SR-11-C (3)
.
.
II-C
HD:JJ:ML JH:mh
Santa Monica, Cal ifornla, September 15, 1981
'SEP 2 2 ISal
TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Mayor and City Council
City Staff
Proposed Mixed-Use Multiservice Center
On July 21, 1981, the City Council suggested that the Bay Area Multiservice Center
(BAMC) explore the possibility of using the air rights over Parking Authority Lot
No. 22 as a site for a social service del ivery center BAMC staff with the assistance
of Rex Lotery, an architect from the firm of Kappe, Lotery and Boccato, have worked
with City staff to prepare a development proposal which Includes subterranean parking,
off:ce space for social service agencies, commercial space, and housing.
This preliminary analysis includes: (1) a description of the various elements of the
proposed development; (2) mini~um and maximum parameters for development, (3) cost
estimates; (4) analysis of funding sources and potential revenues; and (4) a time
frame for development. The final section of this transmittal outlines subsequent
actions and analyses to be undertaken by staff should the Council wish to pursue this
concept
A letter from BAMC staff describing the background and rationale for the
project is attached.
The Site
The project site (Parking Authority Lot No. 22) is located on Fourth Street bet1fJeen
Broadway and Colorado Boulevard, opposite Santa Monica Place. The site IS bounded
by a three-story, mixed commercial usage building to the north, the two-story
Salvation Army bUilding to the south, and an alley in the rear. This 22,500 square
foot lot abuts the site of the proposed 125 unit elderly housing project to be
developed by the Salvation Army.
/I-c-
SEP 2 2 ,98t
.
e
Mayor and City Council
-2-
September 15, 1981
The site IS presently used for metered public parking. The lot provides parking
for 74 cars
Spot checks by BAMC staff at various hours of the day indicate an
average use of approximately 50 cars.
In terms of providing public access, the proposed site is very well located for
social service providers and cl ients as well as residential tenants. It is proximate
to most City services and facil itles, including public offices, public transportation,
and recreational areas. Since the site is in the downtown area, it provides easy
access to retail and commercial concerns as well as to employment opportunities.
The property is zoned C-3
Allowable building coverage is 100% of the land area, and
there are no required property 1 tne setbacks. Under the guidelines suggested by the
Commercial Task Force, the parcel could be developed to four stories or to a height of
56 feet.
Program Elements
I. Multiservice Center:
Agencies and Programs which might be included in this project are:
o Santa Monica Bay Volunteer Bureau
o Senior Multiservice Center
--Senior transportation
--Retired Senior Volunteer Program
--01 ive Stone Center
o Senior Health and Peer Counsel ing Cente,
--Physical health sc,eening
--Peer counsel ing for seniors
o Legal Aid of Santa Monica
--Centro Lega 1
o Westside Womens Clinic
o Emeritus College classes
o Westslde Hotline
o Positive Education
While there may certainly be some additions and deletions from this list, these
are the core agencies I-/hich have expressed substantial interest and cOrlceptual
support for the project. In addition to these agencies, the Center would include
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-3-
September IS, 1981
conference space, kitchenette and lunchroom, several general counsel ing rooms, and
shared facilities, including storage and duplication areas
The minimum area required for the Multiservice Center IS 13.000 square feet,
and the maximum projected area is 17,000 square feet.
2. Commercial Area.
Based upon the prime downtown business location and potential revenues, it is
proposed that commercial space be provided on the ground floor This
commercial space could accommodate governmental agencies or private sector uses.
It might also accommodate gift shops or other concerns 1 inked to the social service
agencies.
The Minimum area projected for commercial use is 5,000 square feet; the maximum
projected area is 7,000 square feet.
3 Housing:
In addition to Its locational advantages, the proposed mIxed-use project provides
a "free" site for affordable housing since no land cost ~lOuld be attributable to
this use. The construction costs, given the need for an elevator, will be somewhat
higher than they would be for a low rise apartment complex. The differential is
approXImately $5.00 per square foot, which is considerably less than would be
required to purchase or to prepare another parcel of land for development.
The parameters for the housing component are a minimum of twenty-four units
comprising 17,952 square feet and a maximum of forty units comprising 29,920
square feet.
4. Parking
The parking requirements for the various types of occupancies, according to the
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-4-
September ]5, 1981
code, are as follows:
Multiservice Center = I car/300 square feet
]3,000 square feet
]7,000 square feet
43 cars
56 cars
Commercia] Area = 1 car/300 sq ua re feet
5,000 sq ua re feet 16 cars
7,000 sq ua re feet 23 cars
Housing
] br. unit ] ca r
2 br. unit 2 ca rs
20-26 units with equal numbers of
I and 2 br units = 30-39 cars
40 units with equal numbers of
I and 2 b r un its = 60 ca rs
Public Parking
Based upon the present observed parking usage of the site, It was determined
that the replacement of 60 cars for publ ic parking was a reasonable quantity
NOTE The City may determine to lower these parking requirements based upon
actual observed parking use of other projects, and other circumstances such as
projected use of public transportation.
Scale of Development
The fol]owing analysIs describes a reasonable minimum and maximum scale of develop-
ment. The ana]ysls is based upon normative space allocations for the specific
functions. These figures will undoubtedly be adjusted when the precise designs are
developed, however, the estimates are conservative and are judged to be appropriate
for this initial analysis.
The analysis assumes that the building design should contribute to the positive
image of the City, and provides publiC pedestrian amenities related to the siting of
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-5-
September 15, 1981
the structure. It is also assumed that the housing element of the project should
not have an institutional look and should provide abundant light and air and
reasonable recreational facilities for the inhabitants. Therefore, full lot coverage
is not antiCIpated for the building elements, except the underground parking areas.
CASE I - MINIMUM PROJECT
The minimum size project Includes the following elements.
Multiservice Center 13,000 square feet
Commercial Area 5,000 square feet
Housing Units (24)
1 br. uni ts 12
2 br units 12
Parking 155 ca rs
The parking requirements are a major determinant in the design and function and
financial practicabil ity of the building. On the basis of allowing 400 square feet
per car for underground parking 55-60 cars can be accommodated on each subterranean
level.
The bUilding would require two underground parking levels and one partial level of
parking on or above grade.
The multiple service agencies and the commercial space could be contained within a
two-story element occupying approximately 10,000 square feet of the front portion
of the site.
The housing ele~ent would occupy the third and a portion of the fourth floor. A
stagger back effect between the third and fourth floor could be achIeved. This
would reduce the visual scale of the bUilding concurrently providing landscaping and
roof decks at the front of the building.
CASE If - MAXIMUM PROJECT
The maximum size project includes the following elements
Multiservice Center 17,000 sq ua re feet
Comnercial Area 7,000 sq ua re feet
Hous i ng Units (40)
I br units 20
2 b r. units 20
Parking 199 ca rs
This building would require three levels of underground parking and a small amount
of ground level parking.
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-6-
September 15, 1981
The multiple service agencies and the commercial space could be accommodated within
a two-story element occupying approximately 12-13,000 square feet of the front portion
of the site.
The housing element could be located on the third and fourth floors, or could occupy
an additional fifth floor. A stagger back effect would be desirable and the decision
related to the number of floors should be determined during the design process. The
final decision should be based upon the living amenities, efficiency, and cost factors
of each design.
Summary of Building Areas
Case I.
