BACKGROUND
Earlier this year, City Council expressed concerns over the idea of replacing older, smaller residential houses in single-family neighborhoods, with significantly larger houses. These concerns centered around topics including: scale/massing, architectural styles, privacy and security that may result in the potential diminishment of the previously established neighborhood character. This a concept, sometimes categorized as “Mansionization”, is trending throughout the Greater Southern California region.
Planning Division staff, as directed by City Council, is researching and investigating if this concept trend is occurring in the city. In this report, staff has provided and analyzed various approaches on how the City Council may address this topic moving forward.
DISCUSSION
In an effort to identify construction trends of the city related to single-family development, staff researched building permits issued over the past five years, during January 1, 2015 to December 2019, that included either of the following scenarios (Table 1):
- The demolition of existing single-family dwellings to construct new dwellings with floor areas greater than 3,000 square-feet; or
- The demolition of existing single-family dwellings to construct new dwellings with floor areas greater than 4,000 square-feet; or
- Additions to single-family dwellings of over 1,000 square feet that resulted in a total dwelling size of over 4,000 square feet; or
- Any two-story additions to one-story single-family dwellings; or
- New single-family dwellings of over 3,000 square-feet built on a vacant lot.
Table 1: Building Permit Records Summary (1/01/15 – 01/01/20)
| Year Permit Issued |
Demolition & New SFD Over 3,000 sf |
Demolition & New SFD Over 4,000 sf |
1,000 sf + Addition & Total SFD Over 4,000 sf |
Any 2-Story Additions |
New SFD over 3,000 sf Built on Vacant Lot |
| 2015 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| 2016 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
| 2017 |
0 |
0 |
0* |
4* |
0 |
| 2018 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
| 2019 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
| TOTAL |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
5 |
| * In 2017, one case in the Tonner Hills Specific Plan (THSP) zone involved a 3,149 sf two-story addition to an existing 4,570 sf two-story dwelling, totaling 7,719 sf. This case was excluded since the dwelling was originally over 4,000 sf. |
Approach #1 – The City Council may wish to consider directing staff to continue to gather and evaluate data to see if the city trends in a certain direction. Staff can bring new data and information back to the City Council for new direction within the next six-months.
Pros to Approach #1: This approach would require the least amount of City resources be spent at staff level, Planning Commission, and City Council, based on building permit records not reflecting a trend of over over-sized and incompatible dwellings.
Challenges to Approach #1: However, any proposals processed during this evaluation period will not be subject to additional review criterial beyond existing regulations.
Current Zoning Development Standards
The City’s current development standards address building height, setbacks, and lot coverage. However, the City’s Municipal Code currently does not identify a maximum floor area for single-family dwellings. Table 1 below summarizes the City’s development standards applicable in the R-1 zones.
| TABLE 2 (Brea Municipal Code (BMC)) |
| R-1 Single-Family Development Standards |
| |
R-1
Single-Family |
R-1 (5,000)
Single-Family |
| Maximum Building Height |
30’-0” |
35’-0” |
| Minimum Setbacks |
Front: 25’-0”
Sides1: 5’-0” to 7’-6”
Sides (street side): 20’-0”
Rear2: 25’-0” |
Front: 15’-0”
Sides3: 5’-0” to 7’-6”
Sides (street side)4: 10’-0” to 15’
Rear: 10’-0” |
| Maximum Lot Coverage5 |
35% (includes all structures) |
50% (includes all structures) |
| Maximum Floor Area6 |
N/A |
N/A |
| Landscape Standards |
N/A |
N/A |
- Side setback for dwellings under 20’-0” tall is 5’-0”, and 7’-6” for dwellings over 20’-0” tall.
- Rear setback can be reduced to 10’-0” provided that the combined coverage by the main building and any accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the required rear yard area.
- Side setback for dwellings under 20’-0” tall is 5’-0”, and 7’-6” for dwellings over 20’-0” tall. In addition, a zero (0’) foot setback on side is permitted when the setback on the opposite lot line is at least 10’-0.
- 10’-0” for a corner lot, and 15’ on a reversed corner lot. All corner lots may have a zero (0’) foot setback on the interior lot line.
- The percentage of a lot covered by any and all structures.
- The measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel that the building is located on.
|
The maximum allowable development envelope for a single-family residence, as described in the City’s Municipal Code, is illustrated in Exhibit 1 and 2 below.
