgies and via Creative Commons Google
August 26, 2024 (Lemon Grove) -- On August 6, the Lemon Grove City Council held a meeting that lasted seven hours, until 1 a.m. Public comments were moved to the end of the meeting for non-agendized items, so residents had to stay late to speak out on the proposed sleeping cabins for the homeless.
Two other items that were on the agenda also drew controversy: approval of a Quick Quack Car Wash and a Raising Cane’s chicken restaurant.
The room was filled with protestors holding signs. First to speak against the sleeping was Bryan Delgado, who called them “tin cans.” He cited concern that constituents were not being consulted, but his main concern was bringing down the neighborhood. After Delgado’s comments, Mayor Racquel Vasquez clarified that the project is county-based..
Multiple other people came up to speak about the neighborhood and the sleeping cabins after Delgado. A couple of speakers brought up other concerns, such as crime and safety, on which they argued the city should be focusing its time and money. It should be noted that the building and maintenance of the project are being funded through the American Rescue Plan Act with federal dollars, not local or state funds.
Overall, those who came up to speak on the cabins were strongly opposed, with one speaker stating that 99.5% of Lemon Grove residents who attended the July 28 forum opposed the cabins. The main concerns with the cabins were location, safety, effectiveness, and the way they were approved.The County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 on the project on July 16–two days before.a July 18 community forum that had been announced to get local feedback on the project Another controversy relates to Spring Valley. The original plan was to build the cabins there, but after the board heard community concerns, they rejected the plan, which led Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe to propose placing the cabins in Lemon Grove.
Many of the attendees were passionate, and the Mayor had to pause many times to ask for quiet and less clapping. Some attendees had brought posters too. At one point, when Mayor Vasquez asked a man in the crowd to refrain from comment or he’d have to be removed, he replied “Then we will have you removed from office,” drawing applause from the audience.
A woman named Annita Vikers stated that although she isn’t against housing for the homeless, the proposed location doesn’t have the necessary resources for them, such as medical centers and grocery stores. The proposed site on Troy Street is indeed a residential area with schools, daycares, and nursing homes. There aren’t many stores, medical centers, or restaurants within walking distance, but bus stops are nearby.
Protest Against the Sleeping Cabins
A protest was later held on August 17 near the proposed site for the sleeping cabins. Some of the protesters were completely against the plan, while some others wanted it to be relocated to a more commercial area, away from schools and homes.
The protest was organized with the help of the people in Spring Valley who successfully fought against the sleeping cabins. Many of the protestors don’t believe that the cabins are the right solution or use of money for the homelessness problem. Spring Valley residents were involved because the site is on the border of Lemon Grove and Spring Valley.
Many of the residents say that they don’t feel heard by the city. The same feelings were voiced about the Council meeting held on August 6.
Raising Cane’s and Quick Quack Car Wash
At the August 6 meeting, Michael Fellows, the Community Development Manager, gave a presentation on behalf of Raising Cane’s. Fellows argued that the project is not harmful to citizens and that it brings benefits to the community instead. He argued that the project met all provisions and regulations.
After this presentation, Karol Miller, the appellant, commented against the proposed project. Miller’s main argument was that Cane’s did not meet the findings Fellows cited. She brought up policies cited from Lemon Grove’s General Plan. Miller said the project does not promote “a healthy family-oriented community through appropriate land use and development decisions,” as listed in policy 1.7. She said it violates policy 2.0, which is to provide “housing to meet the existing and future needs of Lemon Grove residents.” The project was also cited to violate policy 2.2, 2.5, 4.3, 4.6, 5.0, 5.5, mobility policy 2.3, and noise policy 4.1.
Miller was concerned about the displacement of homes where the restaurant would be built. She argued that the two-acre property would be better suited and more in line with the General Plan if it was used to build more housing. She also referenced policy 4.3, which intends to “cultivate small business,” as the project would demolish 5 family-owned businesses. Miller also brought up a concern with the increase in traffic that Cane’s would bring, as it will include a drive-thru. She said this doesn’t align with the General Plan’s goal to increase the use of public transportation and keep a peaceful and quiet environment. The concern doesn’t only come from the drive-thru, but the fact that the Cane’s would stay open until 3:30 am. Her comment was met with claps and cheers from community members in attendance.
Councilmember Alysson Snow, who is running for Mayor, related to Miller’s worry for the displaced housing, but asked her to take into account that the property owner could still decide to demolish the housing if the plan doesn’t pass. Councilmember Snow asserted that if the owner will demolish the housing regardless, she may as well build something out of it. Miller contended that the developer may decide to build different types of housing or more housing if the demolition happens.
