Council affirms Emerald Hills approval, denies appeal after heated debate over parkland and footnote 7

The San Diego City Council on July 7 denied an appeal of the Emerald Hills subdivision and affirmed the Planning Commission’s approval, voting 8-1 to allow a 123‑lot single‑family housing development on a 31.18‑acre site in the Encanto neighborhoods.

Supporters argued the project would create for‑sale homeownership opportunities and add streets, drainage, sidewalks and pocket parks. "This project puts that advocacy into action," said Supervisor Monica Montgomery‑Stepp, who urged the council to deny the appeal and let the subdivision proceed.

Opponents urged the council to protect the site as parkland and argued the project would concentrate environmental burdens in a historically under‑resourced area. The appellant’s presentation said the site had been identified as potential parkland in the 2015 community plan and said the city should exercise discretion to preserve the hill as a legacy park. "The council should support this appeal and deny the project," the appellant told the council during organized remarks.

City staff and legal advisors framed the council’s options narrowly. The City Attorney’s Office reminded councilmembers that, under state law and existing case law, local governments may reverse a discretionary planning decision only for specific reasons—factual error, new information, unsupported findings, conflict with land‑use law, or citywide significance—and that the project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act because it was deemed complete under the rules in effect at the time of application. "This project is subject to the state's Housing Accountability Act," counsel said during the legal briefing.

Staff described the project as consistent with the Encanto community plan’s 0–4 dwelling‑units‑per‑acre designation and said the environmental review used an addendum to the 2015 community‑plan program EIR. Development Services project manager Martin Mendez outlined technical mitigations: replacement sidewalks, widened 60th Street, three biofilter basins to reduce runoff, four on‑site pocket parks and public pathways.

The applicant, D.R. Horton, said the proposal would deliver 123 single‑family homes (lots that "average nearly 6,000 square feet" in the applicant’s presentation), public improvements to 60th Street, and 13 deed‑restricted moderate‑income units distributed across the site. The developer also described a multi‑year outreach effort and engineering measures to reduce existing uncontrolled drainage flows.

Opponents raised additional concerns about park equity, the project’s proximity to schools, fire evacuation routes in a very‑high fire severity zone, and whether the municipal process that produced "footnote 7" — the local rule that reduced a large‑lot minimum in certain neighborhoods years earlier — had been applied properly. Residents and community planners repeatedly asked the council to protect the hilltop view and explore acquisition or land‑swap alternatives to create a citywide park.

Councilmembers debated competing priorities: the legal threshold to deny a vested housing application under state law, long histories of redlining and disinvestment in District 4, and the city’s limited supply of for‑sale homes. After extended questioning of staff about traffic analyses, archaeological monitoring and fire access, Councilmember Foster moved to affirm staff and the Planning Commission. The motion carried 8-1; Councilmember Campillo cast the sole no vote.

The council’s decision affirms the Planning Commission’s site development and subdivision approvals; staff will process ministerial permits and the developer will proceed to final engineering and building‑permit submittals. Councilmembers who supported the project also asked staff to work with the district office on prioritizing local infrastructure and park investments funded by development impact fees and other sources.

What’s next: the project will proceed toward final permitting and construction review; several speakers and members asked the council to return with options for long‑term acquisition or conservation of other nearby open land.