City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 06/08/2015 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: (1) Discussion of the Subject of Large Single
Family Developments (“Mansionization”) in the City and (2) Direction to the City
Manager Related Thereto.
Contact Person/Dept.:
Sol Blumenfeld /
Thomas Gorham / Planning
Phone Number:
310-253-5700
310-253-5727
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas –
City Council (06/03/15); Ongoing Topics – Planning and Zoning “Mansionization”
(06/03/15); (PUBLISH) Culver City News (05/28/15 and 06/04/15); (POST) City’s Public
Notification Web Page (05/22/15)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (06/02/15)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (06/03/15)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (06/04/15)
City Manager Approval:
John Nachbar: (06/04/15)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: (1) receive a report regarding large single family
development in the City (commonly called “Mansionization”); and (2) direct the City
Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has received complaints regarding the size and design of new large
single family developments in the City and has directed staff to provide background
information, analysis, and recommendations regarding potential development
regulations.
DISCUSSION:
What is Mansionization?
Mansionization is typically defined as the practice of replacing older, smaller homes
with the largest home permitted under the City’s Zoning Code that is much larger
than surrounding dwellings and which, because of its size, changes the scale and
character of a neighborhood. Many also refer to these larger homes as
“McMansions.” However this term is more typically applied to very large lot
suburban subdivisions where all the homes have the same building style and appear City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
to be “mass produced”. The issue of Mansionization is not new in Culver City or
throughout the nation, and has surfaced previously as a land use issue since the late
1990’s.
Various Definitions of a “Mansion”
Establishing the best way to regulate how big a house can be built on a standard lot
involves a myriad of conflicting values related to land use planning. Defining how
big is “too big” and inappropriate for a particular neighborhood is not always clear.
Land use planning professionals may see the issue as one of the proper relationship
of the building size to the lot size given the surrounding neighborhood. Architects
may see it as the relationship of the building design to the design of surrounding
buildings in the neighborhood. For example, a building that is perceived to be poorly
designed without appropriate massing, setbacks, and articulation may be
understood to be out of scale and inappropriate with the neighborhood by an
architect. In fact, from an architectural perspective, the issue may be less about
simply reducing the amount of allowable building area on a lot and more about
producing a building with an appropriate design. Local residents may perceive “too
big” simply as the building size disparity relative to their own homes and believe that
it results from speculative investment by developers. The issue of home building size
is confounded by the sentiment by some residents that their home represents a
major life investment and that the size of their home should not be dictated by the
decisions of others who want to be the arbiters of design or taste. For some, a
home is their largest single financial asset and they do not want it negatively
impacted by adjacent development nor subject to such restrictive development
standards that it negatively impacts the value of their property. Given these
divergence of opinions, it is not easy to craft home building size regulations that
meet everyone’s needs or can satisfy everyone’s concerns.
Single Family Home Construction Data in Culver City
Consistent with national construction cycles, there has been increased home
building activity in Culver City over the last few years. Building Division records
indicate that there were a total of 48 new single family residential building permits
issued for the calendar years from 2000 to 2010 (between 4-5 homes per year).
During the time period from 2010 to May 2015 there were 30 new single family
residential building permits issued (approximately 6 homes per year). So there has
been an increase in single family construction. As a reference point for building size,
some of the homes permitted during this period were greater than 3,000 sq. ft. and
some were less than 3,000 sq. ft. While there is no absolute size that has been
identified as a “mansion”, some recognize a 3,000 sq. ft. building on 5,000 sq. ft.
standard city lot to be a larger sized home.
Some Culver City residential neighborhoods have had more large single family
construction than others. The attached map shows the locations of new single
family homes and additions to existing single family homes which result in a house City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
of 3,000 sq. ft. or greater which have been permitted over the last three years.
