PB neighbors sue, protest to stop construction of ADU mega-complex

Pacific Beach residents have sued a controversial San Diego developer to stop one of the biggest backyard apartment complexes the city has ever seen: over 100 units packed into two neighboring lots.

Dozens of neighbors and tribal members rang in the lawsuit with a protest Monday against the complex’s developer, Christian Spicer of the firm SDRE, outside the PB properties where he plans to build his Chalcifica project.

Wielding signs reading, “No predatory development,” the protesters shared concerns that echoed many outlined in the lawsuit: that the mega-project will pack street parking, endanger the environment and sit on the site of a culturally significant Kumeyaay village.

SDRE plans to put six three-story apartment buildings and 70 parking spaces across the two lots. The project is slated for an east Pacific Beach neighborhood dominated by military housing and single-family homes.

The brewing legal battle represents the latest twist in the broader fight over what officials call unexpected, “outlier” accessory dwelling unit projects.

In response to Chalcifica and other backyard mega-builds, the San Diego City Council last month passed reforms to close an affordable-housing loophole that developers used to jam over six units in one backyard.

But Chalcifica has continued to forge ahead, despite the council’s attempts to stop large backyard projects that are already in the pipeline. While the rollbacks will ban new outliers, the City Attorney’s Office said last month that state law heavily restricts officials’ power to block builds which already have filed applications with the city, like Chalcifica.

As a result, the group Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach has taken matters into its own hands with its lawsuit against Spicer, SDRE and the city.

“Make no mistake: These are not simple granny flats,” Josh Chatten-Brown, the group’s attorney, said at Monday’s protest.

“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.”

Neighbors’ top concerns

The neighbors’ lawsuit centers around one chief concern: that the backyard build is too large for a residential neighborhood’s infrastructure.

Residents are 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, prompting neighbors to worry about the loss of street parking. Under 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.

Neighbors say 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 also have joined the fight because they worry Chalcifica will be developed upon untouched, sacred tribal lands. At Monday’s protest, 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.

Lawsuit: City illegally permits outliers

With their lawsuit, neighbors not only are coming after Chalcifica, but also the way the city permits all backyard-unit projects. Their goal is to put a stop to all planned backyard builds until the city tightens the way it reviews these projects.

When the city launched a controversial program in 2020 incentivizing developers to build backyard units as a solution to San Diego’s affordable-housing crisis, it streamlined the way officials review the builds. Unlike certain big projects, including airports and cannabis dispensaries, backyard-unit builds don’t have to clear hoops like public hearings and environmental reviews to be approved — which neighbors argue violates state and city law.

City officials also don’t have the power to deny permits for backyard-unit projects as long as they meet the relatively light requirements set by the city’s ADU program.

Because the program originally allowed developers to build an unlimited number of backyard units if a portion were designated as affordable housing, city officials couldn’t block outlier projects if they were following the city’s ADU rules — no matter how big they grew.

To critics like Merv Thompson, chair of Neighbors for a Better Pacific Beach, the city’s review process equates to little more than a “rubber stamp” for all backyard-unit builds.

The neighbors’ lawsuit argues that by streamlining the review process, the city has cleared backyard-unit builds of “meaningful analysis and public oversight,” enabling “unchecked development.”

The lawsuit calls for the city to stop reviewing these projects until it gives officials the power to deny permits for Chalcifica and other backyard-unit builds on a case-by-case basis. That could open up the door for the city to halt or scale down Chalcifica, as well as require SDRE to conduct environmental reviews and hold public hearings for the project.

Affordable housing or profit?

While critics have decried Spicer and SDRE as profit-driven builders of backyard mega-projects, Spicer’s firm has maintained that it pursues these builds for a more noble reason: to fill in the city’s affordable-housing gap.

“SDRE is committed to finding a solution to San Diego’s housing crisis by building within the city’s established rules and regulations,” the firm said in a statement Monday.

“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 Chalcifica’s neighbors argue that Spicer is gaming the city’s affordable ADU program to snap up large residential properties and cram apartment complexes in their backyards.

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.