By Frank Gormlie
Roughly a week and half ago, on Monday, August 4, dozens of Pacific Beach residents crowded onto a patch of sidewalk in a northeast portion of their community, holding signs and banners — all condemning a huge, mega-ADU project called Chalcifica — that called for over 100 units packed into two neighboring residential lots.
The PB residents and their supporters were there as their lawyer proclaimed a lawsuit against Chalcific’s developer, a man named Christian Spicer, and his firm SDRE.
SDRE wants to build six three-story apartment buildings with only 70 parking spaces for 116 units.The protesters — and the sponsoring group called Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach – have a multitude of concerns; that the mega-project will pack street parking, endanger the environment and sit on the site of a culturally significant Kumeyaay village.
The lawyer filing the suit, Josh Chatten-Brown, spoke to the crowd. “Make no mistake: These are not simple granny flats. They are large investor apartment complexes masquerading as accessory units designed to exploit the ADU laws for profit and to sidestep the public oversight that such a development demands.”
So, just why were dozens of neighbors and Kumeyaay tribal members at that protest Monday and just who is the complex’s developer, Christian Spicer?
First of all, the neighbors’ chief concern is that the complex is too large for a residential neighborhood’s infrastructure, plus they’re worried the mega-project will overwhelm the neighborhood’s streets and fire evacuation routes, leading to traffic, packed parking and increased risk in an area designated as a very high fire hazard zone.
SDRE plans to build parking spaces for only about half of Chalcifica’s proposed units, for under current city law, developers aren’t required to build extra parking for backyard projects if they’re located within a half-mile of public transit, which includes Chalcifica. The area is already plagued by bottlenecks, congestion and few entrances — all things Chalcifica will worsen when it adds over 100 more residents.
Tribal members were there that day at the protest because they believe Spicer will develop Chalcifica upon untouched, sacred tribal lands. Jesse Pinto, an elder with the Jamul Indian Village, called for the land to be preserved so Kumeyaay people can perform ceremonies and preserve any human remains there. “The city’s approval process is an insult to history and gravely offensive to Kumeyaay descendants,” said tribal law attorney Courtney Ann Coyle.
Secondly, Christian Spicer has made a name for himself recently in San Diego: “the King of ADUs”. Spicer and his investors are responsible for scores of large-scale projects that defy common understandings of what an accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, is supposed to be. His development team has spearheaded two separate projects that each put more than 100 ADUs on a single site, plus they’re responsible for several others with more than 20 ADUs each.
Patty Ducey-Brooks, editor of the Presidio Sentinel , calls Spicer one of three San Diego developer “opportunists” driven by greed and power who are responsible for constructing a new wave of tenement housing called “affordable” but that “do not provide adequate outdoor recreation facilities, parking and the infrastructure to make them desirable or beneficial to families and children. They are also not affordable, renting at $2,878 (including utilities) for a one-bedroom unit.” (The other two are Sundae owner Josh Stech and Tommy Hinson of Fletcher Cove Capital investments.)
Other critics of Spicer — and there are many — claim his projects are the inevitable result of a misguided local incentive that he has exploited — a program that went beyond what state law allows to let property owners build a potentially unlimited number of ADUs. The City Council has since ushered in a series of reforms to the Bonus ADU program, but those reforms are supposedly inapplicable to projects already in the pipeline.
As recently as 2019, Spicer was only a property manager. But he since then has quickly become the city’s most prolific ADU developer while his company, SDRE, established in 2020, now has more than 50 employees, complete with separate branches — one for homebuilding, another for general contracting and another for design and engineering work.
When the City Council voted for the new reforms — a council pushed by dozens, even hundreds of angry, local residents from across the city — council members said they were motivated by projects like Spicer’s, and by the very visible public outcry by residents upset at how their neighborhoods were being disrupted by ADU projects. Even Councilmember Kent Lee was not pleased. He said, “I think everyone in this room seems to agree that a 20-, a 50-, a 150- or a 750-unit project is not what was ever intended.”
The questions remain: will lawsuits such as filed in PB earlier this month — and others being threatened by other neighborhood groups, plus the City Council reforms enacted be sufficient to rein in the massive abuses by mega-ADU projects such as Spicer’s?
These questions are very much alive as it was announced less than a month ago that Spicer’s SDRE has just secured $150 million in financing. It’s being labeled “one of the largest real estate investments in San Diego in recent years” and “highlights San Diego’s appeal as a high-growth market, attracting significant capital ….” The financing is being provided by funds managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group.
And SDRE plans to use the financing for projects that are projected to build nearly 1,000 new units in 2025 with plans to reach 2,000 units by 2026.