(Please see Attachment No. 1). The Park East (Carlson Park) neighborhood has
had 10 new larger homes permitted, the Blanco/Culver Crest neighborhood has had
six new larger homes permitted, and the Studio Village neighborhood has had three
new larger homes permitted. This compares with other residential neighborhoods in
the City which have had one new, larger home permitted during the same period. It
is important to note that some of the additions were only a few hundred square feet
and were made to already large homes. (Please see Attachment No. 2)
Single Family Construction: 3,000 sq. ft. or Greater/ 5,000 sq. ft. or Greater Lots
The attached table provides a summary of single family building permits for homes
of 3,000 sq. ft. or greater on 5,000 sq. ft. or greater lots during last three years.
(Please see Attachment No. 2) A total of 26 building permits were issued.
Approximately one-third of the permits were issued for completely new construction
and two-thirds were for additions. The larger homes permitted during this three-year
period have ranged in size from slightly more than 3,000 sq. ft. to over 4,600 sq. ft.,
and the lot sizes have ranged from 5,000 to 58,056 sq. ft The largest lots are found
in the hillsides, and most of these lots contain significant amounts of steeply sloped
area which is not readily developable. Of these larger lots, approximately 36% of the
houses are 3,500 sq. ft. or greater, and approximately 7% are 4,000 sq. ft. or
greater. Almost two thirds of the houses were less than 3,500 sq. ft. Given the large
disparity of lot sizes, it is understandable that building coverage (the ratio between
housing size and lot size) ranges significantly (from 19% to over 75%) within this
group of single family housing projects. In general, most of the larger housing
projects permitted over the last three years range from 3,000 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.
The architectural design of the projects within this group of single family homes also
ranges significantly, from various forms of “Spanish” to traditional Cape Cod,
Craftsman, and Modern. Some of the most significant changes to the prevailing
characteristics of a neighborhood created by the newer developments were related
to the architectural style of the new buildings. (Please see Attachment No. 3 – Photo
Survey)
Methods of Regulating Single Family Residential Building Size in Culver City
Title 17, Zoning, of the Culver City Municipal Code (Zoning Code) currently provides
the following:
? The Minimum and Maximum Dwelling Size: (maximum 1,500 sq. ft. plus 40%
of the net lot area for parcels less than 8,000 sq. ft.; and 60% of the net lot
area for parcels equal to or greater than 8,000 sq. ft. not including garages
and non-habitable space) - which results in a maximum 3,500 sq. ft. house on
a typical 5,000 sq. ft. lot.
? Setbacks: Front 20 feet, Side 4 feet, Rear 10 feet City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
? Open Space: Minimum area uncovered by structures (including accessory
buildings and garages allowed up to 800 sq. ft. maximum); and
? Building Height: 2 stories or 30 feet
If the City Council would like to address the concerns expressed by the community
regarding the size and/or design of new single family home construction and/or
additions it may want to consider the following:
1. Reduce Maximum Dwelling Size (the absolute maximum permitted square
footage under the Zoning Code).
2. Establish Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and restrict it to not greater than a specified
amount. FAR is the amount of building square footage relative to the lot size.
Under the current zoning code standards a maximum 3,500 sq.ft. house on a
5,000 sq. ft. lot equates to an FAR of .70. The FAR goes down as the lot
sizes increase. For example, on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot, the maximum dwelling
size is 3,900 sq. ft. which equates to a FAR of .65. On a 7,000 sq. ft. lot the
maximum dwelling size is 4,300 sq. ft. which equates to an FAR of .61. On
an 8,000, sq. ft. lot the maximum dwelling size is 4,800 sq. ft. which equates
to a .60 FAR.
3. Establish a Cubic Building Footage Ratio – the ratio of cubic building area
(length x height x depth) divided by the lot size.
4. Restrict the Construction of Additional Floors by establishing an allowable
second floor area as a percent of the first floor area.
5. Reduce Building Coverage to vary with lot size.
6. Establish More Restrictive Building Design Standards (to reduce building
mass, create building articulation and building step backs, and neighborhood
compatibility) similar to the Multi-Family Design Guidelines which address
prevailing setback, lot coverage, and height of structures on an individual
block and contain guidelines to address building location, privacy, parking,
landscape and open space, building façade treatment and building massing
and scale.
7. Require Discretionary Approval for Single Family Dwellings above a certain
Gross Floor Area threshold.
