HomeMy WebLinkAbout35 - PH-2 - Additional Documents 1 - 1/2/2018TRAYLOR, MARIAN
Subject: RE: Costa Mesa City Planning
MrST-Jow
From: Tom Walker [mailto:tomwaIker!000@gmail.com]
Sent- Monday, January 01, 2018 9.-54 PIVI
To: GENIS, SANDRA <SAN DRA.GE NIS_@costamesaca.gov>, FOLEY, KATRINA < KATR I NAFO LEY@ costa mesa ca.ggv>;
RIGHEIMER, JIM <jlM.RIGHEIMER2costamesaca.gov>, STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costames oy>;
gc1g—
MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN. MANSOO R@costa mesa ca go >
Cc: ANDRANIAN, STEPHAN <STEPHAN.ANDRANIAN@costaMesacago >,- DEARAKAL, BYRON
<BYRON. DEARAKALR costa m esaca. )v>, HARLAN JEFFREY <J E FFREYi HARLAN2,, costa mesaca.'jov>,,
<ISABELL.KERINS@costamesaca.gov>; WOODS, CARLA N. <CARLA.W•!i r costa m esaca.go >; ASHABI, MINOO
<MINOO.ASHA:Bl@costamesaca.go >
Subject.- Costa Mesa City Planning
Dear Mayor Genis and City of Costa Mesa Council Members
I am writing first in response to Item # PH -2 on the Costa Mesa City Council meeting agenda for 1/2/18. 1 am concerned
to further some prec•riceived notions that could have the opposite effect. Page 13 of the Oct. 9 2017 Planning
t 0 1
Commission agenda report states that as of the date of publication no public comments had been received regarding
this issue. Please consider the attached as my comments regarding the ordinance in question.
In addition, I have been in the home building industry for about 40 years and a resident of Costa Mesa for almost that
long. As my wife and I are planning a small project on my own property on the Eastside I have been attending more
planning commission and council meetings recently. I must say that I have been surprised at the negative (sometimes
viciously) reaction to new building projects proposed in Costa Mesa. I have attached something I came across recently
showing some of the positive effects on per household energy usage. This is not by accident (or admittedly most
builders creativity or wisdom) but by aggressive pursuit of more efficient products in the USA and especially in the state
of California. But while we celebrate the ingenuity of folks that produce cars that stretch the amount of miles that can
be driven on a gallon of gas to distances once thought impossible, some condemn new projects that would include high
efficiency heating units. I guess the old floor furnace works just fine for them. We are amazed at how little energy our
new appliances use in comparison to the old clunkers they replaced, but some will scoff an new building projects that
would include highly efficient LED lighting, We are aghast at the cost of the tunnels, pipelines, and aquaducts we must
build to bring Northern California and out of state water to the parched Southern counties, yet some ridicule new
building projects that include plumbing fixtures that reduce water usage, drought tolerate landscaping with water
efficient irrigations methods, and pervious paving systems or other devices that help recharge groundwater levels.
I
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -2
I have read with interest the draft of Ordinance No. 17 that the planning commission has recommended
the city council approve. While some areas of the code amendment seem to provide a reduction of
barriers to the construction of new residential units as state regulations have intended, other areas of
the code will have the opposite effect and reduce construction of additional units. For purposes of
brevity I will focus on the latter and how it might affect property owners such as me and my wife. I will
also bullet point my comments for ease of reference in any responses from commissioners or council
members.
• At the bottom of page 5 of the planning commission agenda report there is a note regarding a
possible amendment to the General Plan to remove the exemption for development of
additional units on lots between 6000 sf and 7260 sf (CID or small lot development ) established
prior to March 16, 1992 as allowed under the current code. If the elimination of this exemption
is not pursued, the allowance of an ADU on these properties would have a positive effect as it
would allow property owners that are in need of just a small added space for a rental, family
member, etc. at a lower cost while not limiting others in developing a CID or small lot project on
their property. If the exemption is eliminated it would essentially amount to a "down zoning" of
the 566 lots in the City of Costa Mesa that fit into these limits, including ours, to an R1 lot with a
small adjustment to the lot square footage required for the addition of an ADU. This would
have the opposite effect of the state's goal and reduce the number of new housing units built as
most property owners would not be interested in building an ADU on properties zoned for and
intended for multi -family housing.
• Section 2 of the draft references limiting ADUs to two bedrooms, however page 9 of the
planning commission report seems to acknowledge that the reduction of the allowable size of
an ADU from the current 1200 sf to only 800 sf really translates to a one bedroom or studio unit.
For reference I have attached a floor plan of a single wide two bedroom trailer as an ADU just
this size would not be allowable with 800 sf restriction. This will not only discourage added
units it would also reduce the attraction of an ADU to small families (single parent, etc) that
might not be able to afford traditional single family home rents.
• Section 5 of the draft limits detached ADUs not built over a garage to one story, 15 feet high "to
preserve the character of single family neighborhoods". While this might make sense in some
R1 neighborhoods, in the R21VID zoned neighborhoods such as ours it would result in a tiny unit
surrounded by two story (or more) homes and apartments. In addition, the limitation to a single
story increases the building "footprint" of the ADU causing increased lot coverage. This seems
inconsistent with open space goals.
Tom Walker
MMMMMM
77T -e =evisioproiiieration)
Computers
Gaming systems
§ Air Conditioning (proliferation)
§ ATMs
§ Internet
§ Cell phones
§ Cable TV
OM
EM
M
nITIONAI DOCUMENTS FOR P
2E
EM
11
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -2
Ug17-11