City Hall paid $54K for financial analysis of Village development
CITY HALL — The recent release of a financial report is expected to help elected leaders make better decisions regarding the new Civic Center, while some insist obtaining the report was like “pulling teeth” and that city staff is in need of an attitude check.
At least one Santa Monica City Councilman said the financial analysis for three housing development proposals should have been given to him weeks ago, shortly after he and the rest of the City Council requested it from staff, who already had access to the information.
City Council members said a 60-page report released last week will finally allow them to understand why a staff recommendation to approve a proposal submitted by the Related Companies of California’s to build housing at the new Civic Center is the best development plan.
Although council members said they are more satisfied with the information provided in the financial report, some feel city employees need to be reminded that elected leaders direct public policy in Santa Monica, and not the other way around.
“Staff has become increasingly arrogant, and it has to stop,” City Councilman Herb Katz said on Tuesday. “Staff should never make the decisions of what (the council) should or should not see. The Civic Center is a huge project that will set a standard for years, and it’s essential (the council) has as much information as possible.”
The City Council decided on Dec. 13 to put off choosing one of three development proposals for the “Village,” the housing component of the Civic Center. The City Council delayed the decision because more financial information was needed to determine Katz, as well as Councilman Bobby Shriver and Mayor Bob Holbrook, asked city staff to provide the financial analysis. Other council members, while confident that staff’s recommendation was the best, agreed to postpone a decision in light of the controversy.
Because of scheduling conflicts, the City Council is not expected to make a decision about the proposals until February, according to Judy Franz, City Hall spokeswoman.
Based on information staff provided, Related’s proposal would allow 165, or 51 percent, of the housing units to be affordable. The remaining would be market rate condominiums.
To attain the 325 total units requested by elected officials, however, Related wanted a building height adjustment from 56 to 65 feet. The proposals by two other companies — Bridge/BRE and Castle & Cooke — fell considerably short of desired guidelines. Bridge/BRE asserted that in order to have the 325 units and affordable housing, building heights would have to be raised to 80 feet. Castle & Cooke proposed that one of the Village’s buildings would have to be 120 feet tall.
The point Katz and other councilmem-bers raised on Dec. 13 was that Related’s proposal might be best, but they wouldn’t know for sure until they reviewed the financial analysis behind each proposal.
“The proposals varied so widely it was difficult to know why one called for a 120-foot tower, for example, and the others did not,” Katz said. “Because one proposal may look better than the other (on the surface), it’s important to understand their differences.
“The goal is to ensure the city is getting the most quality in its housing.”
For $54,300, City Hall hired a consultant, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), to help evaluate the three proposals. KMA’s analysis — along with the financial information on each company’s proposal and other charts for comparison — were included in the recent report.
KMA believed Related’s proposal was the strongest option for Santa Monica.
Of the three proposals, only Related was able to agree to acquire the site under the terms of a long-term lease, a condition requested by the City Council. Bridge/BRE and Castle & Cooke proposed to buy some aspect of the properties from City Hall.
In addition, Related would pay City Hall between $14.4 million and $21.8 million to develop the Village. That was far more than the Bridge/BRE or Castle & Cooke proposals, which under best case scenarios could only offer City Hall $11.63 million and $3.25 million, respectively.
According to the report, Related showed it could achieve 325 units, in part, by increasing building height by nine feet; spreading the building bulk across sites; and placing all parking below ground.
By means of comparison, Bridge/BRE compromised its ability to achieve the requested 325 residential units — despite its 120-foot tower — by using one-half of its first floors for parking in a scheme that’s mainly underground, the report said.
Bridge/BRE’s proposal offered the largest average unit sizes. It included three-bedroom and live-work units that would be 1,231 square feet, and four-bedroom units that would be 1,400 square feet.
Katz and other councilmembers said they would reserve making any judgment of staff’s recommendation until they completed reviewing the report.
However, Katz said that of what he’s reviewed so far, Related’s proposal seems best.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 4, 2006. Read the original PDF.