Planning Commission approves 8 ADUs, conditional use permit for Fair Oaks apartment complex expansion

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission on Sept. 2 approved Conditional Use Permit 25-002, allowing two detached ADU buildings that add eight one‑bedroom units to an existing Fair Oaks Avenue apartment complex and finding the project CEQA-exempt under the infill exemption.

The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission on Sept. 2 approved Conditional Use Permit 25-002, allowing the construction of two detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) buildings that would add eight one‑bedroom units to an existing multifamily apartment complex on Fair Oaks Avenue. The commission also found the project categorically exempt from CEQA under the infill development guideline (CEQA Guidelines section 15332).

Staff presented the proposal as a 1.4-acre site at the western end of Fair Oaks Avenue that currently contains five multifamily buildings totaling 28 apartments built in 1979. The applicant proposes two new buildings, each containing four one-bedroom ADUs for a total of eight ADUs, a clubhouse and utility facility expansion, and a new landscaped common courtyard. The ADUs were submitted under newly amended state ADU law effective Jan. 1, 2025, which the staff presentation said allows up to eight detached ADUs on lots with existing multifamily structures.

The project requires a conditional use permit because the new detached ADU buildings are proposed at 22 feet in height, exceeding the 18-foot maximum for detached ADUs; staff noted the proposed height remains below the 30-foot maximum for primary structures in the multifamily apartment zone. Staff also explained that the eight ADUs are excluded from the zoning density calculation: the existing development totals 18 density units under the zoning rules and the maximum allowable on the site is 20, leaving the proposal within the density limit.

Staff told commissioners the project meets parking requirements and exceeds them slightly. The zone’s requirement as presented in the staff report called for 54 parking spaces (36 covered, 18 uncovered); the applicant proposes 57 spaces (36 covered, 21 uncovered) and voluntarily included three additional spaces for the new ADUs even though state ADU law does not require parking for ADUs. Staff said the site plan shows approximately 19% landscaping, 41% paved areas and 40% building coverage.

Public comment included a brief suggestion to update the recommended tree list before planting and an extended statement from the property owner, who said he has owned the complex for more than 20 years and described past attempts to add units and his preference for amenities such as a pool, spa and recreation room rather than maximizing unit count. The owner said he rents to a mix of tenants and that about half the units are occupied by residents using the Section 8 voucher program.

Commissioners asked staff procedural and technical questions, including whether the project will be reviewed holistically at the building permit stage for lighting and other life‑safety elements; staff advised that building plan review will ensure that exterior lighting and other standards meet current requirements or are brought into compliance. Staff also provided approximate unit sizes when asked: one‑bedroom ADUs are roughly 590 to 620 square feet.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 25-002 and to find the action exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15332; the motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote (Commissioner Worthen: yes; Commissioner Sackerson: yes; Commissioner Buchanan: yes; Vice Chair Martin: yes; Chair Roof: yes).

The project will proceed to the building permit review where staff said they will verify compliance with development standards, lighting requirements and the building code. No appeals or further actions were announced at the meeting.