San Diego council reconsiders and approves All People’s Church project after heated debate and conditions

The San Diego City Council voted 5–4 on March 11 to approve the All People’s Church development on a 5.99‑acre site on College Avenue in Del Cerro, following a prior 6–3 vote to suspend council rules and a separate 6–3 vote to reconsider the project.

Council President Ado Lacava moved to reconsider the project after the council approved a procedural suspension of the rules. "As council president I will make a motion for reconsideration of the All People's Church project," he said before the votes that cleared the procedural thresholds.

Staff had recommended certifying the environmental impact report and approving the plan development and site development permits, saying the EIR and transportation analyses find the project’s impacts can be mitigated. Development project manager Martha Blake told the council the project would include a roughly 54,470‑square‑foot sanctuary with a 900‑seat main space, classrooms, offices, a two‑level parking structure and a new signalized driveway on College Avenue.

The applicant and its counsel told the council the design and mitigation meet city standards. Heather Riley, land use counsel for the applicant, described the traffic work and said the project meets the city’s small‑project screening criteria for vehicle miles traveled: "The final EIR found no significant traffic or GHG impacts," she said, adding staff’s VMT screening used conservative assumptions.

Opponents, including many Del Cerro residents and the Navajo community planning group, focused on traffic and safety at a narrow, high‑speed stretch of College Avenue near the Interstate 8 interchange. Residents and traffic experts urged the council to uphold the project denial from January 2024, saying the original decision rested on safety and incomplete project data. Save Del Cerro representatives and other residents argued the project remained a poor fit for the parcel and accused the applicant of understating likely uses, citing the applicant’s website and prior community statements.

Supporters — including union building trades representatives who said the project would create local jobs — and church representatives told the council the congregation lacked adequate space and that the applicant had purchased alternate space in La Mesa only after the council’s earlier denial. Dan Dalton, who represented the church, said the congregation had no viable leased alternative large enough to meet its needs.

Council Member Elo Rivera moved to adopt the staff recommendation "with 1 addition," adding permit condition 50 to prohibit lockers and bleachers in the multipurpose gym and limit outside leagues (he read the intended language into the record). Rivera said the addition was intended to reduce the risk that the multipurpose room become a community sports venue that would increase trips beyond the project’s analysis. "I'll move the recommendation from staff, with one addition, which is to include permit condition number 50," he said.

Pro Tem Sean Lee seconded Rivera’s motion. The final project motion — which included conditions prohibiting pre‑K–12 school use and the gym restrictions — passed 5–4, with Council Members Campbell, Whitburn, Von Wilpert and Campillo voting no. The earlier thresholds to suspend the rules and to permit reconsideration had each passed 6–3.

City Attorney staff warned the council to anchor any conditions to project impacts and noted protections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act could expose the city to litigation if the denial were based on religious grounds. The city attorney’s office reminded the council that land‑use decisions must be supported in the record by planning and safety findings.

Next steps: With the council’s approval the project will proceed under the permit conditions approved March 11. Opponents indicated they may pursue litigation; supporters said the project will proceed with the mitigation and the conditions the council adopted.