The City Council also has the option of considering a moratorium on the issuance of
building permits to construct or alter single family dwellings in excess of a particular
size, while the Planning Division further studies possible amendments (such as the
above) to the Zoning Code to address this issue. Both the City Council and the
public inquired about such an option at a previous meeting. Government Code
Section 65858 provides that an urgency ordinance may be adopted without prior
public notice or public hearing by a four-fifths vote of the legislative body upon a
finding that the action is required to protect the public safety, health and welfare.
Such ordinance shall have no further force and effect 45 days from the date of its
adoption. However, after notice and a public hearing, such ordinance may be
extended for a period of ten months and 15 days, and subsequently extended for an
additional 12 months. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. Culver City City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Charter Section 614, provides additional authority for the City Council to adopt an
ordinance as an urgency measure for preserving the public peace, health or safety
by a four-fifths vote.
If the City Council is interested in considering this option, staff will return at a future
meeting date with a proposed moratorium for consideration.
Survey of Surrounding City Regulations on “Mansionization:”
Staff has looked at the development regulations for single-family homes in the cities
of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Manhattan Beach, and Beverly
Hills. Similar to Culver City, all of the surveyed cities contain minimum setback
requirements which range from 15-20 feet for front setbacks; 10-15 feet for rear
setbacks; and 3-5 feet for side setbacks. Maximum building heights ranged from 26-
33 feet. In regards to maximum allowable building size, three of the cities had an
FAR limit including Manhattan Beach (.70 for lots up to 4,800 sq.ft. and .65 for lots
greater than 4,800 sq. ft.); Los Angeles (.50 for lots up to 7,500 sq.ft. and .45 for lots
greater than 7,500 sq.ft.); and West Hollywood (.50 for all lots). Beverly Hills uses
the same dwelling unit size standards as Culver City: 1,500 sq.ft. plus 40% of the lot
area.
The cities of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood have design standards including
building massing and modulation, upper floor step backs, and second floor/first floor
proportionality requirements.
The City of Los Angeles also has some incentives to allow for a 20% increase in the
maximum dwelling size if the project uses one of the following methods: green
building methods, front façade step backs, or reducing the upper floor area to 75%
of the lower floor area. However, Los Angeles has proposed revising the rules to
eliminate “counterproductive provisions” that allowed builders to develop boxy
buildings and has adopted a moratorium on certain construction of single family
dwellings during this interim period.
Other Considerations
? Should new development standards and/or design requirements be absolute
or vary with lot size?
? Should smaller lots only be allowed to build smaller buildings or should the
allowable building area vary?
? What should the threshold be for mansionization regulations?
? Should the same standards apply for building additions and entirely new
buildings?
? How can the regulations be developed so that they are not entirely
subjective?
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
If the City Council determines that it would like to proceed with additional design or
development standards for larger single family development and or a moratorium for
such new development, property values within neighborhoods may be decreased.
The amount of the decrease is difficult to determine because those purchasing
residential property to live in may base their decision on more than financial factors
alone. Decisions are often influenced by personal preferences such as the quality of
schools, fire/police/city services, parks, amenities, walkability, etc.
If additional design or development standards are pursued, some projects in the
“pipeline” may be held up or abandoned if they do not comport with proposed new
regulations which will have some financial impacts. Further, the City’s permit fees
are based upon permit valuations. If the level of permitting is reduced as a result of
reduced construction activity or the valuations for permits are reduced due to smaller
projects it may result in reduced permit fees.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map of Impacted Neighborhoods.
