Mansionization and Design Standards 

Issues Briefing Paper

January 1992 ( The following is for study only and has not been approved by the Local Government Relations Committee, the Executive committee, or the Board of Directors)

INTRODUCTION

A. Background

In recent years, California and other states have witnessed a new pattern of home construction and remodeling in older neighborhoods with small to medium sized homes. In many of these neighborhoods, whichare close to being completely built-out and which have experienced tremendous jumps in real estate prices, developers and homeowners are tearing down the existing homes and building larger, more extravagant ones. The process, sometimes referred to as mansionization, is a response to incredible land costs. In may of the older, built-out communities in California, land is valued as high as $ 1 million per acre and more. Over the last 40 years, land cost as a share of the total cost of building a new home has risen from 11 percent to over 25 percent nationwide, and as high as 30 and 40 percent in some locations in California. Even if a buyer in this state purchases a home on a lot much smaller than one acre in a built-out community that is not at the high end of the real estate market, the total purchase price is disproportionately based on the value of the land. For example, in some communities a homeowner can spend $500,000 to buy a 2,000 square foot house on a 13,000 square foot lot. But with construction cost of $ 100 per square foot, the homeowner can double the size of the house for another $200,000. A person who spends a half-million dollars presumably won?t mind spending the additional amount to make the home more commensurate with the value of theland. This process has become popular with developers who want to balance the cost of construction with the cost of land, and it is popular with homeowners who cannot afford to buy the larger homes in neighborhoods where they are too expensive, but who can afford to purchase smaller homes and add on at a later time. Not surprisingly, mansionization has created controversy in many communities. Residents often claim that the houses are eyesores and out of character, that they obstruct views, and that they can depress neighborhood property values. Local governments in these communities have attempted to curb this trend and placate objecting residents by adopting a variety of restrictions on the design of homes. These design standards cover a number of different areas, such as the height of a house, the size of side yards, and the total square footage of a house. Design review boards and architectural review boards have also grown more popular as a way to control mansionization. In many cases, the governmentresponse has also been a source of controversy. Some residents question whether or not it is proper for cities to place these kinds of restrictions on private property owners. Furthermore, there is the still unanswered question of whether or not design standards achieve their aesthetic purpose.

B. Statement of Purpose

Because local government efforts to control mansionization affect private property rights and the real estate industry, this paper will examine the issue of design standards in close detail. Emphasis will be placed on the different areas of house design typically covered by design standard ordinances. Examples will also be provided of what some Boards have done to fight unpopular proposals in their communities. With the information provided in this paper, REALTORS® who are faced with design standard proposals in their community will be better informed about this issue and better equipped to plan an appropriate response.

COMMON FORMS OF DESIGN STANDARDS

Efforts to restrict mansionization are implemented in a variety of ways. Design standard ordinances may only address one or two issues, or they may cover manydifferent aspects of house design. Nevertheless, several features are common to most of these ordinances. The following section will describe some of the most common forms of design standards.