Case II:
13,000 square feet
5,000 squa re feet
7,596 square feet
10,356 square feet
45,900 square feet
17,000 square feet
7,000 square feet
12,660 square feet
17,260 square feet
68,900 square feet
o Multiservice Area
o Commercial Area
o 12 I-br. Units @ 633 sq.ft./unit
o 12 2-br. Units ~ 863 sq.ft./unit
o 2 Subterranean Parking Levels
o Multiservice Area
o Commercial Area
o 20 l-br. Units 2 633 sq.ft./unit
o 20 2-br. Units 2 863 sq.ft./unlt
o 3 Subterranean Parking Levels
Cost Estimate
The follOWing cost estimates are based upon 1981 average costs for this type of
building:
Case I.
o Multiservice and Commercial
18,000 square feet 2 $60 psf
$ 1 ,080,000
o Housing
17,952 square feet @ $60 psf
51,077,120
o Subterranean Parking
45,900 square feet @ 520 psf
S 918,000
o Site work
100,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST.
53,175,120
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-7-
September IS, 1981
Case II:
o Multiservice and Commercial
24,000 square feet @ $60 psf
S 1,440,000
o Housing
29,920 square feet @ $60 psf
51,795,200
o Subterranean Parking
68,900 square feet @ $22 psf
S 1 ,51 5 ,800
o Site Wo rk
5 100,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:
$4,851,000
Projected Revenues
The follOl.'Jing annual revenue projections are based upon BAMC staff's estimate of
appropriate office and commercial rentals. The revenue estimates pertaining to the
housing component are based upon the Section 8 Fa,r Market Rents for existing housing
and do not reflect an analysIs of the broad range of housing needs to be met in the
City.
Case I: Annual Net Revenues
o Office Space (MultiserVice Agencies)
9,750 square feet Net Rentable Area
@ $.75 psf
$ 87,750
o Commercial Space
4,000 square feet Net Rentable Area
:i) $1.25 psf ;
$ 60,000
o Housing
12 I-br. Apts. ~ $327/mo.
12 2-br. Apts. ~ S386/mo.
GROSS REVENUES'
$ 47,088
5 55,584
$250,422
Operating Expenses
Office and Commercial
13,750 square feet @ $2.52/sq.ft./yr.
($ 34,650)
Housing
Vacancies ~ 3%/yr.
Operating Expenses and Reserves @
$1,400/unit/yr.
($ 3,080)
($ 33,600)
$ 1 79 , 09 2
NET REVENUES
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-8-
September 15, 1981
Case I I' Annua 1 Net Revenues
o Office Space (Multiservice Agencies)
12,750 square feet Net Rentable Area
~$.75 psf =
S 114 , 750
o Commercial Space
5,600 square feet Net Rentable Area
~ $1.25 ps f =
$ 84,000
o Housing
20 l-br. Apts. @ $327/mo.
20 2-br. Apts. e $386/mo.
GROSS REVENUES:
s 78,480
$ 92,640
$369,870
Operating Expenses
Office and Commercial
18,350 square feet @ $2.52/sq.ft./yr.
($ 46,242)
Housing
Vacancies ~ 3%/yr
Operating Expenses and Reserves ~
$1,400/unit/yr.
($ 5,133)
($ 56,000)
$262,495
NET REVENUES:
Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms
There are a variety of financing options for the development of the proposed mixed-use
multiservice center
The City Council has obligated S550,000 in Community Development
Block Grant funds to the multiservice center component of the prOject. The ParkIng
Authority currently has the capacity to finance the development of two levels of
subterranean parking proposed for the site. The matrix below summarizes the
financial status of each conponent of the proposed project and serves as the basis
for the finanCing alternatives which follow
\:' ~ i ' : R' ' :' ~~ ! ~ iC~ :, ~ T' ; ~l :5
c ~~G; 'I; ~ Z
" '; . ". Ii.~, { ~: _ UJ
r," ' v 1'< i '" '" ,,', '" i '" ! " , " ," .. ~
, oour ~
>1 h~~'j r:R~;:~ fm- :~:~' :~~~
I ~~ I~'!.!l 1 I~' 1
,. i ,- :', ,,138/ 13fIl" , ,', " " "" I " , " I" IJot
~ "" :~;J:lii:ri;.~:j
c ~~ ~I D~, ~I 1:B~, ~ ~ lMtl)
s: l!i~ ~,: I~' i ~~ I 5-" I $' I ~c I ;...~ I~, i <,C ~ ~
,.i :<J f> >:: ,,:,I:~: i :'I~~~~ ,
" I " i " ' : II2tlltDJ ,- ," >-:"',, i" ";";"; '< i" "\1201'
<;;.
~
. 5~ \ ~ . y : ~ ' ~ ' ~ i ~ I ~ ; ~ : ~ _ ~ : ~
1 J K ~ "8 I C ~'f F, G _ H 11t' J ' K 1 L
3.1 <: " ~ ~ ,',,51, ";1 ~I,' ~I _ ~i, .1~~';,' ~!.~I JN, __ ~h'
" ",;"" ~ ' CCURT ~ ~> ~
p' ~j ~ <@i<~~.'<"f)~t(1
' I I I I
I.' " 1101 I1D~ .,!" \ ., I > ",;c! ~ ," ," '< I.. KOI
I :i:~ ' 'D~, ., ~,', .- ,; : ~:. : :~ i : : : I : j
Ie, " ~ '! '" ~~~ ~ ~i ~ .
r,c i ~: 1 So'.: I 0;0 I ;" I ~.- I "l' I ;:) !.;c I ;n- I so I 5C
COURT ~
,,\ ~Al ~ t"'~Al\ "tl, "'il~;" ~ ~ ~i~', ~~"'1
p ~ ~ . U iTS: R I Q I:~I' 0 i N 1M
, I", C!1:
I" .' " ^' '"'" ,..-' C' , " ! " I" ;" " ! .- I' v - , ' ., ,,, " If,/
VI,P1 w:!'l I . I _ I ~o.; I I I I~' I
c;
~
i ~ 41c f ~A1~ i : ! : I : ~~: I ': !~: ~~! : i :
< ~'Y > . ~7i ~ ~ ~ "I ~, 'I~I
\ "-t- ! ;c \ oct ~ I - \ '-! I -- I 0.; ctJ~ I ~ \ ;.: \ ;c I 5( ';0 ~
~ ~~ 0
~.~. .1. ~ 'l. ~ ~c~o: : 'i. ~t( ! ,i o~J ~
'-?' I i \ ! . ~~ ~ 1 ,I I u
,," ,,',~~~ ~u~;~~~:T:E~ '.:.
-' ~
')
~:
-
:2
~IJ,.K L
., ,~~
w , ;,c) I ~ I ;,:;
;.- I --: I;':;
['I~$,
;,.;;. I ;'- I ,,~- i ~t-
" I iJ
1 ,i {C~L "
, ;
., I I . \ - i 5~
I
~
e
1'1
.
I I I
iiI
~
S1REET
a
""
~
STREET
~
STREET
~
is
s
~
5TR!:!:T :it
STREET
"
I
j
100
I
200
I
~oo
I
1110
I
-
300
I
ICtLE - IUl
ItppDJ l) (X 3
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-10-
September ]5, 1981
as FY 1981-82 CDBG funds upon which it could draw to finance the proposed
prOject. Most of the avaIlable CDBG funds have been targeted for housing
purposes, but have not yet been obI igated to a specific program or project.
Eligible CDBG activities include construction of public facl] ities such as
a socia] service center, and site preparation work for housing predominately
affordable to persons of low and moderate income. CDBG funds can also be
committed to non-profit entities for the financing and construction of housing.
An advantage of using CDBG funds for this project is that the funds have
literally no value to the City or its residents unless they are used. No
interest income or pub1 IC benefit accrues to the City's B]ock Grant program
unless such income is derived frOM a functioning program/project. In economic
terms, the sole cost of using CDBG funds IS the "opportunity cost", i.e., the
cost of funds not being ava,lab]e for another project or program. Another
benefit of using CDBG funds is that the requirements governing their use,
such as the construction specifications characteristIc of federal hOUSing
programs, do not apply. Rather, the City could design the project to its
own specifications.
b. Housing Authority Funds The Housing Authority has entered into agreements
with developers which entail a payment in 1 ieu of the direct provision of
affordable housing units. These funds could be committed to the housing
component of the project.
c. Genera] Revenue Sharing funds can be used flexibly and mIght also be used
for this project.
d. The State of Cal ifornia, through the Department of Housing and Community
Development, funds a few grant programs. One, the Rental Housing Construction
.