2. Summary Table of Housing Size and Lot Size
3. Photo Survey of Properties in Summary Table
4. Examples of Ways to Regulate Building Size and Massing
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Receive and discuss a report regarding large single family development in
the City (“Mansionization”); and
2. Direct the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
MEETING DATE: 6.8.15
AGENDA ITEM: Report and Discussion Regarding Large Single Family
Developments in the City
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Map of Impacted Neighborhoods 1
2. Summary Table of Housing Size and Lot Size 2
3. Photo Survey of Properties in Summary Table 3 - 28
4. Examples of Ways to Regulate Building Size and Massing 29 - 32
§ ¨ ¦
405
! (
90
§ ¨ ¦
10
C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t Single Family Residential
3 0 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t NOR TH
0 0.5 0.25 Miles
Neighborhoods
W a s h i n g t o n C u l v e r B l a i r H i l l s B l a n c o / C u l v e r C r e s t C l a r k d a l e C u l v e r / W e s t D o w n t o w n F o x H i l l s J e f f e r s o n L u c e r n e / H i g u e r a M c L a u g h l i n M c M a n u s P a r k E a s t P a r k W e s t S t u d i o V i l l a g e S u n k i s t P a r k ATTACHMENT 1
1Address Permit Date
Lot Area
(square
footage)
Building
Square
Footage
Percentage of
Building Area to
Lot Area
Maximum
Building
Area
over / under
CC code
Net New
Square
Footage
1 12/29/2011 5,395 3,578 66% 3,658 -80 2,378
2 Former Vacant Lot 04/30/2012 4,380 3,000 68% 3,252 -252 3,000
3 08/09/2012 8,163 3,516 43% 4,898 -1382 438
4 01/07/2013 6,216 3,145 51% 3,986 -841 678
5 03/28/2013 6,450 3,401 53% 4,080 -679 703
6 04/09/2013 5,000 3,078 62% 3,500 -422 2,250
7 10/31/2013 6,750 3,148 47% 4,200 -1052 105|1010|Hillside Areas with Irregular
Lots 12/19/2013 16,071 4,289 27% 9,643 -5354 2,073
9 Former Vacant Lot 05/14/2014 3,840 3,000 78% 3,036 -36 3,000
10 05/19/2014 5,590 3,199 57% 3,736 -537 1,676
11 06/10/2014 11,300 3,045 27% 6,780 -3735 150
12 07/03/2014 6,745 3,153 47% 4,198 -1045 1,326
13 07/15/2014 6,450 3,559 55% 4,080 -521 2,000
14 07/21/2014 6,000 3,596 60% 3,900 -304 2,139
15 07/31/2014 5,770 3,596 62% 3,808 -212 2,434
16 08/04/2014 5,775 3,172 55% 3,810 -638 1,903
17 Not Under Construction 08/21/2014 4,840 3,361 69% 3,436 -75 2,161
18
Hillside Areas with Irregular
Lots and Former Vacant Lot 10/10/2014 8,050 4,217 52% 4,830 -613 4,217
19 12/04/2014 4,968 3,364 68% 3,487 -123 2,309
20 12/15/2014 5,000 3,055 61% 3,500 -445 1,950
21 12/16/2014 5,775 3,312 57% 3,810 -498 2,244
22 01/12/2015 5,775 3,509 61% 3,810 -301 2,347
23 Not Under Construction 04/29/2015 5,000 3,500 70% 3,500 0 2,740
24 01/30/2015 6,869 4,074 59% 4,248 -174 2,387
25 01/22/2015 8,079 4,661 58% 4,847 -186 2,925
26
Hillside Areas with Irregular
Lots 01/28/2015 20,110 3,798 19% 12,066 -8268 100
New Construction
Additions
Summary of New Single Family Residential Building Permits December 2011 - April 2015
ATTACHMENT 2
21
ATTACHMENT 3
32
Unavailable
ATTACHMENT 3
43
January 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
54
March 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
65
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
76
January 2015
February 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
87
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
98
January 2015
August 2007
ATTACHMENT 3
109
October 2014
ATTACHMENT 3
1110
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
1211
January 2015
August 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
1312
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
1413
January 2015
August 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
1514
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
1615
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
1716
January 2015
February 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
1817
ATTACHMENT 3
1918
January 2015
June 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
2019
January 2015
August 2012
ATTACHMENT 3
2120
ATTACHMENT 3
2221
ATTACHMENT 3
2322
ATTACHMENT 3
2423
January 2015
June 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
2524
ATTACHMENT 3
2625
ATTACHMENT 3
2726
ATTACHMENT 3
28
ATTACHMENT 4
29
ATTACHMENT 4
30
ATTACHMENT 4
31
ATTACHMENT 4
32