HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS2 - Zoning Code Update - Residential Development StandardsCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No.SS2
September 14, 2010
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
James Campbell, Acting Planning Director
(949) 644 -3210, Campbell@newportbeachca.gov
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
(949) 644 - 3219, gramirez(a)newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Update — Residential Development Standards
ISSUE
Review of the Zoning Code Update, focusing on the proposed residential development
standards.
Review staff's recommendation and history of public discussion of the Zoning Code
Update and provide direction to staff for the preparation of final draft standards to be
considered during future public hearings.
DISCUSSION
Background — Zoning Code Update Process
The General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee (Committee) was
charged by the City Council with guiding the comprehensive zoning code update. The
Committee consisted of three Councilpersons (Daigle, Selich, Webb), three Planning
Commissioners (Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge) and an advisory group of local architects and
developers. The Committee reviewed three complete drafts of the code and held over
35 public meetings where the draft regulations were discussed.
The final Committee recommendations appear in the 4th Draft Zoning Code, which was
published in May of 2010 and forward to the Planning Commission for their review. The
Planning Commission held five public hearings before adopting a resolution
recommending approval. The Commission's recommendation includes 44 suggested
revisions and several directly relate to residential development standards.
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 2
Code Development Principles
The Committee, with the assistance of staff, identified that the existing residential
development standards for single family and duplexes were in need of review and
revision given new design policies of the General Plan (Attachment No. 1) and the
accumulated years of experience in implementing existing regulations. The General
Plan design polices are within Attachment No. 1 and are currently being implemented
by design guidelines adopted by the City in 2007(Attachment No. 2).
The Committee, advisory group and staff worked to develop revised development
standards to achieve the following:
1. Do No Harm. The new code should result in homes with similar floor area, height
and bulk to what is achieved by using the existing code. Design flexibility should
also be maintained. Additionally, the new code should minimize the creation of
non - conforming structures and avoid unintended consequences to the extent
possible.
2. Be Consistent with the General Plan. The code must be consistent with General
Plan and in particular, the design polices LU5.1.5 and LU5.1.7 to ensure new
construction (including remodels) result in buildings with high quality design.
3. Simplify the Standards. The City has a fairly complex regulatory scheme given
our varying and unique neighborhoods and differing lot sizes. Early in the
process, all those involved understood that anything that makes the system
easier to navigate and benefits will extend to everyone. The combination of the
existing floor area limit (FAL), open space, determination of grade, and the
method of height measurement were identified as being cumbersome.
General Plan /LCP Committee Recommendation
The following is a summary of Committee recommendations related to residential
design standards as they appear in the 4th public draft of the zoning code.
Establishment of Grade
The Committee recommendation for establishment of grade includes a grade averaging
standard for most lots. The result is the creation of a flat grade plane that is used for
height measurement. This standard would replace the current code standard that
requires height measurement from multiple (often a dozen or more for new construction)
elevation datum points.
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 3
Height Measurement
The Committee recommendation for height measurement retains the current height limit
of 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 feet to the ridge of sloping roofs. However, the
recommendation replaces the secondary measurement for sloping roofs (measured at
the mid - point) with a requirement that sloping roofs have a minimum 3:12 pitch. The
result is a far simpler method that allows design flexibility without increasing overall
building height.
Floor Area, Open Volume and Design
The Committee recommendation includes open volume standards that would result in
building modulation /articulation on the first or second floors. The proposed standards
also would require front fagade modulation, third story step -backs and a third story floor
area limit. This combination of standards would replace the existing floor area limits (1.5
and 2.0 times the buildable area of a lot). The Committee recommendation includes the
following:
• Eliminate the floor area limit (FAL) system for R -1 and R -2 Districts, except
for Balboa Island.
• Eliminate the existing open space standards.
• Include open volume standards paired with the height limits and setbacks that
will limit the size and bulk of homes and result in building modulation.
• Include a 15 -foot front and rear step -back for third floors and all portions of
the structure above 24 feet in height.
• Include a 45 degree setback plane to limit the location of walls on the front
and side setback lines.
• No FAL for basements.
• Require a third parking space for homes with greater than 4,000 square feet
of floor area.
Do these standards meet the code development principles?
1. Do No Harm. Initially yes; subsequently no. When the draft was completed, it was
believed that the provisions would do not harm, but as the draft was discussed
further during public outreach forums and Planning Commission hearings, the
answer changed. The attainable floor area would be increased by approximately
15% in Corona del Mar and, decreased by 5% elsewhere on lots greater than 40
feet wide. However, the same or less building bulk is anticipated due to the way the
existing floor area limits are calculated. Concern from the public following the
Committee draft centered on the elimination of floor area limits allowing larger
homes with unlimited basements, encouragement of third floors due to the new open
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 4
volume system, and design inflexibility with front fagade building modulation
standard.