.
Mayor and City CouncIl
-11-
September 15. 1981
Program, would work well for a mixed-use project, but has not been allocated
funds for this fiscal year. Another is a small grant program, the Cal ifornla
Home Management Training Program, which can be used to increase the housing
supply or to enhance communication and housing development skills. The
maximum grant is $15,000; to apply staff would need immediate authorization
to meet the September 30, 1981, deadline.
o LONG TERM FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
Assuming It would be possible to obtain long term financing at conventional rates
of 18 percent (18%) for the project, the maximum debt the Case hypothetical
could carry IS $987,464 or approXimately 58 percent (58%) of the funds currently
needed to develop the project. If the same assumptions are applied to Case II,
the maximum Indebtedness would be $1,448,134 or approXimately 44 percent (44%)
of the funds needed for development. If the interest rate IS reduced to prevailing
tax exempt levels of 12 to 13 percent (thirteen percent is used in these calculations),
the prinCIpal amount is increased to $1,341,662 for Case (or 91 percent of funds
needed), and to 51,967,572 for Case II (or 60 percent of funds needed) [To SImplify
the analysis, construction period interest was not added to the cost of the proJect.
Other costs, such as architectural and engineering, are unknown and thus have been
omitted.]
As indicated above, neither the Case I or the Case I I project can be developed
without a cash contribution, from CDBG or other sources. There is a significant
difference In the amount of cash required between the two proposals. The larger
requirement for the Case I I project is attributable to substantially Increased
parking requirements and to the hypothetical rent schedule used to project revenues
from the housing component. Analysis of parking requirements, and rent levels, are
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-12-
September 15, 1981
topics for further investigation by staff
The financial InfOrf'latlOn provided above also indicates the significant impact of
interest rates upon financing capacity (leverage). The lower the effective interest
rate, the greater amount of funds which can be generated for a given revenue stream.
Tax exempt financial Instruments bear a below market Interest rate and are the most
likely source of financing for this project.
Several alternative financing mechanisms eXist which could be appropriate for this
type of development. Some of these alternatives include tax exempt mortgages,
revenue or lease/revenue tax exempt bonds, syndication of tax benefits to private
parties, etc. Each method or combination of methods involves certain benefits and
certain restrictions. As the proposed development becomes more clearly defined,
these methods will be further explored as to specific applicability.
Time Frame
The following estimate of the time required to complete the various phases of deSign
work and the construction phase commences at the time an architect is selected.
Phase - Schematic Design
Phase 2 - Design Development
Phase 3 - Construction Documents
Phase 4 - Bidding
Phase 5 - Construction
month
2 months
4 months
month
14-18 months
TOTAL TIME:
22-26 months
Concluslon/R~comMendation
The Bay Area Mu 1 t i servi ce Center is seek I ng the Counc il' s conceptua I app rova I to
begin to more precisely define the paraMeters of the proposed mixed-use project.
The SAMC also needs an indication from the Council as to the desired scale of the
.
.
Mayor and City Council
-13-
September 15, 1981
proJect, since scale is a major determination of the design program. Scale will
also sIgnificantly Influence the development of a desirable financial package.
If the Council approves the SAMC's proposal in concept, it is recommended that
it elect to pursue a smaller project along the lines of the Case I example. In
addition, it is recommended that Council direct staff to undertake the following
activities
1. To develop a structure for selection of an architect through a
design competition.
2 To obtain more detailed information on the regulations and practices
pertaining to financing mechanisms
Prepared by
John Jalili
Mindy Leiterman
John Hemer
JJ :ML:JH:mh
Attachment
.
.
:'1,
Bay Area Multiservice Center
"A community service network"
THOMAS LEVINE
Pro ~:::- =- ~':C-co~
September 15, 1981
To: From:
Santa Mon~ca Clty Councll
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monlca, CA. 90401
Bay Area Mu1tiservlce Center
BOl W~lshlre Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
Regard~ng:
4th St. s~te development for mlxed use
Dear Mayor and C~ty Councl1,
On July 21, 1981, the C~ty Councll approved an extens~on of tlme for
the Bay Area Mult~serv~ce Center proJect untll December 31, 19B1.
The BAMC request was based upon the fact that the or~g~nally
selected locatlon, then under the sponsorship of Famlly SerVlce of
Santa Monlca, was not ln fact the most approprlate, nor was the Slze
capable of provldlng the mlxed use concept that has evolved over
the past SlX months.
We are pleased that the many advantages of the mlxed use concept
were endorsed by the Councll and our efforts w~ll now be dlrected
to that end.
The Councll further recommended that two sltes be explored: the
Santa Mon1ca Mall and the Fourth Street property adJacent to the
Salvat10n Army d1rectly across from Santa Mon1ca Place.
Durlng the past weeks BAMC personnel developed a IlSt of those proper-
tles on the Mall of a speclflc mlnlmum Slze that would be capable of
provlding the mlxed use operatlon. The Ilstlngs were developed from
current ownershlp Ilst1ngs from which we then tracked down unl1sted
owners ln our quest to deterrnlne the ava1lab111ty of such space.
Deslrable propert1es were elther fully occupied wlth long lease
tenants or many others were substandard to earthquake code and would
requlre extens1ve and costly renovatlon 1n additlon to reconstruct1on
of ~nter1ors. Needless to say, the cost of these propert1es were
exceSS1ve. As a result of these f1nd1ngs, the BAMC 1S concentrat1ng
ltS efforts on the development of the Fourth Street slte.
801 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa MOnica, California 90401
(213) 451-5559
.
.
-2-
The BAMC personnel began prelim~nary exploration w~th the C1ty Mana-
ger's off~ce regard1ng the use of the Fourth Street C1ty owned
property w1th an eye toward ut1l1z1ng that valuable p~ece of property
to ~ts most effect~ve use. Our prel~m~nary spec1f1cat~ons ~nclude
the development of permanent hous1ng for soc~al serv~ces, affordable
res1dent~al hous1ng, and commerc1al space (some of wh~ch could be
operated by non-prof1ts w~th proceeds be1ng channeled back into the
soc1al serv1ces).
M1xed use concepts have been successfully ut~l~zed 1n other c1t1es
and would appear to lend 1tself read1ly to the 1mprovement of th1S
slte. Moreover, th1S space w1ll generate income to the C1ty so that
these funds may 1n turn be used to further other needed development.
To prov1de the C1ty Counc1l members w1th some ldeas as to this
potent1al of the slte, we have arranged for Mr. Rex Lotery of Kappe,
Lotery, and Boccato to undertake a prel1m1nary analys~s of slte
content, more or less 1n terms of establ1sh1ng a m1n1rnum-maX1mum
content. H1S analys1s ~s 1ncorporated 1n the staff report.
It 1S hoped that the C~ty Counc1l members w1ll accept and approve
th1S report so that subsequent 1mplementat1on of the tasks to follow
can be aCCOmpl1shed exped1t1ously. These will 1nvolve the select~on
of an arch1tect, des1gn development, preparat10n of construct1on
plans and construct~on of the fac1l~ty, all of which would be closely
coord1nated w1th appropr~ate C1ty departments.
This proJect represents an unusual opportun1ty for a un1que concept
w1th1n the C1ty and may very well set a trend wh1ch w1ll enhance
long range Counc1l obJect1ves.
Slncerely,
Harry Gewertz
Pres1dent, Board of D1rectors
.~~ ;L~~
Thomas Lev~ne
ProJect D~rector
TL/Jw
.
