San Diego City Council Meeting – July 7, 2026

The San Diego City Council convened on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, at approximately 9:00 a.m. (with a noon recess and reconvening at 2:00 p.m.) to consider a consent calendar and a major land-use appeal. The meeting featured extensive public testimony, staff presentations, and council deliberation on the appeal of the Emerald Hills housing project at 5702 Old Memory Lane. The council voted 8‑1 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.

Proclamations & Consent Calendar

• Proclamation S501 (Tia Turner Day): The council recognized Tia Turner for 38 years of service to the City of San Diego, particularly in Parks and Recreation. The proclamation was approved unanimously 9‑0.
• Consent Items: The council approved a consent agenda that included:
  • Item 50 – Strengthening enforcement against illegal cannabis delivery operations, including a new delivery permit for out‑of‑town operators.
  • Item 51 – Implementation of state AB 2234, establishing electric bicycle safety regulations for children under 12 and requiring helmets.
  • Item 52 – Contract with Whitman Enterprises for ambulance transport billing and collection services.
  • Item 100 – Fiscal Year Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program.
  • Item 102 – Acceptance and appropriation of Round 6 of the state’s Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention (HAP) grant ($26 million).
  • Item 103 – Reappointments to the Seniors Affairs Advisory Board.
  • Item 104 – Matters related to the Tijuana River Valley sewage crisis.
  • Item S500 – Acceptance of a robotic platform donation from the San Diego SWAT Association under the Trust Ordinance.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Proclamation & Consent: Approximately 20 speakers addressed the council, both in‑person and virtually. Many supported stronger enforcement on illegal cannabis delivery (Item 50) and e‑bike safety regulations (Item 51). Several speakers expressed concerns about the adequacy of HAP funding, park equity, and the need for better oversight of surveillance technologies. A few public commenters raised broader issues of homelessness, police accountability, and environmental justice. One speaker (Audra) alleged that the meeting was not properly noticed, a claim disputed by the City Clerk.
• Emerald Hills Appeal (Item 331): Over 40 speakers provided testimony, including organized presentations from the appellant (Choyas Valley & Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Group) and the applicant (D.R. Horton). The appellant argued that the project violates the community plan, relies on the improperly adopted Footnote 7, and would eliminate a designated park site, exacerbating environmental injustice. The applicant countered that the project complies with all applicable laws, will provide 123 single‑family homes (13 deed‑restricted affordable), improve infrastructure (widening 60th Street, adding sidewalks, drainage), and has undergone extensive community outreach. Former Councilmember Monica Montgomery Steppe spoke in support of the project, emphasizing homeownership opportunities. Several community members spoke against the project, citing traffic, fire safety, and loss of open space, while others supported it as a chance for generational wealth.

Discussion Items

• Emerald Hills Appeal (Item 331): The council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 20, 2025 approval of the Emerald Hills project. The project proposes 123 single‑family homes on 31.18 acres, utilizing Footnote 7 (which reduced minimum lot sizes from 20,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. in this community). The appellant raised five grounds: factual error, conflict with other matters, findings not supported, new information, and citywide significance. Key issues included:
  • Footnote 7: The City Attorney’s office confirmed that the project has vested rights because the application was deemed complete before Footnote 7 was repealed. Staff explained that the density is consistent with the community plan’s “very low” designation (0–4 units per acre).
  • Public Safety & Fire Evacuation: The Fire Marshal testified that the project meets fire code requirements, including two means of egress (one gated with Knox key access) and is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project does not trigger a separate fire marshal report because it is consistent with planned density.
  • Traffic & Infrastructure: The project will widen 60th Street by 18 feet, add sidewalks, landscaping, and stormwater basins. A traffic engineer confirmed that the access meets city standards and that a stop‑controlled exit is appropriate.
  • Park & Environmental Justice: The appellant argued that the site was designated as a potential park in the 2015 community plan. Staff responded that the identification does not preclude development, and the city never attempted to acquire the property. The project will pay an estimated $3.5 million in development impact fees, which can be used for parks and other infrastructure in the community.
  • Affordable Housing: The project includes 13 deed‑restricted affordable units for moderate‑income households (100% AMI), distributed throughout the community.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Appeal: The council voted 8‑1 to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, Site Development Permit, Neighborhood Development Permit, and Neighborhood Use Permit. Councilmember Campillo voted no, citing concerns about the legality of Footnote 7 under state fair housing laws.
• Next Steps: The project will proceed to ministerial building permits, with archaeological monitoring during grading. The council noted that the city will continue to work with Councilmember Foster’s office to prioritize infrastructure investments in District 4 using the development impact fees.
• Adjournment: The council adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.