Yet, more and more residents across San Diego are getting hip to who is bringing misery and headaches to their neighborhoods. That’s why groups like Neighbors for a Better San Diego have been joined by Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach and the 4-month old network of 25 communities called the San Diego Community Coalition.
The Coalition is attempting to assist other start-up groups and coordinate their protests, such as one held less than 2 weeks ago in Middletown, and give support to the PB lawsuit event against Spicer and to those protesting the Turquoise Tower in west PB. Residents of Clairemont are planning a similar protest in their neighborhood and folks in Golden Hill are likewise planning to bring attention to a monstrous development in their community.
San Diegans are waking up — but it has taken developers like Spicer exploiting rules and programs laid down by San Diego City Hall and its mayor to help wake them up. It has taken profit-driven builders of backyard mega-projects, like Spicer’s firm, to shake people out of their lethargy. Of course, Spicer maintains he is simply building for a noble cause: to fill in the city’s affordable-housing gap. The firm issued a statement recently in the wake of the PB lawsuit, that “SDRE is committed to finding a solution to San Diego’s housing crisis by building within the city’s established rules and regulations. 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.”
But Spicer’s Chalcifica’s neighbors are convinced that he has been gaming the city’s affordable ADU program to snap up large residential properties and cram apartment complexes into their backyards. A leader of the PB group, Merv Thompson, pointed to the rent SDRE advertised for Chalcifica’s studio apartments — $3,000 a month for less than 500 square feet — as a sign that it’s a “false flag” for affordable housing.
Density has never been and will never be about affordable housing. Outstanding investigative journalism Frank!
Really shows that supporting the OB Rag is well worth the financial and informational investment in ourselves and our communities. Thank you for reminding me of why I am proud to be a San Diegan!
Mateo is right about so called “Affordable housing”. They’ve only thru in some token housing for the blue collar workers. They need to learn the true meaning of “affordable”. Seems to me, Todd Gloria, and the City Council have benefitted many perks, because if you look at who donates money for their next election campaign, you’ll find names of builder/developers, donating the max. I’m glad the rest of the City is getting organized and doing something. North Park has been plagued by these get rich quick developers for several years, AND encouraged by Gloria and the 9 puppets, plus the City Building and Planning Depts. giving the mayor and puppets the “go-ahead” to change the rules to do this TO the residents. They’ve also taken away the 42 City Wide Community Planning Groups opportunity to keep the public informed in what was in the pipeline. Previous to Gloria et all, the builder/developer had to present their plan to the CPG’s, then it went to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council for approval for the applicant to get the Building Permit. The public had 3 opportunities to voice their opinions. Gloria and group put a stop to that process, and it’s no longer required for the CPG’s to see the desired project, and voice their opinion up the chain. In fact from a community resident stand-point, they usually/routinely don’t know what’s going on with the house that sold next door, until as they say.. “dozers pulled up to start demolition of the house”, and by then it’s already too late. There is NO advance opportunity from the surrounding neighbors to voice their opinion. The same group making all the decisions, also gave many perks to the developers including they don’t have to pay DIF fees. It’s all a sneaky way for the mayor and council to encourage whatever a developer wants to build, free rein. Mushroom action. Keep the neighbors in the dark, smile and feed them compost. I hope all voters will be very careful who they vote for when this back room deal group, is termed out.
All,
Sorry, but I know he does extensive due diligence, it’s all legal development, they will get built, he offers incredible returns, money talks in the city, time to move along people.
T.D. Wilt
Duped investors thought that Bernie Madoff did a lot of “due diligence” too TD.
You’re on the wrong side of history.
Sounds as if you have a vested interest in Spicer and his projects and you’re desperately trying to convince yourself that the wheels are not coming off these projects when the public here is reminding you they are. This shill isn’t jacking you and other investors. One need look no farther than the maze of one way streets that is the fire and public safety death trap that is the proposed 14 story Columbia St tower.
Seems you have failed to do your own due diligence TD.
What Mateo said…
Maybe interested parties should form a Neibors for a Better Balboa Park as a means to resist changes to the park such as metered parking.
I like it. I’d join. I reviewed several of the leases in Balboa Park, and they all have different parking provisions. Japanese Friendship Garden may have the most autonomy, which may be a good start to establishing a case against it for even at least their parking area. But it may open up a can of worms to have all of the leases scrutinized to find that it’s illegal
To charge residents, according to at least one, or some of the leases
No, not at all. I think ADUs are horrific.
I don’t support them.
Where did you get that idea?