.
3p2-~003
HlJ jj I"L jH 'i1n
S3pta Nunlc-J. Callr-Olrla, Scptelllber 15,1981
fO
Ma;or anJ riiV Cnuncl I
FRon
Cltv St<ltf
$U[)JiOCT
Proposed MI^I....d-U~~ f\ul [ISerVlce Le~tcr
oJn July 21, 1981. the City Coum.11 sugsest"d that the Bay "'rea Multl~er"lce Center
(B~MC) explore the po~siDil It V of uSing the air rlgh~5 over Parking ~uthorlty Lot
110 22 as a site for a\oclal ~e."lce delivery cc"t~r
~ -
BAKe ~taff ~Ith the a5~'~ta~ce
of Rex Lotery, an archl teet frooc; the fl P1 of Kappe. Loterv 3'ld Baccata, have ,..orked
with City staff to prenare a develop-ent DroGosal ~nlch Includes subterra~ean par~I'1g,
office space for social service ,3gencles, ccrrereli.li 5pace, anJ housl;~S
ThiS preliminary analYSIS Inclu~~s (1\ a de~crlptian of the variOus elements of tbe
proposed develope.ent, (2) r;lInirL.-l'. and m,1XI'~U!n paraccters for de';elopment, (3) cost
estJ,Tates, (4) analy:,ls of funding sO:.Jrces a'ld potential revenues, and (4) a t""e
frane for develop~ent
The final section of rhls tra'lsmittal outlines subsequent
actions and analyses to be undertaken by staff ~hould the Council wish to pursue thiS
concept. A letter from BAMC staff describing the background and rationale for the
project is attached
The Site
;r
i ~
The project 51 te (Parking Autholl ty Lot rlo 22) is 10cat"J on Fourth Street beL'een
Broad'''ay and Colorado Boulevard. OpPosite Santa Mc,;',,(.a Place
The site IS bcun~ed
by a three-story, 'nixed cOI'1f"'erci,,1 US,lS': hJllding [.) the north, the t\.jC'-~tor}'
1
Sal'latlon Arn,y bUlldln,1 to the south, anJian :11 ley in t'le ledr
ThiS 22,500 sqJare
foot lot abut~ the site of th,' pro,)Qsed 125 'HUt el,jrrif [''-",sln'j pl"oJeet to be
developed by the Sal:.J! Ion Ar'lY'
.,
;
.
.
Mayor and City Councl I
-2-
Septe'nber 15, 1981
Ii
The site is presentl, L:oed fOI- -,,,,tered p.Jbllc pad.ing. The lot provides parklOlg
for 74 cars
Spot checks by BA'K staff at various hours of the day Indl cate an
average use of approx.rately 50 cars
In ter~s of providing public access, the proposed sIte is very well located for
~oclal service providers and cIlento as well ao reSidential tenants. It IS proximate
to-',ost City services and faCilities, IncluJlng publiC offices, publiC trans;Jortatlon,
and recreational areao. Since the site is In the downtown area, it provides easy
acceSS to retail and commercial concerns as well as to employment opporturitles.
The property is zoned C-3
AllG~able bUilding coverage IS 100% of the land area, and
there are no required property lir.e setbacks. Under the guidelines suggested by the
Comrercial Task Force. the parcel could be developed to four stories or to a height of
56 feet
Program Ele~ents
1. Multiservice Center:
H
Agencies and Progra~s which ~ight be Included in this project are:
o Santa Monica Bay Volunteer Bureau
o Senior Multiservice Center
--Senior transportation
--Retired Senior Volunteer Program
--01 ive Stone Center
o Senior Health and Peer Counseling
--PhySical health screening
--Peer counseling for seniors
o Legal Aid of Santa Konlca'
--Centro Legal
o We~tslde W00ens Clinic
o Enerltus College classes
o Wests Ide Hotl Inc
o Positive Education
C en t e r
!f
-'
i,
I
l1
While there may certainly b:/ sOl'1e additions and deletions from thiS liSt, these
are the core agencies which have exrreo~ed substantial Interest and conceptual
support for the project
I~ ad~ltlon to the~e agencieo, the Center would include
.
.
Mayor and City Counel I
- 3-
Septel'lber 15, 1981
conference spacc, f.-itchenet e and lur,;;r;re""il, several general cOLJnsellng rooerlS, and
shared facilities, locludl", . storage and duplication areas.
The mlnlPlum area requl red fer the ~ulti,ervlce Center IS 13,000 square feet,
and the ":axinU':J proJected dlea IS 17,000 square feet
2 Connercidl ;,ea
Based upon the prrr-.e dm'lf'to\:p business location and potential revenues,
I tiS
proposed that COi'".j"rclal sp"ce be pro"l;kd on the grourd floor
This
connerclal space could accocicdate governme~tal agencies or private sector uses
1
It m I gh t a 150 acco"'o-,odate 9 dt shops 0 I' othe r conce rns I. nked to the sac I a 1 se rv Ice
agencies
The minimum area projected for cor"I>'erclal use 15 5,000 square feet, the maxlmur'
projected area IS ],000 square feet.
3. Housing.
In addition to its locatlonal advantages, the proposed mixed-use project prOVides
a "free" site for affordable hOUSing 'Since no land cost ,,,auld be attributable to
this use. The construction costs, given the need for an elevator, Will be somewhat
higher than they would be fo'r a low rise apartment complex, The differential IS
approximately $5 00 per square foot, which is considerably less than would be
required to purchase or to prepare another parcel of land for development
The parameters for the hOUSing copponent are a minimum of twenty-four units
compriSing 17,952 square fedt and a r.aximu:;l of forty units comprising 29,920
square feet.
,!
H
4. Parking
The parking requ'rcr~lents for the various type'. at occupancies, according to the.
.
.
t-'" 1 "r <l n del t y C" U I' L i I
- L -
OtPtL t~cr 15, i951
.:uJc, ..:lrt-..J'":I follu-.'':.
t1'Jltlser'.iILC Cel',:-_f
Cdl-/300 ::''-1 J.....;IL I:"'Lt
13.000 ~quare l~et
17,000 squar~ f~~1
43 L.J r ~
56 car~
Com.~erclal Area ~ I car/30C square r~tt
5,000 square fCLL 16 C.J r';)
7,000 ~ l~!~.J r t: il.-<:...t --' .Jf::.
l<o;Jslrej
I br unl t \..d.(
2 br U'llt 2 ("3'S
20-26 unlt~ >-,11'" equal r"Jr"~)ers (if
I dnd 2 br. ur~ll~ ==' 30 j'-j Cdr~
40 un ItS eJl 1 h e.j ua 1 n U -be r~ .) f
I and 2 b r t,n I (, ~- 6C) Cd I S
P"ol,c Pari-.ln'l
Based upon t~~ presEnt ob~crv~d par~lng usage of the Site, It was deter~lned
that the r<;:pL:Jeclllent of 60 cars ror public pari-.lng ,.as a redsonable quantity.
NOTE- The City rlay deter'1lll'e to l'ker tt">ese parklr.g requlrer-iepts b<.sed upon
actual observed ~drking use of orher pr0Jects, and other circumstances suc~ as
projected use of piJbl ie tra"~port3! ion
Scale of Develop~enL
The follO\o/lng anal,'sls describe, a rca'>Gnable 1'1Ini".dr., andnaxlmucl scal~ of develop-
fleent
The andlysls is b.)~ed Up<lrl ilor'-,atlvP ::.0dC~ allocatIons for th~ ,:>peclflc
functIons
These fl'JcJre~ ",111 Jndoubt"dl',' be adJLlsted \,'hen the precise desicps are
developed; however, the estl~ate5 are (on'ervatlv~ ard are Judged to be approorJate
for thiS initial analysis,
The analYSIS assu'T.e,> thdt Lhe b'Jlldlll~i .j<)",''1' .,h0uld co:1trlbure to the poslt'\ie
linage of the City. anJ prOVides p.,bllC I'''.i,~>lria" 3r-'L'ld!IC, related to the slU"g of
.
