HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Accessory Dwelling Units - CorrespondenceRecieved After Agenda Printed
July 25, 2017
Item No. 19
Subject: FW: ADU ORDINANCE
From: Carleen Butterfield[mailto:cbuttterfield@gapps.coastline.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:12 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: ADU ORDINANCE
Dear Planner Murillo and City Council of Newport Beach,
I am unable to attend the meeting on Tuesday July 25, 2017. I have three concerns.
My first is Section 6 C 3, the single story or over garage stipulation. With a strong opinion regarding concerns
about theft and safety, I would encourage permission for a first story enclosed entry vestibule which could be
closed and locked. This could also allow for storage for bicycles, beach equipment and possibly laundry. This
occurs through the flower streets in Corona Del Mar and possibly, Balboa Island and the Peninsula. This would
allow for a safe ground floor entry with stairs leading to the upper living quarters.
I also object to the City of Newport Beach, SECTION 6 C 4, being more restrictive than the State of California
requirements regarding the square footage of an ADU. The State allows 1200 square feet.
This is an unfair restriction of property rights for certain areas of the community, as long as the total square
footage does not exceed that allowed for a property.
In fact, the areas with the smallest lots, Corona del Mar, the Peninsula and Balboa Island, are allowed relatively
greater freedom to have larger secondary units.
Nothing satisfactory would be accomplished by restricting the square footage of an ADU, beyond the State
requirement. In fact the opposite of the desired effect could take place. If the units are smaller, it would be
more likely that they would be occupied by students and other short term renters. If the units are larger, there is
greater likelihood of longer term more stable tenants.
It is probable that a larger unit (1200 vs. 750) would not have more bedrooms. Other rooms would simply be
larger and other amenities would be included, such as laundry rooms, larger closets, perhaps an office alcove, a
larger kitchen and better storage.
Many of the logical properties for ADUs are being torn down and McMansions are taking their place. ADUs
will most likely result in lesser footprints and fewer occupants, on the properties than those larger houses. The
most likely properties for ADUs are the original homes that were two/three bedrooms and a bath or two. These
have been homes to families and are now occupied by empty nesters, who will update their primary residence
and have an opportunity to create retirement income. These owners are not likely to be filling their ADUs with
undesirable tenants, which would have adverse impacts on neighborhoods. These homeowners will want
excellent tenants as they will be sharing property.
My final objection is the Section 6 C 6, three year limit on converting new construction. This seems an unfair
restriction on homeowners who may have new or recent construction and have a sudden need to convert a
portion of their home to rental.
I truly hope that you will give this thoughtful consideration prior to making a decision that will adversely
impact many homeowners.
Sincerely,
Carleen Butterfield
Newport Beach, CA
July 21, 2017