Pacific Beach neighborhood group sues to block controversial Chalcifica ADU mega-project

A neighborhood group sued the city Monday to block a controversial large-scale ADU development planned for Pacific Beach — along with other projects already in the pipeline before San Diego reined in a generous incentive program.

Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach argues the planned Chalcifica project, with more than 100 units, would harm the environment and public safety, and the group points out it’s on the site of a well-known Kumeyaay coastal village.

According to the plaintiffs, the city should have processed the project application on a discretionary basis but instead has handled them all on a ministerial basis, based on set standards rather than individual judgments.

They also say the city never responded to the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee’s request to meet about the issue.

“Rather than requiring critical environmental review and discretionary permits as mandated by CEQA and the municipal code, the city has adopted a practice of categorically exempting projects under this program from meaningful analysis and public oversight,” attorneys wrote in the 48-page filing.

“This results in unchecked development that risks irreversible harm to the city’s environment, endangers public safety by circumventing requirements intended to mitigate wildfire risk, and undermines protections for tribal cultural resources,” it adds.

The City Attorney’s Office declined to comment. The Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee could not immediately comment.

Back in June, the San Diego City Council approved a cap on how many ADUs can be built on one lot, limiting an incentive program that critics said effectively allowed unlimited units on some unusually large lots.

But city officials warned last month that because the new law wasn’t retroactive, some large projects already in the pipeline — including Chalcifica — would be difficult to block using it.

The Chalcifica project in particular has drawn fierce opposition, along with the developer behind it, Christian Spicer, who is also behind many of the city’s other large ADU projects.

Spicer has told The San Diego Union-Tribune he understands concerns about the scale of his developments but believes they help solve a serious housing shortage.

That sentiment was echoed Monday by his company, SDRE, which said in a statement that its focus remains on building affordable housing for San Diegans.

“SDRE is committed to finding a solution to San Diego’s housing crisis by building within the city’s established rules and regulations,” the company said. “The homes at Chalcifica have followed all required review and approval processes, and we will continue to work closely with city officials, planners, and the appropriate agencies every step of the way.”

Much of the new lawsuit centers on the issue of ministerial review, which opponents say is effectively rubber-stamping all of the projects — even large-scale ones like Chalcifica — that participate in the city’s bonus ADU incentive program.

“Every single ADU project in the city is rubber stamped through,” said Merv Thompson, the chair of Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach.

The approvals, he said, come without consideration of issues like fire safety, slopes, environmentally sensitive lands or property that has been treated as discretionary in the past.

Josh Chatten-Brown, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said his clients’ lawsuit aims to address how the city processes ADU projects broadly, not just in Pacific Beach. 

“The city has effectively allowed these projects to move forward because they’re being processed on a ministerial basis,” he said. “We don’t know how many of these projects there are — but we do know that it’s not just the Chalcifica project that would be impacted.”

Instead, he says, the city should be considering each proposed project at its discretion. He cited a section of state housing law that says a development project can be subjected to standards adopted later to reduce its environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act.

“What that means is that for bonus program projects that result in significant impacts under CEQA — and this would be one of those — the city may apply the newly revised ADU density bonus program to mitigate those impacts,” he said.

But in a discussion of the city’s options last month as the city council made the new program updates official, an attorney for the city suggested it would have a hard time doing so.

“The ordinance before you does not include a retroactive provision,” said Deputy City Attorney Lauren Hendrickson, citing state law. “Development applications deemed complete for housing and subdivision development are entitled to process under the laws and policies in effect at the time an application was deemed complete.”

While there are some exceptions, she said they’re not easy to use.

“They are very limited and narrowly tailored,” Hendrickson added. “There has to be a specific adverse impact, which means a significant and quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or state standards, policies or conditions.”

After one council member suggested declaring such projects fire safety hazards because they have limited evacuation routes, Hendrickson said that would be difficult but agreed to review projects on a case-by-case basis.

On Monday, Marcella Bothwell — a Pacific Beach community leader who leads Neighbors for a Better California and supports the local group — said the city’s current process of reviewing ADU projects was intended for things like garage remodels, not large-scale developments.

“I don’t care what my neighbor does to his garage, but a 136-unit apartment complex that has only half the needed (parking) spaces for each unit — that is going to affect me, and it’s going to affect the entire neighborhood,” she said.