SR-101403-7C
1C
OCT 1 4 2003
PCD: SF:JT:AS:JC: BL:f:\PLAN\SHARE\COU NCI L \STRPT\2003\half alleylnterimOrd .doc
Council Mtg: October 14, 2003 Santa Monica, California
Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance to Modify Parts
9.04.10.02.240 and 9.04.10.02.360 of Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code Related to using one half of the alley to Calculate
Dwelling Unit Density and Measure Rear Yard Setbacks from the center of
Adjacent Alleys in all Districts except R1 and OP1 Single-Family Districts
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim
ordinance to measure building setbacks and calculate unit density in multi-family
districts based upon the actual parcel area and dimensions and not include portions of
the public rights-of-way within adjacent rear alleys. Currently, parcel area and rear
setback can be measured from the center of an alley, increasing building mass and
density of projects located adjacent to alleys in multi-family Districts. The proposed
ordinance is contained in Attachment A. This report also recommends these issues be
included with studies being prepared to consider permanent revisions to development
standards in the R2, R3 and R4 Multi-Family Districts during FY 03-04.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission expressed concerns and advised the City Council that
undesirable building mass and unit density is being allowed when multi-family
developments utilize a portion of the public right-of-way to increase unit density and
reduce their rear yard setback requirement by measuring from the centerline of the
alley. The City Council subsequently directed staff to initiate the zoning text amendment
7C
OCT 1 4: 2003
process to address these concerns. On a parallel track, staff is currently studying
side/front yard setbacks and building mass associated with proposed amendments to
the R2, R3 and R4 development standards to finalize development standards pursuant
to Interim Ordinance 2042 (CCS). Interim Ordinance 2042 applied the North of Wilshire
overlay standards to R2, R3 and R4 zones. Staff believes these issues are directly
related to the concern over using a portion of the alley in determining rear setbacks or
dwelling unit density in terms of defining the overall building envelope. Therefore, staff
believes it is appropriate to consider the building mass and density impacts associated
with the half alley provisions within the overall multi-family development standard
context. The proposed Interim Ordinance will establish temporary restrictions on using a
portion of the alley to determine rear setbacks or dwelling unit density while necessary
studies and Planning Commission hearings are conducted, leading up to the adoption
of permanent regulations next year.
ANAL YSIS
Section 9.04.10.02.360 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance allows rear yard
setbacks to be measured from the centerline of a parcel's rear alley which typically
allows buildings to be 5 feet from the rear property line instead of 15 feet that is
otherwise required. This additional 10-feet increases the building envelope and mass
compared to properties with no alley adjacent to the rear property line. The Planning
Commission believes that the additional 10' of building size adversely affects building
mass and neighborhood compatibility.
2
Section 9.04.10.02.240 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance allows one-half of the
rear alley area adjacent to a multi-family zoned parcel to be included in the area of the
parcel for use in calculating the number of units that may be permitted on-site.
Depending on the parcel's size, this increase in parcel area can allow an additional unit
on parcels that are slightly under the round up point compared to rounding-down on the
same size parcel without a rear alley. Developers typically maximize building size to
accommodate the additional unit and associated parking.
SinQle-Familv
The proposed ordinance would allow projects in the R- and OP1 (single-family)
Districts to continue to measure setback from the center of an adjacent rear alley.
Building mass in rear portions of single-family lots does not generate the concerns
occurring in multi-family districts due to the reduced density, limited lot coverage and
restrictions on two-story accessory structures that are incorporated into single-family
regulations. In addition, most OP1 lots are only 25 feet wide and 80 feet deep. The
reduced rear yard setback provided by measuring from the center of the alley is needed
to allow a reasonable size home on these substandard size lots.
Effect of Lot CoveraQe
Lot coverage and setbacks limit the size of buildings in residential districts. Although the
proposed ordinance will increase the rear yard setback on properties adjacent to alleys:
no floor area would be lost to the first floor because the front, side and rear yard
setbacks will allow a building size with the maximum 50% lot coverage. However, the
3
second story on typical 50 by 150 foot lots would lose 280 square feet of floor area
because upper floor levels are affected by increased side yard setbacks
The proposed ordinance is intended to prevent further use of the alley to determine rear
setbacks and dwelling unit density until further studies of these issues and the other
multi-family regulations can be considered together. The recommended modifications
are designed to reduce building mass and create buildings that are well integrated into
residential neighborhoods, The current regulation allowing use of the rear alley for
setback and density calculations adversely impacts building mass and neighborhood
compatibility. The proposed interim regulations do not affect commercial or industrial
districts because rear yard setbacks are not required in these districts. In addition,
building size is regulated by floor area ratio, not density in commercial and industrial
districts.
A housing constraint assessment was prepared for the City by Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Alschuler to determine if the reduction in unit density and floor area would operate as a
government constraint on the production of new housing within the meaning California
Housing law. The constraint analysis concludes that the limited reduction in floor area
and density would not constrain the production of housing. This assessment was based
on financial feasibility simulation models of prototypical projects. The constraint analysis
also determined that the proposed ordinance would not interfere with the City's ability to
achieve its "fair share" of regional housing needs by 2005.
4
CEOA STATUS
The proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEOA,
pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the State Guidelines, in that the proposed interim
zoning regulations would require properties in multi-family districts to measure rear yard
setbacks and calculate unit density using the property's actual size, thereby increasing
rear yard setback and reducing density on certain parcels with rear alleys. As a result,
building size and mass will be reduced slightly on effected parcels. Therefore, these
amendments do not have the possibility of resulting in significant environmental
impacts.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.050, notice of the public hearing was
published in The Los AnQeles Times at least calendar ten days prior to the hearing A
copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B. In addition, notice of the public hearing
was given to neighborhood organizations.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report will have no budgetary or financial
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance
for first reading.
5
Prepared by:
Attachments
Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
John Chase, Urban Designer
Bruce Leach, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
A.
B.
C.
D.
Proposed Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Correspondence
Housing Constraint Analysis
6
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Ordinance
7
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\half alleylnterimOrd-1.wpd
Council Meeting 10-14-03
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ELIMINATING THE INCLUSION OF ONE-HALF OF THE REAR ALLEY
ADJACENT TO A MULTI-FAMILY ZONED PARCEL FOR PURPOSES OF
CALCULATING DENSITY AND REAR YARD SETBACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS
SECTION 1 Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares:
(a) Section 9.04.10.02.240 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance allows one-half
of the rear alley area adjacent to a multi-family zoned parcel to be included in the parcel
area calculation for determining the numberofunits that may be permitted on-site, thereby
allowing an increase in the number of units on a limited number of parcels.
(b) Section 9.04.10.02.360 of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance allows rear yard
setbacks to be measured from the centerline of a parcel's rear alley, thereby increasing the
allowable building size and mass by reducing the rear setback from the property line
(c) The Planning Commission raised concerns and advised the City Council that
these Code provisions can lead to excessive unit density by allowing the density of multi-
family developments to be based, in part, on the area within the public right-of-way in
adjacent rear alleys.
~lt'I; ell 8
(d) The Planning Commission further raised concerns and advised the City Council
that these Code provisions can also lead to excessive building mass because developers
of multi-family housing can utilize a portion of the public right-af-way to reduce their rear
yard setback requirement by measuring the setback from the centerline of the
effectively reducing the rear setback.
(e) The purpose ofthe interim ordinance is to prevent excessive development by
requiring setbacks and density in multi-family districts to be based upon the actual parcel
area and dimensions, not including portions of the public rights-of-way within adjacent rear
alleys, until further studies can be completed and public hearings conducted by the
Planning Commission and City Council precedent to amending the Zoning Ordinance,
(f) The reduction in residential density which may result from this ordinance is
consistent with the City's adopted General Plan, including its Housing Element.
specifically, the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Land Use & Circulation Element
Policy 1.10.1 ("Encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential
districts, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods"), Policy 3.1.1
("Minimize the impact of the perceived mass of structures. ,") and with the Housing
Element Policy 1.3 ("Establish and maintain development standards that support housing
development while protecting quality of life goals"), Policy 1.7 ("Maintain development
standards that ensure that the development of new housing in residential neighborhoods
is designed to fit within the existing neighborhood context"), Policy 7.3 ("Ensure that the
architectural design of new housing development is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood").
lj 9
~. v
(g) Although not generally required in conjunction with the adoption of an ordinance,
the City retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A") and voluntarily undertook
a constraint analysis of the proposed ordinance because of the City's strong municipal
commitment to fostering housing. HR&A prepared an analysis of the impact that this
proposed ordinance would have on the financial return of multifamily project applicants for
the purpose of assessing whether this ordinance would constitute a "governmental
constraint" within the meaning of State Housing Element Law ("Constraint Analysis").
HR&A concluded that this ordinance would not constitute a constraint. More specifically,
HR&A concluded that this regulatory change would not add costs to a typical project that
are so substantial that it would render an otherwise feasible project to become infeasible
or lower residual land value by more than 15 percent. As part of this analysis, HR&A also
determined that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to
accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to
Government Code Section 65584. Adopting the proposed ordinance would not interfere
with the City's ability to fulfill the housing production target in the City's State-certified 2000-
2005 Housing Element update.
(h) Given the circumstances described above, the Zoning Ordinance requires review
and revision as it pertains to the calculation of rear yard setback and unit density for multi-
family development on parcels that have a rear alley.
(i) Pending the study and possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, it is
necessary, on an interim basis, to eliminate the rear alley from the calculation of unit
density and rear yard setback in multi-family districts,
f,i ~ {.;" 1 0
U) As described above, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare should the interim ordinance not be adopted and should
development inconsistent with the contemplated revisions to the developments standards
be allowed to occur. Approval of additional development inconsistent with the proposed
interim standards would result in a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
Therefore, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare require
that the proposed modifications be imposed on an interim basis.
SECTION 2 Interim Zoning.
(a) For purposes of determining the rear yards setback in the R 1 and OP-1 Districts
only, the rear yard shall be measured from the centerline of the rear alley. In the event no
rear alley exists, the rear yard shall be measured from the rear yard parcel line. In all other
districts, the rear yard shall be measured from the rear yard parcel line under all
circumstances.
(b) The number of dwelling units permitted on any parcel in a district which permits
multi-family dwellings shall be determined by dividing the area of the parcel by the
minimum number of square feet for each dwelling unit required in the district in which the
parcel is located.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be applicable to all Administrative Approval,
Zoning Conformance, Development Review, and Development Conformance applications
filed on or after October 14, 2003.
~.~~ vII
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect sixty days after its
effective date unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority vote, extends
this interim ordinance.
SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions ofthis Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
t,( !fit (i I.- 1 2
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption,
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~.~ OV13
ATTACHMENT B
Notice of Public Hearing
.'11i~ 0\...114
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
An Interim Ordinance Restricting Use of the Alley to Calculate Dwelling Unit Density and
Measure Rear Yard Setbacks in All Districts Except Single-Family Districts.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
City Wide
City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance to modify Parts 9.04.10.02.240 and
9.04.10.02.360 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code related to using one half of the alley to
calculate dwelling unit density and measure rear yard setbacks from the center of adjacent alleys in all
districts except R1 and OP1 (Single-Family) Districts.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, October 14, at 6:45 p.rn.
.OCATION City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to:
City Clerk
Re: Half Alley Ordinance
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Associate
Planner Bruce Leach at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail at bruce-Ieach@santa-monica.org. The Zoning
Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's web site at
www.santa-monica.o~Q.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informacion, favor de !lamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacion
al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
hare\cc\notices\03\HalfAlleyOrd
015
ATTACHMENT C
Correspondence
1R
FROM LEE+MUNDWILER
FAX NO
3103947714
Mar. 05 2002 11:56AM P2
studio leEI + mundwller I m. arch.
3050 slirport ave. santa monica ca 90405
P 310.390.5412 f 310.390.5422 e leemundi@hotmail.com
To the Honorable City Council.
As property owners and architects of current projects in the A3 zone, we are opposed to
the r'equest of the planning Commission, to prohibit the use of half of the rear alley for
measuring the setback, for the following reasons:
1 Arcadia Terrace & Seaview Terrace are walk streets with a required. front yard set
back of 30' , having parcel dimensions of 90' . If the rear yard has 10 be measured
from the Property line at 15'. only 45' or 50 % of the lot depth is left to be build on.
This Is a unique situation and hardship for these walk street properties, and it does
not reflect the existing building fabric in this area, where most buildings are built at
the rear property line. and common front setbacks are 17'.
Staff does not seem to be aware of this situation also. since there are only about 15
properties In the city with the 30 feet front set back.
9.04.10.02.370 Front yard sotback on walklltrwl8.
The front yard setbld.: on Copeland Court, Madia
Terrace. and Sca'View 'IbmIce shall be 30 feet mcasun:d
from !:he center line of the walk way.
(Santa Monioa Muniolpal Code)
2, Measuring the rear yard setback from the property line creates a 15 feet long
driveway along these alleys, especially on narrow lots as on Vicente terrace. 15 feet
that will be used for nothing else than parking, not desirable for a residential
district.
0017
FROM : LEE+MUNDWILER
FAX NO. 3103947714
Mar. 05 2002 11:57AM P3
3 Properties with an existing building of historic significance can not be extended
towards the rear, if setbacks are measured from the Property line. Our remodeling
project at 9 Vicente Terrace, with a new garage towards the back yard would not
have been possible, and the demolition Of the house would have been inevitable.
We therefore respectfully recommend to the City Council to con$ider the following modifioa-
tic;>ns:
A.
The r~~r yard ~etbacks on Copeland Court. Arcadia terrace. ~nd Seaview
Terrace shall be measured from the Center line of the alley.
Note:
Prohibiting the use of the alley for density calculations can be separated from
the setback calculation method.
B.
For locations other than Copeland Court. Arcadia terrace. and Seaview
Terrace:
If property deoth is 100' or less. measure rear yard setback from center line of
~lIey. if pr90erty depth is more than 100'. measure irom the property line.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Cara Lee
26 Arcadia Terrace. Santa Monica. CA 90401
Office 3050 Airport Avenue. Santa Monica, CA 90405
.~"" tl\J18
FROM LEE+MUNDWI LER
CAX NO. 3103947714
Mar, 05 2002 11:S7AM P4
~r~dia terrace walk stt~t.
with 30' front setback. mesuring the rear yard- set back from the property line leaves only
50% of the property to be built on.
I)vi9
ATTACHMENT D
Housing Constraint Analysis
~20
HR&A
HAMILTON, RAIHNOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC,
Polity, Financial & Management Consultants
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SU7..:anne Frick, Director
Planning and Community Deve,lopment Department
~;f Santn Monic.