2. Be Consistent with the General Plan. Yes. Open volume requirements would result
in building modulation. Architectural treatment would be encouraged through
setback exceptions and is almost universally provided even though there was no
direct provision requiring architectural treatment of building elevations. The added
parking space for larger homes is directly consistent with the General Plan. The draft
prepared by the Committee contains hundreds of changes to implement new land
use designations and policies that were later reviewed by the Planning Commission
and found acceptable.
3. Simplify the Standards. Initially yes; subsequently no. It must be noted again that the
Committee's draft code contains literally hundreds of changes to standards,
definitions and processes that when viewed in total, create a less complex system.
The changes to grade determination and height measurement would simplify the
residential design and construction process; however, the proposed open volume
standards, along with other new provisions such as the proposed 45- degree setback
plane, added complexity. Again, the Committee's draft in this area was initially
thought to be a simplified system, but the subsequent public discourse highlighted
the need for further refinement of residential standards.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held one study session and five public hearings on the draft
zoning code. On July 29th, the Planning Commission voted 4 -3 to recommended
approval of the draft code to the City Council. Their recommendation includes 44
revisions, several of which are related to residential development standards.
Establishment of Grade and Height Measurement
The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee recommendation on the
needed changes to the establishment of grade and height measurement.
Floor Area, Open Volume and Design
The Planning Commission discussed the Committee recommendations at several
meetings. Testimony from residents of old Corona del Mar expressed concern that by
eliminating the FAL homes will be larger than what is currently allowed by allowing
unlimited basement area. Feedback from Balboa Peninsula residents was the same, but
for different reasons. Homes might be smaller due to the unproven open air volume
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 5
scheme. As a result of those hearings and discourse, the Planning Commission
included the following in their recommendation:
• Retain the existing FAL in all applicable zoning districts.
• Retain the existing code open space requirement, not the Committee open
volume recommendation.
• Include a 15 -foot front and rear step -back for third floors and limiting the total
area of the third floor.
• Limit basement floor area equal to 1 times the buildable area in addition to the
current FAL.
• Include a single staff administered design guideline that would require
modulation and architectural treatment of buildings as a safeguard against
poor design.
• Concurred with the need to require a third parking space for homes with
greater than 4,000 square feet of living area.
Do these standards meet the three code development principles?
Do No Harm. Yes. The retention of the known FAL will eliminate the creation of non-
conforming structures and avoid unintended consequences of the proposed open
volume scheme. The third parking space requirement will mitigate the parking space
concern caused by the additional basement floor area. The proposed guideline
requiring building modulation and architectural treatment of buildings would do no
harm as staff has been successfully administering a similar set of guidelines enacted
in 2007 for over three years.
2. Be Consistent with the General Plan. Yes. Retaining the existing FAL maintains
neighborhood compatibility which is a significant component of Policies LU5.1.5 and
LU5.1.7. Using the existing open space standard acts as a partial safeguard against
box -like construction and the proposed modulation and architectural treatment
guideline addresses these goals of Policies LU5.1.5 and LU5.1.7 and again, staff
has successfully implemented similar, but more detailed, guidelines enacted in 2007.
3. Simplify the Standards. Yes. With height and grade being simplified and with the
retention of the existing floor area limits and open space standards, simplicity is
achieved by the introduction of fewer changes. Although existing floor area limits
and the existing open space standards are viewed as complex, these existing
standards are well understood by most design professionals and staff is experienced
at implementing it. Adopting unproven schemes can have unintended consequences
and fewer changes to the system will reduce those consequences.
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 6
Recommended Refinements
The Committee recommendation provides for numerous enhancements of the codes
that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and found acceptable.
Residential design standards have been more difficult and the Committee and
Commission have had differing views. After having an opportunity to participate in each
of the various public forums, staff believes that several additional refinements to the
recommended codes will enhance the overall draft code and staff seeks direction from
the City Council in order to prepare the final provisions.
1. Should the existing floor area limits be retained with the proposed basement floor
area limit (1.0 X the buildable area)?
Staff suggests that the existing floor area limit system should be retained, with
the recommended limit for basement area, rather than replacing the existing floor
area limits with the proposed open volume scheme.
2. Should a simplified version of the Committee's recommended open volume
system replace the Commission recommended open space regulations to ensure
some building modulation is achieved?
