Fortuna Planning Commission Approves Controversial Two-Story ADU Despite Neighbor Objections

FORTUNA, CA – The Fortuna Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit Tuesday night for a two-story accessory structure that significantly exceeds the city's standard height limit, following a heated public hearing where neighbors raised concerns about privacy, neighborhood character, and the accuracy of the city's review materials.

The project, proposed by homeowner Dr. Joseph Portola for his 1.2-acre property on Elizabeth Barcus Way, involves the construction of a 1,728-square-foot detached building. The structure will feature a hobby space on the ground floor and an 1,164-square-foot, two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on the second story. The proposed height of 26 feet required special approval, as it surpasses the 15-foot maximum for accessory buildings in the Residential Estates zone.

During the meeting, Senior Planner Kitty Miller presented the staff report, noting that the project was consistent with the city's General Plan and exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant's designer, Donald Clique, explained that a two-story design was necessary to achieve the desired square footage and that efforts were made to match the existing home's style and be sensitive to neighbors by increasing the side-yard setback to eight feet, double the minimum required for a structure containing an ADU.

However, the proposal drew significant opposition from residents of the Buena Vista Park Estates neighborhood. Three letters of opposition were read into the record, and several residents spoke in person, united by common themes.

A primary concern was the loss of privacy. One direct neighbor stated that a 26-foot building so close to his property line would be an "eyesore" and fundamentally alter his comfort. He and others pointed out that the city's staff report used outdated aerial photos from Google Maps, which showed a line of mature trees that had since been removed, eliminating a crucial privacy screen between the properties.

"Those aerial images from Google Maps are not accurate," the neighbor told the commission. "There is no discernible cover or anything between my house and his house... I don't see the reason why I have to address it on my side to gain back the privacy that I should have."

Other residents worried that approving such a large ADU would set a precedent, eroding the "estate feel" of the neighborhood, which is characterized by large lots and single-family homes. Concerns were also raised about potential conflicts with the neighborhood Homeowners Association (HOA) rules, which reportedly restrict properties to single-family use, as well as increased traffic and parking issues.

One adjacent landowner, whose property sits at a higher elevation to the north, spoke in favor of the project, stating he had "no problem with it" as long as it was built as permitted.

In response to the concerns, Dr. Portola clarified that the ADU is intended for a family member, not as a short-term rental. He stated that the setback is eight feet, not four, and that he intends to plant a screen of tall Italian junipers along the property line to restore privacy. He also noted that the ADU's balcony faces north, away from the most impacted neighbor.

After closing public comment, the commission discussed the project. A motion was made to approve the permit with an added condition requiring the applicant to plant the promised privacy screen of junipers as soon as occupancy is granted. The motion passed on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Doors dissenting. Commissioners Raymond, Hallie, Vice Chair Nichols, and Chair Kine voted in favor.

In other business, the commission welcomed a new building inspector who will be starting next week and received a brief update on the former mill site, which the city staff noted is still being actively marketed.