Housing Ass.essment of a Proposed Revision
to Using Rear Calculating Minimum
Rear Yards and Maximum Density
Residential Districts
MEMORANDUM FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
October 2, 2003
rl1emorandum presents analysis of whether a proposed change to the method by
which the calculation of the minimum rear~yard setba.ck and maximum dwelling density the
Multiple Resi.dentiaI Districts the City of Santa Moni.ca woul.d operate as a "potential
or actual governmental constraint" on the producti.ol1 of new hous.ing within the meaning of
California Housing Element law. More specifically, the proposed changes would measure the
required I5-foot rear yard setback from the rear property line, rather than from the center of an
adjacent rear alley, and count only the property area, and not half the adjacent rear alley area,
when calculating the maximum allowable number of units.
Following a summary of our findings and conclusions, Section II of the memo presents the
definition of a potential or actual "governmental constraint" used in this analysis. Section III
summarizes the proposal and presents our analysis of whether it could inhibit new housing
construction. The last section presents our conclusion about whether the proposal would
constitute a "governmental constraint," and whether any such constraint would interfere with the
City's ability to produce its assigned fair share of regional housing need.
This assessment was prepared by Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. (HR&A) at the
request of the Planning and Community Development (P&CD) Department. It is the latest in a
series of related housing production "constraint" assessments thatHR&A has prepared on City
programs, policies and regulations during the past seven years. Our previous work includes
6033 WEST CENTURY BOULEVARD, SUITE 890, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045. TEL: 310.645.9000 . FAX: 310.645.8999
Los ANGELES
WASHINGTON, D.C.
NEW YORK
H~ 0-21
"Constraint "
R(~ar Yard and Calcu{eltioll
in the Multiple Residential
analyses prepared
investigallon
and
S t.ate..ccrtifled
financial
Devel()pment Review Penuit threshold multi Mfhmily
would as a cOl1strainL] The i:lssessmel1t presented
body l.L<;;il1g the "cclIlstraint" definItic)I1 I.U the
Update.
I. OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
A. The Change in Regulation
On March 5, 2002, the City Council directed the City's Planning and Community
Development (P&CD) Department to analyze the effects of changing the method specified in the
City' s Compreh~sive LandUse and Zonipg Ordinance4 b:Yvvhich the rear :yard and maximum
dwelling unit density in the City:' s Multiple Residential Districts are calculated. the Council's
I City of Santa Monica, J 998-2003 Housing Element Update, adopted by the City Council on April 21,
1998 and certified as consistent with State law by the California Department of Housing and Conununity
Development on December 9, 1998. (Hereinafter referred to as "1998-2003 Housing Element Update"). Potential
governmental constraints are discussed in Section llIB (pp. m-8 through mA2), based on the HR.&A memoranda
included in the Technical Appendix. The programs analyzed include the removal permits required by the City's
Rent Control Law, the Rent Control Board's procedures for implementing the Ellis Act, the Conditional Use Permit
previously required for new condominium projects, re-zoning initiatives in four multi-family districts, a previous
inc1usionary housing program, and the zoning regulations applicable to the R2 Low-Density Multi-Family District
relative to the State density bonus law.
2 City of Santa Monica, 2000-2005 Housing Element Update, adopted by the City Council on December
11, 200 1 and certified as consistent with State law by the California Dep~ent of Housing and Conununity
Development on March 21, 2002. (Hereinafter referred to as "2000-2005 Housing Element Update"). Potential
governmental constraints are discussed in Sections nrn and mc (pp. m-8 through m-32), based on an HR.&A
memorandum inclllded in Technical Appendix #2. The aq.gitional programs analyzed inc111de develQpment
moratoria in theCity'smulti~family Districts, chan~es in multi-family Oistrict development standards, a
constmctiotl rate progrll1ll ~11 to the Lllm:.in:~rk sCllle
thresholds for Development Review Permits (Ordinance a m::w
condDm~n~ilm den; al
wi th Production
rev j eW5 when proj cct~
,mJ of the AHPP
3 Memorandu:tn from Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler to Suzanne Frick, City Planning Director,
September 17, 2002.
4 Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 9.04, et seq. ("Zoning Ordinance").
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 2
10/2/2003
l~ l\'i \J ~ 2 2
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
direction followed expressions of concern from the Planning Commission about the mass and
density of multi-family developments on lots adjacent to rear alleys under current regulations.
ifica he proposed changes wou require measuring the minimum 15-foot required
ck the rear property line, ra an from the center of an adjacent , and count
only the actual property area in the maximum allowable density calculation, rather than also
counting halfthe alley width adjacent to the rear of the property. For those properties with an
adjacent alley, this change would increase the rear yard area where no building would be
permitted. fu some cases, the changes could also reduce the allowable number of dwelling units
by one unit, due to a collateral effect on related regulations for rounding the maximum permitted
dwelling unit calculation.
The degree of itnpact to any inclividual.alley-adjacent lot depends. on the specific zoning
district in which it is located and its larid area. According to analysis prepared by P&CD
Department staff, the .proposed . changes c:;ould affect, to one degree or another, about 1,303 multi-
faniily lots in the City; These 1,303 potentially affected lots representnjn.e percent of all multi-
family lots in the City, and somewhat more than one-quarter (29%) of multi-family lots that have
a rear alley. Most multiple residential lots with alleys would not be affected because they have
been built on relatively recently and at a scale that isunlilq::ly to be redeveloped, aCC:;9rding to the
analysis method utilized in the City's 2000-2005 Housing Element Update to identify sites that
are suitable for new housing development.
The highest concentration of potentially affected lots are the 883 alley-adjacent lots in the
R2 Low-Density Multiple Residential District. Ofthese, 574 (65%) are standard size lots (i.e.,
5,000- 7 ,500 square feet), most of which are 7,500 square feet. These standard size lU lots would
lose about 280 square feet of floor area due to the proposed change in the rear yard setback
calculation, but the maximum number of allowable units would remain unchanged at five units.
P&CD Department staff also estimate that about 385 units of development potential could be
foregone as a result of the proposed changes, but no more than one unit per lot, on a variety of
mostly substandard size and large lots spread across seven different zoning districts. The
analysis reported here focuses on standard-size lU lots, which are numerically the most likely to
be affected by the proposed regulatory changes, and therefore represent the most typical case.
B. The "Constraint" Definition
fu preparing Flousing Elements, State law requires local jurisdictions to assess, among a
number of factors, c:;onstraints imposea by local govemroent on the maintenance, improvement or
development of housing of all kinds. They must also consider removing any such constraints that
interfere with the ability to produce their assigned fair share of regional housing. The analysis
required by the Housing Element statute requires, therefore, a two-part inquiry. First, a local
jurisdiction must assess whether any of its programs, policies or regulations operate as a
"constraint." Second, it must assess whether any such constraint interferes with its ability to
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INc.
Page 3
10/2/2003
tH~ Ul..23
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
produce its assigned "fair share" of regional housing need, expressed in terms of number of units,
and units distributed across four household income categories. If it does, the jurisdiction must
consider amending or removing it.
Ast~the first part of the inquiry, andconsi~tent with itsiState-certified 2000-2005
Housing Element Update, a City initiative is considered a "governmental constraint" if, as a
result of its procedures and/or substantive requirements, it adds a scale of extra cost or time that
significantly and adversely affects the financial feasibility of typical new housing projects, such
that well-informed and experienced developers could be expected not to proceed with a typical
housing development in the area of the City affected by the initiative. From this perspective, if it
is financially feasible to develop a multi-family residential project that complies with the
proposed rear yard calculation change, the proppsedregulatory chaIlge would not constitute an
"actual local govemrnental constraint" within the meaning of State law.
Under the second Ptong of the constraint analysis, any initiative that is found to constitute
a constraint must be assessed to determine whether it would interfere with the City's ability to
produce its assigned fair share housing objective. In making this "interference" determination
the gpvernmental constraint must.be compared with the number of housing units that would be
produced in other ways, or in other areas of the City, relative to the fair share objective. This
determination may consider, therefore, the degree to which a constraint that oPerates in one part
ofthe City is offset by housing production elsewhere in the City. The City need not consider
removing a program, policy or regulation that may operate as a localized constraint, so long as it
can conclude reasonably (i.e., on the basis of substantial evidence), that citywide housing
production will still be sufficient to achieve its fair share of regional housing need, in terms of
both unit production and production by household income category.
c. Analysis Method
To address the first (i.e., feasibility) part of the constraint analysis, HR&A constructed
financial feasibility simulation models for prototypical condominium projects on a standard size
lot in the R2 District, in both a higher-cost area ofthe City (e.g., zip code 90403 north of
Wilshire Boulevard) and a somewhat lower-cost area (i.e., zip code 90404, which covers the
central part ofthe City east of downtown). The models employ reasonable assumptions about
development costs and sale prices. Condominium projects were assumed because almost no new
market rate apartments are being proppsed in the City, other thaIlin the downtown area, due to
the higher profit margin available from cond.ominium d.eveloPl1lent and a substantial increase in
the value of existing apartments in traditional residential neighborhoods following full
implementation of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
The prototypical condo projects are assumed to include five market-rate units on a single
standard lot (i.e., 7,500 square feet) in the R2 District, and would be subject to all of the City's
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INc.
Page 4
1012/2003
N ., t. l, 2 4
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
existing zoning regulations, including maximum lot coverage, maximum building height,
minimum setback requirements, and minimum parking requirements. We also assumed that each
prototype pays the required in-lieu fee for affordable housing.5 The physical configuration of
each prototype is two-story, Type V (i.e., wood frame) construction over a subterranean parking
garage for 11 vehicles. Each prototype consists of five units arranged in a townhouse style (i.e.,
adjacent two-story units separated by a fire-rated common wall). The prototypes include second
story loft areas.
We then compared the financial feasibility of each prototype, measured in terms of "gross
margin," under the current rear yard regulation (i.e., measured from the alley centerline), with a
modified prototype using the proposed rear alley measurement change, or 280 .fewer square feet.
In both cases (i.e., higher-cost area and lower..cost area), the modified prototypes with the
proposed rear yard calculation change, like the base case prototypes using the current rear yard
calculation method, yielded gross margins that fall within a range that is generally acceptable to
the development community, and are therefore financially "feasible." We also tested the effect
of the proposed change on the "residual land value" (i.e., what a developer could afford to pay
for the land and still earn an acceptable profit on the prpject) for each prototype. We found that
the proposed change would reduce residual land by about seven percent in the higher-cost. area of
the City, and about eight percent in a lower-cost area.
D. Conclusions
Consistent with all ofHR&A's previous "constraint" analyses, a change in City zoning
regulation or other planning initiative that does not cause a typical residential project to become
financially infeasible, nor lowers its residual land value by more than 15 percent, is not a
"constraint." We conclude from the analysis that the proposed rear yard calculation change
would not cause a typical market rate condominium. project on a standard size lot in the R2
District to become financially infeasible, and it will not cause the residual land value to decline
by more than 15 percent below the current market price of land. Therefore, the proposed changes
to the rear.yard and density calculation method would not operate as a constraint in terms of
financial feasibIlity for such projects. This conclusion was confirmed in telephone interviews
with five architects and developers who have worked on recent condominium projects proposed
in the City. They indicated that, while the changes would affect the project design to one degree
or another, they would not cause the projects to be canceled because of feasibilityconcem.$.
Even though the foregoing feasibility finding means that it is unneces$3rY to analyze the
second prong of the constraint analysis (Le., whether a constraint would interfere with the City's
ability to achieve its "fair share" of regional housing need between 1998 and 2005), City decision
makers and the public may be interested in knowing about the relationship between the proposal
5 SMMC Chapter 9.56, connnencing with S 9.56.010.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 5
10/2/2003
u2' t:;:
fr~ W lJ
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
and the City's 2,208-unit Housing Element production target. There are a total of3,382 multi-
family units applied for since January 1, 1998 that are currently pending City planning approvals
(531), have received all required planning approvals (597), building permits (1,092) and
certificates of occupancy (1,162). After deducting an allowance for units that may have permits
expire, or may be withdrawn prior to building pennit (255), it can be concluded that the City is
very likely to exceed its fair share objective by 919 units (142%). Thus, regardless of any effect
that the proposed regulatory changes may have on future residential projects in the Multiple
Residential Districts, adopting the proposed changes will not interfere with the City's ability to
fulfill the housing production target in its State-certified 2000-2005 Housing Element Update.
II. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF A "GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINT"
In preparing Housing Elements, State law requires local jUrisdictions to assess, among a
number off actors, any constraints imposed..by local government on th~. .maintenance,
improvement or development of housing of all kinds, and to consider removing any such
constraints that impede ajurisdiction from achieving its fair share of regional housing need.
Specifically, a Housing Element must include:
"An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon
the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required
of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The
analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove
governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its
share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section
65584.6
In formulating a five-year housing strategy, jurisdictions are required to, among other things,
consider removing any such constraints. 7
6 (Govt. Code S 65583(a)(4)) See also, State DepartmentofHousing and Community Development,
"Housing r:temeIlt Questions anqAnswers," 1une, 1988, at PI>. lQ..12 and September 2000, at pp. 21-22. This
Govermtlent Code section was tlte basis for tlte "constraints" defmition in a settlement agreement between the City
and Santa MotUcaHousing Coun<.:il concerning the ad~qWilcy of a Pl"eviousCity HousiI1.g Element, and in the City's
1998-2003 Housing Element Update, which was certified by HCD (1998-2003 HQ1.l$ing Element Update, at p. III-
8). The conclusions in this memo would be equally valid under this defitiition of governmental constraint.
7 See Govt. Code S 65583( c )(3) ("Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of hoUSing.").
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 6
10/2/2003
~ 26
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
The governmental constraints analysis required by the Housing Element statute requires,
therefore, a two-part inquiry. First, a local jurisdiction must assess whether any of its regulations
or policies operate as constraints. And second, it must assess whether any such constraints would
interfere with its ability to produce its assigned "fair share" of regional housing need, expressed
in terms of number of units, and units distributed across four household income categories. If it
does, the jurisdiction must consider removing it.
A. Operational Definition of "Constraint"
Completing the first part of the constraints analysis clearly requires an objective standard
for dete11Uining whether a regulation or policy constitutes a "potential or actual governmental
constraint." Santa Monica's State-certified 2000-2005 Housing Element Update relies on an
objective constraints definition related to economic feasibility that was initially developed for its
certified 1998-2003 Housing Element Update. To wit:
Operationally, a City program, regulation or procedure constitutes an "actual
governmental constraint" if complying with it is so expensive, in time andlor cash outlay, that the
resulting increase in development cost makes typica.lnew residential development projects
financially infeasible.
All housing development projects and housing developers are not, of course, equal, and
therefore it is not possible to establish a bright-line threshold for "financially infeasibility" that
will apply in every case. Property owners and developers have varying degrees of experience,
resources, ability to raise capital, skills and tolerances for navigating through the local land use
approval process, and degrees of motivation to seek an alternative use of their rent-controlled
properties. The minimum acceptable financial returns that property owners and developers
expect from a residential project in order to proceed with a new construction project, or to
continue owning or managing an existing building, also vary. Further, the minimum acceptable
return may vary by project size, location, and product type (e.g., condominiums versus
apartments).