The retention of the existing open space regulation would provide limited building
modulation; however, certain designs can comply and modulation is not
achieved. Staff suggests that the Committee's open volume recommendation be
modified to require 15 percent of the buildable area, whether on the first or
second floor (or both), remain unenclosed without specifying where it should be
located. This would only apply to lots where an existing floor area limit is
applicable, with the possible exception of Balboa Island due to its unique
character and slightly different floor area standard.
3. Should the design criteria from the 2007 Design Ordinance be retained to
implement residential design objectives of the General Plan?
The subjective design criteria adopted in 2007 have been successfully
implemented by staff for the past three and a half years. These criteria provide
more guidance than the simple guideline contained within the Planning
Commission's recommendation. The City prepared design booklet that illustrates
the principles of building modulation and architectural treatment and the City has
avoided a cumbersome design review process.
Zoning Code Update — Residential Regulations
September 14, 2010
Page 7
Would this potential approach meet the three code development
principles?
1. Do No Harm. Yes. The retention of the known FAL system will eliminate the
creation of non - conforming structures and avoid unintended consequences.
The proposed basement limit could result in increased occupants and need
for parking, but the proposed requirement for an additional parking space
when homes exceed 4,000 square feet should moderate parking concerns.
The modified open air volume (reduced from 20 to 15 percent) will ensure that
property owners can achieve existing floor areas.
2. Be Consistent with the General Plan. Yes. The retention of the floor area limit
system will maintain compatibility within neighborhoods consistent with the
General Plan. The modified open air volume (reduced from 20 to 15 percent
of the building area) will help with providing building modulation and maintain
the scale of future homes to maintain compatibility. Although the design
criteria from 2007 are subjective, staff has been successful in implementing
them. When looking at the standards and design criteria in together, the
overall approach is consistent with Policies LU5.1.5 and LU5.1.7.
3. Simplify the Standards. Yes. The determination of grade and height
measurement is simplified and this will be a significant accomplishment.
Although the existing floor area limit system is often seen as complex, it is a
well understood and tested system. The modified open volume limit is new
but, administering it should be easily assimilated provided it is simple. The
suggested standard to require that 15 percent of the buildable area whether
on the first or second floor (or both) remain unenclosed without specifying
where it should be located.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Cana
Gregg Rami ez, Senior Planner rmes Camp ell, Acting Planning Director
Attachments:
1. General Plan Design Polices
2. 2007 Design Ordinance
Attachment No. CC 1
General Plan Design Polices
General Plan Design Policies
LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single - Family Residential
Dwellings
• Require that residential units be designed to sustain
the high level of architectural design quality that
characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in
consideration of the following principles:
• Articulation and modulation of building masses and
elevations to avoid the appearance of "box -like"
buildings
• Compatibility with neighborhood development in
density, scale, and street facing elevations
• Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from
public places
• Entries and windows on street facing elevations to
visually "open" the house to the neighborhood
• Orientation to desirable sunlight and views (Imp 2.1)
LU 5.1.7 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential
Units
Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in
existing single - family neighborhoods adhere to the principles
for new developments, as specified by Policy 5.1.5 above.
Consider the appropriateness of establishing single - family
residential design guidelines and /or standards and review
procedures for neighborhoods impacted by significant
Attachment No. CC 2
2007 Design Ordinance — Criteria 1 -5
2007 Design Ordinance — Criteria 1 -5
1. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all
structures. Massing offsets, varied textures, openings,
recesses, and design accents on building walls should be
used to enhance the architecture. Front facades shall
include windows.
2. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale
down facades that face the street, common open space, and
adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are
recommended either as full length "stepbacks" or partial
indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and /or
aesthetic setbacks.
3. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public
places, including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may
include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and
other architectural features.
4. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance
to face the street, the primary entry and windows should be
the dominant elements of the front facade. Primary
entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting
path to the public sidewalk or street. Alternatively, entry
elements may be visible from the street without the door
necessarily facing the street.
5. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated
through the use of architectural detailing.
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
BACKGROUND
Received After Agenda Printed
Agenda Item No. SS2 - September 14. 2010
Corona del Mar Residents Association (CdMRA)
ZONING CODE SURVEY
vs SEPTEMiiEK 2010 ca
CdMRA was created almost 25 years ago to provide a unified voice on issues affecting Corona
del Mar residential neighborhoods (composed of approximately 6350 households), and it
utilizes a variety communication tools, educational workshops and outreach programs to
accomplish this goal.
Our Bylaws require us to keep our membership informed of issues that have a direct impact on
the quality of life in Corona del Mar, and determine whether community consensus exists on
issues which potentially challenge that quality. Working with our city's leadership and staff, we
are committed to protect, preserve and improve the quality of life for those who call Corona del
Mar their home.