A. Size Restrictions

One of the ways in which cities have attempted to control mansionization is by placing restrictions on the floor space of a home. One of the most common of these types of restrictions, the floor area ratio or FAR, limits the square footage of a home in proportion to the total square footage of the lot. For example, if a city has a 50 percent FAR, a home built on a 5,000 square foot lot could have a maximum of 2,500 square feet of floor space. The FAR mayor may not include garage space. FAR?s vary, from as low as 30 percent in places like Pasadena and Glendale, to as high as 60 percent in Torrance. In other cities, the ratios may fall anywhere between these two extremes. The FAR may also be on a sliding scale, varying with the overall size of the lot. For example, Pasadena?s FAR increases to 35 percent for homes on lots larger than 7 ,200 square feet. The city of Glendale has three FAR?s --45 percent, 40 percent, and 35 percent --each of which applies to different neighborhoodsdepending on their average lot size. It is important note that a lower FAR will not necessarily result in smaller homes. This is because some cities have generally larger lot sizes than others. For example, the city of La Canada Flintridge has an FAR restriction of 35 percent, and the average lot size is 10,000 square feet; therefore, a home on an average-sized lot will have as much as 3,500 square feet of floor space. In contrast, the city of Carmel has a FAR restriction of 45 percent, and the average lot size is 4,000 square feet; therefore, a home on an averaged-sized lot may have only 1,800 square feet of floor space. Some communities limit the amount of space on the lot that may be covered by the structure of the house, often referred to as the footprint. The city of La Canada Flintridge has lot coverage limits of 35 percent, 32.5 percent and 30 percent for homes on lots up to 10,000 square feet, between 10,001 and 15,000 square feet, and between 15,001 and 20,000 square feet, respectively. The city?s FAR for the same lot sizes is 35 percent, 40 percent and 40 percent. Some cities restrict the total amount of lot coverage allowed for the home and all other construction. Saratoga recently adopted a 15,000 square feet impervious coverage limit for lotsof one acre or greater. The 15,000 square feet includes all accessory structures, such as pools, tennis courts and Jacuzzi?s, except driveways. It is important to note that if a two-story house and a single-story house are built on lots of equal size, the two-story house could have a greater floor area ratio than the single-story house and still have the same amount of site coverage. In other words, the two-story home could have the same amount of site coverage and still be a larger house. In order to address this discrepancy, some cities have different lot coverage requirements for single-story and two-story houses. For example, single story homes in Arcadia may cover 45 percent of the lot, but two-story homes may cover only 35 percent.

B. Setbacks and Encroachments

Another way that locales control the size of homes is by establishing a minimum amount of space that must be left between the property lines and the walls of the house. These setback restrictions can be established for the side, front and rear yards. Setback restrictions vary with the terrain of the community and the style of building construction. For example, if a community wants to preserve its semi- rural character, in which most of the homes are built on larger and more open lots, the setback requirement might be more severe. In a community that consists of smaller lots, the requirements might not be as strict. Regardless of the circumstances, cities use a variety of formulas for calculating setback requirements. The city of Glendale requires a 15 foot front yard setback for hillsides and 25 feet for all other lots. La Canada Flintridge requires that all residential lots have a front setback of not less than the averagedepth of the front setback of property adjoining on either side. A vacant lot is considered to have a front setback of 20 feet, but the front setback requirement is never less that 20 feet or greater than 50 feet. Beverly Hills requires a rear yard setback of 30 percent of the lot depth minus nine feet, plus an alley dedication. Many locales also have separate setback requirements for first and second stories, in order to prevent what is perceived to be excessive bulk and mass. Their goal is to preservea so-called "wedding cake" appearance, with the floors set back progressively as they go up. For example, Beverly Hills does not allow flat-faced front facades; at least one story must be set back from the other(s). In certain districts of Pasadena, the second story must be set back, on the front and side, five feet greater than the required setbacks for the first floor. In the city of Arcadia, all second stories, including architectural features, must have a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet or five feet plus ten percent of the width of the lot as measured at the front property line, whichever is greater . Some cities also place restrictions on an imaginary line referred to as the daylight plane. The line begins at a point in the air directly above the property line and angles inward towards the top of the house. The name daylight plane is derived from the amount of sunlight that can pass the house and penetrate onto neighboring homes. In other words, daylight plane restrictions are intended to restrict the size of the shadow that a house casts on its neighbors. For example, La Canada Flintridge?s ordinance stipulates, "no building shall exceed the height of a 45 degree plane drawn from a height of ten feet above finished ground level at all boundaries of the lot. " Some cities combine both of the above approaches. Alhambra has a 25-foot front yard setback for structures up to 20 feet in height. A requirement for an additional five-foot front yard setback or a 40 degree daylight plane angle from the front property line, whichever is greater, applies to any portion of a structure over 20 feet in height. The side yard setback requirement is five feet plus one foot for each story or partial story above the first floor .

