It’s Been Nearly 2 Years Since Rag Contest — Here’s an Update on Clairemont Area ADUs
By Michael A Hernandez
It’s been almost two years since the Rag held a contest ranking “The Worst ADUs in San Diego”. Launched in an effort to better understand the severity of the issue of rampant ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) development in America’s Finest City, the contest received dozens of resident submissions from at least 20 different localities.
Submissions were evaluated by a panel of judges consisting of reporters and experts on the subject who scored the projects based on their physical size or number of units, aesthetic, and their impact on the neighborhood, like affected street parking.
The issue has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of the City of San Diego’s Bonus ADU Program, which enabled homeowners to build additional ADUs on a property even after the maximum number allowed by right had been reached, so long as they agreed to rent the affordable housing unit to low or moderate-income households for the next 10-15 years.
If the property fell under what the city calls a “Transit Priority Area” or TPA (a designated zone within a half-mile radius of an existing or planned major transit stop like a bus stop or trolley station) then there was no limit to the amount of bonus ADU’s that can be built except for the space it occupies. This, coupled with the state of California’s ADU program, which simplifies and incentivizes the construction of ADUs to address the ongoing housing shortage, virtually allowed for an unlimited amount of ADUs to be built, and the way developers got around the obstacle of limited space, was by stacking units on top of one another resulting in towering apartment complexes in lots meant for single-family homes.
In June of 2025, the San Diego City Council voted 5-4 to reform and roll back the controversial Bonus ADU program and approved an extensive package of 25 amendments on ADU regulations. Among these changes were caps on the number of ADUs allowed to be built by lot size, added fees to support neighborhood infrastructure including active transportation, fire facilities, libraries, and parks and recreation improvement. As well as parking requirements, and restrictions for ADUs built in high or very-high fire hazard severity zones.
Just as the regulations on ADUs have changed since the Rag’s contest wrapped up nearly two years ago, so too have the contest’s “winners” changed in more than just their appearance. Here’s an update on some of the “Worst ADUs in San Diego” in and near the Clairemont area, my home:
4578 Jicarillo Avenue, Bay Ho (see top photo for ‘before’)
To start things off we have the Gold Prize winner of the contest, voted the worst ADU in San Diego, the massive multi-unit development located on 4578 Jicarillo Ave in the residential Neighborhood of Bay Ho. Pictured incomplete at the time of the contest, the now completed 15-bed, 14-bath development drew a considerable amount of backlash from local residents due to its density, placement on an environmentally sensitive canyon, lack of public input, and failure to build additional parking for residents in an already narrow street. In May of this year the property was listed for sale with a price tag of $5.65 Million.
4862 Fond Du Lac Court
Next up is one of the contest’s “dishonorable mentions”.
The development on 4862 Fond Du Lac Court in North Clairemont is another submission that was pictured unfinished at the time the contest was held. Now that it’s complete , the project stands as the tallest building in the cul-de-sac. With limited driveway parking spaces to divide between at least 8 units, one can only imagine how the project has exacerbated the scarce parking situation in the crowded neighborhood. As of June 2026, there are residents living in the complex and units are listed for rent between $1,788 and $2,088 a month.
6150 Mercer St, University City
At first-glance it may be hard to distinguish the before-and-after pictures shown above, but that just goes to show how bland and characterless the ADU on 6150 Mercer Street in University City really is.
The judges of the contest described the ADU as “nondescript” and “boxy-looking”. Truer words have never been spoken. Compared to the other buildings in the area, this development is unlike any other in both shape and size. It is important to note the neighborhood it resides in, University City, was once at the center of the heated debate over San Diego’s bonus density program, which like the bonus ADU program, allowed developers to exceed maximum unit count or building height in exchange for affordable dwelling units. Digital rental marketplaces list the ADU for rent at $4,650 a month.
4674 Firestone, North Clairemont
Last, but certainly not least, is the mega-ADU project located on 4674 Firestone Street in North Clairemont.
Pictured as a complex of five buildings in the backyard of a single-family home just two years ago. Today, an entire third row of buildings that can be seen from just about anywhere in Firestone Street, have been constructed after the developer, known as the “King of ADUs” Christian Spicer, purchased the lot next door to continue adding to the project. Spicer, the founder and CEO of homebuilding and property development company San Diego Real Estate or SDRE (now operating under its new name, Infill Innovations, Inc.) and his investors are directly responsible for numerous large-scale projects which prompted the city’s crackdown on the development of ADUs. The project on Firestone Street stands as a testament to the outcomes of ADU law exploitation in order to turn a profit.
Well hopefully the city is on top of reassessment and collecting the fees from the improvements on these POS. The only recourse to living in the past.