Indicators of having crossed the fmancial feasibility line include costs which translate into
a significant reduction in land value (to the extent that development costs are reflected in the
price of land); costs which imply unusually high equity contributions; costs which cause the rate
of return from the development project to fall below levels achievable from other risk~adjusted
useS of capital; procedures or requirements that make a project unmarketable; ora substantial
decline in new applications for projects of the type subject to the program, poli<;y or regulation,
which decline is attributa.ble solely to the new program, policy or regulation. All of these
changes must also be considered relative to the norm in the competitive development market,
such that a reasonably well-informed and experienced property owner or developer with a typical
project would elect not to pursue the project.
Page 7
10/2/2003
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALsCHULER, 1Ne.
..."
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density CalCulation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
It should be noted that under this defInition of an actual governmental constraint, it is
possible that a City initiative could add procedural or substantive costs to a project, but the mere
fact of added cost is not itself a "constraint." Such costs constitute a constraint only when the
scale of the additional costs cause well-informed and experienced developers not to proceed with
otherwise fInancially viable, typical housing developments.
B. Constraints That Interfere With "Fair Share" Achievement
SCAG has determined,8 and the State has approved,9 a target of 2,208 housing units over
the 1998..2005 Housing Element planning period as Santa Monica' s "fair share" of regional
housing need, or about 294 units per year, and a correspondilJ,g distribution of these units by four
household income categories. This represents a 43 percent increa.~e above the "quantifIed
objective" of 1,542 units for the 1998-2003 planning period, as contained in its previous State-
certified Housing Element Update.
As noted above, the second prong of the "constraints" inquiry requires an assessment of
whether any City program, policy or regulation determined to be a constraint would prevent the
City from producing its fair share of regional housing need, in terms of either housing unit
production or production by income category. This assessment requires comparing probable
City housing production over the period January 1, 1998 through June 30,2005 (i.e., the period
corresponding to the RHNA) with the City's assigned share of production over the same period,
including production by income category, as determined by City-issued permits (e.g., certifIcates
of occupancy, building permits and discretionary planning approvals) and applications for new
projects.
The City must consider removing any actual governmental constraint, as determined from
part one of the constraints inquiry, that would interfere with achieving its fair share objective.
In making this "interference" determination the governmental constraint must be compared with
the number of housing units that would be produced in other ways, or in other areas of the City,
relative to the fair share objective. This determination may consider, therefore, the degree to
which a constraint that operates in one part of the City is offset by housing production elsewhere
in the City. The City need not consider removing a program, policy or regulation that may
operate as a localized constraint, so long as it can conclude reasonably (i.e., on the basis of
8 The fma11999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) was approved by SCAG's Regional
Council on November 2, 2000.
9 Letter from Cathy E. Creswell, HCD Acting Deputy Director, to Hon. Ron Bates, SCAG President, dated
December 13,2000. The letter concludes that some, but not all, of the jurisdiction-specific "fair share" allocations
approved by SCAG are consistent with statewide housing need. Santa Monica's allocation of 2,208 units for the
1998-2005 planning period was among those specifically approved by HCD for use in preparing a 2000-2005
Housing Element update.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 8
10/2/2003
., l)\..?R
"Constra~nt" AS$(3ssment of Proposed Alley-R~Lated
Rear Yard and Density CalcuLation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
substantial evidence), that citywide housing production will still be sufficient to achieve its fair
shateof regional housing need, in terms of both unit productionatldproduction by household
income category.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY CHANGE
A. The Proposed Regulatory Changes
The City's Zoning Ordinance currently requires that reside~tial projects ill various
Multiple Resi!ential Districts .provideia15- foot rear yard ( or setback). 10 TheZoningOr~inance
further provides that when a lot abuts a rear alley, the 15- foot rear yard may be measured from
the center of the alley, rather than the rear property line.ll The minimum rear yard dimension has
beenin effect for nearly three decades.12 Using half the wi9th ofan adjacent rear alley for rear
yard measurement purposes has an even longer history in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 13
The Zo.nillg Ordinance also requires that the maximul11 allowable number of units perlot
is to be calculated on the basis ofthelot area and tl:l.~ district-specific squareJeet ollot area per
unit. But in all multiple residential districts, when a lot abuts a rear alley, ha.lfthe area of the
adjacent alley may be included as "lot area" in the density calculation. 14 This provision also has a
long history.15 Under a related provision of the Zoning Ordillance, any maximum permitted
density calculation, including half the adjacent alley area where applicable, that results in a
fractional unit of 0.5 or more is rounded up to the next whole unit.16 No change to this rounding
rule is proposed at this time.
10 R2 (SMMC g 9.04.08.06.060(f)), R3 (SMMC g 9.04.08.08.060(f), R4 (SMMC g 9.04.08.1O.060(f)),
OP-Duplex (SMMC g 9.04.08.48.060(f)), OP-2 (SMMC g 9.04.08.50.060(f)), OP-3 (SMMC g 9.04.08.52.060(f)),
OP-4 (SMMC g 9.04.08.54.060(f)), R2B (SMMC g 9.04.08.62.060(e)), and R3R (SMMC g 9.04.08.64.060(g)).
I SMMC g 9.04.10.02.230.
12 Ordinance 1016 (CCS) adopted October 14, 1975,
13 Ordinance 491 (CCS) adopted February 23, 1960.
14 SMMC g 9.04.10.02.240.
15 Ordinance 491 (CCS) adopted February 23,1960.
16 SMMC g 9.04.02.050.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 9
10/2/2003
L29
"COrlS(l"eJ i71 t "
Rear }'t2r(1
the
pmpelties rea.r yards and allo'l,vabIe density
they abut :a rear Council's acti()O
Cmnmissiml and density
prepared by P&CD Department
residentia.1
arepotclltia]Jy affected by proposed reguhltOl')' which
and 29 percent of tl.'lat abut a rear alley.
rear would not because they were developed
that is unlikely to be redevelQpedt according analysis approach
2005 Hou.sing Updat'e that nded out tor new
2005.17 The data cmnpJied by
potentially affected nluItiple: are
than ] 0 are substandard in and
large individual lots, or combined lots, as in Tabl,e I. i\.illotlg
(883) ofthe potentially affected are LO\v-Density Residential
most (65%) ofwmch are of standard size, particularly 7,500 square feet in area. Thus, a 7,500
square foot lot in the R2 District represents the most typical case that is likely to be affected by
the proposed changes.
17 2000-2005 Housing Element Update, Chapter N, Section B(2).
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHl
Page 10
10/2/2003
Liill\) OL 3 0
in A11~ltiple
:::: ::
Table 1
Distribution of Multiple Resld~ntial Lots Pobirdially Affected
b~ the P!~lJosed R'()ar Alley~R~tated Regulatory Changes
Standard
Size lot,>
5,OOIJ.
7,5{]{1 s.f.
Total
it
%
R4 0 2 :3 5
R:3,.NW 0 33 7 40
R3A.NW 0 1 0 1
R3A OJ 3 0 3
1R3 21 100 10 131
R2.-NW 1 153 6 160
R:2A~NW 0 1 0 1
R:2A 0 1 1 2
R2 25 574 284 883
OP4 5 0 0 5
OP3 1 4 0 5
OP2 27 40 0 67
---""",,,"',,,"""'"
TOTALS
Number 80 912 311 1,303
Percent 6% 70% 24% 100%
3.1%
5.1%
Source: S. M. Planninp & Community Development Dept.; HR&A. Inc.
100%
According to further anallysis by P &CD Department staff, the proposed change to the
method by which the rear yard is calculated when a lot has a rear alley would reduce maximum
allowable floor area per project to one degree or another, depending on the lot's zoning district
and land area. The largest conclentration of lots potentially affected by the change is, again, 7,500
square foot R2 lots, which could lose 280 square feet of floor area each. Table 2 shows the range
of possible effects ofthe proposed rear yard calculation change for various lot sizes by zoning
districts, as estimated by P&CD Department staff.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 11
10/2/2003
iHlJ (; \ii 3 1
'Constraint" Assessment of Proposed All~-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
Table 2
Scale of Potential Floor Area Loss for Alley-Adjacent Lots
in Multiple Family Districts, by Illustrative Lot Sizes
(in sauare feet)
Lot Sizes
Zoning Districts
The proposed change to the density calculation (i.e., eliminating consideration of any
adjacent alley area) limits the calculation to the area of the lot and the maximum lot area per unit
specific to each zoning district. This hl!l.S the effect of reducing the area used in the density
calculation by 500 square ff:et for a standard 50 foot x 150 footlot with a 20-foot wide rear alley.
When this change is combined with the Zoning Ordinance's calculation rule for rounding the
permitted density calculation to the nearest whole unit when the calculation produces a fractional
unit of 0.5 or more, the result could be a reduction of one unit per lot on certain lots. P&CD
~epartment staff estimate that such a one-unit reduction could occur on 385 lots in various multi-
family zoning districts. Table 3 shows the distribution ofthese lots based on the staffs analysis.
In this case, the largest concentration of potentially lost units would be among larger-than-
average lots (i.e., greater than 7,500 square feet), which account for just over half (52%) the total.
Standard-size lots (i.e., 5,000-7,500 square feet) account for somewhat more than one-third
(39.5%) of the total, and the balance would occur on substandard-size lots (i.e., less than 5,000
square feet).
50'x 50'x 40' x 40'x 25'x
150' 100' 150' 100' 100'
Inll w-
R4 -860 -860 -560 -610 NA
R3 -510 -760 -400 -450 NA
R28 NA NA -240 -290 -480
R2 -280 -620 NA NA -320
OP1 NA NA NA NA -320
OP2 NA NA NA NA -320
Source: S. M. Planning & Community Development Oept.; HR&A, Inc.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, 1Ne.
Page 12
10/2/2003
0\.32
"Constratnt" Assessme~t of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
Table 3
Distribution of Multiple Residential Lots With Potential Loss of One Unit
Due to the ProDosedRear Alley-Related ReQylatory Changes
Zoning Districts Substl:uiaard Standard Large Total
Size Lots Size Lots Lots
<5,000 sJ. 5,000- >7,500 s.f. # %
7,500 s.f.
,
R4 0 0 3 3 0.8%
R3-NW 0 2 6 8 2.1%
R3A-NW 0 0 0 0 0.0%
R3A 0 0 0 0 0.0%
R3 2 7 4 13 3.4%
R2-NW 1 2 6 9 2.3%
R2A-NW 0 0 0 0 0.0%
R2A 0 0 0 0 0.0%
R2 3 133 183 319 82.9%
OP4 0 0 0 0 0.0%
OP3 0 3 0 3 0.8%
OP2 25 5 0 30 7.8%
TOTALS
Number 31 152 202 385 100%
Percent 8% 40% 52% 100%
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; HR&A, Inc.
Figure 1 illustrates the effect ofthe proposed changes to the most typical case: a 7,500
square foot lot in the R2 Low-Density Multiple Residential District, on which a five-unit
apartment or condominium project could be constructed. Eliminating the alley area from the
density calculation would still permit a five unit project,18 but measuring the rear yard from the
rear property line, rather than from the center of an adjacent rear alley would reduce the
allowable second floor area.19 The analysis indicates that, assuming a developer would push the
project's building envelope to the allowable limits established by Zoning Ordinance, the
proposed change in the rear yard calculation method would increase the rear yard area in which
the principal building could not be constructed, and reduces the second floor area of the building
by 280 gross square feet (-3.9%), or a reduction of 56 square feet per unit for a typical five-unit
project.
18 (50 x 150 lot) + (10 x 50 half-alley) = 8,000 s.f.; 8,000 s.f.I1,500/unit = 5.3 units, rounded down to 5
units, under current regulations. (50 x 150) = 7,500 s.f.; 7,500 s.f. /1,500 s.f./unit = 5.0 units, under the proposed
regulation.
19 The fIrst floor area in both cases is limited by the maximum 50% lot coverage, or 3,750 s.f., in the R2
District. SMMC ~ 9.04.08.06.060(c).
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALsCHULER, INC.
Page 13
10/2/2003
...~ 1<.-33
AS'se s S'ment
Rf!ar Yard and Density
in the Multiple Residential Districts
Figure 1
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM BUILDABLE AREA
The follow! show the reduction in buildable area when a building's rear
setback is om the property line compared to the center of the alley on a
typical 50' wide by 150' lot in the R2 District.
3.220 sf 15'
I
~
.3.750 sf ut I
t.1j,dL~C~ sttbaG~ ~trDli\.t,jlrup~l'ttllltil.l
3.500 sf
at.. !!~
~{!J/f/!;;~f!1/;1!~~~
l~
1(C I
"3.750 sf
?.O....,.
+0
1c!
Oc
\1..>-
r
'8o;.(.,~lolL~ .setbacR. 1.S' fr"o~ c.e~tr' ~ QUel1
.L~...~te" to :>.7':>0 r."~!1 !JO"f. ...~,,~,.......... Lt,r eoverlJ~t.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept., City of Santa Monica
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALscffilLER, INc.
Page 14
10/2/2003
tlilill 0034
"Constraint" Asse:ssrm"mt of Proposed A lle"y~R)elated
Rear and
in the lvfultiple Residential
While there may be other issues about the merits ofthe proposed regulatory changes,
including more limited design flexibility and the use to which the resulting larger rear yard area
can and might be . alysis focuses on whether the changes cause the most typical project
subject to them to b financially ble.
B. IIR&A's Financial Feasibility Analysis
In order to asseSs the financial feasibility effects of the proposed regu.latory changes, we
first defined the physical parameters for two prototypical projects that characterize the most
typical f\:lturedevelopment that would be subject to the proposed changes. Asl1.oted above, the
most typical case is a five-unit condominium project in theR.2 Low~Density Multiple ReSidential
District
We then constructed a model to simulate the fi.nancia.l performance of these prototypes in
tenus of their development costs and proceeds to the developer once all completed units are sold
at market prices. As discussed in more detail below, we developed two "base case" prototypes
using the current regulations (i.e., the proposed regulator)' One version is
assumed to be located in the northern an~ao.f the City code 9(403) land
condominium prices tend to be higher average, assumed to a
lower-cost area of the City (e.g" zip code 90404). After calculating the margin,,20 measure
offinancial feasibility, and residual land value, for each of the base cases, we then reduced the
floor area in each base case by the amount implied by the proposed change in the rear yard
calculation method, and recalculated the gross margins and residual land values.
I '
1.
Physical Parameters ofthe Prototypical Projects
The prototypical development scenarios we modeled that would be subject to the
proposed changes are based on the following principal assumptions:
· R2 District. The prototypes are located in the R.2 Low-Density Multiple Family
Residential District, where most new multi-familyprojects in established residential
neighborhoods have betm proposed.
· One Lot Sites. The prototypes are assumed to be constructed on a single, standard-size
multi-family lot with a total area. of7,500 square feet, and adjacent to a rear alley of20
feet in width.