.
blO"jor and City COL:r.LII
S~;;:L."l;tOr 15, 1331
[~,e ::l tr~ctufl~
I t I J -~;.J --.l~-=,~i .~I,j t~,3: th:: t,'J-i-1 ,1 ,-If..! t--=-:.~ ~-Jf lil"- ....r':: ;t...~r ::..r";';.Jld
nul hd"J~ an Iq~tltut'l.i,..)l l=--)c~~ :.Hld ~h0.J1..j f1l(" IljL ,--~-J.Jnd~nt II;;ht afid 211' dnJ
rCo~o'~dble rLcrt'atl()j-d-j i;)(.,)'tlt..::' fur ttli.: IPr'dDlta;~ts
TI'er<"for~, fed I lot CG'Jera:<e
1-:, not antlc.jJateJ {'-if (~':.~ tJull-lln~ ..::1 ('-]Il-'rlt,:;., [:J,-~;..t the: 'fH1c..grVl...lqd ;>"}rt-In~ .-lreiJs.
c;.SE i - ~q ,-, I t'lJ.'\ r-::;jJECl
The --i1rJl:-UflI SI"::e prDjt...,_~ lPl.-IL~jl..'::: trc. fullc t~IS el.....,.;:t.-t::-
Hul t I ser 'I ce C2:r'tL I 1 3.000 Sl.J-J,'?:. r '" fct::-t
C~)'illflerc I a 1 i'..rca 5,GCh) ~:jLLire rCt: t
tloUSI ng Unl ts (14'1
I br ...In I h I 2
~ br U'-II h 1 2
Pa ri--.I ng I 55 C3 rs
Tr"IL parktng re~ulrL--Lilt... die a ;r.]Jor d;;:.tL'ri~lll-ar--t In :r--:..; Ci.::'Slgn a;1.1 r-~r,Cllon ~i;'-J
t!rurKlal practlc::;bllrlj of lh~ bUll"!"'J On the ba~l~ of allO<-i1ng 1;::'J S(luarc fett
per car for unJerCjruui,d parking 55-60 ':21:5 C~"l be a('cQ;'~i-.cJated oq each sutt~rranearJ
level
The bulldl'lg \-{oulJ rU)UI~e t\K' L'l1dergro,md ,calkIng Itc"'els and or,e p-artial le.,el of
par~ln9 on or abov~ ~I~~e
The r-,ultlple service a",,,'ci~s .3;;d the CO-~-2Iclal space could be cO'lta''l.ed "'l"ln a
tl'o-"tory ele"-"nt O,c"Py,r" app",xlI,'at",ly ia,GOO s-.:j"are feet of the front portion
of the 51 te.
The hOUSing elenent '-,ould OCC'J;JY t~,e third and a ;;ortlon of the fourth floer A
stagJer back effect beL-,e'en the; th'l-j d1! !;ll;r th, flv.), cOL'ld be achieved This
vJould reduce the vl::,udl scale of the bi..ll,ii'l~-i concu'-j("r~tly providlns; landsca;::lfl9 and
roof deck~ at the front o{ the bUllaln~
CASE II - M:1XI'1UM PPOJHT
The ",ax,mu" Slle pr"l'..<..l includiJS the foll"""ng el",,'-,-nt<;
MultiserVice (enler 17,000 5 q ua re feet
CO,l'me rc I a 1 ,t\rea 7,OGQ square feet
Housing Un Irs (40)
1 br. un Its 20
2 br un ItS 20
Parking 199 ca rs
This bUilding ~..Iould require thrt:.e lp'~cl~ (}f lFldt'.--;-:r;JtJrid par~lr:g and a sr--all al---;ount
of grou~d level par~lng
.
.
~JYGr and (' I ty COU'lC I i
~b-
St::f;tE::-,-,i-:;t;:r l5, 1981
fhe Il,ultlple servl...:e .)JjenCle':J anJ the Cu.--".\:..rCldl s;..h..e c,-,I..lj ~e occor-.'H",,~ated ..,(thln
a t'.JO-::, tory
o r the 5 i te
ele.-~er]t u.::l....-:....r).i I "19
d~prG:'I':I..Jti...]\f 12-13,(::,~ ~-=IU.3t-c
fet::t (;f tr,e frO;lf pJttlon
I
I
Ii
Tbe ~o0slng ele~ent could be lo(ited on the ~hlrd di~J fOGrtP rl0ors, or coul~ occ~py
ar additional fifth floo, A squc;ger bad, efFocct ,_"Id ::'c' de",,-alle 3'id the decIsion
rt.lated to th~ r'jul~'.bel uf floors ~::;houl:.1 he J~tcr-'II;L.:.d J~_H I'-'~ the (_~eSi~F' ~:Jl-OC2'::_ Th~
final decision should be basf'd ~;Jon th~ llJlnq Cir'Lr-jtlE:S~ effllle;-Ic;,. 3'ld cost factors
of each design f
~
}Uml1,a ry of Bu IJ d I nr. [\~e~lS_
Case
0 l1ultlserVlce I\rea 13~JQJ ::>CjU..J I-'~ fee t
0 COllll-e rc i a 1 Area 5. :'GO s\.~ J.J re feet
0 12 I-b r Units ~ 633 sq~f[./Lnlt 7~~:;b s:.t:.Jc re f""t
0 12 2-b r. U'llt5 ~ 863 5.' ft / un It 1C,356 =-~Lld ie ice t
'1
0 2 Sub te rra;lean Pad, I '19 Le,.e Is 45, 90 ~ sqi..l-J re f<cd
Cdse I I
0 f-IultlserVlce Area 17,';(,0 ....Gi~3rc fe-'t
0 Co'nmerc I a I Area 7,0('0 sq'.Jar~ feet
0 20 I-br. Un I t5 = 633 ~y tr lur.1 t 12,t60 SqJ31c fet't
0 2.D 2-br Units - 853 3q ft./ul:i t ~ 7, 2fJ ~qLare feet
0 3 Subterran"an PaJI--llIg Le.;" 1 , 68.'100 ~yd3n;; fe~t
Cost Estir-"nc
The fo1IO'--Jlng cost '=--'Jtt-,13le~ ar;.: b2':Jc:.d L.oj':;' IJSl a-J;.r.J~ll costs for tlll~ t\ipe {)f
bu ,1 ding
Case I
o f-IultlserVlce and (<l"'lll'ercial
18,000 square fed " $60 ;Jsf
5] ,080,000
o Housing
17.952. square feet l 560 psf
51,077,120
o Su~terranean Par~i~J
45,900 square feet' 520J psf
S 918,000
o Site "lOrk
S I OJ . GOO
TOTR CONSn<uCT 1 Cif) l:GST
53,175,120
.
.
~~iur and City Council
- 7-
SL-'*~~L -lij~r 1 50, 1981
Cd~" I I
u Multl~ervlce and CG(-~rclal
2'j,000 square. fe,,! ..560 p,f
SI,~40,00;)
o Housing
29,920 square feet
$60 psf
S I. 7'L., ':;;J
o Subterranean Parklrg
68.900 square feet ~ 522 psf
5 J . ~ is, oJ:;
() Site Work
$ I, c., ~~I~
TOTAL CONSTRuCTION COST
S4, 6'0 I .CI~,'J
Projected Revenues
The follO"~'~lng anllual revenue pr'~jcctlol,::- {-~It.: ~'<..~'--t;;;~~ l.J~(..:-i DL.~:C s.tilff'~ esti 2t.-.: of
appropriate office al.d u,.,;erliul rentdl..