Councilmember Liana LeBaron, also a mayoral candidate, noted that a fast food restaurant such as Raising Cane’s would give the community more immediate access to food and nutrition.
Major Pro Tem Jennifer Mendoza then began a discussion of the street improvement and landscaping involved in the project. Mayor Vasquez countered Miller’s findings with the findings that supported the project in the first place, then asked Miller again how her findings disproved the findings of the planning commission.
Property owner representative Alex Shaw spoke next, reassuring reassured the Council and community that the owner is committed to relocating the tenants and businesses before beginning the project. He also claimed that many of the tenants have written letters of support for the project. Shaw said that the tenants would be given time and financial support during the process of relocating.
Lester Tucker came up to represent Raising Cane’s. Tucker mentioned all the collaborations Cane’s took part in with the City to make the project suitable for Lemon Grove. Tucker also went over all the regulations the Cane’s meets or exceeds. He boasted about Raising Cane’s and the project’s efficiency, even comparing it to the In-N-Out in Lemon Grove.
The meeting was then open to public comment about the project after City Councilmembers’ questions. A main concern was the traffic control. A community member also advocated for the pharmacy, which would be displaced. Another member questioned whether the zone was a retail/ commercial zone or a mixed-use zone.
Lester Tucker got to speak again after public comments were made. Tucker assured everyone that the noise and smell would be regulated with respect to the neighborhood.
Karol Miller came up for comment again. Miller asked the Council to take into account what the community members felt, rather than the paid professionals working on the project. The City Council once again took to two rounds of questioning, involving traffic on different streets and intersections, which Trevor Briggs, the project engineer, clarified.
After being cut off in the first round of questioning, Councilmember LaBaron used her second round of questioning to state what she’s “pretty sure the audience is thinking,” that Mayor Vasquez “leads these meetings like a complete fool, hence no one respects [her].” This remark was met with claps by the attendees. She did go on to question the value that the Cane’s would add to the community. She argued to her colleagues that the plan would displace Mexican- and Asian-owned businesses, promote unhealthy practices in the community, and use land that could be better used for housing.
The rest of the Councilmembers left final remarks on the appeal. The Raising Cane’s project was approved to continue. Councilmember LaBaron was the only one to favor the appeal, while the rest of the Council voted to approve the plan. Councilmember George Gastil was absent.
The Council then moved on to the Quick Quack Carwash project.
The Quick Quack Car Wash followed a similar structure, starting with a presentation from Michael Fellows. After Fellows’ presentation, Karol Miller came up as the appellant. She referenced the last list of General Plan policies that would be violated, then added on a different policy this project violates. Policy 4.6 states that city development should promote economic progress that also has a positive impact on “community health and social justice in addition to job availability, economic revitalization, and tax revenues.”
Miller also stated the noise study conducted for the car wash used the location of the proposed Raising Cane’s, not that of the car wash. She handed off copies of the noise report to the Council. Miller also explained that the noise report for the equipment was misleading, as it was done under the assumption that the equipment would be in a closed space, limiting noise, but the equipment would be stored in a more open space at the car wash. Miller then mentioned the two additional noise studies conducted that provided different information, although nothing about the project changed.
After addressing the noise study, Miller clarified that although the project was touted as having been passed unanimously by the planning commission, it was a 3-1 vote. The Chair of the commission, Seth Smith, was the one who voted against it. Miller cited some of his concerns with the project, including but not limited to increased pollution, unsupportive of the General Plan’s goal to add multi-family housing, and not using the property to its “highest and best use.” She included a recording of Smith’s no-vote.
Miller moved on to compare the currently proposed car wash to one proposed two years ago a block away. She argued that the concerns mentioned the first time around are still present now and that they may be worse. The noise study was primarily questioned during questioning. Miller had her expert come up to speak, and Fellows spoke to the Council.
A representative for Quick Quack, Donald Shiveley, also spoke. He called the noise study discrepancy a “red herring.” He admitted they used the wrong site for the study but claimed it was still effective, as they updated it before giving it to the planning commission, so the commission was given the accurate information.
During public comment, the man who tried to build the carwash two years ago came up to speak. Neil Capin said that his carwash met all requirements through the planning commission, but an appeal from Katie Dexter, a former Lemon Grove resident, who Capin said wasn’t residing in California at the time, came in. Former Councilmember Jerry Jones, an associate of Dexter, backed this appeal, but he is now in favor of the Quick Quack Wash as he wrote a letter in support of it.
The Quick Quack Car Wash project was also passed after comments from each of the Council members. Mayor Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tem Mendoza, and Councilmember Snow voting to continue with the plans, with Councilmember LeBaron opposed and Councilman Gastil absent.