20 Gross margin is a typical fmancial feasibility measure used by developers of for-sale housing includjng
condominiums. It is equal to (gross sale revenue - cost of sales - total development cost)/gross sale revenues. In
our experience, a developer expects the gross margin to fall in the 15-20% range for a project to be considered
"feasible."
HAMIL TON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 15
10/2/2003
IoU. OL35
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
.
Maximum Development
Type V (i,e.) wood frame),
G f subten'unean
derived from
Ion area
second Uoor all
Ordinance definition,. we adjusted by
gross floor area, which used certain of the development Cost
calculations.
meet
2. The Financial Feasibility Simulation Models
The simulation models used in this an.a.lysis, as in aU previous H&~A analys~s of this
type, estimate development costs in detail, the gross and net revenue the developer would earn
aft~r completing each scenario, and "residual land value," or the amount the developer could
"afford" to pay for land in order to earn a minimum acceptable profit.
Among the more significant assumptions used in the modeling are the following:
· Development Costs. Each development cost line item is based on H&&A's experience,
previously modeling work and a review of secondary sources. Land costs were
approximated from recent reported sales of underdeveloped R2 sites in the 90403 and
90404 zip codes (i.e., with single-family homes). The assumed land value for the higher-
cost area of the City is $140 per square footofland area, and $90 per square foot for the
lower-cost area. The. analysis includes a number of other assumptioris.associated with
land acquisition costs, construction costs, professional fees and other "soft" costs, and
financing costs.
· Condominium Sale Prices. Median sale prices were derived from analysis of closed and
verified condominium sales within the past two years, in buildings constructed since
1997. The assumed sale price for the higher-cost part of the City is $461 per square foot,
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INc.
Page 16
10/2/2003
~Wt> Ol36
"Constraint" Assessmem nfProposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard mitt Calculation C}umges
ill the Multiple Reside/iLial Districts
or $751,430 per
fool; Qr $586,800 per
tbe lower-c,ost area ,of the City, we assumed
per sq uare
Laud Value Calculations, As
the land val ue
expect to earn on sale of pwjecl, after subtracting aU costs
and totaJ land. In this case, land value is
the value from selling an sale commissions and
developmetH cOS1 without and less devel.oper profit equal
net pmcecds,21 For base case we for
case lall d val ue for the to
floor
C. Model Results
As summarized in Tablt the area base C<lse is c0I11!hrtably feasi.ble; even
with very expensive land, which ]s due to currently high sale prices.
area base case, with and a.l.ower achievable
feasible. T11c 280 gross square feet about S6 square per unit in
prototype) reduces the gross rnargin.frOlu both base cases somewhat, but the results fall wIthin an
acceptable range. Similarly, the in floor area causes a reduction residual land value
as compared with the base cases. It should be noted that even these relatively minor financial
feasibility impacts resulting from the propose:d rear yard calculation change could be reduced
somewhat ifthelarger rear yard area were to be used for parking up to four vehicles, and the
subterranean parking structure were reduced in scale accordingly.
21 The developer profit is sometimes based on gross sale value, in which case the percentage is typically in
the 10-12% range.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHl
Page 17
10/2/2003
~~l; 0037
"Constraint" A.ssessme1'l.tof Proposed AHey-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation ChangeS
in the Multiple Residential Districts
Table 4
Summary of Feasibility Model Results for Two Prototypical Condominium Projects
,Q~foreand ~!tEtr the Pr()PosedChan{:Je to th4~R~"lr Y!:,r~ Calculiltion Method
Higher-Cost Area
Lower-Cost Area
Base Case
No Hal'.Alley
Change
Half Alley
Change
Base Case
No Hair-Alley
Change
# Units
Gross Floor Area
N at Floor Area
8.558
8,150
1,074
Net Floor ArealUtilt
1 ,G30
$751..'l30
$2,755,451
$551,090
$3,757,150
$3,531,721
Averag0 PricelUnit
Total Development Cost
Cost Per Unit
Gross Sale Proceeds
Net Sales Proceeds
5
5
5
8,558
8,150
5
8,2E34
7,870
6,264
7,1370
1,574
$1'25,6:14
$2,711,686
$542,337
$3,628,070
$3,410,386
1,630
$586,GO{l
$566,640
$2,934,000
$2,757,960
$2,8~3,200
$2,663,208
Gross Margin
20.7%
15.8%
19.3%
17.2%
$1,050,000
$1,017,2S2
-4.7%
$675,000
$628,857
-6.8%
Source: HR&A, Inc.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A. The Feasibility Test
Consistent with all ofHR&A's previous "constraint" analyses, a change in City zoning
regulations or other related initiative that does not cause a typical residential project to become
financially infeasible, nor lowers its residual land value by more than 15 percent, is not a
constraint. We conclude from the for~going analysis that the proposed rear yard calculation
change would not cause a typical market ratecondo'l'l1inium project in the R2 District to become
fuiancially infeasible, because the resulting gross margins for the typical cases remain within the
15.20 percent range that defines a project as "t~asible." Further, although the proposed changes
result in a 4.7 to 6.8 percent reduction in residual land value, this isless than the maximum
reduction (i.e., to -15%) below the cutrent market price ofland that we have used as an
additional feasibility indicator. Therefore, the proposed change to the rear yard calculation
method would not operate as a "constraint" for standard-size lots in the R2 District, the most
typical case.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, 1Nc.
Page 18
10/2/2003
1.138
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Drlnsity Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
This finding of no material impact on project feasibility with the proposed changes in rear
yard calculation methods for projects on standard size lots in the R2 District is supported by
interviews with five developers andar 'tects with recent experience 'ng on condominium
projects in the City's iple resid 1 districts (see Appendix D). ese experienced
professionals indicat hat, although the proposed changes might cause them to modifY the
design oftheir projects somewhat, it would not cause them to cancel a project on a standard size
lot.
Although they are not the "typical" case used for Housing Element constraints analysis,
the feasibility impacts on some substandard-size lots and larger-than-average lots could be
different, of the combined eflbcts One less (due to the proposed
change), a loss offloor are:a resulting lirom the rear yard calculation
change. a unit were lost due to
remainiIlg units allowed might be developed larger floor areas and sold a
unit. There could also be some develQ:pment cost savings for the smaller project due to less total
floor area constructed and fewer required parking spaces. The combination of these adjustments
could reduce any adverse impact on project feasibility for the relatively small number (i.e., 385)
of atypical lots potentially affected by the density-related change;
B. The Impact on "Fair Share" Production Test
Even though the foregoing analysis concludes that it is unnecessary to analyze the
proposed change's impact on the second prong of the constraints analysis (i.e., whether a
constraint would interfere with the City's ability to achieve its "fair share" of regional housing
need between 1998 and 2005), City decision makers and the public may be interested in knowing
about the relationship between the proposal and the 2,208-unit production target.
According to City records, between January 1, 1998 and September 30,2003, a total of
1,162 units have been completed in the City, which represents over half (53 %) of the regional
planning target in the City's adopted 2000-2005 Housing Element. Of these, 483 units (43%) are
located in multiple residential Districts, mostly the R2 and R2-NW Districts (306 units), and the
balance are located in commercial Districts.
Another 1,092 units have received building permits. About one-qua.tter(282, or 26%) is
located in multiple residential Di~tricts, including 83 units in the R2 and~-NW Districts.
About three-quart~ts(81O, or 74%) are located in commercial Districts. Thus, as of this date,
2,254 units have been completed or are likelY-to be completed well before July 1, 2005. This
production total equals 102 percent of the City's fair share objective.
Another 592 units have received all required City approvals and await their building
permits. This includes 105 units (18%) in multiple residential Districts and 492 (82%) units in
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INc.
Page 19
10/2/2003
WFJ 0\..39
"Constraint" Assessment (~rPtopo!ied AlleJi~Related
Rem' Yard and Calct~latio71 Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
commercial Districts.
and or
process.
based on new construction,
Table 2.2
m
Table 5
Multi~Family Housing Production in the Ci1y of Santa Monica,
Januiill} 1, 1998 ~ September 30, 2:003
-
Number 01 Units
Production Category
In
Commercial
Districts
In Multiple
Residential
Districts
Total
Units
Aema Ender I
I Exce.ss)
012005
Fair Share
Allocation
f2,208 unitsl
With Certificates of Occupancy
With Building Permits
With All Required Planning Approvals
Pending Planning Approvals
Subtotal
Less Allowance for Planning Approval
Withdrawals & Expirations 1
679
810
492
368
2,349
483
282
105
163
1,033
1,162
1,092
597
531
3,382
1,046
(
(1
(176)
(78)
~
Total
2,173
955
3,127
(919)
1 The number of units in projects whose planning approvals expired prior to construction, or were withdrawn
by the applicant since January 1, 1998, equals about 23 percent of all units in projects submitted for planning
approvals during that period. The proportion of expired and withdrawn units as a percent of pending projects
and projects with planning approvals in commercial Districts is 20.5%, and 29.3% in multiple residential
Districts.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; HR&A, Inc.
=
As noted in the 2000-2005 Housing Element Update, the City's fair share target number
of 2,208 units is not a number of net new units to be produced by 2005, but a combinationofJ.1ew
and replacement units. In fact, the City' s f~r shareJ.1umber consists of 94) replacc;,Illent units,
and 1,285 new units to account for future household growth and the number of vacant units
needed to provide price competition and cOnsumer choice, according to SCAG's calculation
approach. More than 150 replacement single~family homes have been completed since January
1, 1998, or are under construction. This is yet further evidence that the City can be reasonably
22 The data on which Table 5 are based are included here as Appendix F.
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INC.
Page 20
10/2/2003
tl# ~ I'lL, 4 0
.Ytu"d ami
the
volume
proposed
Element
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, INc.
Page 21
10/2/2003
WJ;j OLJ41
'Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX A
Financial Feasibility Simulation Model ResJ,llts
Base Case (No Half-Alley Change) - Higher Cost Area
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALsCHULER, INc.
Page 22
10/2/2003
l.li... 4 2
W ft
C)I-
Z()
<-
:I:~
()t;
Co
~
~~
~w
<:I:
wI-
~~
>-1- --
W() Gl
....IW al
....1'")< C
~OO ~
LI..~- 0
....I D. Z III >.
<:iO~Gl
:I:;:):i<~
ra!~Ui~
~~~~~
D.O(l)Qjo
OZLl...s:~.
g: 0 0 .!? Gl
()>-:I:II)
~!::!:: 8
I-Z() Gl
LI..;:) II)
0..0 III
....I a3
(1)<
G()
<ii:
D.~
~o
>-1-
1-0
:::i~
aiD.
c;;<
<z
~o
~~~~31
c:i ~~ a. '"
I'- >. 0
1-'<::
C
~
I-
I/)
c
o
..
E
'"
I/)
~
o
.;:
Cll
c
Gl
'"
IIJ
U) ~
e- u
~~ ~
.~ Cll III '2
1ii~! 2
~~~ ~ ~f
'C~~Cl.5 ;:)~
;~l3'~[!!~:S:!::
U)(5(9~8~~5
IOv
o
.,;
C\I
s
o
I-
000'0
100010
......Il). ,....
MM aj
.....
'2
;:)
...
Gl
D.
0010
1001X)(')
..........,...~
....
Cll
e
~ ~
o <l:
i:i: (5
U 0
.1. u::
e Q)
D.Z
III
~
8 ... III
~u::.ge
...J_~<l:
~O....Q)LLO
8.2~=~~
u:u..u..gc
us -g -g ~ .~ ~
....C\IC\1"'lj::e
CJ)wCl
IX)
10
I{)
aj
C\I
r:;.
?f!.
g
..0
o
....
GlO
",I{)
Cll (')
a.
III
ii:
CJ)
....
....
o
u.l2
IIlM
~
I-
I/)
Gl
'"
Cll
a.c
IIJ III
o::n~
C III
~ ~
Ill-
D.-g
=ltCJ)
u::-
~
Cll C
Gl III
.( ~
~~
:;:s
...a
'" '"
D.CJ)
Gl
~~~N
Cll
'3
E
'"
CJ
~ c>> M 0>1
Gl
E
Gl
..
'"
.E
~~
Ii)
.c
C
o
S
Ii)
.<::
1:
o
S
.l!! 5
'E '5l
Gl m 'is.
.5 ll. E
~ ~ 8_,
CJ!!-"8c~_
GlE III a! 'C ,2 'E rn
a.e;~Q)oo:6
05.q)~2E5
Gia.Clo'lii~E
><l::;:=cg~
Gl ClCl U 0._ CD
C.E;.::i2Ui5.E
t)2~~.9~i=
,~.!!!oo1ii.o:s
..ll.UUCi<l:o
D.. I- I-
.c
III 1ii
~a!
'i:1O
D..N
gJli
ilia!
IIlN
ti '" ~
.sg~
~~~
I~f
~ !:!:.
O!S
J::I
'j;
o
c:
:0
~
r::
:i
e
~
~
cD
'"
<II
o
Q)
rn
<II
CD
~
j
J:
(')
'0
CD
Ol
III
ll.
CD
.~
a:
...
'2
;:)
u..
IIJ
"8
'i:
D..
....
'2
;:)
ii::
III
o
.E
~
0::
J:
in
CD
e
'"
o
CJ)
iI. li1 4 3
<(
u
w~
,~ ::;;
:{<e
;5~
ern
~u.,
:.. 0
~~
w()
1:1: W
ijj~ ~
...J Z g'
1;' ~
u.,() ()
:a! 94' = ~
:1:0.li:~
clf'Zi1
W:::;;Q;;;
:g::ou:c
:SZ~~
~~~i
~~ ~
1-0 ..
LLO en
O!:: &l
~~
!i.n
~~
_u
;:- i:L
t- >
db
!!II-
~~
'" <(
z
o
~~
::J...
s'"
l
~1!
~~
<t
"'~"'jO
~~"'9-
fo9fft~.....
f2l'lillJftl
c;')CfJ..... ...-
tt'i .....n
4'tWfB. ~
..
g
N
.5';
ib.sZ.
J::: en
:t..at
m:
...
o
~
'"
w
W
&L 0
5~
~
i
If
1!
~
.!!!J!:!.!!.!!
UU
'fi,,c.c.c
(I):;Igg
.,..,..,..,.
lHHHi
f
Q.
..
h
sa; ~
S a..D:: E
~ ~~ ~
f ~~ lie
en :ij::i~
.E a.. ~:CJiS
j 8 ~..~...if...~
a. '"
o
l
c
c
:>
iil
ell-
~
~
c(
31:
o ~
... S
<(
~
g~~~~Jg ~
g NN II) ~
N N
..,...,...,...,...,. ..,.
0000000#
oooco 0 OG:l
qU)Ul.~IO('!,C'tm
o 00 U)""'('f')
It) ......... N en
q q
w
~ j
o S
N ~
,5. ~
f!! 3
[!l 0
o
...
z
w
:E
a.