}he 'LJ'.':"nJL ~.....ll"I<..i(..;5 ~~rt~lr'~ns to !:.r-Ie
hOUSing cOTponent are bci,,~J UpOI' the Secu..;c 8 F;;11 r'"HkeL h~r.ts for eXlstlr..., hOuSing
ana do not refleLt an ct,ialY'Jls uf the t'I--),J~1 r<..lr~]c cf h)~.Jslr'g neej~ to Dt;:; .~Il~t Iii the
C j ty.
Case 1- Annual Ne' R~venues
o Office Space (Multlser\ICe Agc,cles)
9.750 square feet Net R~nta~lL Area
~ S.75 psf
S 87,/50
o Comrerclal SpJce
4,080 square feel Net Rcrtoble Area
~ SI.25 psf =
$ 6G,JJO
o HOUSing
12 I -b r _ i\p t s
12 2-br Ap[s
i" ';;327/ .0
u; S38f/ 0
S 4],088
S 5), ,,81,
GROSS REVEfJUES
52~O,lt22
Operating Ex~enses
Office and Com"erclal
13,750 square fee[ c 52 52/sq ft Iyr
(S 31,.(50)
Hous I ng
Vacancies 2 3%/yr
Operatlng EYp2nSe~ and ReservLs ~
51 ,400/un i t/yr
($ 3,080)
(S 33,tool
NET REVENUES
S 1 79 . (J') 2
.
.
Mdyor and City Councl I
-8-
Senco"'ber 15, 1981
L.d':d~ f I
i\nr'u31 Net ?c"enuc.,
o Office Space (Mu1tl~ervice A9 ~cle5)
12,750 square feet N~t Rentab p Area
;;'S 75 psf =
5 114,750
o COlnr~'erclal Srace
5,600 square feet Net Rentable Area
-" 51 25 psf =
S 84,00:)
o Housing
20 I - b r
20 2 - b r
Apts
Apts
!- S 327/1'-10
S 386ho
5 78,480
S 92,640
GROSS REVENUES
536';1,870
j ~
!
Operating Expenses
Office and Cum~ercla1
18,350 square feet ~ $2.52/sqI1t./yr
($ l.f~.242j
HOuSing
Vacancies j 31/yr
OperatIng Expe~~e5 d~J Re5elve~
51 ,4eo/un. tfyr
($ 5.133)
l5 5f.GOO)
NET REVENUES
$202,4j5
Funding Source,> and.~..:~ng M,:.:r.LH~~
There are a variety uf financln~ options tor the deielu~r~nt of the proPo~ed nixed-use
multiserVice center. Tne City C~unCI I hd~ obi IgatcJ 5550,000 in COTiurlty Development
B~o.:k Grant funds to th~_ r.-LJlll~<.-\ilCe Ct::-rllCI cOi~pl":'PCJ~l of the projeCt
The Pari{lng
Authority curt'ently hd'o the capacity to fl'-'d'lCE- [1".<" Jc"vLlvp'e'lt of LiO levels of
subterranean par!...lng oropo,>ed for lhe ~JlL'. The 1;'"t:l, tH.le" ~u ,drILe, lhe
financial statu~ of e~Lh c..o1nponE.nt of th~ ~)i'}i':j'='L>J pn...Jeo..-t .JW.I.1 :::~r'o}e::" a:i the" ba=-iS
for the finanCing alterlliltllJE''' cihlch foil.,.,
.
.
11dyor and City Coune i I
-lj-
Septe-l0er IS, 1931
CASE I
Co~,ponent
Develop.rent
Cost
$
Budseted!~Vdl laLle
Funds
S
Funds
NeediOd
$
Projected Net
Revenues
5
o Multiservice
Office and
Com:rerclal
1,080,000
550,000
530,000
113,000
o Hou~lng
1,077,120
'j
-0- 1 ,077, I 20 65,992
') 1 8 . OO,J -0- unh.r-O',n
-0- 100,000 N A
51,468,000 51,707,120 5178,992
o Parking
918,000
o Site Work
100,000
TOTAL
$3,175,120
C.C,SE I I
CO"iponen t
De \.0 1:.- i .:...:r:'!IH:n t
(." ~ t
BudS2'ej.';,. ,)1 1 all e
rHo 11...1::
Furth
!'Lc:d",d
5
Pn)J~Cled Nt;t
Re.....~nLJe:s.
5 S
--------~--~--------------
5
o Multlservice
Office and
(om~ercial
J. !i40,0,}J
550,OGO
890,000
152,508
1,735,200 -0- 1,795,200 109.987
1 , ') j 5 , 800 I ,OL,' ,000 515,800 unl..[',o ,n
100,000 -G- 100,000 N A
$4,851,080 51,,50,GOO 53, 301 ,000 $262,495
-------
o Hous I ng
o Parking
o 5 I te Ho rk
TOTAL
Types and SOurces of F""J I -19
The reF'dlnlng costs at the proJ'Lt (,rul.:.::;tc'j dtJOV'::) ca'! be f'Jnded by srant, by
long ter;:) debt, or by a cu blrhlt'Orl ot the [.,.Li
PutLnlldl SClJrCeS ot f~rldlrg are
o GR;'HS
a (O;-;illLJfll t'l D~'-./t::'tlrJ. (~r'jt Block. G(..-1nt ((t"e
f ulJ"
Till-__ Clty hu,5 cariyo\/er. as 'dell
.
.
~1<:J--,ur and City COdll..:,1
-11]-
Sef"tv>'b,~ 15,1931
as FY 1981-82 (l'3G f.JI'Js u~'Q;l,jhILh It cucdJ j,ad /G "r,ance U-e "r"posed
iJroJEct
t1U.,l UI thee dva,lcil:::le CDBG funds ha',~ be"-,, lal>getcd foc housln~
purposes, but ha"e not yet been obi igatccd to a S;:leCI f.c prcCjra'c, or ;JrcJE:ct
Eligible CDoG ,,~tl"l(ies Incluj" corstructlon uf putllc facllltlEo such as
a SOCial serVICe cel'ter, and site prei'aratlcn "ork for hous,t"g oredo,I'late1'f
affordable to persuns of 10'" a'ld ITlod2rate Inee)' e
CD3G fdr.as can also I:::e
com~ltted to non-profit entitIes for t~e finanCing ana con~tructlon of hO~5ing
An advantage of uSing CDBG funds for this pruJEct IS that the furds ~ave
literally no value to the CIty or ItS fesid~nts urless they are used No
Interest InCO'Be or publIC benefit accrues to the City's Block Grant prOljral"
unless such InCOO;2 IS deri'Jed from a functlonlrg prograr;l!proJect
In ecoro"; c
terns, the sole cost of uSing CDBG funds IS thE "opportunIty cost", I.e., the
cost of fuods not being avallaole for another project or progran
Another
benefit of using CDBG funds IS that the requirencrts governing their use,
such as the construction specifications characteristic of federal hOUSing
prograT.S, do ~ot apply
own specifIcatIons
b, HOU51~g AuthorIty Funds
Rather, the C,tV could design the project to ItS
lhe HOUSIng tuthor ity has ~ntercd Into agre2~ents
,,"th developers hih.ch ent',1I1 a paY'~'tc"lL In llbl of Ih", direct prOVISion of
affordable housln~ units
The~e Il,n,', ,-oul,j 1'<' co"n'lltted to the ncu:ilng
CO:llpOnent of the proJect.:~
c General Revenue SharIng funds Lan be u:i~d fl~, 'bly and wight also I:::e used
for this prOJe~t.
d The StatiO of California, Lllrouqh th~ Dc,;:lrt-,,-r,t ,",f Ii':,uslng and CO;Hlunlty
Development, funJ., d fe'" ,(rant pro'Jr,)C,"
1)",-- tn", P,;ltal HOlISIWj Construction
.
