image  
Workshop Report
Questionnaire Responses

Questionnaire  Responses Please note that questionnaire responses represent the views of the respondents only, and may or may not represent the views of the site owner, Vision Morro Bay.

Of the 52 attendees we received 38 completed questionnaires. Some late-comers evidently did not fill them out, as we found some blank ones on a few tables.  Responses received are as follows:

1. Are you concerned about the building of out-of-scale houses or additions in your neighborhood?
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Somewhat
  4. Yes
  5. Yes
  6. Yes, completely out of character
  7. Yes
  8. Concerned, yes – opposed, no
  9. Yes
  10. Yes
  11. Yes, especially homes that fill the entire lot, are out of character and/or block another’s view
  12. Yes
  13. Yes
  14. Yes
  15. Yes
  16. Yes.  Some houses are way too close and pose a fire danger – also renters do not have gardens and outside space to enjoy – lowers value of houses in vicinity & makes others pay for City utilities.
  17. Yes.  My major concern is that affordable housing is disappearing – that our community will become a homogeneous group of privileged folks in a single age group
  18. Yes
  19. Yes
  20. Yes
  21. Yes
  22. Yes
  23. Yes
  24. Yes
  25. Yes
  26. Yes
  27. Yes
  28. Yes
  29. Yes
  30. Extremely
  31. Yes
  32. Yes
  33. Yes I am
  34. Yes
  35. Yes
  36. Yes
  37. Yes
  38. 'Yes
a. Have neighbors attempted to stop this kind of development?  If so, what happened?
  1. Yes, failed
  2. Zero
  3. No such activity near me
  4. I don’t know why an elderly widow’s request against the height of a neighbor’s house was ignored
  5. No
  6. As a next door neighbor, I was sent a card and given 10 days (over the Christmas holiday) to comment.  I was out of town, & when I came back, I was told it was too late.  All of the direct neighbors are renters, so no-one feels they have a voice.
  7. No
  8. Yes – they were built anyway – but modified
  9. To my knowledge, some people have talked to someone at City Hall, and have presumably been told that everything was within legal limits
  10. Not that I know of in our neighborhood
  11. Yes, but so far, nothing has happened.
  12. Yes. Spoke with Planning Department.  Nothing happened. – given variances, or told the %  coverage was acceptable
  13. No
  14. No
  15. No
  16. Some, but if the Planning Commission is run by developers, land sharks, & architects, then they keep cutting the slices of land like a pie.  Too small!
  17. My neighbors are very vocal, and united in pursuing whatever avenues are available to address the issue of “out-of-character” homes and increasing construction thereof
  18. No
  19. N/R
  20. Yes – not effective
  21. A large second house was built on the same lot directly in front of a small older house, which completely blocks its views and light.  City council did nothing to mitigate situation
  22. Don’t know
  23. At first the large scale, view blocking homes were stopped, but the developers continued to resubmit. They eventually got approval, but did not do the improvements they first offered.  Some un-permitted buildings became legitimized
  24. Yes
  25. Yes – nothing
  26. N/R
  27. N/R
  28. ?
  29. Yes, nothing
  30. No
  31. Yes
  32. At this time, the neighborhood is built out
  33. Concerned, but unable to stop large scale house because it conformed to the code
  34. No
  35. No
  36. Yes, my family and my neighbors have been to multiple City Council and Planning Commission meetings against some out of scale developments.  It’s made no difference.  The developments were approved.
  37. Yes – allowed to go through
  38. No, not yet.
b.     How have the out-of-scale structures impacted you and your neighbors?
  1. Alienated the new owner from neighbors
  2. Loss of view, sunlight, privacy
  3. None I’ve noticed
  4. Smaller houses have lost their privacy and views
  5. Viewshed
  6. A new two-story house built right next door covers the entire lot where there used to be a 1 story house & backyard.  The new house blocks our southern light and garden space.  Where there was a yard is now a 3 car garage w/cars coming in & out.  The stairs to the living space on second story are 10 feet from our bedroom – the wrap around deck & living space look directly down into our bedroom, kitchen, & entire backyard.   We have lost all of our privacy.
  7. An adjacent property was developed 30+ years ago w/multifamily, most noticeable changes were loss of privacy, loss of afternoon sunlight, and loss of view.
  8. Generally in 8 years, the neighborhood has improved, going up in value and population and traffic – but there’s room for it.
  9. Affected views
  10. The “Western White House” – Olive and Piney Way – Out of scale
  11. Our neighbors’ view was totally blocked which decreased the value of his home. 
  12. Too many homes have been built on existing property.
  13. Sunlight, houses loom over others, parking ugly, they look over several (even into) several yards & homes
  14. Not in my neighborhood
  15. Yes - Neighbors
  16. 15. N/R
  17. What is happening by me is increase of units  & size of houses & decrease of land.  That might be all right if City provides services & open space (parks, views, etc.), but it does not. I live in the smallest home in my 1-block long street.  Due to new, large structures being built left, right, and behind me, I now live in a “hole”
  18. Yes, loss of privacy
  19. Visual blight for all, and deep concern for actual neighbors of McMansions who have their privacy, light, views & use of yard impeded
  20. Blocked former views
  21. MB is becoming a town where neighbors no longer care about each other in pursuit of the biggest, best looking, best views mansion. It’s a selfish approach to advance one’s goals.
  22. Ruins the feel of town & street
  23. Decreased view, decreased # of trees, etc.  Increased coverage of soil.  More un-neighborly exchanges.  Loss of affordable housing for longtime residents
  24. Next door
  25. Destroyed the ambiance, beauty, peace of the neighborhood
  26. Yes
  27. N/R
  28. yes View –blocked.  Closes in neighborhood.  Increased fire risk due to proximity & on a broader view…we have such limited land space and need more efficient use if we‘ll have affordable housing.
  29. Destroyed views, changed neighborhood character
  30. 30. The Vesterffeld house on Fairview is a constant annoyance.  Not only during the very long building period, but as it looks over the neighborhood creating a feel of constant privacy intrusion
  31. Yes
  32. None
  33. Considering we have large lots & on a hill, not a lot. But there is potential for some houses that could be disturbing.
  34. N/R
  35. Zero
  36. My mother’s property value has fallen below what she paid for it due to out-of-scale development.  It will be going into foreclosure.  Other neighbors will be losing view and be affected by increased drainage onto their properties
  37. Views – setback issues.  Allowing lot splits where character has changed neighborhood.
  38. Yes