9
~
c
~
..
a.
ci
u..EU;iiiE~
~~88~ a;
:iill-x x ll'C
Z;5**5~
....J.............J5
x
..
"!
!
~
1
<>
1!
~
l
8
"
i
~ i i
Q) ~g 11n ~
=....:e!lg.8 ~
~!QtQ~ifti~ ~
~ !l.c.S e iil '~,,-
~i~~~8 coa~
~...Ja.....w u~l
g.t; ~ ...u;"'~.'. == t;:a. ....~ j.~
C")"f;,lOcr)f'!......C"4,.............. <"l.
..... .,'-..... . . Q)
tltWtlt..........folt.....fft ....
o "' 0 .., '" _ ~ '" "'.....0..1.~.
f6 Sf. :g :e..r; m(")i i :g ..li)
":~.N":tD uS .Cfi ~
'"
...fIt.......""'tR-......w......
CD CD CD-cDCDCl) CD
'5"5 "5'3'3'5"5
llll 111l1l1l1il
'5 '5 ii'5 ii "5 i3
VI en (1),..9'. (I) "" 0
ggSSSSSSSS
...
" !l
~ llQ.g~~
MgU) i>>(O
u..~! ~~~a:
~a;mg~ .!~~~;t~
E'il5l"8'" U!liiw.!!i..
l~ ~ ~ I ~tj ~ i ~j
co-'iiro c::JaO,..;~
~c:.J~~~~K;g~fw
5EtQ~~~~U)U)~ei
~U)~$:~u::a:~;8~u:J
000", OJ"'
COON om
qo.ctCO_,' <<to ..
NMt")N ~N~
to'tEltto'ttlt6ltU'J- ..,.
000"' oJ~'"
OOON O&DGQm
qqo.,"":' Co!. 'l;t.r--:
~ ~~ ~ ;1; ...!;::
_ N
tit..,...,."...,.. ..
IUL'"
UH/HJ)
E"O"O'C
:::J fij ffi:i
U)-I...J...J
~l!.!
3888
NNN
............
J!l
.....
en8
f~
~~
't~
8.~
~*
"'
8
i ~
~ ~
K If i
c: .s~.f Q
~ :$~~ifl i
~c u,>o.E~C: f!.
CI)~g'o3i~~ 'Ci
8~~!1~~~~~
~o o....Ocn ~l
80~ '"
000
ON (l') 10
~ C'J..,f
..tit. $
00 ~..']"'
g 8 iti;
ati'..:~ ~
"flit" ..,.
..
~ :g
~ .f
:> $ ~
:g~h~
tf~~,gj
!8~~~
o '"
"'9~
........ '"
'"t ......
!.... ~
...J..
"'j ......
W(O IO~
~ "":.,...;
.... "'N
'" ~
.... ....
... ...
~i1
w8
w",
d~
!~
",x
~~
~
j 1
j ~
".. ~
~~ !
~~ ~ lii
l::8c:: {2
8 gd1 'Ci
r;g ~ I g
~&l8.g~
III "'0:
:!l
,
"0
$~
.....
III
..
~
"
Q.
~
",'"
w
w
...
..
'"
t:
:E
'"
w
..
..J
g
...
m~&ig~~ggg~ iJ;i
OM"': "':"":"':Ofi'J-"': 05 tIS
....... ..-..... -co
........,...,... fIIIt.. fit....,. ..,. ..
f2;e~gg8g80~ ~ o:g!!
""_N_<D_qU1Ulqo_q~ N. ~ O.N
C"')U).....M.....r-..LOOU)(lO "It (Q "lit.......
10_ M_CO en (f)
'"
....,...,...,.6't....V'tw... ..
J!l ~
1;)1;)1;) 8 8
888ssssss'lSlJ;'l5
~~~~J;~~~~U) ~!?
""" Q.ll'll-ll'll'!!''' (; J!l
~~'e!~~3~3~;: ~
?fl.'$.# :z:...u)
.....N..... x)(
.. '"
... '"
w
"
cn~
" ..
~J _J1
~o;: ~j ~
~j :g~_:::J
e[l.t>> <<I8....c~ ~
~ iii.5 ~ CP. (,)
'>~~ em;.s c:
.. .g ~ "',s '" g> "
O::2~ ~o<<l- E:
~ Ui 11 ~ a; = ~~ ~ .t
,a.;:s jIO~'i'cr.X !!
u=" :i! a.~iiill" ..
:l=rll.!! !! j9 il-2'~ Cl
l i;;~ i)'c( c =;-~Q. ~ ~ i
-j-2~2:8.-lUmcli=C: ~
~ mca;~a5~If~g-c(& '0
.9 ctU .(I)~e-::J-a..c:iS_
j~.~~~ii~ ~8 ~ ~ ~ s ~
.tc(W::::Ec(...Jl-w..J<o< ~~
COOOCQ
0)00 m
COOeD ~
~N t.
..~... ..
00010..
~8~g~~~
mQfO:l. N
It)..,...
..WtllW
..
j
~EE
i~~
~!!
...
~
a.
Ol
...
]!
.. ..
0:: lB 1;;
pt <'5
:E8oll ~
-DO E::
1.5 c: 8-
...n j
U& a
~ ctl. '8 i
E g>m ~
n~lii~
j~~;;S"
1!jU:E'" ~~
!ii
.,;
...
...
~~~~~~~g~
It)~f')f') N N ~
.. .. tit.. .. .. ..
~~
~o
......
~
N
.......O"'~Oj......
~~~~~s ~:
ClO""ao"'~OO
NlD~.........."""
- '"
6It6l't.... _... fit
gi~USln
g ~8;;; 8 <'5 S
(II.::J '2 'E ::J
~Il:!~g.
- J: )( )( 3
)( i x;:;e ~...J
;:;eSl.;flo u)
;:I"! N ....:
"'~
~
'l:
"'~
~!
~ !
;fa
es
~,e
!"Q
i'(:
SOl
~~
~
...
jj
H
is.!! $
il:g "2~
.9llmcB=B
~66ag6~ .S!
u~13t;~~1 t:
~i~il~lii~
gc:cce c"2.e~
i!!888u:8~-gll
it (I) 0.
o
<'5
....
'"
o
re
,5.
'l:
~
f
Ii;
8 ~
to- c(
iu-~
@i"'Zl
~!d
l!l'!!~
:;!"'...
bH
I-
"'~
o
'"
o.
;;;
OJ
-",'"
U)l:")(J)
<11I;,,..:....:
"''''N
I!!(")(")
N
~ w
.~
!
III
.. ~
"
~ .c
co
~ J:
C
g
~
:I:
(;
N
..
Ii
a.
u
=
i
x
ii
~
o
'"
~
U
w~
C)1-
ZtI)
<Co
J:N
UD::
Ow
D::J:
~1-
D::~
<CI- G)
WU t>>
D::W c:
>-"")<C III
WOO s:.
...JD::- U
...JD..ZIll>>
1:E~~~
u.::)""'.....-
<i!~~ti~
J::Ez8~
oo~~o
W 0 v. Q)
tl)zu."5~
000.- Q)
D..U>-J:(I)
~t::t:: ~
D..ZU Q)
w=? ::l
J:1tl al
I-...J
u.<C
o~
>-D..
t::~
::!o
all-
-0
tl)D::
~D..
u.<C
Z
o
IJl
GI
o
Z
B
(21
I<~
I
i
000>--0
ononNNonl"--
-r-T'"""V"""'VN
"':"':on"":on<6
on on N (>)1.0 I"--
I"--I"--N on 1"--1"--
MM MN
w w
w
(I) is
0:: ~
o ",L
~
()
o
3!l
~
::J
iii
in
<(
WI
u,,]
....Iii
<(Ii
~ill
~i
_I
11.-1
~
"C
0...
X
.l!3
'2
:::>
Q)
:J
C
~
Cll
a::
I/)
Vi e
8~ (!) iii
~1o X 0
c~ ?f!. 0
:.::..c: @.. C
Cll~Clll/) ~
E.l'.l:J51 0-
~"cffiffi~..Q
Cll:::>>O-C~
a:: Cll Cll x Cll 4>
I/)roa::Waio~
~a:::3:3a::-1Il
lIl_1O-Cll.!!lO
~~cnc?J1o~2.
l3l1l19:Z~lIl$:
....:::i:oCllCllClle
(!) I-....IZ-Io...
w
Q)
:J
C
Cll
>
Cll
a::
I/)
Cll
10
::lcn
... I/)
::I I/)
III 0
~0
:i:~
z-e
=0...
:c-
'w C
lU .~
CIl III
~:::i:
U I/)
.~ e
a:(!)
Cll
:0
'fii
III
CIl
U.
II
~
"
o
N
.n
~
~~~O
Nonl"--O
~'<t_N~
c;; :g Jle ill
onl'-l'-O
M'i: ~
w w w
~
on
'<t
g
1"--.
-0
C
.!!l
0>
c_
CIl :a '5 CIl
~~-5ct.2
>ffi~Qj~
'0>08"-0
;&CQjffi
..JCllO>-I
ii""ffi~~1O
-5cnl/)I/)::I
'-d)~~~
::lZ.J-I13
0:: a::
>.
"'C
o
iii
~
~
S
o
I/)
:E
c
o
E
X
co
ci
x
.9l
~
x
"E
:J
o
E
III
C
III
o
-I
(t),-_........
CO'<t'<tN
COOON
"':<6<6"':
~COCOCO
CONN~
NNN
w w w w
?f!.;fl. ;fl....
ono tON
1"--0> cO
III
c:
.2
c..
E
::I
III
~
"E
::I
o
E
<(
....
_ <1)
I/) I/)
o 13
0-1
-~
~"E....
E ::I I/)
o.o~
~~~
> -
CIl c C
Ollllll
u"Cll_OO
c~!!...J-ISffi
o III 0 c: C III 0
'->I-ooa::-I
g.9.9tsnti~
.bc:c:2;:J~.....
IIllllllliii~<1)C:
f5.3.355E~
() 00
CI
c:
'0
C
l'lI
.E
-0 ~
'<t ..... to
o '<t '<t
<6 ai ..0
co co on
N '<t I"--
N N
w wi w
fflcfl. ~
l2 ~ 0
s
o
I/)
'C
c:
:J
U.
"E
<1)
E
..... ~ 0-
00 :J ..Q
Cll IT <1)
OW ai
ceO
00....
'B'Bo
2 2 Ul
en CD ~
c: c: :J
o 0 0
oocn
~S S
(50 0
I- I- I-
~
a::
:c
;,;
~
:J
o
~
c.i
.5
g~~
-:.~:s
~ N"liS
30m
"fi-LL
I/) rn
<i: x
O/l ai
.t! :3
":; u
o CIl
.5 ~
.g co
a: ,z;
c 0
g 0
"E ~
~ :f
(')
C5
(>)
<1)
0>
III
n..
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX B
Financial Feasibility Simulation Model Results
Proposed Half-Alley Change - Higher Cost Area
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, me.
Page 23
10/2/2003
\.146
w ~
C>I-
ZU
<t-
J:D::
uti
C-
D::C
~~
D::w
<tJ:
wI-
D::~
>-1-
WU
...Jw
...J..,<
<j:0(.)
u.D::-
...JQ.ZIllCII
<t:iOeg'
J:::):i<tlll
C-<_..c::
W~I-' ~U
(I):!:ZU~
00<':'=
Q.C(f.)CII<t
~ Z U. ~~
Q.8e:f~
wI-I-
~zC3
u.=?
Oil')
(I)...J
I-<t
uU
<tii:
Q.~
:!!!10
~I-
_0
...JD::
-Q.
~<t
<tz
~o
~g~
'10
o _
I'-
> Q)
Q) '"
c.:::l
>.0
I-.c
J
III
C
o
;;
e
:I
III
~
o
.;:
CI\
c
CIl
u
f/)
(i) ~
~_ 0
uU- <(
$~ -
c J!l
o III III '2
..~~ 2-
E~~ .~ :,-,1Il_~
.... _.:::::: '0 "fn
~cnCi50l_2 :5iii
-enlZcIII CIl-0
CIl fg 0 '2 c .l!!-
:!::~'-oo~o'c
lI)C9C9NOI-I-::J
~
I-
0000
1OC\l0l'-
I'-C\(0)00
MM ,.....-
IO~
ai
C\I
-
'2
:J
....
CIl
ll..
0"'-''''-
10"<1" I'-
I'-<<>~~
CI\
~ ,-co
~Ill ~ ~~
g~"'5~ ~15
iL.... 0_0_0 >.0
O.Qu-u-lllgiL
1:) OLL"O-oO.~ tIJ
.!!..iI In r:: cli t,) UJ
eQiT""C\IN:::Iij:e
ll..Z U)wC9
"<I"
<<>
C\I
as
M
10
"!.
~
lh
o
....
III
B
CI\
Q.c
f/) III
Ol~
C III
'- t:
of CD
.f:g
=Il:u)
CIl 0 ~ C\I C\I l\i "<I" "<I"
U 10 ~ ~ .... C\I C\I
CI\ M
Q. '5
~
U- e
f/) :I
0
~ 0 lii 0) M 0l.T"" M
~ LL. L() C C\I
f/) 00
"" CD
'iii e
'0 CIl
..
I- U
.E
'0
.c
C
o
.s
iL
~
CI\ c
CIl III
<c ~
aJ~
C CD
~:o
CI\ :::l
ll..U)
li)
.c
C
o III C
.5. - 0
~ ~ I
j:: c>> 0
C en :2 "'0 ~ v,'
CIlecuco.- oi'in
Q.€;~:U1i05
~2:fJ,~E.s~
><(s:,g~c~
CIl0l0u8.2CD
0.5...:2 e.E
t)2~~.s~t=
.~.!!!ooS,oiij
ell..OOo<(15
ll.. I- I-
5
III III
Bco
"C l()
ll..N
Xlii
'iiilI:l
f/)N
o
E
~
a:::
:I::
OJ
CD
e
:::l
o
U)
Wf:..
~~,
..:~o
~-o
It~ .f,.
1Il e
<( !!:.
~
J:j
.~
c:
:B
'"
a:::
C
i
i
:r:
~
4i
Cl
c:
'"
.c:
Q
~
<(
1l;
o
o
.c:
.!2I
:r:
M
'6
Q)
Ol
III
ll..
0\.-47
<(
o
wZ
(!)O
~~
J:I-
o~
Of/)
~U-
>0
~5
O:w
>J:
wI-
..Jz
~;::
u-O
...jw....