Exhibit 1(Sample Development Envelope)
Exhibit 2 (Sample Elevation)
Approach #2 – The City Council may wish to consider amending existing BMC single-family development standards to address concerns related to scale/massing, height, floor areas, etc. An example of additional standards could be: encroachment planes, stepback requirements, maximum floor area, landscape requirements, etc.
Pros to Approach #2: This approach would provide uniform regulations across all single-family zones and would be enforceable on new proposed dwellings.
Challenges to Approach #2: This approach may be perceived as limiting property owner development rights, and would require substantial resources be spent at staff level, Planning Commission, and City Council.
Approach #3 – The City Council may wish to consider the incorporation of Architectural Design Guidelines as a policy add-on to the BMC standards. Design guidelines provide varying architectural house styles with description of proper massing, wall and roof types, textures, and finishes that is acceptable to the city’s character for consistency.
Pros to Approach #3: Design guidelines can aide applicants with their project submittal by providing them specifications on architectural styles, finishes, and massing. These specifications would consist of regulations and illustrations.
Challenges to Approach #3: Design guidelines are not requirements and can be difficult to enforce alone. In addition, property owners may have differing opinions on “good” design.
Current Review Process – New Single-Family Development
Currently, the BMC requires new single-family dwellings to be reviewed through a Certificate of Compatibility. Through the Certificate of Compatibility, the project is reviewed to ensure the applicable development standards of the BMC are achieved. The Certificate of Compatibility requires notice be mailed to owners of property within 500-feet of the project site informing them of the project and directions on how to voice concerns. The Director of Community Development (Director) is the reviewing authority for the Certificate of Compatibility, and can impose conditions of approval if warranted. Any conditions added would be correlated to specific site characteristics, or identified potential impacts.
Following Certificate of Compatibility approval, the applicant has the ability to submit plans for building plan check and permitting. Following the issuance of building permits, both Building and Planning staff would perform site inspections to ensure projects are built as conditioned.
Flow Chart: Current Certificate of Compatibility Process (New Single-Family Residences)
Projects involving only additions to single-family dwellings do not require a Certificate of Compatibility, and be submitted directly for plan check.
Approach #4 – The City Council may wish to consider refining the existing Certificate of Compatibility process to add thresholds and create different layers of review authority. For example, proposed single-family dwellings under 3,000 square feet can be reviewed by the Director, and those over 3,001 square-feet can require Planning Commission approval.
Pros to Approach #4: This approach would provide a threshold for when projects would require Planning Commission review and approval.
Challenges to Approach #4: This approach would require additional resources be spent at staff level and Planning Commission, could add considerable time to the process, and may be perceived as too burdensome by applicants.
Approach #5 – The City Council may wish to consider contracting architectural consulting services to assist Planning staff review single-family development that meet certain thresholds. For example, proposed single-family dwellings over 2,500 square-feet can require review by the City’s architectural consultant, and consulting services may be utilized throughout the permitting process if needed.
Pros to Approach #5: This approach would provide an elevated degree of review and feedback, and associated costs can be paid by applicants. This process may also be waived if applicants submit plans stamped by a licensed architect.
Challenges to Approach #5: Applicants may view this approach as too burdensome and expensive, and may not agree with consultant feedback.
Table 3 below provides a summary of proposed reviewing authority thresholds.
Table 3: Proposed Reviewing Authority Thresholds
| Dwelling Size |
Architectural Consultant Review |
Director Review |
Planning Commission Review |
| 0 to 2,499 sf |
No |
Yes |
No |
| 2,500 to 3,000 sf |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
| 3,001 + sf |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Southern California Region
Staff researched neighboring cities and other communities around Southern California to determine how they address neighborhood compatibility in their single-family zones. Specifically, staff examined new single-family development proposals review, design guidelines, and objective development standards incorporated into municipal codes. For the purpose of this study, objective development standards include maximum floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and additional landscape requirements. Table 4 below provides a summary of staff’s findings.
