Correction: This story has been corrected to reflect that the city’s development department has not approved the Chalcifica project and to clarify that the mayor’s office has met with the Kumeyaay on the project.
PACIFIC BEACH – One of the most controversial housing projects in San Diego is on hold.
A California Superior Court judge in December granted a preliminary injunction on a 136-unit accessory dwelling unit project in Pacific Beach, marking a step forward for concerned residents.
The preliminary injunction came just four months after a group of neighbors banded together to file a lawsuit against the city and developer SDRE Homebuyers. In their suit, Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach argue the project poses environmental risks and sits on historically significant Kumeyaay land.
“The entire hillside breathed a sigh of relief once the preliminary injunction was put into place,” said Merv Thompson, the group’s chair. “Because all of us were extremely fearful of this project, it created a huge emotional stir throughout the neighborhood.”
The project, named Chalcifica, is planned for a three-acre site on the intersection of Bluffside Avenue and Pacifica Drive. The project includes six three-story buildings and 70 parking spaces in a neighborhood of mostly single-family and military housing.
Developers submitted the 136-unit project under the city’s previously unlimited bonus ADU program, before it was reformed in June. The project is still under review, a city spokesperson told Times of San Diego.
Key neighbor concerns stem from the site’s existence along a congested Interstate 5 access route. Thompson said that additional residents and vehicles, combined with the area being in a high fire hazard severity zone, pose considerable safety issues.
“It’s a disaster from a traffic point of view. It’s a disaster from a police and fire requirements [point of view],” Thompson said. “There’s a whole myriad of problems that would have been introduced into our community by this project. It’s astounding that it even came into existence.”
As a more than 50-year PB resident, Thompson opted for legal action after watching similar ADU projects be “rubber-stamped” across the city.
“We were pretty indecisive about it until we started hearing about projects all over the city that were being approved, where bulldozers would literally arrive unannounced and start clearing a home next to neighbors,” Thompson said. “… It raised alarms all over the communities of San Diego.”
Before the June reforms, the city encouraged large ADU projects as a solution to the housing crisis, approving them automatically based on preset requirements.
SDRE president Brian Doyle said Chalcifica and other similar projects by the company will help alleviate San Diego’s housing shortage.
“This court proceeding was not unexpected and will not deter us from continuing our mission, consistent with the state of California’s goals regarding building new housing, and the City’s objective to meet those goals,” Doyle wrote in a statement.
Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach argues the city’s previous ADU policy violated its own development codes. They claim the project should have been held to a subjective review process under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a tribal consultation due to the project location.
According to case documents, the plaintiffs argue the city did not respond to requests made by the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Center last spring for tribal consultation. A city spokesperson said a formal request for tribal consultation was never made to the development services department, but the mayor’s office has met with the Kumeyaay on the project.
“It would truly be outrageous if the City were to approve such intense development at our traditional village, the last largely undeveloped Kumeyaay village site along the San Diego coastline,” KCRC spokesperson Steve Banegas wrote in a May 1 letter. “This would result in unacceptable impacts to a site that the City has determined to be significant under the California Environmental Quality Act and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.”
In Thompson’s words, the December preliminary injunction proved that their case had a “fighting chance” in court, with the ultimate goal being to prevent the project entirely.
“The second choice … would be to put some respectable, thoughtful, planned housing down there,” Thompson said. “Put some houses in there that will complement the neighborhood and give a good return on investment, so long as the development doesn’t impact negatively and is supported by the Kumeyaay nation.”
Elyse Lowe, San Diego’s development services director, said the project has not been approved and never would have been approved as it was initially proposed.
“Development Services staff had initially flagged that the project requires more analysis, especially due to the unique circumstances on the site,” she said in a statement. “The city never expressed intent to approve the project ministerially. After the initial submittal, the city indicated to the applicant a site development permit, with associated CEQA requirements, would be necessary to move the project forward. The applicant’s second submittal is still under review.”
