Mega church opponents clash over traffic, environmental analysis in San Diego court

SAN DIEGO (CN) — A San Diego community group opposed to the development of what it describes as a mega church argued on Friday city officials failed to adequately analyze the project’s environmental impacts, which the group says it had properly objected to during the public review process.

The arguments in San Diego Superior Court are the latest episode in the long-running legal battle between Save Del Cerro and All Peoples Church.

The church originally bought a 6-acre lot in the Del Cerro neighborhood, located near San Diego State University, back in 2017. However, the San Diego City Council denied the church’s plans for development in the area in 2024, which the church decried as an attack on its religious freedom.

But in March 2025, the city council reversed course. Save Del Cerro then filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming it violated the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and planning and zoning laws. But before the court can take action, Save Del Cerro must exhaust all of its administrative options first, which All Peoples Church argued it did not do.

In particular, the church argues Save Del Cerro failed to raise an objection to anticipated weekend vehicle traffic during the environmental review process.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Carolyn Caietti agreed with All Peoples Church in a tentative ruling Thursday.

The church anticipates its Sunday worship services to bring in an additional 2,000 daily trips in the area. But Save Del Cerro argues the city improperly relied on a different vehicle traffic study that showed only 280 additional daily trips during the weekdays, which fell below the city’s threshold requiring a more detailed traffic analysis.

Under the city’s guidelines, projects with less than 300 daily trips qualify for an exemption from a more comprehensive traffic analysis. Save Del Cerro attorney Corey Briggs argued that because the church expected nearly 2,000 Sunday trips, the city should have required additional review.

“The city doesn’t have the discretion to choose a model that is inapplicable on its face,” he said. “That isn’t the city exercising independent judgment. That is the city rubber-stamping what the applicant says. That is not acceptable.”

Additionally, the issue revolves around a piece of real estate that was slated for residential housing in the city’s general plan. While the project site retains residential zoning for future use, that does little good for a city facing an acute housing shortage, Briggs said.

“When you get rid of a site for the significant issue, namely the lack of housing, other people are going to feel it,” he argued. “They’re not going to feel it in La Jolla or San Ysidro nearly as much as they are in Del Cerro. The suggestion is that it doesn’t matter what the community experiences because it is a citywide issue. That misses the point of CEQA.”

Save Del Cerro raised other issues with the church project, such concerns about dangerous road construction and damage to sensitive environmental habitat.

The site, dubbed the Light Project, includes the construction of a 55,000 square-foot church building with 900 seats, as well as space for Sunday school, classrooms, offices and a gymnasium. The project would also include a two-story parking garage and surface-level parking spaces.

The project has no plans for primary school spaces, according to All Peoples Church.

While the church does have high traffic on Sunday, attorney Heather Riley argued that the average traffic is generally low throughout the week. Riley added the existing traffic analysis models did not account for Sunday trips.

The church’s Sunday traffic analysis was provided in an effort to be transparent, she said.

The church asked the judge to affirm her tentative ruling.

“After careful review of the administrative record, the court is unable to find any evidence that this issue was raised to the respondent prior to this action,” Caietti wrote in her tentative ruling.

Ultimately, the case is about transparency and communication with the public, Briggs told Courthouse News after the hearing.

“We’re not arguing with the conclusion,” he said. “We’re arguing with the process that the city used to reach its conclusion.”