| TABLE 4 (Southern California Survey) |
| City |
Reviewing Authority for New Single-Family |
Design Guidelines |
Objective Standards |
| Brea |
Staff |
No |
FAR: No
Lot Coverage: 35% to 50%
Landscape: No |
| Yorba Linda |
Staff / Planning Commission |
Yes |
FAR: No
Lot Coverage: 35%
Landscape: Yes |
| Fullerton |
Staff / Planning Commission |
Yes |
FAR: Yes
Lot Coverage: Varies
Landscape: Yes |
| La Habra |
Staff |
No |
FAR: No
Lot Coverage: No
Landscape: Yes |
| Glendale |
Thresholds for review at staff or design committee |
Yes |
FAR: Yes
Lot Coverage: 40%
Landscape: Yes |
| Pasadena |
Thresholds for review at staff* or design committee |
Yes |
FAR: Yes
Lot Coverage: Varies
Landscape: Yes |
| Beverly Hills |
Thresholds for review at staff* or design committee |
Yes |
FAR: Yes
Lot Coverage: No
Landscape: Yes |
| * Dedicated planning staff that reviews design applications only. |
While some cities review proposals for single-family dwellings at staff level only, others have thresholds for projects that require review by a design committee. Typically, members of these design committees are experienced professionals in a related field, such as architecture, landscape, or construction. In addition, some cities with design committees have design staff assigned to work exclusively on residential projects. This is to ensure that projects are built as approved by the committee, and changes made during building plan check may require to go back to the committee for approval.
Approach #6 – The City Council may wish to consider establishing a Design Review Committee to evaluate single-family development that meet certain thresholds. A Design Review Committee can be comprised of residents with professional experience in architecture, landscaping, and construction.
Pros to Approach #6: This approach would provide a highest level of review and feedback.
Challenges to Approach #6: This approach would require substantial city resources be spent at staff level and to create a new committee. This may also be perceived as too burdensome by applicants and could add considerable time to the process.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has prepared a list of recommendations on potential next steps, with potential benefits and challenges, for Council consideration.
Table 5 (Potential Options)
| APPROACH |
POTENTIAL BENEFITS |
POTENTIAL CHALLENGES |
| 1. Staff continues to gather and evaluate data to see if the City trends in a certain direction. |
- Five-years of building permit records do not reflect a trend of over-sized and incompatible dwellings.
- Requires least of amount of City resources be spent.
- If a trend is discovered, this subject can be revisited.
|
- Any proposals processed during this evaluation period will not be subject to additional review criterial beyond existing regulations.
|
| 2. Amend existing BMC single-family development standards, such as incorporating maximum FAR and stepback standards. |
- Provides uniform regulations across all single-family zones.
- Enforceable standards for new development proposals.
|
- May be perceived as limiting property owner development rights.
- Requires substantial City resources, including staff time and hearings at Planning Commission and City Council.
|
| 3. Create Architectural Design Guidelines as a policy add-on to the BMC standards. |
- Provides applicants regulations and illustrations as a guide.
|
- Guidelines are not requirements and are difficult to implement and enforce alone.
- Property owners may have differing opinions on “good” design.
|
| 4. Amend current Certificate of Compatibility review process to include thresholds that would trigger Planning Commission review. |
- Provides objective standards that would require Planning Commission approval on certain projects.
- Conditions of approval are easier to enforce.
|
- Requires City resources, including staff time and Planning Commission hearings.
- May be perceived as too burdensome by applicants.
- Could add considerable time to the process.
- Property owners may have differing opinions on “good” design.
|
| 5. Contract architectural consulting services to review single-family development that meet certain thresholds. |
- Provides elevated degree of review and feedback.
- Cost can be paid by applicants.
- May consider waiving if plans submitted are stamped by a licensed architect.
|
- May be perceived as too burdensome by applicants who may not agree with consultant feedback.
- Applicant cost associated with architectural review.
|
| 6. Establish a Design Review Committee to evaluate single-family development that meet certain thresholds. |
- Provides a higher level of review and feedback.
- Conditions of approval are easier to enforce.
|
- Requires City resources, including staff and creation of a new committee.
- May be perceived as too burdensome by applicants.
- Could add considerable time to the process.
- Property owners may have differing opinions on “good” design.
|
Staff recommends City Council consider the presented approaches. Staff is agreeable to approaches 1, 2, 4, and 5. Implementation of these approaches may vary based on City Council direction.
Attachments:
- Five-Year Permit Records: New Single-Family
- Five-Year Permit Records: Single-Family Additions
|