.
Mayor anG e I ty e'June I I
-11-
Se p t e,~b e ~ I 5, I 981
Progra,--I, "IOLdd "'ork 'ell f'~}r a rniXi."\J-Li~~ rroJect, but ha~ ;lot been allocated
fu~ds for this rlsc~l year
Jlnoth',r IS a senall ~r':JI1t progran, the California
Home ~1aflageli'ent Training P,ogram, v,hlch can be used to Increase the hou~lr.g
supply or to enhanLe con~unlcatlon and hOUSing develo~~ent s~1115 The
~axl~u~ grant 15 $15,000, to apply staff .~uld need Ir~edlate authorization
to :"Ieet the Septeober 30,1931, deadline
o LONG TERM FIN;NCI~G ALTERNATlv~S
Assur;ing it "Iould be posslble'fto obtai'" long term flnanLlng at conve'1tlonal rates
of 18 percent (18d for the proJect, the r,aXIr:1UT, debt the Ca~e
hypothett ca I
could carry IS 5987,464 or approxi~ately 58 ~ercent (SHY) of the fund~ currently
needed to develop the project
If thl:: sane as".o-ptlons are applied to Case II,
the p'axk,um Indebtedness \.;ould be 51,448,134 or apprO'H-ately 44 Percent (44,)
of the funds needcd for deveI0~~ent
It the Interest ,-ate 15 reduced to prevailing
tax exempt levels of 12 to 13,percent {thirteen percent is used in these calculations}
the prlr,::lpal amount IS incre",~ed to $1,341,662 for Case
(or 91 percent of funds
needed). and to $1,967,572 for Case II (er 60 percent of funds needed)
[To simp 1 I fy
the analysis, construction pellod Intel-<'~t vias not adJed to the cost of the proJect.
Other cOsts, such a~ architectural and ~n~lneerlnJ, are unknown and thus ha~e been
or.,j tted.]
As Indicated above, neither the Case
cr lh~ Cas~ I I proJLct can be d~~eloped
,
\"Ithout a cash contribution, fr,i." CD8G 01
t
I
di fference .n the al'IClUtlt "f ca~lf requ, r2d
,lther sou, ces
There IS a ~Ignlficant
b('t'.J~Lr tt1~ t'.iO
PI-O~OS.a 1 s
lne lan;er
,
I
requJrerr.ent for thE: Ca~e II pro;:2ct IS iltlll[,utclbll' tv s-,b,tantlally I"creased
parking require~ent5 dnd to the hypur~e:lcal r~nr schejul~ used to prOjEct revenues
from the hOUSing C(,,':por:ent. Anal.,.sl, uf ,:;'1--1119 rCC;I,I'v'd;t." af'd rent le\'el~, are
.
.
,'1cly(H and C It',' C(j""~ I]
-1 L-
Septeeber 15, ]981
to"IC, for furH,er Ir';c'~tl'Jdtlc;1 bv :,tilFf
The f,nanclal Infon"atto", provlJed Clbove dhc) Indicates the sigfllflcanl Ic.pact of
Jnterest rates upor. fl:--;allLlng catacltv (le'....t.:r-j~~e)
rtl~ la-der (he effEc [I--J€ I ~terest
rdte, the greater a'--~(~ur:t of funds ..hleh Lon be genL:'ratea tor a ql'ien ie\,'el'Ue s:.rear;---,
Tax exen-'pt financial instru"'e,,ts bear a belU\/ .narket I nterest rate and a~e the -lOSt
lli<ely source of finanCing for this jJroJect
Severa] a I terna t I ve I i nanc I ng r;echarll see, e)(I" t "Ih I ch cou I d be appropn atE' fa r th I s
type of development
So"e of these alternatl'Jes Include tax e"e--'iH nlortgciges,
revenue or lease/rev~~Le ta~ exe~pt bonds, syndication of tax benefits to private
parties, etc
Each nethod or conlblnatlon of methods Involves certain benefits ard
certain restrictions
A~ the proposed developnent becor;es nore clearly defined,
these rnethods "Iill be further explored a!> to ,peclf,c applicability.
T I ';'e Frame
The follOWIng est,-ate of the tine req~lred [0 complete the variou, phases of deSign
~Iork and the construction phase co,mence5 at the time an architect is selected.
Pha~e ~ Scherl,3 [ i c D\s i gn
PhLlse 2 - De~lgn Development
Pha"e 3 - Construct io', Docuc'en t,
Phase 4 - Bidding
Phase 5 - Construction
month
2 nlonths
4 months
month
14-]8 montr.s
22-26 ,'onths
TOTAL TI~'E
Conc 1 us I on/R ocorn"lenda t Ion
The Bay Area Multiservice Center IS seeking the Counc,I's conceptual aptJroval to
begin to nore precisely define the paraceters of tre proposed ",ixed-use project
The BAMC also needs an Indication fro~ the (ounCI 1 ciS to the deSired scale of the
.
.
MJyur and Clt; Coun~1 I
-13 -
September 15. 1981
proJect. since seal" " cl "\3jOr dt:ter"lnatl'''' of tpe de,'~;n prograr1 Seale \-ill1
also significantly Influence th~' dev"lo~,)j"ent Df a desi'atie finanCial packase
I f the Council approves the SAMC '5 proposal in concept, It 15 rec(),,;r-,ended that
It elect to pursue a s~aller project along the lines of the Case I examole In
addition, It 15 recorrnended that Council d, rect statf to undertake the follOWing
activities
To develop a str~eture for selectlQn of an archlt~ct through a
deSign competition.
2. To obtain more detailed Ir.for"'ation on the regulatlor,s and practices
pertaining to f"'cHKlng mechanlsl,s
Prepared by
John Ja 1111
Mindy Lei t~r~'an
John Hen-er
JJ HL.JH mh
Attachment
.
.
Bay Area Multiservice Center
A L-<j'q;n{itl!{~ ~t?r~.t\ t. '1~i.~i..(Jrf....
TH C:';:' S '. EV I ~J E
September 15. 1981
To
ProiTI:
Santa MonIC3 CIty CouncIL
1685 MaIn Street
Santa ~IOl'Ica. CA. 90401
Bay Area MultIserVIce Center
801 WIlshIre Boulevard
Santa MonIca, CA. 90401
Heg3.rdlng
4th St~ SIte deve10nIT~~t for ~lxed use
Dear Mayor and CIty Council,
On July 21, 1981, the CIty CounCIL approved an ex~epSlon of tIme for
the Bay Area MultIserVIce Center proJect untIL December 31, 1981.
The BAMC request was based upon the fact that the orIgInally
selected locatIon. then under the sponsorshIp of FamIly SerVIce of
Santa MonIca, was not In fact tre ~ost approprIate, nor was the SIze
capable of prOVIdIng the mIxed use concept that has evolve) over
the past SIX months.
We are pleased that the many advantages of the mIxed use concept
were endorsed by the CounCIL and our efforts ~lll now be dIrected
to that end.
The CounCIl tULther recom~ended that two SItes be explored; the
Santa MonIca Mall and the Fourth Street pro?erty adJacent to the
SalvatIon Ar~y dIrectly a~r05E from Santa MO,lca Place.
DurIng the past weeks BANe persornel developed a lIst of those proper-
tIes on the Mall of a speCIfiC minImum sIze that would be capable of
prOVIdIng the mIxed use operatIon. The lIstIngs were developed from
current ownershIp lIstIngs [rOla whICh we then tracked down unlIsted
owners In our quest to determIne the avaIlabILIty of such space.
