Are MB houses just too big?

by John Tawa

The "mansionization" of Manhattan Beach is nowhere more evident than on this stretch of John Street in the Hill Section, where large homes appear to blend into one another. Photo by John Tawa.

Huge houses are being built in Manhattan Beach. They comply fully with existing zoning regulations. Yet they appear out of proportion to the surrounding neighborhood and out of character for the rest of Manhattan Beach.

What, if anything, should be done about what has come to be known as "the bulk issue?"

The answer is nothing, at least for now, according to the City Council.

Last Tuesday, the Manhattan Beach City Council decided against adopting new rules designed to discourage the building of bulky homes. The Planning Commission has previously rejected the proposed modifications to the Building Code as a piecemeal approach during a public hearing May 10.

"You can't get to the solution until you determine if there's a problem," said councilmember Joyce Fahey. "I don't know there's a problem."

The bulk issue arose earlier this year, when the Manhattan Beach City Council, as part of its Work Plan for 2000, asked staff to present methods for reducing the visual bulk in the city's residential neighborhoods. The goal wasn't to reduce the allowed size of a home, but to control size in a manner that would make the new homes more compatible with existing homes.

Staff focused on the design of vaulted spaces and basements. The former allowed for a visually larger structure even when the square footage was maximized, while the latter, if designed a certain way, were not included in the maximum square footage calculation. Under staff's proposals, both of those loopholes would be closed. Homes with these vaulted spaces and basements would have to be smaller to comply with the code.

The Planning Commission rejected the approach. Chairperson Grant Kirkpatrick reasoned that much of what is considered bulk was the result of poor design that couldn't be controlled by mechanisms implemented by staff or the Planning Commission.

Hermosa Beach architect Pat Killen agreed.

"It's hard to legislate good design," he said. "That's what they're trying to do. If somebody wants to build a boxy, bulky building, they're going to do so regardless."

Councilmember Walt Dougher said that council's focus on residence size did not arise from the hues and cries of residents.

"It was probably the council's own perception that houses going up these days appeared to be too bulky," he explained.

While many longtime residents believe that the new, large homes are reflective of the 'I have arrived" attitude of new Manhattan-ites, Killen said there is a simpler explanation for why houses seem to be built setback to setback to maximize square footage.

Money.

Often, homebuilders will say they only need a 2,000 square foot bungalow, but they are talked into building a larger home by Realtors and friends who say they are throwing money away, Killen said. That's because the cost to build is approximately $140 per square foot, while home prices in Manhattan Beach are approaching $390 per square foot. Building an extra 1,000 square feet may mean an additional quarter-million dollar nest egg come retirement time, a powerful disincentive to build that stylish bungalow.

"I do think that developers typically ask architects to design every single square foot that the code allows," Killen explained. "That's what a developer will do nine times out of 10."

The Planning Commission has advocated taking a comprehensive approach to the bulk issue, akin to the 1991 Zoning Ordinance Revision Program (ZORP). That could mean legislating larger setbacks or reducing the number of stories. But Fahey said the time wasn't right for a repeat of a divisive issue such as ZORP when more recent events such as Metlox suggest the city needs time to heal.

"[ZORP] pitted neighbor against neighbor," Fahey explained. "There are many people who think there is nothing inappropriate with building as large a house as possible on a lot. They think it shouldn't be Big Brother deciding how big their house should be. If people are willing to spend $1 million for no land and a large house that looks like an apartment building, many don't feel that's a problem."

Fairness to new property owners also must be considered, added Community Development Director Richard Thompson.

"People have been building to this standard that we have now for many, many years," he said. "To all of a sudden change it to allow something much, much smaller may not be fair to the new owners of property."

"I have a problem with people who complain about bulkiness after they have their large houses," agreed councilmember Linda Wilson.

Mayor Tim Lilligren and councilmember Steve Napolitano advocated taking a closer look at the bulk issue.

"I think there is a problem going on," Lilligren said. "The building has changed significantly. . . If there's a problem it should be looked at now. The trend suggests it will just get worse. I think a couple of years from now will be too late, especially if the building boom continues." ER