What has been ignored by pretty much everyone, is the impact upon low density multi-family zones. In what was once known as R-1000, or one unit per 1000sf of lot area, this allowed a 20′ x 100′ to have two units. One ADU project near Union and Laurel has been built with NINE units and is 12′ wide, exceeds 40′ tall, and is 76′ long. The family with the SFR to the North now lives in perpetual shadow. The project was permitted without any provisions for the required trash enclosure. There is no accessibility for any units… It’s the Wild West out there with cowboys strip mining every community with not just impunity, but encouragement. When they come calling to sell you on the latest game of a 20′ x 100′ minimum lot size, just assume that means a 60′ SFR zoned lot will become three lots, with each allowed 4 ADUs. Voila, the 60′ SFR lot becomes 15 units if in the TPA, under our current “restrictions” narrowly approved 5-4. I see no solutions other than to vote every single politician that supports this Yimby trend (or Midway Rising) out of office while we still have communities worth saving.
“Worst ADU’s” when they all look like every other building in their respective areas. The “nondescript” and “boxy-looking” adjectives are funny when literally a block away you have University Square which has the biggest nondescript and boxy-looking building in the whole area LOL.
If you’re going to criticize the urban planning of these building, sure whatever… but get some real designers to critique the aesthetics if that’s the route you’re going to take.
Get up to speed, Javier. This contest is 2 years old; the critiques have already occurred. And they’re right on. Your “real designers” brought us these ADUs.
Frank and Michael Hernandez thank you for putting this information out again to remind people how neighborhoods are STILL suffering and will continue to suffer from the City’s ill conceived ADU Bonus program.
I still have over 200 addresses listed that got in before the City amended the program to a maxim of 6 ADU’s in law on August 22nd 2025. and some of the egregious 10,12,18 ADU projects are still going to go up and the neighbors have no idea.
Need an annual Worst ADU contest.
Isn’t Nicole Crosby on the Clairemont Community Planning Group? What kind of advocacy has she shown to try to beat back these projects? Just sayin’
I believe Crosby still is head of the Clairemont Town Council. At least she’s been in the game. She came to at least one San Diego Community Coalition meeting where anti-ADUs was a big topic. Where has your boy Bailey been these last couple of years in the fight vs. Bonus ADUs?
The current President of the Clairemont Town Council is Carrie Munson. Ms. Crosby is the past president and currently serving as CTC Secretary.
During her stint as President of the CTC Ms. Crosby facilitated a board position recommending stricter regulations governing ADU’s and criticized some of the more outrageous examples in our community.
Contrary to Lisa’s not-so-well-informed comment here, Ms. Crosby has never been a member of the Clairemont Community Planning Group.
I should also note that the Clairemont Town Council does not deliberate about, nor make recommendations regarding specific development projects. That’s the job of the Clairemont Community Planning Group. On occasion, the CTC will address public policy matters to the City, but it has no statutory role in the review and decision-making process for specific developments.
Don, thanks for the update and clarifications.
Don – No entity including the Clairemont Community Planning Group has any ability to make recommendations on Bonus ADUs, or the larger Complete Communities projects. Changes to the Municipal Code and Council Policy have largely eliminated the ability for community planning groups to review or make recommendations on most proposed development projects. People living in houses in RM (Residential-Multiple Unit) zones (in neighborhoods like Ocean Beach, Linda Vista, and Clairemont, etc.) just wake-up one morning to find that a neighbor has erected a construction fence around their property, and voila construction begins. Sadly planning has become an oxymoron in San Diego.
Michael, well done, a million thanks for this much-needed update. It’s important to remember that these atrocities have inflicted permanent damage, not just on neighborhoods, but on homeowners whose adjacent properties have tanked in value.
Javier, we criticize the look of these monstrous ADUs because of where they are placed. Complexes of such size and scale do not belong in residential neighborhoods with modest homes, narrow streets and limited parking. I think (I hope) we would all agree that a high-rise building that is appropriate for downtown San Diego would be an abomination along Newport Avenue in the heart of OB. This is why we held the contest. It’s why the Bonus ADU program was finally reformed, and it’s one of the reasons Todd Gloria is so deeply unpopular.
This is great, Michael Hernandez; thank you for keeping us informed about these monstrosities. I agree with the commenter who said we should conduct this Worst ADU contest every year, as according to Pam Begeal, there are many more to come. And the City Council and Mayor wonder why no one trusts or respects them. What a mess they’ve made of our City.
Excellent work by Michael Hernandez………I was blown away with the new photos and the dollars involved in youe well written update of the “Worst ADU’s”. Go get em….your judgement and digging ability will serve you well. Congratulations