DeSIrable propertIes were either fully occupIed WIth long lease
tenants or many others were substandard to earthquake code and would
requIre extenSIve and costly renov~tIon In addItIon to reconstructIon
of I~terlors. Needless to say, tho cost ot these properties were
exceSSIve. As a result of th~s~ fi~dIngs, the flAMe IS concentratIng
lts efforts on the develo;m0nt 0[ t~~ Fourth Street SIte.
801 Wilshire Boulevclrd
5",'1.; /o.{Or,'C,i Cul,I","t" 9(nOl
1213i 451 5559
.
.
- 2-
The SAMe pers0n~~1 began prell~1n3cy exploratlo~ wlth the CIty ~1ana-
]2r'S offICE r(~(J,-lr,jl:1J t-rlE 113C Jl t-ro:: FO'lrth Street Clt:y owned
2roperty with ar ey~ toward utillLlnq that valuable pIece of property
to Its ~Gst etf~ctlV2 U~~_ Our prcllAln3ry speclflcatlcrs lnclude
the develop~ent Q[ permanent housinq for socIal serVices, affordable
residential housin3, and co~mercl~l space (some of which could be
operated by non-profIts ~ith proce~ds being channeled back lnto the
socIal SerViCE's) ~
Mixed use concepts have been succ~s5fully utilized in other citles
and would appear to lend itself readily to the lrr.provement of this
site. Moreover, this s~ace wlll generate income to the City so that
these funds may In turn be used to further other needed develop~e~t.
To provlde the City Councll members With some ideas as to thiS
potential of the site, we have arranged for Mr. Rex Lotery of Kappe,
Lctery, and Bcccato to underta~e a prelimInary analySiS of site
content, ~ore or less in ter~s of establishing a ninl~UT-TaXimu~
content. HIS 3nalYSIS IS InCOlpcc3ted In the staff report.
It is hoped thaL the Clty CounCil m~nbers Will acce?t and approve
this report 30 that subs~quent iffipl~~entation of the taSKS to follow
can be accorpllshed expeilltlou51y. These WIll lnvolve t~e selection
of and r c h ~ tee t r d e ~ 1 g n de vel 0 p P; 12 n tiP r e p.l rat 1 0 n 0 f con s t rue t 1 en
plans and constr~ctlon oE the faCility, all of which would be closely
coordinated Wit~ appropriate City depart~ents.
ThlS proJect represents 'an unusual opportunIty for a unique concep~
Within the Clty dnd may very well set a trend WhlCh Will enhance
long range Cou',cil obJectives.
Slncerely,
/'
~, ./(r-'--~-.j~
./
Harry Gewertz
PreSident, Board of Dlr~ctors
:;-L:.~~ /,~~
Thomas Lev1ne
ProJect Director
TLj)w
f
~
.
r,up, t.JlJ .Ii fO ;'.Gi 111);\ liE" III
.
;1
S...H't_l ;:'~"iICd, C.ilI1(dlll..J} Stt-:;t"L'-il~J'-_1 L~1 FJ0i
3tJ2.~t:'t?3
Iv 11a1'01 dnd City [uc,-'L1]
IPO~ City Stoll!
SUBJFCT. Plopo,>cd 111 xed, Lbe 1111 I t I sel v I CL [iii 1 c ,-
Stdff hLlS prepLlred anothei eeL..C eXclmpli' fiJl- U:c P'uf"" (, i.l/c-J-lj~C tlullioc.r\'iuc
Center.
It rnalntains the ~ull'(" office ':1110 (,.-(.;," ;,t r~:l,:-~I ~~f-'u' l d:: tile C''-''SL i cX.J:'l;Jl" J
I
and increases the nlll',ber of hOll'>lh~ unite. frOh l~,,'nl)'-f()LJr \2t,) lu thlrl,.-",x (36).
!i
It I:ould still be feasible to keel~ tr,e structule at h'df :,LOdes above grade,
I'
!i
a IthO,lgh I t Play be adv,HILlg['Ol6 ttJ. a 11.-"" f"r <1 r our en 1 1 \" 5 tory arpro:::.ch from
the ~tandpoint of deSign
This e>.)lIiplc, L.lSL Ill, ,,]',0 I;."Hellls a rcdLl~tlon 111
parklli'} attllbutdbh tc> lll" 1lC>\I.,\r;<j. It pr.).i,k., ell" r'd,:.;r-.,; ;,\;-'''' fur v:c..ry
r(J~lr olle-beU10()!," ~3p~rti=I:.='llt, orll-4 unt... ?-.;.li-kil'..J ~p.J':C f It- ~,;' ~ l,.-.v-b....-:dr{)'i.;:. a~'~i' t. cpt
Ci\SE III
~1.'._U.,:l.!.'. ~~L...- A r C,l ~
o l1ultl~('rvice Celite!
o (OOi;'" t C f a I {\ t-eJ
o llou-,jdU Urllt:, (36)
18 ]-br. units
18 :1 - b r. un its
o Parlin] (1~2 spJce,)
TOl f-L
13,OOU squ-Ire feet
5,000 ~qUdlE fe~t
] I , 3~1; ~qLJare fe", t
15.531, ~qUilIC feet
56,800 ~:::IUd i-e feet
101, ]28 :,q ua n~ fce: t
Cus t E ~ t i ma te
o ~~,~1 t.lscrvicc di)....-J ((J r( 1.31
18,O~J square ff~~l ~ 56~ ~~f
S] ,08'), OC:~j
() Hc'us 1119
21,~G8 squ~re fLCt
~~iJ ~_~f
$I,6Ij8,o(,o
() SUi) t t r- ~ G. ~i:..~ ...}~) P u I k I [I. j
"'56,80') sqll~ri~ f{~C't (.: $h.1 p'"}t
S I , I 3L ,OOJ
o Si te \lod.
$ lu,; ,000
IOTM COi~SIHlIcrlorl CO~I
$1,9(,!, ,080
.
.
liilyur and CIty Council
-2-
SE:;Jtenlber 22, 1981
!~~~l e C t ed Re ven ~'C.~
o Office Space (Multlsetvice Agencies)
9,750 square feet Net Rcntclble ArLil
@ $ 75 psf
$ 87,750
o Co~nerclal Space
4,000 square feet Net Rentable Area
$ 60,000
o HOUo.l ng
18 l-br. Apt'-.. Q $32}j11'-).
18 2-br. Apto.. @ 5386~iO
!
GROSS REVENUES i
-j
Operati n9 EXper15eo. !!
Office and Cor;;;l'ercial .
13,750 5quat~ feet Q $2 ~2/sq F~ /yr.
I
S 70,631
$ 83,376
5301 ,7';.8
($ 31\ ,650)
Housing
Vacancies @ 3~/yr.
Operating Expenses dnd Reserve~ @
$1,ljOO/unit/yr.
( $ 4 , (,20 )
($ 50,400)
NET REVENUES:
$212,088
~'l1na r'[
if
~-~1f--~~---------
Oevelop'nent ~\'dg"tedl;\v;ji I ubI", Funds Projected Net
C03 t i' F unJ., Needed Revenue,>
S !' _i_~_h~_______~~~_-.1__
COo.Jponent
,
-, ~
HlTAL
1,080,000 H 550,000 530,000 113,100
I ~
Ii
I ,61.8,080 o- J ,101,8,080 98,988
1,136,000 I 1,000,000 136,000 unknu,'1fl
[
100,(0) !I -o~- 100,OGO N.II
I
$3,9bII,080 I $2,1.14,080 <;212.,088
! 'll ,)"0 .()~lLl
f
o Multi~ervice
Off i ce and
(O;1F;erc i a I
o lious I ng
o Par~ln;-
o Site '...."J....-k
_~~~~~~_______L__ _ ___ ______- __ __ _.__ ___ _____ _ _ __ _________~_~____~ ~~__~~
.
,
Prepared by' Mindy ldt<>n,',ln
ML ph