Zoning Code History in Corona del Mar
In the mid 1970's, Newport Beach adopted a calculation to limit the size of homes in relation to
their lot sizes (buildable area). At that time, the calculation was "floor area x 2 ".
In the mid 1980's a survey of Corona del Mar residents and property owners revealed that the
majority of residents believed a smaller building factor was more appropriate for the village
area where lots were typically smaller than in most other Newport Beach neighborhoods. As a
result, CdM was granted an exception to use a "floor area x 1.5" factor in determining allowable
square footage. Balboa Island had previously been granted the same factor for similar reasons.
In April 2010, CdMRA conducted another survey of Corona del Mar residents. Again the results
supported the 1.5 building factor as being more appropriate for the smaller lots normally found
on the Flower Streets in Corona del Mar vs. the building envelope concept being considered by
the committee.
After considerable resident testimony during the public outreach meetings held by staff over
the Summer, it became apparent to staff that the "one -size fits all" building envelope concept
may not be appropriate for all Newport Beach neighborhoods, including Corona del Mar.
Page 1
cn CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Info(acdmra.oro I www.cdmra.org ci
(,aroma del C>(far
R.ESIDEN'Ts AS5OCLATION
ZONING CODE SURVEY
ca SEPTEMBER 2010 cas
Options Marketing Research, with offices in Corona del Mar, contacted CdMRA late Summer
and volunteered their services to help CdMRA conduct a more formal survey on the zoning
code topic. Working with this group, we created a survey objective which they used in
developing the survey format and questions. Given cost and time constraints, we targeted our
728 members for the survey. If we achieved a community consensus, the CdMRA Board agreed
to present the survey results to City Council.
Our survey objective was threefold:
1. Determine the importance of the village atmosphere for Corona del Mar residents,
particularly in the Flower Streets
2. Determine whether home size, population, density and traffic has any perceived impact
on either the atmosphere or one's quality of life in Corona del Mar
3. Determine the level of support for the latest zoning code proposals approved by the
Planning Commission
A brief recap of both the April 2010 and September 2010 surveys is included as Exhibit 1. The
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey is included as Exhibit 2. The Options Marketing & Research
presentation is included as Exhibit 3.
Page 2
vs CdMRA I P.O Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 92625 1 Infoacdmra.org I www.cdmra.org os
Coruna del CVar
RESIDENTS ASAX:IATION
ZONING CODE SURVEY
cn SEPTLNABER 2010 cQ
38% of the respondents felt that "Seaside Garden Village" accurately described Corona del Mar,
while 24% did not. And 38% felt the description "somewhat well" described their
neighborhood.
However, many of the open -ended comments were along the lines of "but it's drifting further
away from a village" and "houses are so much bigger than codes allow because of all the
exceptions granted ". This may indicate that the village atmosphere is diminishing over time as
bigger homes and more traffic influence living quality.
A clear majority existed among respondents as to three zoning code philosophies:
• 63 %: Neighborhood aesthetics are more important that individual rights
• 92 %: Homes should be in proportion to their lot size
• 76 %: Larger homes would negatively impact the village quality
More respondents felt that the proposed zoning code changes would detract from the village
atmosphere in terms of home size, traffic and population density.
While there was no clear majority for support of the latest zoning code changes (1/3 supported,
1/3 opposed and 1/3 were neutral to mildly supportive), respondents who lived on Flower
Streets were less likely to support the changes.
Again, open -ended comments provided insights to respondents' answers. For example:
"The basement provision would allow structures that are not in
keeping with the nature of the community. Even under the
current code, we're pretty tightly packed here, with
corresponding levels of traffic, etc. If developers are allowed to
build full -sized living spaces below grade, it would allow higher
density occupancy with its correlated issues."
Page 3
cn CdMR4 I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 Infoacdmra.org I www.cdmra.org cis
Carona del C War
R.ESIDENTs AssocIATION
CONCLUSIONS
ZONING CODE SURVEY
cx SEPTEMBER 2010 cu
The "Seaside Garden Village' concept is an important reason why many residents choose to live
in Corona del Mar. That concepts seems to be diminishing with time as homes get larger and
traffic becomes more problematic.
The respondents' zoning code philosophies are consistent with the General Plan Design Policies,
particularly as they relate to neighborhood compatibility and scale.
There is no overwhelming belief that the proposed zoning code proposal would support either
the General Plan Design Policies or respondents' zoning code philosophies, particularly since
greater population density and traffic could result from the addition of full -sized basements on
small village lots.
Newport Coast residents purchase property with an expectation that they will build in and live
in a Mediterranean aesthetic. They do not live in Newport Coast with an expectation that they
can build their Cape Cod dream home.
