Council shelves Village approval until February
CITY HALL — The option to choose among three city housing proposals proved no option at all for some elected leaders, who want a “non-simplistic” financial analysis concerning City Hall’s biggest residential real estate deal.
Meanwhile, others felt the information City Hall provided was enough to make an informed decision about what the only option could be — the Related Companies of California’s proposal to create at least 298 housing units at the Village, part of the city’s $120 million Civic Center plan.
In the end, the Santa Monica City Council decided at the Tuesday, Dec. 13 meeting to put off choosing among the three proposals to develop the Village until city staff has presented adequate financial information that will allow them to understand why staff’s recommendation to go with Related’s concept may be the best.
“There are no proposals on the table here,” said Councilman Bobby Shriver. “We need to see the financial proposal, because it’s the financial material which will show us what will allow them to do it.”
Shriver and other councilmembers were concerned about staff’s presentation of the three schematic proposals to develop the Village, in part, because they varied considerably in the number of units each offered.
Based on the information staff provided, Related’s would allow 165, or 51 percent, of the housing units to be affordable. 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. BRE claimed that in order to have the 325 units and associated affordable housing, building heights would have to be raised to 80 feet. Castle and Cooke claimed one of the Village’s buildings would have to be 120 feet tall.
The point Shriver and other coun-cilmembers raised was that Related’s proposal might in fact be the best, although councilmembers wouldn’t know for sure until they reviewed the financial analysis backing each proposal.
“How do we know which proposal is best?” Shriver said. “Obviously, Related’s looks the best, but I can’t say I understand it looking at these charts.”
Meanwhile, some councilmembers said enough information was available to make an informed decision.
“I respect the intellectual curiosity, but I wonder if we need that level of detail to make a choice tonight,” said Councilman Kevin McKeown. “These firms are very well respected, and I doubt they would put anything forward that they couldn’t do.”
City Attorney Marsha Moutrie explained to the council that, according to city law, it’s staff’s job to sift through proposals, conduct an analysis of each, and present their recommendation to elected leaders.
She also indicated that there might be proprietary information, or company secrets, that developers may not want their competitors to see, if such information were available publicly through the disclosure of project financial information.
While there were seven members of the public set to speak, only two chose to do so at the meeting.
One was Joan Ling, executive director of Community Corporation of Santa Monica, a non-profit group which would work with developers on the Village’s affordable housing component.
Ling told the council she reviewed Related’s financial information related to the project and was confident theirs was the best option.
“It’s believable and financially feasible,” Ling said.
The other speaker was Bill Witte, president of Related’s California operation. Witte told the council that despite their concerns, his company’s proposal was sound, based off of successful developments in Los Angeles.
“I’m willing to meet with you and discuss any aspect of the proposal,” Witte told the council.
The council voted in favor of reviewing more detailed financial information about the proposals, within the legal purview, before making a decision.
Judy Franz, City Hall spokeswoman, said the project proposals, with the financial information, would likely not return to the council until February.
“What would you like to see?” said Jeff Mathieu, director of City Hall’s resource management division, seeking council input.
“I want to see what Joan Ling has seen,” Shriver said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 23, 2005. Read the original PDF.