City Council Meeting June 22, 2026: Public Power Feasibility, SDGE Franchise Audit, Cannabis Delivery Permit
City Council Meeting June 22, 2026: Public Power Feasibility, SDGE Franchise Audit, Cannabis Delivery Permit
The San Diego City Council convened on Monday, June 22, 2026, for a full-day session that included public comment on closed session litigation, a presentation on the Phase 2 Public Power Feasibility Study, an update on the SDGE franchise compliance audit, and votes on a homeless outreach contract extension and a new cannabis delivery permit ordinance. The meeting featured extensive public testimony from union workers, community activists, business groups, and residents.
Closed Session Public Comment
Members of the public commented on five closed session items, including slip-and-fall lawsuits and a scooter incident. Speakers raised concerns about sidewalk safety, litigation costs, and police accountability. No action was taken in open session; the City Attorney reported nothing to report from closed session.
Item 200: Public Power Feasibility Study (Phase 2)
Staff from the Department of General Services and consultant New Gen Strategies presented the findings of the Phase 2 study examining the feasibility of creating a municipal electric utility by acquiring San Diego Gas & Electric’s distribution assets within city limits. The study concluded that a municipal utility is both economically and technically feasible, with potential cumulative savings ranging from $7 billion to $19 billion over 30 years depending on the purchase price. The purchase price could range from $2.4 billion (original cost less depreciation) to $7.6 billion (replacement cost new less depreciation). The analysis assumed a 4% annual SDG&E rate growth, but sensitivity testing showed higher rates would yield greater savings. Key risks include regulatory changes, wildfire liability, and asset valuation. Councilmembers received the report as an information item; no motion was taken.
Public Testimony: Over 30 speakers addressed the item. Union representatives from IBEW Local 465 and Local 569 opposed municipalization, citing lack of job protections, risk to pensions, and the city’s existing budget challenges. Several speakers from Public Power San Diego and community groups supported the study, arguing that SDG&E’s rates are too high and that a public utility would provide local control and savings. Business groups, including the San Diego Regional Chamber and the Building Industry Association, urged caution, citing startup costs and operational risks. Many residents shared personal stories of high utility bills and called for action.
Item 201: SDGE Franchise Independent Audit and Compliance Review
The city’s independent auditor, Crow LLP, presented results of the second two-year compliance audit covering July 2023 to July 2025. The audit found that SDG&E met all four audit objectives in significant respects, but identified two minor findings: non-compliance with certain sections of the utility undergrounding memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the administrative MOU. The Franchise Compliance Review Committee (FCRC) recommended that the council allow the automatic renewal of the franchise for a second 10‑year term, conditioned on aligning renegotiation timelines, improving cost transparency, and strengthening oversight. The FCRC noted that compliance alone does not address affordability or rate impacts. Councilmembers accepted the report as information; no action was required.
Public Testimony: A few speakers commented, with some criticizing SDG&E’s performance and others supporting the audit process. Brittany Sis of SDG&E acknowledged the findings and committed to improvement.
Item 203: Fifth Amendment to Agreement with PATH San Diego for Coordinated Street Outreach
The council considered a fifth amendment to the existing agreement with PATH San Diego for homeless street outreach services. The amendment extends the contract at current funding levels ($13.6 million) for one year, with no additional funds. The city plans to award a new contract through an RFP process next fiscal year. Councilmember Whitburn moved approval, seconded by Council President Pro Tem Lee. The motion passed unanimously, with Council Districts 2 and 8 absent.
Public Testimony: Speakers supported the extension, citing PATH’s effectiveness in getting people into shelter and housing. One speaker raised questions about data systems and surveillance.
Item 202: Cannabis Delivery Services Business Permit and Enhanced Enforcement
Councilmember Campillo presented an ordinance to establish a new business permit for cannabis delivery services operating within city limits, create a private right of action for compliant cannabis businesses and labor unions to sue violators, and increase civil penalties for non-compliance. The ordinance targets out‑of‑city delivery operators that avoid local taxes and regulations and do not pay the city’s cannabis business tax. The permit fee will be determined through a future fee study, benchmarked at $34–$125. The private right of action allows 65% of recovered penalties to go to the plaintiff and 35% to the city. Councilmember Campillo moved approval, seconded by Councilmember Von Wilpert. Following discussion about implementation and social equity, the motion passed unanimously, with Districts 2 and 8 absent. City staff committed to conducting a fee study and ensuring the ordinance does not take effect until the permit process is in place.
Public Testimony: Speakers were divided. Union representatives (UFCW) and some local cannabis businesses supported the ordinance, arguing it levels the playing field against unlicensed operators. Social equity applicants and community advocates opposed it, warning that the private right of action could be used to target small businesses and harm the county’s equity program. Several residents expressed concerns about increased costs and complexity.
Non-Agenda Public Comment
Residents addressed a variety of topics, including concerns about the Torrey Pines Glider Port, police accountability, homelessness services, and the city’s budget. The council received the comments without discussion.
Key Outcomes
- Item 200 (Public Power Study): No action taken; informational item.
- Item 201 (SDGE Franchise Audit): No action taken; informational item.
- Item 203 (PATH San Diego Contract): Approved unanimously (D2, D8 absent).
- Item 202 (Cannabis Delivery Permit): Approved unanimously (D2, D8 absent).
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:00 PM, to reconvene on June 23, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
All right. Good morning. I will now call the city council meeting of Monday, June twenty-second, twenty twenty-six to order. Deputy Clerk, please call the roll. Councilmember Campbell. Here. Councilmember Whitburn? Here. Council Member Foster. Councilmember Von Wilbert. Council Member uh Council President Pro Tem Lee. Here. Councilmember Campio? Here. Council Member Moreno? Present. Councilmember Ilo Rivera. And Council President Lacava? Present. Also attending the meeting are City Attorney Heather Ferber, independent budget analyst Gillian Andalina. Council Affairs Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Code Desizer, and myself, your Deputy City Clerk, Kevin Smith. All right, thank you, Deputy Clerk. A quorum is now present. We will begin this morning with invocation by Deputy Clerk Smith, followed with a land acknowledgement and the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Campbell. Grant those who hold office in the city the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice that with steadfast purpose, they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the well-being of all people. Please face the flag. Place your hand over your heart, and let's begin. Of the United States of America. And to the Republic or Sustainance. Under God, individual with every human justice. All right. With that, Deputy Clerk, please go over how the public can offer their testimony. Thank you, Council President. I'll now now highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during today's meeting. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room. No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony. For better meeting management purposes, each speaker will have one minute per item per person. If you would like to speak on three or more items, you will have a maximum of three minutes. All right. Thank you, Deputy Clerk. And as a reminder, non-agenda public comment, which will be taken at the end of the session is the opportunity to speak freely on items within the city's jurisdiction. Items on the ducket, we encourage the public to offer their testimony to inform the council members of their consideration or deliberations on that docket item. So with that, Deputy Clerk, please read the closed session items into the record. Conference of legal counsel existing litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 D1. CS1, Sandra Silva versus City of San Diego et al. CS2, Ryan Pete versus City of San Diego. CS3, Maria Delrocio Nunez Munoz versus City of San Diego. CS4, Jesse Torres versus Civil Service Commission of the City of San Diego. CS5, Denise Wadsworth et al. versus City of San Diego et al.
openpublica.com