D. Jenison
ADUs have their purpose. A friend of ours is building one for his retired elderly father.
Many of us are not opposed at all to the original concept of the ADU; it’s the extreme abuse that Gloria and the San Diego City Council have crafted is the problem. SD hijacked the state’s original idea and created a program where investment developers could build over a dozen ADUs or more on one single lot, massacring the original concept and destroying neighborhoods.
I agree completely with your assessment of ADUs! It’s become a horribly distorted concept!!
Sad to say, though, we’re not the only city fighting this land abuse. My adult kids who recently moved to Seattle are suffering from this same problem. Guess they need a Neighbors….group to resist.
The reply I received couldn’t be further from the truth about how I feel about ADUs.
Greed & power have existed since the dawn of mankind. Genocide, slavery, wars, autocrats, dictators, I could go on. Somehow, many civilizations evolved and got a grasp on the worst in the form of democracies, regulated capitalism, and global trade. The USA became a leader. SCOTUS helped put an end to that in the mid 70’s & 2010 by declaring bribery is legal, money is speech, and corporations are people (all broadly speaking). Those with largest war chests own those who legislate. Look at what is happening nationally. And locally, who knows what it will take to repair America’s Fiscal Pity.
True Frank J.
We can see some daylight now and we the people are presented with an unique opportunity in the ever changing media landscape.
Media Monopolies were/are able to make billions in return for favorable political overage and/or turning a blind eye(s).
These same media monopolies that acquired cable providers have gouged their way into cord cutting obscurity, as less than 22 million households have cable television in the U.S.
All of our “local” news networks in town are owned by the 6 (actually 5 now) corporate mega media monopolies. The local citizenry no longer relies on and more importantly no longer implicitly trusts “the local news” because we know corporate boardrooms are controlling content with a death grip.
The public trust their own eyes now. We have to.
Political spots on the 5 O’Clock News, now feebly try to reach the masses that they used to; but the public is engaged and no longer interested in corporate narratives, meaningless political platitudes, false equivocations, and listening to pundits telling us what it is we think. Network news endorsements are pretty much worthless to the voters, and campaigns spending millions of $$$ on tv ads that no longer have the effect of dumbing down the public as they have historically.
All successful social movements throughout history began on the grass roots level by networking, informing and creating lasting coalitions that would grow exponentially through our commonality.
There is more strength in numbers, than money. History has proven this.
When I was on my local planning committee, I argued successfully (believe it or not) to inform to invite residents most affected by a proposed development so they may attend our next meeting.
After the meeting I was approached by the developer & offered a job. I was shocked! Silly me.Now I understand that such actions are par for the course.
City plans to install metered parking pretty much all over Balboa Park.
Thank you Frank for bringing attention to the BIGGEST developer or shall I say “exploiter” of the City’s ADU BONUS program.
The program was originally intended for streamlining the process and lessening the permit fees for HOMEOWNERS to build an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in their backyard for elderly parents, children returning home to start a family or extra income. All laudable ideas.
That is NOT what SDRE developer Mr. Spicer is doing.
He started purchasing single family homes as far back as 2021 forever taking them off the market for first time home buyers.
Then he divides the garage from the house making it into a separate ADU then adds 10, 12, 18 units into the once backyard of the home, 441 sq. ft. tiny boxes 2 stories high each 1 bedroom. 1 bath and is currently renting some out starting around $2,500.00 and more.
Now he really does not want to rent them what he really wants to do is sell the whole thing and get out from under the hassle. He currently has 4674 Firestone St. in Clairemont 92117 with 13 ADU’s plus the house for sale on Marcus & Millichap for $5,2 million.
Can someone explain to me how this is helping families or even single folks get into affordable housing?
I’m amazed that no one has nominated him for a “Luigi” award. He seems like a perfect candidate.
It has recently come to my attention, that due to concerns raised by the recent events involving Charlie Kirk, that flippant, or satirical comments regarding controversial public figures may be misinterpreted as a call to violence and criminal actions or conduct. I want to make it absolutely clear that my comment was purely satirical in nature and that I vehemently oppose violence in all of its forms. Differences of opinion or policy should always be resolved in a peaceful and civil manner. If anyone who read the comment interpreted it as anything other than satirical in nature, I hope this comment clarifies my position that violence is never the solution.
Craig Alan Klein, Esq.
I like to believe that it’s only a few among us who tend to react violently to differing points of view. The rest of us are charged with setting examples of being rational & calm, remembering that “the pen is mightier than the sword” & respecting all.
Thank you. Recent events have reinforced to me that all the rhetoric has to be turned down.