2. What approaches do you think would work best to manage house bulk and scale, and preserve the character of your neighborhood? 

  1. Stick to the rule of neighborhood character.  Doubling is not sticking to what it is.
  2. N/R
  3. Environmental controls – in light of climate change & energy shortages – restrict home size on basis of energy required to heat & cool it or mandate solar panels on basis of square footageof hours – or require positive solar heating; design,  & site placement – also energy-efficient appliances mandated.
  4. The City will need to pass strict laws as to size, views, etc.
  5. 1). Added fees for infrastructure upgrading.  2). Historical or fine arts society representation on Planning commission.  3). Size limitations based on available parking area.
  6. If it’s a block of 1 story houses – make them stay 1 story houses
  7. Correlate livable floor space to lot size (FAR), and allow encroachment incentives for less, or no second story.
  8. Sanity, cooperation, compromise (define compromise)
  9. Perhaps consider some zoning changes so that we don’t always hear that everything and anything is “within the legal limit”
  10. Update General Plan.  Hold to it.  Some variances were reasonable
  11. Enforce existing residential planning. Do not change zoning to accommodate builders
  12. Manage scale, setbacks, no variances, etc.
  13. Planning commission needs to reflect views of residents
  14. Floor area ratios to lot size.  Height flexibility as a ratio to bulk
  15. FAR & limiting need for 2-car garage – presently required for any new building, even a studio.
  16. N/R
  17. Limitations of size according to lot size and the character of the surrounding neighborhood.  I would also like to see landscape (trees, gardens, greenery) a requirement for new projects.
  18. Revision/enforcement of zoning ordinance that effectively limits oversized houses
  19. Regulations & rules as to the size of house in proportion to lot, & upper floor setbacks.  Then a Planning Dept. which lives here & strong City Council & Planning Commission to adhere to the regulations
  20. Size limit (sq. footage) in relation to lot size
  21. Local ordinance or zoning must be established
  22. Better zoning – perhaps “historical district designation” – Some design criteria?
  23. Assure view corridors on bay front.  Notify renters as well as property owners of proposed changes.
  24. Zoning and code
  25. Limit House bulk increase to 10 – 15% of older house.  Preserve and protect trees, shrubbery and views. 
  26. Limit size of homes in established neighborhoods
  27. To redo the General Plan that is at the C-C for approval. It was done by developers and realtors., and is designed to maximize profit, not quality of life (QOL)
  28. Create a standard based on average home sizes (consistent wi/ lot sizes) and set the average as a limit (all lots of a certain size are limited to the average home size in MB on the same lots.
  29. Floor area ratio is one method that has worked in many California cities
  30. * ratio building to lot size, including overhang,.  * setbacks all the way around.  *street width considered in front yard setback  *live in period required of builder    * Height   * Roof analysis   * Solar potential of neighbors   * Utility meter placement
  31. Enforce existing laws, and remove City staff members that are involved with the affordable housing credit scam.  I.e. elected officials and (names deleted)
  32. We have to look at bulk and scale on the small lots in M.B. since most are 3,600 SF down.  There has to be a size limit. Also the character i.e.  how it “fits” in with the other houses in the neighborhood
  33. Code enforcement.  2nd stories percentage to first.  Percentage of house to lot size
  34. Small scale design – roof pitch, second story setbacks different than first story, credit for design features that make a structure more interesting
  35. Re-write the zoning rules to limit size, etc.  Have a City review board on bulk and size
  36. A good start would be to follow the ordinances we have in place.  Several were violated in these projects.  That starts with the planners in the building dept. doing their job correctly
  37. Stricter guidelines on setbacks, easements, lot splits.  Public input – guidelines set up per other places like Carmel, Santa Barbara
  38. N/R