<C"'Q)O)
J:O.li:fii
co:::_~
wD.cno
~~8i'
&i~i
0::;:0 .~~
D.OJ:J:
wz
J:O
~U
01:
rnz
1-::;)
0'
<(It)
D.~
;J!1o
>ii:
1:>
...II-
-0
!!!I-
~~
u-<(
Z
o
:g
: ~
o E
lil ~
,s, ~
E i
o 0
u
....
z
w
::0
"-
9
~
w
'"
"'~"'jO
t"-COOll(DM
CD ......~
~WW ..-,.
o "':llJ'"
~~..."ltG)~
t:<i aO
flit 6ft.. Colt
~.!!.9LSl
z..~ ::J ::l
.11111<11
.J: .l: .c;c
U U 0 U
(/.l In lIJ II)
i?>i?>i?>i?>
lHilH.i
~
~
'"
~ ~
o.~ ~
E ~e ~
~ ~ji~
.~~ ~ i~~
jO~<lL.g
"- '"
c
'"
lil
t;"-
~
J
i~
... 2
<<
~
OOOOOJO
g ~ S!~ ~ . . ~
g NN ~
N N
Wc.ltEl'tfo'tEo't ~
ggg8g8g~
QU')U'tU1lONN.d
o 00 10,.....,.
~ T""..... N ~
....w....,. .....
"D
.g
'"
"-
ci
u..Einu;~i
!!!Jl88.. ij;
~ .~)()( 0.0
-3#*~~
EII't..J...........Ja
~
..
~
~
~
-o.~
J!l
8 ~
~ s
e CD 8 a
= ~gxt1!l8w i
(l)-cuea;g. {!.
~gfdm'ico~ ~
.t-ce'; g Iii '~:mc:
~~ir=an~ tj ~ ~
~ fJ)Q:.
o
l
o .............C)......:q.."'. (1)....0'" j ..,
O....cpfD CD .C"')..... fD
C") . It) , N_N............... ,ct)
...: ..~"': vi
flIt""..........w........
o :q lJ! '" It) ~ '"' 0 '"'01'"
:5 ....,.iflei:;J3 ~ liLi ,tg. ..~
"':"':N"':vi.ui '"....:
'"'
w ............ El't4lttlt...,.,w
CD,C),CD Q)Q)
'3'3'3'33
"ial al 1111
'5 13.. 'is '5 '5
In en 0 ,en tI)
i?>i?>i?>i?>i?>
lJ lHHl 0
c
=_! 8
. c 8.~~
:~! ~.E'~]j
c;E:g~ ~oI5a::.g. oW
~o'i8=tl. 6ti~tfiJ Ii
Q) \1 0 ....19f6 j ~~ ij) E
~ 2 S.! 'i5.O: 0 a: <3 a::;j
g8 ~~(J~ g'.!:g~ ~dj
U'" ;............2Q.(I)>C-
S ~ ~e:! ! &5 (I) en Q.f!:! j!
g.lls:s:s:u:o:<8<8i1lu: ~
o '"
000'" OJ"'Ol
OOON 0
000<0 'ClOO"
NC*i~N ON t"i
.. ..,
EIt....foIJEIt........ fit
OJ~"
. 8. :t~
... ....
~..... N
fltfolio......WM M
00010
OOON
000.....
~~~:f~
11.11.11.
rntnt/)
E'1:l"O"C
~j~3
0...........
e '" .. '"
0. 0. 0.
..388g
NNN
Eo!tWflt
J'1
~8
"''''
c:=
~~
H
"'""
o.~
0'"
"'~
..
'"
~
~ ~
~ ~
2 ~.~ ~
0. ~~ ~
c: .E ~o. ~
~ ~I'!'Kh li!
s 5 ~ C,E c: 16 {:.
CI):Eg'oB.!~C) '0
~~~:~~~~~i
,!l",<!lojo..8-g~
.. '" 0.
Uj~
~ ..,
.........
os! "'I'"
8i5a\Cl\
vi...: lti...:
.....('1
_tit" fit
-~=u.
c(J)
'~Cl
80Sl
~.~...~
~ ~
:g If
'" ., ~
~ c II '"
lfll-i~ 5
~~i~~
~ 8 '" ell .g
o '"
0',",
'" 0
.., '"
0.... ...:
:! :!
..""..
"'J......
'" -'"
~ . 10.",,:
('II U) p... N
0'"' '"'
.... ....
- -
~~
.,u
e~
(952
8.~
'" ~
~~
'"
~
S
t2. i
li 0.
~ ~
<: .. ~
~; r!
~"i';' li!
88 Iii ~
~!Ei;j~
~~8~~
&: ~cr
ill
~
'"
.. '"
"'..,
!r-.:
'"
11.
~
lil
0.
18
'"
..11.
W
W
11.
""
~
:IE
0:
w
"-
g
....
"'0"'800000'" "'JO
Pf~~U)l?;f58gg:g ~ ~ ~
~.N"': ...:.........:tOM~ ~ g
EltM6IIt""tlt6lt6llt.".6I'tffl.. M
co:6"'ooooooco.... O~_..
~~~&:5J~.~~~~_ ~; ~~
........."C":J........lOOlO,... 0 CD tD.....
10..... '"....co CD N
'"'
""'to'tW6l't6llt6llt6lttlt..".6ft I...
J!l J!l
-"fj 8 8
88uEEEEEE'5lli'l5
~~~&;~~~~~U) ~ ~
"O'O'1:l ~g.o.o.Q.g.al5 0:!J
iiiiiilii 5 5 E ~ ~!j"E": J3
;;;-'-J3..J..J..J~MJ
....."',- )(
.. ..
... '"
.,
c
o
~~
~i _Ja
~': J ~ :
- l: 13 ~ _ :3
~O:a a) c:~ ~
.9_.5 ~811)" {)
"~~'!1 ~lii~.E 1::
"'tl ~ ....5'" I'!' "
"'~o: "0"- t:
lBci;:a ~i:~fdg ~
"D.<I tlonl;r_::EJ: 1
CI)~~~ :i~iftig~ tS
iI!::--jjji:~~Sd.o:i1'g li!
tt'e~:S~G).siU)tiQ, I:; is' 0
"jj"c.1! ~ g... E llJi lil,g Iii '"
C::.!!~fiU)oQ)C:u..cg.<c C) '0
'S:E.E.&::~~:ag1i filS: ~ it:
~el'!'~..':i~~5l'u"'J:8J3~
~<cw <(...JI-W...J<C<( ~,f
:ggg:g
.....ocoCO)
~N t.
fo'tfo'ttltfo't
co)QOM~
~&g.~~
CIClOM_
11)... .....
tit 6Ittlt...
..
j
~EE
:g.~~
~.~~
.:g-J-J
"-
lil
"-
s
~ 51
'G).1!'Jc
~"1l.
::o8,jj
-~~
he
11."",
"D>a.
ffi~O
~:~ ~
m:srf '0
[LCDmit:
iBI~~ ~
o "'0.
~
1::
j
<1l
...
lil
o
Ol
...
~Sl~~~8a
"';fti~NNNN
'"' '"
tit tit fo't tit tit foIt 6It
'" ""
"'...
O.ci
!li'"
N
;;~8:il1il8;t;~
It).~."'":.,..,. q q CO.oi
Rt~~:!;:~~
6Itfoltfolt6lttlt6lt6lt
g j~ 1;; ti
~~"88e
m ::18 'E! 'E :s
~~~~~:
- c:I:)( )( E
~mx~~.3
<i'~~OIO
~ZC'\!N ~
..~
..
8
c:
"'~
-5g.
~l
if<1l
eli!
.e~
d!-a
i~
.e '"
.Q e
~~
~
~
....
~
- .,
!~ Io.
*~~ I.Q
i~~ ~ g ~
.11......fllDcBl1 ~
fQcccgcQ. i
8gHefji!! ~
g>sss~s-;:_-a
1j~~;g- ;g:.e1:
"~888~ 8 j U
It CI) I!
1il
8
~
..,
o
o
'"
,s,
....
'"
o ..
u !
!;: 8
!li!u.U:
g~B
~~~
~~~
;;i"'....
t;l.r
....
...
l:l
g
."D '"
"'''''''
~"":<<i
~"'...
::M('t)
N
~g..~
.i stf
:3..:3 ..'IU
fJ~D
!!! >.
<( "
.. li'
~ ..
> 0
! ~
0::: :z::
~
~
J:
'"'
'a
'"
..
:if
"-
~
~
J:
~
o
'"
~
o
W~
C)....
zt/)
<e-
J:C
O~
qw
r:t:J:
)5....
o::3E
<e....
wo
o::w
>CJ<e
Wo::O
:JB.ZlllCll
<C20eg'
u.~:!!<Clll
<i! ~ ~ 'liH3
J::!!2:8 ~
co<C.:.=
wct/) CIl'cC
t/) Z u.. 'E, ,.:,
OOO.-'ia
B.O>J:J:
~t:!:: .
B.ZO
W~
J:\t)
.......1
u..<C
O~
>B.
!::~
:::!O
1%1....
-0
~o::
WB.
u..<C
Z
o
VI
$
o
z
~
J-
U} U}
f!
UJ 0
It:u
o C1l
!;(lL
(.J
i5
2:
~
::i
in
~
w
u..
~
(.J
~
z
ii:
Q)
.S!
n:
x
!l
'2
:::l
Q)
:;]
55
>
Q)
a::
ffl ~
8_ <!) 1;)
~(ij x 0
cE '# ~
~~Q)~ ~
c:J!}::].m 0..
~'2555l~.Q
Q):::l>Q.e:~
a::.l!l&J:j~Q)
UlC1l Q)Cl(j)
~a::~~a::(ijUl
CO.....,CU-Q)......O
~-*CI)~(ij~d
UlC1l(ijUlCl)Ul$:
E?:2:o~<>>~e
(,') J-...JZ...Jo..
U}
Q)
:;]
e:
Q)
>
Q)
a::
Ul
Q)
VI(ij
Q)CI)
~ ~
VI 0
:"
:!!:~
>'0
:50:
:s~
.; .5
m ~
~:2
u Ul
Q) Ul
'S- e
0:(,')
Q)
:0
'0;
C1l
Q)
u..
II
'$.
o
N
,},
~
M
ai
...
U} U}
c.o
co
<:!!.Q)
... Ul
c.o C1l
<<!.()
... Q)
III
C1l
!Il
Q)
Ul
"0 C1l
e: ()
.!l! Q)
Ol Ul
.515 ~
~Q)-geQ)Q)
ii:;]uo...2.2
> e: .5 :>> >C1l >C1l
Q) ..... 0-
-g~g.Q-g-g
ja::()~C1lC1l
_~ClQ)...J...JQ)
III I1l J- Cl (ij (ij g>
.sCl)UlUl:;]:;]C1l
._Q)~~:Q:Q.c
Xlz...J...J~~()
It: a::a::'$.
>.
C
o
o
.~.
.sa
.S
Q)
:0
'm
lL
II
'#.
LO
...
.
.s
a.
:;]
....
:;]
o
Ul
.c
1::
o
E
x
c.o
ci
x
.l!l
~
x
1:
:;]
o
E
C1l
e:
C1l
o
...J
"'NNo)
LOCOCO 0
oooc.o
"":";"f"f
NLOLOCO
I'-NN'"
NNN
U} U} U} U}
tJerJ!. '#,..q
LOO LON
1'-0) <ci
~
....
e:
:;]
VI 0
c: E
.2 ~
Q. 1i)~
E 0 III
~ ~3
:.! 5l~....
g' ai5~
'(j ~ <(6 .l!le:
c: -
C1l ~e:~ '5
.5 Cl C1l C1l 0
u..Q)_00
c:.2.l!l...J...J.l!lffi
:8~~55~.3
!:!OOtl'Bq;Ul
c:......-:J::::JQ)-c
Uiffiffi~~Q;g
g.3.355~:2
(.J ()()
Nvc.o
COO CO
~~~
LO tC)"t"'-
N<:t I'-
N N
U} EI) U}
~~ ~
'" I'- 0
co......
Ul
"0
e:
:;]
lL
....
e:
Q)
E
l:'0-
Z"S .Q
Q) C' Q)
Cl UJ ii'i
e: e: Cl
00_
n ts 0
2 2 ~
(i) Cii ~
e: c;; :;]
o 0 0
() () CI)
~~ ~
J- J- J-
<5
E
~
J:
;n
Q)
~
:;]
o
CI)
_~ 40'-',(9
g~~
-:.~:s
.9i~nG
.fi...~if
.!l! '"
<( x
C/l iii
tl g>
.~ ~
c ()
:0
<ll
0::
~
"e
C1l
J:
(Y)
a
'"
Q)
Ol
(II
0..
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX C
Finanebll Feasibil.ity$imulation Model Results
Base Case (No Half-Alley Change) - Lower Cost Area
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALsCHULER, lNe
Page 24
10/2/2003
w _
C)I-
zo
<-
:J:ll::
oti
ciS
~.~
>-w
ll:::J:
<I-
w:z
ll::_
>- I- 'ill
wo Cl
...JW I:
...J-:l< III
<J: g 0 .1:
u......- 0
...Jo.:ZtG:o.
<:eOeGl
:J:::)::S<
C-<-<j:
W~l-lI)""
cn:e:zojij
OO<<,?:1:
o.Ccn;'o
o z u.. 3= ~!:.
ll::00041
o.O~...J:<<
!l:!!::- 0
I-ZO Gl
u..=? lI)
o It) ~
~~
00
<0:
o.~
;!O
>-1-
1-0
::ill::
as a.
c;;<
<Z
~O
Ul
C
~
e
::l
Ul
Ul
<(,
o
.;:
III
c
GI
(,)
tIJ
'iil
~~
0""
$!Q.
6 ell ell
i ~ ~
e4:4:
o~~
...CIJCIJ
.: Ul Ul
~ e e
(1)(.9 Cl
~g~>Gl
. J.() Q) UJ
O. Q.::l
I'- >. 0
I-.r::
~
~
~
.I!l
'2
2-
l5 .l!l~
ts 02 ~
C! 2 :;) Gl
.5~Q)ca!2
5og;o"c
NUl-I-:;)
iii
..
o
I-
OOiO
100010
1'-10 ......
MM <<S
10",,"
o
ai
N
..
'C
:)
..
Gl
D.
00
100
1'-1'-
,g
...... <0.
......
III
! ~ CO
<(ell 'l5.9~
5~ ....J ~<(
.....2<("-55 LL5
000 >.0
tlg~U::U::1iigu::
G) LL.1i)-g-g.9.~:2
.~Q)~C\lC\I.glE e
D.Z ClJWCl
fl 0 GI NN...... """ """
10 ~ ~'r'N N N
III C') III
Q. :i
~ e
tIJ ::l
(.)
...... 0 :s <>> C') <>>1
..... u.. 10 C
tIJ co ~
iii M
'0 GI
..
l- I,)
.:
co
10
10
<<S
N
~
::I!
o
10
o
......
Ul
GI
(,)
III
Q.c
tIJ ell
CIl~
.: ~
.lo: ..
.. Gl
Ill....
1I...g
'll:CIJ
'iil
.c
'E
o
.5.
'iil
.c
E
o
oS
iL
!e
III C
l!! ell
<( ~
~~
:i2~
.. .c
~~
Je a
.~ 'il
.~ rf ~
I- . 0
1!U)~"Ouw
G1eOim.Q :5:E'iil
. >cDGi=c:s:::.