C. Height Limits

When cities place horizontal size restrictions on homes, the next logical direction for a builder or homeowner to go for additional space is up. Consequently, local governments have also tried to addressthe mansionization problem by imposing height limits. For example, Culver City has a maximum height limit of 26 feet. (It was recently lowered from 30 feet.) Temple City limits all homes to two-stories or 30 feet in height. The city of Torrance limits one-story buildings to 18 feet and two-story buildings to 27 feet. Some locales have a sliding sale height limit depending on the size of the lot. In La Canada Flintridge, the maximum building height is 28 feet for lots 10,000 square feet or less in gross area and/or 65 feet or less in width. The height limit increases to 32 feet for lots that exceed those numbers. The city of Saratoga ties in the FAR to its height limit, in order to discourage two-story homes in single-story neighborhoods. In neighborhoodsdesignated as single-story, a house loses 1.5 percent of its allowable FAR for each foot in height that exceeds 18 feet. While many cities are lowering their height limits to combat mansionization, the city of Pacific Grove recently increased its height limit in response to public pressure. In 1955, an 18-foot height limit had been adopted for one particular neighborhood. The height limit for the remainder of the city was established at 25 feet. However, many residents complained that the lower limit resulted in many flat-topped roofs on second stories. Therefore, in April of 1991, the council increased the height limit for the neighborhood to match the citywide limit of 25 feet. However, it also established an FAR of 50 percent for the same neighborhood.

D. Design Review Boards/Architectural Review Boards

Design review boards and/or architectural review boards are being used more frequently as a way to restrict mansionization. Many cities have established these boards and given them the authority to scrutinize plans for new construction and additions in order to ascertain whether the plan has "neighborhood compatibility" -- in other words, whether the house design will conform with thearchitectural style and other aesthetic features of existing homes in the neighborhood. The biggest complaint made against these boards is that they are arbitrary. Since neighborhood compatibility is an abstract concept, inevitably some of the review boards? decisions will be based more on subjective interpretations than on specific, objective standards. For example, in the city of Glendale plans for all new single- family homes, additions of 700 square feet or more, or an additional story must be submitted to the Design Review Board. The board reviews the plans to make sure they conform with all city standards (i.e., F.A.R., height and setbacks), and it reviews them for compatibility with the urban design, architecture and other aesthetic features of theexisting neighborhood homes. In other words, if a plan meets all of the city?s standards but is found to be incompatible with the surrounding homes, it will still be rejected. In one well publicized case, the Laguna Beach Design Review Board approved "desert sandstone" for the exterior color of one house that was being built in the city. After the decision, the owner decided to use "shell white," thinking it was a close enough substitute. After he painted the house, a neighbor complained, so the owner took the matter to the city?s community development director, who agreed that the color was close enough to the color originally agreed upon. Although the official has the authority to make such a ruling, the neighbor continued to complain, and another Design Review Board hearing was held --for a total of five for the same house. The DRB overturned the community development director?s decision. Without the board?s approval, the city does not authorize utility service, so the owner could not move in. In a show of protest, the owner painted a large American flag on the side of the house along with the slogan "Freedom of Choice."

REALTORS® IN ACTION

In many cities, REALTORS® and their Boards have responded to proposed design standard ordinances by organizing themselves and the community to lobby the city for more reasonable proposals. The following examples can be very useful for REALTORS® who want to carry out similar action in response to proposed design standards in their community.

Santa Barbara and Palo Alto

While REALTORS® in Santa Barbara and Palo Alto were not able to prevent their cities from adopting design restrictions, they put together two very organized efforts in opposition to the proposals which helped them to effectively communicate their concerns to city officials. During the course of its two-year battle against the city?s so-called "Big House" ordinance, the Santa Barbara Board spent over $2,000 on advertisements in the local newspaper. The ads announced the date, time and place of upcoming hearings on the proposed ordinance, and described the effects that the proposal would have on property owners should it pass. The Board also worked together with the local chambers of commerce and property owner groups to oppose the measure, and they provided written testimony at every hearing . Ultimately, in the Fall of 1991, the city adopted a list of minimum standards for square footage, FAR, and height, which if exceeded, trigger a review by the Architectural Review Board. Specifically, if a house is built in the so-called Hillside District, if a one-story house is more than 17 feet high, or if a one- or two-story house has a total floor area of 2,500 square feet or more, then a review is required by the ARB, and sometimes the Planning Commission. The ordinance will go into effect on July 1, 1992, by which time the city expects to have adopted the actual review standards. In 1989, when the city of Palo Alto began considering an ordinance to place restrictions on the floor space of homes, several REALTORS® in the community mobilized homeowners to attend meetings and voice their opposition to the proposal. They raisedmoney and purchased ads in the local newspaper titled " An Invitation to All Palo Alto Homeowners." The ads announced the time and place of upcoming hearings and warned homeowners of the consequences if the ordinance should pass. As a result of the ads,citizens packed the meeting rooms where the Planning Commission and City Council hearings were held. In the end, the public involvement did not stop the city from adopting a 45 percent FAR, but it did succeed in persuading the city to adopt an FAR restriction of 30 percent (as opposed to 25 percent) for homes on lots over 5,000 square feet.