a.      Why do you prefer these approaches?

1.  Keep the neighborhood feeling and desirability intact

2.  N/R

3.  Because they are in-line w/ national priority on energy independence & global climate change.  Think global, respond to local

4.  There is no other way to stop the current trend

5.  Codes can be modified as in old New England towns so anyone building will know what won’t be permitted

6.  Preserve people’s views & privacy & southern exposure

7.  Seems like most fair & workable

8.  Doubled population of U.S. (in my lifetime) requires it.

9.  There should be a compromise between “rights of property owner” and what’s best for the neighborhood

10. One rule does not fit all.  Must be reasonable

11. They seem feasible

12. Keep Morro Bay Beautiful.  Left big city to be here.  Don’t want it to turn out to be like what I left.

13. That’s simply the way it should be.

14. Architecture variety and view loss minimization

15. N/R

16. N/R

17. I’m honestly not very well-versed in options

18. Avoids creating new bureaucracy,  i.e. review committee; satisfies legal requirements; can be effective

19. N/R

20. Only one that has a rational criterion

21. Uniform. Fair to everyone.  Apply to all residents

22. Being used in other parts of the country with some success

23. Many property owners live out of town.  They rarely participate in City Council/Planning. We all should share in the preservation of beauty here

24. Regulatory

25. It costs nothing and protects the aesthetic ambiance of town and neighborhood

26. Quality of life issues

27. Because the old Plan did more to protect QOL

28. Keeps consistent with General Plan statement to remain consistent w/ small town character/ Infrastructure and goals for affordable housing

29. Houses can be built to fit the size of the lot and not overwhelm the lot

30. It keeps neighborhood value intact & neighbors’ privacy

31. Without enforcement, laws are useless

32. When a house is out of character, it stands out like a ‘sore thumb” in the area.  They all don’t need to look alike, but not blah.

33. It is black and white. So variances would be hard to obtain

34. N/R

35. People know going in what they can and cannot do

36. Because if we can’t follow the rules we have in place, what’s the point in establishing new ones?

37. N/R

38. N/R


b.      Do you think they would work well for all areas of Morro Bay, or is there a need for specialized approaches in different neighborhoods?  (if so, please state why)

1. Same for all

2  N/R

3. Morro Bay not always the sunniest place, but it can work.

4. Smaller houses should not have their views lost

5. Special approach needed in Beach and Island streets areas because there is not adequate parking

6.  Should fit in w/neighborhood

7. Yes, although steep hillsides could create exceptional situations

8. Morro Bay is small – it’s one neighborhood

9.  N/R

10. One hard and fast rule does not in all cases make sense

11. If the landowner owns large acre properties, he can build whatever size home he prefers.  I don’t like homes that fill the entire lot.

12. Please  do in all areas!

13. Yes – affordable housing, multi-use zoning

14. Yes, but a neighborhood by neighborhood approach would be appropriate where the majority of existing structures represent one or the other extreme

15. FAR may not work on the 40 x 60 lots in N. MB

16. N/R

17. Probably specialized approaches are more realistic, but clear, basic requirements should be the starting point.  Enforcement of guidelines, laws currently on books

18. Yes, and should also be applied to commercial/multi-use, i.e. out of scale downtown developments

19. Should work for most, if not all.  For example – if you buy a small lot, you must build a small house.  Want a large house?  Move to a ranch.