Respondents who live on the Flower Streets of Corona del Mar bought their homes with a
certain expectation of a "Seaside Garden Village" which is aggressively promoted by our city
and its various civic organizations. We should do everything we can to manage the
expectations of future residents by enacting zoning codes and policies which support this
aesthetic, and not continue to chip away at it year after year.
Page 4
cn CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 Info(acdmra,org I www.cdmra.org es
I
r r r r r
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
ZONING CODE SURVEY
cn SEPTUMBER 2010 car
In April 2010, we sent a newsletter out to all 6,350 households, and included the following
question:
Do you favor maintaining the existing 1.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) building
standard for Corona del Mar?
A total of 104 residents answered the question. Given the population of Corona del Mar, there
was a generally acceptable statistical error of 10% at the 95% confidence level:
• 88% wanted to keep 1.5 FAR (92)
• 5% wanted to abandon 1.5 FAR (5)
• 7% were unsure or had no comment (5)
The vast majority of respondents were CdMRA members.
The majority of respondents lived in the Flower Streets, with about 12% responding who lived
in CdM planned communities such as Shore Cliffs, Harbor View Hills, etc.
Survey Scope - September 2010
CdMRA members were the primary target of this survey: 728 households out of a possible
6350 households.
Survey was published online, and was therefore available to anyone living in Corona del Mar (as
controlled by the Zip Code question at the start of the survey). A printed version of the survey
was also available for those who did not want to, or could not, take it online.
Printed surveys were mailed to 130 members for whom we did not have email addresses; the
online survey link was emailed to 569 members with email addresses.
A total of 365 residents completed the survey within the designated timeframe. Given the
population of Corona del Mar, there was a generally acceptable statistical error of 5% at the
95% confidence level. See the Options Marketing Report for a breakout of the survey questions
and answers.
Page 5
os CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 Info(5cdmra.org I www.cdmra.org cs
ey,W�w
Caren" del afar
RESIDE.\7$ AssoctATIOV
ZONING CODE SURVEY
as SEPTEMBFR 2010 cA
EXHIBIT 2
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey
Page 6
cn CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 lnfo((tcdmra.org I www.cdmra.org (A
Corona del Mar Resident
R°'s`lcl ATION Zoning Code Survey
The Newport Beach Planning Department recently recommended changes to the proposed Zoning Code
as it pertains to Corona del Mar Flower Streets. These changes were impacted by public outreach
meetings and resident testimony over the last three months. Recommendations are scheduled to go
before City Council on September 14.
The Corona del Mar Residents Association (CdMRA) would like to take one last opportunity to ask about
your opinions before City Council votes on the proposal. The results of this survey are being tabulated
by an independent research company.
If you have friends or neighbors who live in Corona del Mar but are not members of CdMRA, please feel
free to make a copy of this survey for them or contact CdMRA at 949 - 719 -9390 to request a copy.
Please return this survey in the enclosed stamped envelope no later than September 7, 2010. Surveys
that are postmarked after this date will not be included in the results.
CdMRA thanks you for your participation.
Any questions regarding this survey con be emoiled to Options Research of CdMRAsurvey @Options- MRC.com.
1. To begin, what is your residential zip code?
2. What are the two cross streets that are closest to your home?
Street 1:
Street 2:
FResiderivol Zip Code (S- Orgit)
3. How well do you believe the term "seaside garden village" describes the current atmosphere of Corona del
Mar?
O
Extremely well
O
Very well
O
Somewhat well
O
Not very well
O
Not at all
�� •
044(
6w~ M olfe
4. The next few questions are about the area of Corona del Mar known as the "Flower Streets" (which extend
from Avocado to Hazel Streets) and residential Zoning Codes. Residential Zoning Codes outline the rules
that are related to home size and other building allowances, and impact the Flower Streets more than
Planned Communities such as Irvine Terrace and Cameo Shores (to name just two of the many planned
communities in Corona del Mar).
Please indicate which of the following statements best express your opinion regarding community life in
Corona del Mar.
Zoning Codes should work toward supporting...
Please choose only one of the two statements below.
O Individual property rights more than neighborhood aesthetics
O Neighborhood aesthetics more than individual property rights
Zoning Codes should work to...
Please choose only one of the two statements below.
O Support the building of homes which are in proportion to lot size
O Support the building of homes of almost any size or style
If Zoning Codes that increased allowable home sizes were allowed...
Please choose only one of the three statements below.
O The village atmosphere could be maintained
O The village atmosphere would be negatively impacted
O The village atmosphere would be positively impacted
S. In your own words, can you describe any of or all of the elements of the CURRENT Zoning Code that pertains
to the Flower Street district of Corona del Mar?
6. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following elements are components of the CURRENT Zoning
Code? Please mark all that apply.
O The allowable home size (square footage) is related to the buildable area of the lot
O There are rules in place regarding height and open space for two or three story homes
O The ratio of the allowable home size to the buildable lot size is 1.5
O The ratio of the allowable home size to the buildable area is larger than 1.5
O The square footage of a basement is included in the allowable home size
O All homes must have at least a one -car enclosed garage
O All homes must have a carport
O All homes must have at least a two -car enclosed garage
O Homes that exceed 4000 square feet must have a three -car garage
O None of these
® OPTIONS
0 tf
4 AW CACr
Before receiving this survey, were you aware that Zoning Code changes are being proposed for the Flower
Street district of Corona del Mar?
O Yes (Please continue to 08)
O NO (Please skip to the paragraph descriptions below)
8. In your own words, can you describe any of or all of the elements of the PROPOSED Zoning Code that
pertain to the Flower Street district of Corona del Mar?
9. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following elements are components of the PROPOSED Zoning
Code? Please mark all that apply.
O The allowable home size (square footage) is related to the buildable area of the lot
O There are rules in place regarding height and open space for two or three story homes
O The ratio of the allowable home size to the buildable lot size is 1.5
O The ratio of the allowable home size to the buildable area is larger than 1.5
O The square footage of a basement is included in the allowable home size
O All homes must have at least a one -car enclosed garage
O All homes must have a carport
O All homes must have at least a two -car enclosed garage
O Homes that exceed 4000 square feet must have a three -car garage
O None of these
Please do not change your answers above based on the following information.
The CURRENT Zoning Code limits home size to 1.5 times the buildable lot size; garage space is currently included
in home size calculation. For single - family homes (Rl), a one -car enclosed garage and one carport are required.
Basements with seven (7) feet or more of height are included in the home -size calculation. Visual mass above
ground is regulated by open -space requirements.
The PROPOSED Zoning Code also limits home size to 1.5 times the buildable lot size; garage space would also be
included in the home size calculation. Single- family homes (111) are required to have a two -car enclosed garage;
homes greater than 4000 square feet are required to have a three -car enclosed garage. The new code allows for a
basement that is equal to the buildable lot size, and it is not included in the home -size calculation. The new code
includes building requirements that are designed to create less perceived visual mass above ground.
® OPTIONS
al(k1w
10. Given the information on the prior page, which phrase best describes the degree of support you feel for the
PROPOSED Zoning Code?
O
O
O
O
O
O
Extremely strong support
Very Strong Support
Somewhat strong support
Not very strong support
No support at all
Have no opinion
11. What aspects of the PROPOSED Zoning Code, if any, do you support most strongly?
12. What aspects of the PROPOSED Zoning Code, if any, are most problematic for you?
13. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the PROPOSED Zoning Code?
Allow for bigger homes that might O O O O O
detract from the village atmosphere
Prevent building of over -size homes O O 0 0 0
Thank you very much for your time and opinions. Those are all the questions we have for you today. Please
return this survey in the envelope that was provided no later than September 7, 2010. Mailing address:
Corona del Mar Residents Association
PO Box 1500
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
For more information, visit our website at www.CdMRA.org
® OPTIONS
Agree
Agree
Neither Agree
Disagree
Disagree
The PROPOSED Zoning Code would...
Strongly
Somewhat
Nor Disagree
Somewhat
Stron I
Increase building of over -sized homes
O
Q
O
O
O
Decrease the flow of traffic in CdM
O
O
0
O
O
Negatively impact population density
O
O
O
O
Allow for bigger homes that might O O O O O
detract from the village atmosphere
Prevent building of over -size homes O O 0 0 0
Thank you very much for your time and opinions. Those are all the questions we have for you today. Please
return this survey in the envelope that was provided no later than September 7, 2010. Mailing address:
Corona del Mar Residents Association
PO Box 1500
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
For more information, visit our website at www.CdMRA.org
® OPTIONS
91 9-;.
Carom del C War
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT 3
ZONING CODE SURVEY
m SEPTEMBER 2010 ca
Options Marketing & Research Survey Report
Page 7
c+i CdMRA I P.O. Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar CA 926251 Info cdmra.org I www.cdmra.org cA
OPTIONS
Marketing Research & Consulting, Inc.