Pasadena

In the Spring of 1991, when the city of Pasadena passed an anti-mansionization ordinance that included FAR restrictions and height limits, REALTORS® from the Pasadena Board were satisfied because they had been involved in the process and given their input on the proposals from the very beginning. The Board appointed a subcommittee of the LocalGovernment Relations Committee, whose members teamed up with the American Institute of Architects. The subcommittee members worked with the Planning Department staff and Planning Commission to help draft the ordinance. In the end, REALTORS® were pleasedbecause their efforts resulted in an ordinance much less restrictive than those in nearby communities. For example, one of the specific provisions they were satisfied with was an increase in FAR and height limit restrictions as lot size increases.

Saratoga

The Los Gatos-Saratoga Board realized that a design standards ordinance would ultimately be enacted by the majority slow growth council in the city of Saratoga, so the Board establishedtwo goals. First, REALTORS® sought to remove the most onerous measures; and second, they wanted to minimize the overall impact of the new standards by eliminating the citywide blanket application of the ordinance. They accomplished the latter goal by breaking down the provision into specific zoning areas and by requesting specific exemptions or special consideration for those areas (e.g., hillside zones, flat lands, etc.). REALTORS® participated in study sessions, met with staff members, attended planning commission hearings, and provided testimony on the proposal. In November 1991, after a full year, the council adopted only three restrictions which concerned REALTORS®: an impervious coverage restriction as a way to address concerns about preserving open space on lots (see, Size Restrictions); a hillside FAR of 8,000 square feet for lots over five acres; and a formula for height limits that incorporates a reduction in FAR, in order to discourage two-story buildings in single-story neighborhoods (see, Height Limits) .

CONCLUSION

The decision of exactly how to respond to a proposed anti-mansionization ordinance is a difficult one for a Board or Association to make. On the one hand, many individuals feel that the present practice of tearing down older homes and replacing them with much larger ones constitutes such an offense to the neighborhood that it warrants some sort of government regulation. Some residents argue that the larger homesaffect the ground below, which in turn affects the physical integrity of their homes. Some even argue that the "incompatible" house lowers their own home?s property value. On the other hand, design standards and design/architectural review boards raise concerns about private property rights. Residents, REALTORS® and others are critical of the sometimes arbitrary standards that are imposed to control house design, as well as the lengthening of the development review process that results from the impositionof these standards. Furthermore, in many desirable neighborhoods, the existing housing stock is not designed in a manner that is desirable to many housing consumers (e.g., no family room or only one bathroom), In these cases, some argue that sellers andbuyers alike should have some flexibility in redesigning a home to meet their own physical and aesthetic preferences. For a Board or Association to decide how to respond to a proposed design standards ordinance, it must take into consideration all of these points and, most importantly, evaluate its members? feelings on the specific proposal. Some of the case studies described above provide good examples of Boards that did not take an all-or-nothing approach by trying to defeat an ordinance out-right. On the contrary, they worked with their cities and came up with ordinances that were not overly restrictive. This is a realistic option that every Board should consider. High land costs in California?s housing market, builders? needs to effectively balance the cost of land with the cost of construction, and homeowners? desire to own their dream homes, all portend a continued trend of mansionization. Consequently, cities will continue to adopt the types of design standards that have been described in this paper. This paper is intended to provide REALTORS® and their Boards and Associations with the resources necessary to prepare themselves should these types of standards be proposed in their community.