8'Kuill..~~8
Gi Q.ClC....-e
>4:;=,g~l5-
G1ClCloo'_Gl
Cl.5:..:2Up.e
u2~~S~i=
.~..!!!oOOi.c1ii
..o.uu(54:o
II.. I- I-
.r::
con;
flm
i:1.{)
II..N
:lei
iiim
t1JN
~
a:::
:J:
in
Gl
e
::l
o
CIJ
~8!
~..~ Cl
i~l
.j ~
4: -
~ !!l
1:1 ~
.~ ~
.9 (.)
-g 3l
0:: ~
c:.~ .
~ ~
~ ~
....
C')
'0
Gl
01
ell
0.
o
E
" 51
<(
u
wZ
C)O
~~
:t:1-
UZ
c<(
~~
>0
~~
wU
O::w
~i= ~
-'z ~
~;: ~
iLo 0
-lW",...
<r:(3f>>C1i
Xo::.a:~
Q'o..1i)~
w::;;oiO
:3::>U:I:
&~:;;~
o::::;;~-
o..O-l3:
~~ ~
1-0 ell
~~ ~
f!?~
!a!..;
o..~
~u
>-ii:
1->-
;;;!15
!!II-
~n~
wo..
LL<(
Z
o
: .i
g E
N ill
" :tl
~ W
o 0
o
I-
Z
W
IE
0;
....
W
>
W
o
"'~"jO
..... to CD ... .'C')
CO .. ~..~
f;l'tWtl't .tI't
R:!l:l!Jf;j
CO) CO) 'Ii::t. q,..f:'
(t) ..tti
to'tflt4!lf ..et
..!S.!1!
::Jlll::....::s
'2'2'41'2
.c .c J:: J:::
g~.gg
2:-2:-2:-2:-
UOOO
I ~
J!J c.ll: ~
E ~e ~
: ~~ji~
g> 19.--g
'c~ c:jL~s
';o~<(fi:.g
11. lJl
'2
:>
..
_11.
J
l~
.....0
E
0(
o OOOOJ.O
0010100. ~
o....C").C!')..... ....
ui ~...: C"')...:
~ :!
6Itfl"ttltofl"ttl't tilt
OO~OS! O~O'"
&~~~iii ~~:3
~ IDeo ~'8(f)
<D ...
tF.H"..".6'!tER-fl"tfl"t
~
..
11.
~--"g.
LL_ g~~~l
CJ) UUw CD
as Q.j( )( Q. 0
~ S;#!;#! ~ ~
...J...........J 8
"
'"
'"
..
.!!
li
w
8
~
.. j f
.!Il " ~
111l ~-
= fie;ls8 .e
~1ij=::l.!ffo t
~8~~~~ c:_~
Q...,!!..g..~s"
~jcr~&D5 <'3 ~ ~
~ "'Q.
..
1i
o
3
o
1!!
!
o
l
~!~ ~5..! 5 ~ !1!1!
f;ltEi'tfo1'tfflW$W""'Ei'tffflffl.
O~Ott)IO. ~C')oC')o..I.'"
~ 'ot ~ :z_.--~ ~ ~ ~ m :&.&1
"":"':coi"":<D ai ~ ....:
'"
6I'tfllo."..tI'tfl"tfl"tEi'tto'ttlt""M
'!jg.m.!!1L~.!.S!.!.!
::J::S ::S-.1ll:::J::S::J::J::J::J
'2'2'2'2'2'41'41'2'2'2
M~:g 'U!lg '! .~- - ~
li: 2:-li: 2:-2:-2:-2:-2:-2:-2:-
utHHiuoouoo
"
~ ~~g'
0..-60 a.iD-c
LL13! ~sl:R
J!J c: 19 E :a~ ~~ -& JO
l~i- (38: <J MI.nl~
CUQJ U ...]j :a..c: .-QJ :s-~-fii
a.€I~J!l '-0: (J-.D::._o::;;
"8 CD 2" c: (I) u.... :0::;
.0 :! u ! D sa ~ Q. .ii
:g"'_'-.:n~~Q.U)~8
Sllil*1i..lijlJlll)o."g
~U):::~~u:a:cgt8LBu:!
888~ OJ"
OOOcglCX) ~
N';';N : :
'" ...
Mt09..,.~~.. ..
U8~ . ~J~!
g~~~ ;zoro.
~ ...
~~.".tftWtft ..
11.11.11.
"'ra'"
nlijl
tn-J-.J..,J
~!kk
3g,~~
t:t~;
J!J
11.:8
lJl(J
....
,,'"
'i!'"
:E
~.9
.....
c."
of/)
~"
'"
'"
~
~ -
i ~o.
J!J",
e !is:g ~
" ~ ~~ ~
~ ~g>~i~ i
}:5 ~'5.E!:~ {:.
U)2~oB-;jQ) '0
8~~!~~.a~!~
!!!2le>o~ocil8'5~
'" "'11.
88~8
ON. ...'"
~ M"';
..... . tit
o 0 "'I'"
00..-:-"",
o 0 U)Ul
";"::1" :;j
..... .....
:s=~
c;....~ (!J
og~
a~..;
~ ..
i! .f
~i :n
~~glL=
J! .g~8 ~
:8~~ ~
o lJl
OJ'''
N <D
.. ...
~ ~
.. ..
8J'" ~ ~
<D <D'
i;:\ :1";;;
<D ...
.. ...
u.J!J
~8
e~
e>>:s
:u '5
c...
.. x
:~
'"
w
o
S ~
t2. ..
;s a
i! oS!
A~ !
u J!J ~
s..~ :e
~8 r= {:.
8~~_'O
~:g~.sc:
~.il8H
dl ~cf
'"
..
"l.
...
"0
'''l
:f'"
.....
11.
'"
"
Ii;
0.
..
..
..
.,11.
W
W
11.
..
.,
""
~
W
11.
~
;:I;"'<DO 00008"';J'"
csti~g15~ggo~ co f?J
gN"': "':"':~uiPit ~..... &j
tfttftM................. ~ ..
~~~~~~~a~~g~i; ~ ~~:
~:!I'C").........Ul~~;::: Cl fD
...
......".......0..609>609> .,.
J!J J!J
-:;;;;- .3 .3
~~.3~n~qogl:;og
&&~U)w6Scncn(J)(I)~. U)
~~..~ ~...~~~~~; ~ I
; )(;.3.3.3.3.3.3 ~...~ ~
.... ~..... )( x
'" '"
... '"
..
o
cn~
" ..
oc.
'U ~J!J
o.~ "ffi :a .~
~ ~ ~..,. ~
0<a i~_i
.~~~ ~8lii:;; ~
.2!l!:S ell:i~.E t:
ilitl~ I-sil'g'"
~.5~ CIt-:Ofi~ a
i ~ B 'U l: I UJ ,~:z 0 'I
-5:g~ f~f~ glj:; g)
i.s.~~ !!c.-~~E':g ~
11. e "'~ il;'o( l'! ~ - .11. "E ~ s
<&i1'E~ ~~;; E Ill>> ~ i ~
~.mifi(l)~~C~s~<( g-_'Ci
~:E-&i3~-g:g.~ m 8 ~ 8: ~ J!c
~~~~~j~~!~~ ~ 8 ~ ~
Q. '" <l
m8g~
~N t.
~~~~~
(DO(")N
LO .... ....
.. .. .. ..
"
~
jjB
illJllJl
~ ~~
:a..J.....J
"
11.
Ii;
11.
J!l
tl I -
~ J!i c: rq
~cnCD '-'
~8$ i
-g'g> "
~H f
H~~
J/I"~ S
g ~i {!!.
Q):O= a. '0
Q.~cni-
li~~';a~
~o (J)~l
...
~
..;
~
?i~~~~g~
...;grriNNN~
<D'"
<D(D
C7.!.cri
"'.,
~
N
WtlltMMM-Wttlt
gm~l::ftI8~~
~-~C\!.C"l "":. ~ CC!.o
NC'?I'-.:tOO.........
N U).......... ..... ..... N
~ '"
WtlltMMW..6It
Eg~__
~E.ti8 8 E
",~8"E"E "
nH:ll'~
-lijx:""E
; .9;~ ~ .3
C!ZNN.-r-
-U)~
l;
8
1:
"'~
so.
~j
if.!!
es
.e.2
.B'l;
it:
2 ~
~~
..
..
!l
l-
i ~
~~ "
3lU il j
~"8:g 'C~ >
ClI i CD Cog)
...30.11....3'6 Q
~c:c:cu!:!. i
8~{f~~~J t
~SSSl'!SIi;_~
'ij!!~~-~~.sc::
~888~ 8 ~ H
it Cl)u.,.
;;;
.,
o
~
S
I-
lJl
o ..
o I!!
I- 0(
Z i;
~u.~
g~1
W!!e>
~~g
::cn~
<(~~
b~l
I-
o
N
...
~
~,~:
"0'"
.,.,'"
N
N
ua.-$l
:.oS.1Ii
lD..CU
3. 0
~~I
<( ~
.. ,.
~ 8
~ ~
l
c
g
~
'"
.,
'0
...
i
11.
~
;5
~
~
.5l
..:
o
wi:t:
C>I-
zrn
<(-
J:o
o~
Ow
~J:
~....
~~
<(I- G)
wo Cl
~w c:
~a~ ~
..J~- 0
..JO-Zll:l>o
<(~O~(I)
Ii. => ~ <( -<(-
..J-<(_.
<(~I-Ul~
J:~z8~
~g~~o
rnZLL3:~
0000(1)
O-O)-..JUl
01-1- II:l
g:zo ~
w=? Ul
J:I() ~
I-..J
LL<(
O~
)-0-
!::~
:::!o
ml-
-0
~~
WO-
LL<(
Z
o
=
'0
z
"~
!.5
I~
000000
00"<1'<00<0
0000><0(")
..,f..,f<or-:(")..,f
(")(")1'-10100
mm~"""'Nlf)
NN NN
Eft Eft
Eft
"-,,,
~'i~
Oil.!.
~I
o
is
~
i:l
::::iI
19 !I
~I
J
....I
::!;
o
z
<
~I
8
(t
x
$
'c
::)
Q)
:J
c:
Q)
>
Q)
0:
'"
;;; ~
(") ...
0_ C> (j)
~iii x 0
c~ "# 0
:.=.-c: !e. C
~~Q)0 ~
cJ!!:J~ C.
~ 'c ai ai ~ ..Q
(I)::)>c.c~
O:$~~~(I)
(ll1Il", GlO(ij'
~O:(I)[llO:::iii'"
cu.....ca-Q)_O
~~(/)~iii~-=-
l3I1lS::l~::lq:
...::2oQ)(I)(I)e
c) I-...JZ...Ja.
Eft
Q)
:J
c:
~
(I)
0:
(II
(I)
lIliii
(1)11)
:; ~
III 0
=<9
:i:~
~e
=0.
:s~
Ow c:
cu .~
Q) III
1.1.::2
U '"
Q) (II
ere
!tc)
(I)
:0
'(ii
III
1Il
1.1.
II
~
o
o
N
,
10
~
t1.
C\I
....:
T""
0000
<00<00
0><0(")0
r-:<Xi"<l'.o
101'-01'-
1'-1010<0
N~
Eft Eft Eft
o
o
<0
<Xi
I'-
~
-0
c:
.!l!
Cl
c:_
Q) 'O'E
:J (I) :J ... 1Il
iij:JOa..2
> c: .!: lii ~
'C ~ (58--0
;~C:Qiffi
=~gai...J
1lI11l1-0Cij
:J (1) '" '" :J
:2Ql[ll~:2
:ll Z...J...J ~
0:: 0:
>-
c
o
-
(II
~
$
.S
"5
o
(II
:5
c:
o
E
x
<0
ci
x
$
~
x
"E
:J
o
E
ro
c:
III
o
...J
01'-1'-0>
010100>
10 LO 1.0 ..-
c5c5c5c<i
Ol'-I'-l!)
NCX)CX)"t"-
",,...:,...:
Eft Eft foI') Eft
;fl.'#. '#.'V
100 ION
1'-0> ui
-
"E
:J
(II 0
r:: E
.2 <l:
Q. -CD
E l3::l
:J 0 1Il
III "E -=-
~ Gl"E-
~ K5~
'g ~~ ~
~ ~c:~ -s
ii:1Il~~~ 0
r::..2.'!l...J...J$ffi
.S!~~!5!5~3
Uootstj.....cn
::I__::):::)U'J.s:::
bc:c'-'-~~
III 1Il1llt)t)Gl 0
g33!5!5E::2
o 00
1'-(") 0
10"<1' 0
100<0
ci c<i c<i
I'- co 10
~(") N
N
Eft Eft foI')
'#. '#.1 rf.
(")1'- 0
co--~
(II
-0
c:
:J
u..
"E
(I)
E
~8-
15"3 Q)
(I) CT >
ow (I)
c:c:O
o 0
titi ~
~ 5 8
(II '" ...
r::C::J
o 0 0
OO(/)
SS S
o 0 0
I- I- I-
o
.E:
~
0:
:I:
~
:J
o
(/)
oC')~
..58=
:6~~
30m
-fi~u.
.!!l '"
<( x
O/l m
.tl ell
.::; 0
o Q)
.5 en
"dl 8l
a:: ..!.
1!:!
o
~
-'
c:
,g
'10
ell
:r:
(")
15
(")
1Il
01
ell
a.
lJ53
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX D
Financial Fe~sibility Simulation Model Results
Proposed Half-Alley Change - Lower Cost Area
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER, 1Nc.
Page 25
10/2/2003
w ~
ell-
zu
<t-
:I:~
uti
c-
~c
<tN
>-~
~w
<t:I:
wI-
~~
>-1-
WO
..JW
..J-'<t
<too
u.~-
..Jc..ZI1lCl)
<t::EOCllCl
:I::J::E~lij
fa~~Ujc3
cn::Ez8~
00 <t , -
c..cenGi:c(
QZu..3~
c..... 0 0 0 "iii
O~..J:I:
~!::-
I-ZU
u..=?
01()
en..J
I-<t
00
<tii:
c..~
;!O
~I-
_0
..J~
jjjc..
(j)<t
<tz
~O
~8~>Q)
. it) Q) en
0... a. ~
I'- >- 0
1-'<::
c:
~
o
I-
III
c:
:8
E
::I
III
~
.g
ell
c:
ell
U
Ul
lil
e~
uu..
~~
c
,2 m m
m<(<( c
E ~ ~ 0
.2~~ ~
.5 rJ) en ~.....
2:g~.2~
u;CiCi~8
1.0'<1'
o
m
C\I
~
~
.I!l
'c
2-
"'~
=2 ~
:J ell
eIl-Cl
o..l!!:t:
>-oc:
I-I-:J
!
0000
~~allXi
riM r-:
-
'i:
~
g~16j:!
r--. <0 ~ LO...