Flower Street Zoning Code Survey
Conducted Among Corona del Mar Residents
Final Report
Prepared for:
MI
w1j''J"911,
R[SIDI -.N IS ASSOCIAI ION
September 14, 2010
Table of Contents
3 Flower Street Resident Status
4 Perception of Corona del Mar as a "Seaside Garden Village"
5 Zoning Code Philosophies
6 Beliefs Regarding Current Zoning Code
7 Awareness of Proposed Zoning Code Change
8 Beliefs Regarding Proposed Zoning Code
9 Support for and Attitudes Related to Proposed Zoning Code
10 Pro and Con Opinions Regarding Proposed Zoning Code
oPTIONS
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 2
Flower Street Resident Status
M OPTIONS
The invitation to participate in
the Zoning Code survey was emailed
to
all members of the Corona del Mar
Resident
Association (CdMRA)
and offered to anyone who visited
the
CdMRA website during the survey
dates. CdMRA members were encouraged to spread the word regarding the survey.
The survey was online between August 301h and September 81h
Participants were also given the opportunity to respond to the survey via mail by printing out a PDF
copy of the questionnaire.
A total of 365 residents completed the survey within the designated dates; which, given the population
of Corona del Mar, indicates that there was a generally acceptable statistical error of 5% at the 95%
confidence level.
All participants who completed the survey lived in the 92625 (Corona del Mar) Zip Code.
Results are reported for the Total Sample
of Residents. However, where notable
differences occurred between residents
living in the Flower Streets and those
living in CdM Planned Communities, the
differences are cited.
N 36S
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 3
Perception of Corona del Mar as a "Seaside Garden Village" y4 OPTIONS
Residents were asked to indicate how well they felt the term "Seaside Garden Village" described Corona del
Mar.
While there was significantly more agreement with this statement than not (38% vs. 24 %), the
description was not viewed overwhelmingly as applicable.
Extremely Well Very Well Somewhat Well Not Very Well Not At All
N =365
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 4
Zoning Code Philosophies OPTIONS
With respect to Zoning Code provisions in the Flower Streets, a clear majority of residents believed that
neighborhood aesthetics should be more important than individual size preferences, homes should be
proportionate to lot sizes, and that increasing allowable home sizes would negatively impact the village
atmosphere.
Though "seaside garden village" may not be the
best description of CdM, clearly the village 92%
atmosphere is important to residents.
63%
Individual Neighborhood
More Aesthetics
Important More
N =365 Important
Homes Homes Are
Could Be I Proportion to
Any Size Lot Size
76%
Zoning Codes that
increase allowable
home sizes would
have following
impact on village
atmosphere...
16%
f 7%
l_
Affected Not I Affected
Positively Affected Negatively
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 5
Beliefs Regarding the CURRENT Zoning Code
There is no special garage provision
for homes over 4000 sq.ft.
Homes are not required
to have a two -car garage
Allowable home size is
related to lot size
All homes must have
at least a one -car garage
The allowable home size ratio
is 1.5 times the lot size
The square footage of basements is
included in the allowable home size
All homes must have
a carport
MP OPTIONS
N =365
Several of the above statements were phrased from the false perspective to encourage thought and reduce the expectation of a consistent truism.
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 6
Awareness of Proposed Zoning Code Change (Before Survey) . OPTIONS
t
Approximately half of the survey participants indicated they had heard about the proposed Zoning Code
change. The following page outlines what those who said they were aware of the change knew about the
actual changes.
N =365
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 7
Beliefs Regarding the PROPOSED Zoning Code
Carport provisions have changed
The square footage of basements is
not included in allowable home size
New enclosed garage provisions
Allowable home size is
related to lot size
Homes that exceed 4000 sq.ft. must
have a three -car garage 28%
All homes must have at least a two- 27%
car garage
Allowable home size ratio 22%
is 1.5 times lot size
01' Il()N,�
E73
:-:1
61%
95%
N =365
Several of the above statements were phrased from the false perspective to encourage thought and reduce the expectation of a consistent truism.
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 8
Support for PROPOSED Zoning Code Changes (After Description) OPTIONS
Participants were provided with a description of the current and proposed Zoning Code provisions and asked
to indicate the level of support they felt for the changes.
Among all participants, support was relatively divided into three groups, each represented by about a
third of residents: strong support, moderate support, weak support.
Of note, those who live in the Flower Streets were less likely to be strong supporters than those who
did not (33% vs. 48 %).
Extremely Strong Very Strong Somewhat Strong Not Very Strong No Support No Opinion
N =365
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 9
Pro and Con Opinions Regarding PROPOSED Zoning Code " . OPTIONS
Residents were more likely to indicate that they believed the proposed Zoning Code would not support
the village atmosphere of Corona del Mar in terms of home size, traffic and population density.
However, there was also a strong contingent that felt otherwise. Specifically, these residents were not
inclined to believe that any changes would impact home size or other aspects of Corona del Mar.
These results indicate that there is little consensus on the proposed Zoning Code changes.