20. Work anywhere

21. All areas.  Standardization eliminates special interests

22. Possibly evaluate distinctive areas?  i.e. historical – not sure

23. Different neighborhoods already have different character and advantages.  Each neighborhood’s character should be considered

24. Yes

25. Yes, and possibly (unable to make out what was written here – sorry)

26. N/R

27. Morro Bay is made up of many subdivisions with their own needs so different approaches are necessary

28. Yes

29. I think this will work well in the entire city

30. Yes, spec. app. In areas that have smaller lots, viewsheds, etc.

31. Yes. This is a local and statewide problem

32. Yes. Larger lot areas can handle larger homes, but the smaller lots can’t handle them

33. It is difficult  to make that call

34. Different neighborhoods have different scale, character, and certainly different lot sizes

35. For most areas

36. Yes.  Specialized approaches to preserve unique character of some areas

37. Yes – different size lots have different character

38.  Sure – I’m not opposed to building, just do it with a little more style


3. What would you, personally, like to say to Morro Bay City government about preserving neighborhood character by limiting the size of homes?

  1. Just do it
  2. N/R
  3. The neighborhood will change w/ or w/o the City govt because it’s all about developers & money.  Revolution now!  Effects of loss of access to sunlight have broader environmental sustainability issues – from ability to dry clothes on a line in the sun to self sufficient gardening
  4. Neighborhood residents should have a right to protect loss of views, parking, etc. 
  5. Stop overriding the Planning Commission!  City trolleys are not the same as adequate parking on City streets.  Forget “affordable housing”!
  6. I am moving out of Morro Bay because of this situation.  I presently shop completely locally & support the economy of Morro Bay. I will take my business elsewhere. I am just really glad that I didn’t buy a house here as the zoning law are really LAME!  Zoning of tear dwons & building huge houses is horrible.  I can’t even have a garden anymore.
  7. It is already done, to some degree, by U.B.C. & lot coverage.  It needs to be fine tuned
  8. Consider sq footage of buildings proportionate to :”lot”.
  9. N/R
  10. N/R
  11. Please stick to the local planning and zoning laws.  What about setbacks on lots?  Where are the workers (clerks, sales people, etc.) going to live?
  12. Please protect MB … this is why we elected you ….it is your job!!!  Keep MB beautiful and charming
  13. Be reasonable re City history & building in that particular area
  14. Our current City Council is incapable of dealing with the problem due to personal political agendas
  15. N/R
  16. Keep mansions in certain areas.  Make those houses pay for the services they require & the added expense of servicing more intense & lower income areas.
  17. People have been attracted to M.B. because of its eclectic, seaside nature.  Without intervention our community will be altered, and not desirably
  18. Residential issue less important tham commercial; City needs to do more to limit/improve character of commercial areas, esp. downtown
  19. Why are you so swayed by real estate developers and owners who cry, & play “poor me” and give variances, etc. to build bigger & more units per lot – and badly designed unintelligent lot plans?
  20. Variances are excessively given & are not given on a rational basis.  Petitioners are encouraged to give “sad stories” mostly untrue since they often sell their properties
  21. Do what’s best for everyone.  Have some courage to do what’s right.  No one can please everyone, so don’t try to be :”nice”.  We have enough of “nice”.  Increase impact fees.  Do not subsidize developers.
  22. Please develop a plan that preserves the small town feel without adverse effects on the future – think more about residents & the ability to live, raise a family, earn a living, than “weekenders”
  23. Water and sewer issues need to be addressed, also green building and trees, landscaping, etc.
  24. Keep the charter
  25. No razing of tree lots.  Protect views.  Absolutely limit size of homes. Increase setbacks. Protect the essence.   (could not make out all of what was written here – sorry – but this is most of it)
  26. N/R
  27. Use reasonable setbacks.  Each home needs to fit the area it is in
  28. Listen & act based on what the people who live here are saying they want.  If there’s an overwhelming majority, you’re there to act in their behalf.  Also, think beyond this year & next…. What, based on your decisions, will thie place look like in 10 years & who will be able to live here?
  29. Change the zoning so that changes can be accomplished
  30. Listen to the residents about their preferences. Uphold existing rules=, no variances.  New codes to protect smaller existing properties
  31. First and foremost do our elected officials have a conflict of interest with developers that are associated with (name deleted Company Inc. ?
  32. N/R
  33. The preservation is important, for once you allow development it is ruined forever
  34. ? Variances.  ? Exceptions
  35. They know how I feel
  36. To preserve neighborhood character – not just limit size of homes, limit also height, and amount of land movement i.e. not creating new hills that weren’t there before (Colmer project on Sunset Ave North MB) or excavating huge pits int loand to allow for 48’ buildings (Cameron financial po=roject on Sunset Ave North MB)
  37. Definitely needs to limit size, scale, bulk and enforce what is currently on the books too
  38. Morro Bay is rapidly destroying its charm by building out of character homes … box after box after box.





Return to home page