Proposed Zoning Code would allow for bigger homes that would detract from the village atmosphere in Corona del Mar
39% Disagree
Proposed Zoning Code would increase the flow of traffic in Corona del Mar
Proposed Zoning Code would increase building of oversized homes
39% Disagree
Proposed Zoning Code would negatively impact_population density
N =365
CdMRA Zoning Code Survey /OPT -1037 10
„!r',L
Brown, Leilani (; sS7
From: Corona del Mar Residents Association (Info @Comra.org] 4-;
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:54 PM
To: Gardner, Nancy; Selich, Edward; Daigle, Leslie; Webb. Don (City Council)
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; Campbell, James; 'Michael Toerge'; 'Debra Allen'; 'Robin Naismith'
Subject: Residential Zoning Code - September 14 Study Session
Council Members & Staff,
Over the last 30 years, the Corona del Mar Residents Association has conducted a number of resident surveys on many
topics, including zoning code changes, over the years. We conducted an informal survey of over 6,300 Corona del Mar
residents through our April 2010 newsletter, and shared those results at several of the Planning Commission meetings
this Summer. Additionally, Jim Campbell and Gregg Ramirez presented highlights of the zoning code changes to our
Board of Directors in May. And a number of CdMRA members attended many of the public outreach meetings held by
the Planning Department over the Summer.
Given the outpouring of responses and opinions we received from our April survey, we decided to conduct another more
formal survey to include Staff's most recent changes and recommendations for the proposed zoning code that were
developed as a result of the City's public outreach meetings this Summer.
Options Research, a market research firm with offices in Newport Beach and Corona del Mar, contacted CdMRA and
offered their services to:
• develop a resident survey that highlighted the most recent zoning code proposals impacting Corona del Mar
• tabulate the survey results
• prepare a top -line report for our review and use
Now that the residential portion of the zoning code will be discussed at the September 14 Study Session, CdMRA would
like to present our survey process and survey findings to City Council during Public Comments. We will have preliminary
top -line results to share with you by email no later than Monday, and will also provide you with a copy of the full
presentation before the Study Session begins.
As per the agenda, Public Comments are limited to three minutes. Since CdMRA has made a significant effort to reach
out to our residents and members through the survey process, we respectfully request additional time to share our
information with Council and staff. We have a brief introduction and a Power Point presentation of the results, and
estimate that we would need no more than ten minutes to get through the materials.
Thank you for your consideration of our request for additional time at Tuesday's Study Session. We are available to talk
with you or answer any questions you may have before the meeting, and will be prepared to present the survey results in
a concise and meaningful manner.
Karen Tringoli
949.719.9390
Corona del Mar Residents Association
PO Box 1500 1 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 1 Please visit our website at: www.cdmra.org
0 IRVINE COMPANY
Since 1864
September 13, 2010
Honorable Keith Curry, Mayor
City of Newport Beach City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: City of Newport Beach 4`h Draft Zoning Code
Dear Mayor Curry:
We appreciate this opportunity to advance a comment related to the City Council's upcoming
review of the proposed Zoning Code update. We have been monitoring the City's efforts for
some time at the GP /LCP Implementation Committee and Planning Commission and have
submitted extensive comments on each iteration of the draft Zoning Code. Virtually all of our
previous questions and comments have been addressed by staff through those review processes.
We appreciate all the hard work that has gone into the Zoning Code update process and
commend staff for their dedication and attention to detail. At this time, we request clarification
on the following section:
• Buffering and Screening - Section 20.30.020 (page 3 -5) - This section of the proposed
Zoning Code requires roof mounted mechanical equipment to be screened from public
view and adjacent residential districts.
The current Zoning Code contains language allowing the Planning Director to waive the
screening requirement if it can be clearly demonstrated that the exterior roof mounted or ground
mounted mechanical equipment is not visible from any public right -of -way and/or public
property. In an earlier version of the proposed Zoning Code, staff had included an exception to
the screening requirement similar to the language in the existing Zoning Code. The exception
was deleted in the 3"d and 4'h drafts. Without the exception language, all mechanical equipment
will be required to be screened regardless if the equipment can be viewed from public rights -of-
way and/or public property or private residences. We respectfully request that the City Council
retain the exception language.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dan Miller
Sr. Vice President
Entitlement & Public Affairs
550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, Califomla 92660. 7011 949.720.2000
c: Councilmember Michael F. Henn
Councilmember Steven Rosansky
Councilmember Don Webb
Councilmember Leslie Daigle
Councilmember Edward Selich
Councilmember Nancy Gardner
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
Mr. Thomas Mathews
Ms. Shawna SchatT'ner