...
ell
0..
ell
l!!
<C
... III
o e
o <(
u::: 0
13 0
CIl u::
'e- a;
o..z
'6
..J
... ...
688
~u::u::
_"0"0
'" c: c:
.....NC\I
~~
u.. 0
>-0
ggu::
.s .~ ~
.g;:e
UlWC)
'<I'
<0
C\I
aj
'"
II)
<0.
~
c
II)
o
ell 0
ull)
ell'"
0.
!Q
u.
Ul
....
....
o
u.lB
Ulc<i
~
I-
'"
ell
U
ell
o.c:
Ul III
m:!:l
C III
~ ~
elI-
o...g
'lI:Ul
ii:'
~
ell c:
ell III
:c ~
mill
C t:
~~
ell ::I
0.. en
.~ ~ ~ N
1a
3
E
::I
o
S'" '" "'I
C
ell
E
CIl
...
u
.E
'<I' '<I'
NC\I
lil
.s:::.
t:
o
.s
lil
.s:::.
C
o c:
.s.. .I!l 0
ell 'E il
E ~ ~
j:: . 0
.... C) ()_
;~~~5:5cn
e~oc!Jiitsg;::
8'a.uiCL2EC:
Gia.Cl50i~~
><(~:;:lC5~
eIlOlCluo'_1ll
cc...;::It)"l'iE
.....c-.b0 E::""._
~~~~::~~
'e'o:88-5~-5
0.. I- I-
~g'
. (\I Cl
Ji~n
::I 0 iii
J:,... "_
~ e
<( !:!:.
"" !J!
.!:l >;
._ CIl
,. Ol
o c:
c: III
~ B
0: ""
~
<(
.,!.
In
o
o
~
oJ
c
o
""
'E
III
:x:
'"
'0
III
Ol
III
CL
!ll
i;;!
1:
D..
:'1:
1::
:::J
.....
'E
;;;J
Ll.
i1l
..;
.E
.<:: ~
III ro 0::
Gl co
~ J:
a: II) in
N III
III r:i U
Gl 3
ii co
N 0
Ul en
'1'1': 01.-5 t:
'-
<
o
wZ
CI~
~~
i3~
Om
~~
>-
~~
wU
O::w
>J:
wI-
....z
;-i-
LL. t; OJ
~~m~
:rli!.:tftl
fEo.1;;t3
m:aO""
O::lO'!!!
l5~~1
g:~.3iU
c J:
Wz
:Co
~u
Ot::
cnZ
~- ::l
~.;,
a.<J.
~u
)- ii:
t: ~
:10
!!II-
~O
wit
u. <
Z
o
<;;<
~
'"
~
::z.;!;
~
~
::i
:g
t;i' 0
g
~ 5
~.'2
In i
o u
u
...
z
w
:;;
a.
9
...
>
~
... ~"'jO
~ (O(b ..'C'l)
CD ..q,
vt-~6't M
""""'.J.'"
~~~ .~
ctf Ifi
fI) 61)..... :tIt.
Q) CIJ CD I1l
HH
a'55-5
.(I)....U).....Uj.....cn
.,.""""a-
lJtHju
.~ ~
" "
~ i~ j
C1l Q) i a.~
~ ~s~~
~a.~:g~s
~a'!.(u:~
a. '"
'l!
:>
t
1:.0:.
~
o
E
<(
Oi-
'0 3
... 0
E
<(
S
{!
'" 8 '" '" 0 J'"
g.....~~~ 'Ot'.'.:!
~ .:.: "'!
tA- lit tIt.,.69 fit
~~~~~~~~
Ie coco ~8t")
<0 ....
6It...... 6It tA- f;Ao tA-
"0
~
"
a.
<i
E......E-ll
lli~88~ 6i
dO-)c)(a.C
m~~~~~
.................J 8
K
..
"!
"
..
'"
o
*
u
1
<J
1:
~
I
1;;
<3
* I
~ B j
e" 8 <!l
~ iggJ~8ti ~
a)-Q)!lDCT ~
~B:3!i&l~ ~
~"Ot!';pgtD ~i~
~~c[~.n5 ~ ~J
~ "'IL
8.... "'_U><O...."''''j'''
....CO. ~ It) ..-coco U) -c'].....""'.........
CO) "'i{ 10 CO') lI'i -Ci..... ........,,<rt
..... ..... ....... ......cg
6It6ltWWfl't6lt~fi'" ..
8 "'Ii'::fl "';;; (:l 0 Sl.j....l:I
"l.!1I.""",~.. ",.:il...iIS ""
........ N "-CP.. r.o CO) ..r;;:
...,6It ........ flit..,. ...w..... ...
;,!!....,g R .m s S S J!-J!! J!!
llHjHHH
~. ~. jw~j M~~ .~
~~~~~~~~~~
" 6
Jg ~ C>>
"ii1 g lB ~i.~
c:jj~ ~;&1i $
~o.a..cu ,s=~t:c~c
~.ga,-~ ~ji;'~ ~
a. c I~ -m .- - u'" .- '" :!
g a.....:!-S ~ ~j ~....~!;E
M ~ni.~~~~~ s
,,1Ii,.,.,..=.!!!,....,.u: S
l5(1)>>>I.La.mmw .g
U '"
ggg~ 8J'"
OOOCO'too..
<<..;..;<< 0::
'" ...
.....,....Wllt... fit
888111 8JO;;;
qo~q....~ . q~ "I:l:ai
~~~~ i1;S ~
~ '"
tit.... flit tit flit" tit
U.U.IL
"'''''''
E~'C-C
::lIB 1816
(t)..J...J...J
0.......'-
E " " "
0.0.0.
.3gg;e
NN"":
fhfolt-f;l't
J5
l:;8
'".II
~u;
~I
~.g
"''''
ztK
'"
'"
"
<3
~ l
~ H' ~
e Q)~ j
c:: r tlf !
~ ~aefi>-.s
Uc: U}i~~g ;
~~ gto fI- ~ & ~
H~H:~~ II
~o 0-1 (f) ~~
:Uj-~
~ ...
....., fioIt
00"'1'"
g8:.;
ui~Ili";
-IN
"0....fiJ
:!:::i!t:LL
.~....~~
&~~
~tIt;;;
~
... "
~ ~
:> " ~
~clB~
!J'" ~~ 5
1f~~8s
!8&~~
o UJ
<0 J....
1;0; ~
~ ;:!
... ...
OJ ...'"
00 10 C") CO)
qo .....~...;
.....C") ....(0)
<0 '" 0>
<0 <0
.. ...
~&
eg'
(!I'D
11;'3
o.m
g K
...'"
'"
~
i i
'" e
Q; c.
~ ~ j
~5 !
M*l;' :s
g8 ii ~
'c:.~r:s~
~!8~~
rB ~~
s
t"IQ)
.....
Qt.r--:
18
IL
In
(!I
II;
C>
~
"
UJIL
...
...
IL.
,.
'"
...
i
'"
.UJ
a.
-l
i!
o
...
.......008008.. <0 J~
r::f::~~~lOggoS ~..... 0;
mc-i": ":":";~Pi'; cO .0
~ _ <0
fioIttltfioltfioltfiolttl')........flttltflt tit
~~-~&~~&~~~ ~ ~ ~~
a:)(W)COC")...........IOOIt>O 0 to "'0'.....
"*' T"" C").......... en ~
.....,...tlttlttlt6l'tW..,0.. ...
J5 J5
U) U) U) 8 8
888eEEEEE~~~
en iii en ~ :J cij :J:J :J U) (!) II)
~~~~g.g.g.;~'" g S
mlDm33355~"2"":~
;;;'-'-I..J-I...J-Il;; ~
.....NT"" >< l(
~ ~
"
~
o
~~
~l
Q)- _a
~~ ~ j l
~j H j
j~@I ~81-t ~
'iif ~};~ 1::
~5~ -':o~~ ~
~ ~ B 1:) ~ m !I.r:! ~ ~
-"lj .II'll-'='Cll s
~HJ!! H.JjHe-i <!l
fii~iP~~lid.Cl:~~~ ~
~.F.'f.~ ~ ~~ E !~&~ i :
o~il)mU)UCDClLCo ~ 0
~~!1i~~~~'~1 ~ ~ Ii
~<w~<~t!UJ-I<a <( 8.g ~
.. <1>1[
ill08ill
.....8<<)(1)
~ci t.
tltf/J......
C")OOCf)~
st~&~~
000(").....
10.._ ......
W0t1t$
"
:i
al
.c
~EE
:B~~
~ ~~
.g...J...J
a.
II;
a.
.II
i}. . ."
Hl <3
~aoll 5i
-Oel) e
I~~ a
~~il 1
ii)j!O <!l
J5,.-g :s
~ ~i t
Q) ~ Q. 0
Q.~:;:e1:
~B~~~e
o "'..
'"
l!!
gl
'"
~!~!::~8~
~~Pic-ic-iNi
ii!~
rim
'"
~
...fioIttlt......tlttlt
C03CDf")NO_"#.
~~~~ ~ ~~;;
N ~ ~ ~ ~ e~-
tit tit ....... ... .. ...
= gC;:--
~a;;88E
"E8 "
c~1!i~U)
~ lQ CD:t: :t:a.
- c: ~)( )( E
)( GI )( * i!. .3
*' .Q '#- OU)
~~~N"';
"
8
i
",e
jf
~c3
I!!:S
.e~
tB'Q
Sl:
~e
"'..
ill
~
j ~
H ~
m~i I j
~~~ -g g ~
",.9llQ)ili ~
~c:c:c:gc8. J!
8:B~~~B.s :
'5i~i~~~i~
~888~8~H
it (I) a:..
.........
-"''''
~.~ai
;,;..oNN
..
..
..
.,
..
'"
..
g
...
'"
8 ~
!z ~
I ~
~~=
iiI I!&
~:~
;;l'f!t
5l.r
...
'"
...
.,
i
gg~
iH
r~
,. 1=
~ ~
~ ~
'"
g
~
r
'"
'0
'"
..
2'
a.
U
.E
~
r
i
o
UJ
..:
u
wQ:
ell-
zu)
<t-
:I:C
(J~
Ow
~~
~~
<tl-
WU
~w
>-"'<t
WOu
..J~-
-Ic..zea
~::E~2?
u,:J"""<t
..J-<(
<t~....
:I:::ez
co<t
wcen
enzu..
000
c..u>-
OI-l-
~--
c..zu
w=?
:I: I()
1--1
u,<t
02
>-c..
!::~
::!o
all-
-0
en~
~c..
u..<t
z
o
ell
Cl
C
ea
.r:::
11I0
o >.
U ell
. -
... -
;~
0-
...J~
s
~
o O~COj'<l'
~~31~;:*
MMOIMCDcD
&3~~~N;
N'N' <">iC\l
~~ ~ ~
f"
W.a
a: "
~~
o
o
~
t:
::;
in
~
II..
~
S
o
~
z
Li:
Ql
.!:1
a::
x
J!l
-2
:J
ID
:J
c:
Ql
>
CIl
0::
'"
;;; e
8~ C) ..
~~ ~ 8
c C ?f::.<o 1='
==-c _ ....
~~CIl'" ~
c!l~~ a.
~'c~5i~.Q
lll:Jo>o.c:~
~i~&j~~~
J!ll:~"'0::_~
C'lJ-(ijJ!1ll.J90
~~CI)~cu~~
"'IllS ",W.,,,,,
e::2o~a;~e
C) I-..JZ..JQ.
ID
::I
c:
CIl
0>
III
0::
.,
III
"'(;;
a>Ul
... .,
::I In
'" 0
ell ...
GlCl
:i!i~
~e
=0..
;9-;
::: '0,
III ...
II.. C'lJ
g~
0-2
d:C)
III
:0
'(i;
C'lJ
III
U.
II
of!.
o
')l
II)
.....
~
CD
,,;
....
co ~1"" 0 ~
OT-('I')ll)OCO
~~;e~~~
~~*~~
N~
~~ ~~
v
.....
""ell
..... '"
~ III
.()
..... CIl
'"
III
co
III
.,
~ ~
.!!! CIl
Ol '"
c_ III
Gl 'g'5 co
::I~oa::~~
~&j:5~~~
'tI 0> 0 0"0"0
;~C:Gilijlij
=J!g~..J..J1Il
1II1lll-Cmm g>
.ijW""::I:J1ll
-1D~~:2:2.c
:z..J-'~~()
a: 0::0:: of!.
Ql
:0
'(i;
III
Ql
u..
II
<f!.
1.0
~
B
a.
:J
OC\lC\lCO
0"".....
OIC\1N"
.,f ci c;j o'
C\I'<I''<I'1l)
T"'"coco__
N''':'':
EI)~~~
*-?f!.
1l)0
1'-0>
~
E
::I
'" 0
c E
.2 <(
Q. u;~
Eo.,
::I () III
en cd.
.:2 ell t:-
~ K5~
'u .Q E .'!l
5 ~ <(.f: '=:
ow CI) c C ..J
~1Il~~~ 0
c~.J9..J..J.'!lfij
,S!~~ g g~.3
8BB'Bg..",
':'~C5.be~
III III Ill",., III 0
8.3.355.5::2
o ()()
~
C
o
Oi
~
.'!l
.f:
"5
o
'"
~
C
o
E
x
<0
o
x
.'!l
~
x
E
::I
o
E
III
c:
1tI
o
..J
N C\l1'<I'
!:;; ~ ;:
c;j cD cD
.,." ~
co '" N
~ C'i
~EI)~
'Cfl...q
"!'"
<0
r/!?f!.
Il)Il)
"N
'"
u
C
::I
U.
t:
CIl
E
~~1
ClWQl
c:c:O
00_
tIts 0
S.sU)
'" '" ~
CC::J
00 0
() 0 W
S s 19
~~ ~
t.i
.f:
~
0::
J:
;,;
~
::I
o
en
-- 5'"
'.' \.- (
~8~
15 ~ ~
-som
{j--u.
'" In
<l x
"" Gi
-tI g>
os: ~
g 0
:c >.
~ ~
:f
In
o
o
:l:
o
oJ
i
'8
01
:c
(')
'0
(')
CIl
Ol
t1l
a.
"Coitstraint" Assessment of Proposed A/ley~Related
~:ear Yard and Density Calculation Cllanges
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX E
List of Developers and Architects Interviewed
· Shah Ghodes, Plus Architects
· Lee Novik, Centinela Town Homes
· Carl Smith, William Adams Architects
· Cia Kahjavi, Apex Design
. Anonymous
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHULER,INC,
Page 26
10/2/2003
"Constraint" Assessment of Proposed Alley-Related
Rear Yard and Density Calculation Changes
in the Multiple Residential Districts
APPENDIX F
Completed, Approved and Pending Residential Units,
January 1, 1998 -September 30, 2003
HAMILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALsCHULER, mc,
Page 27
10/2/2003
~59
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED
SINCE: JANUARY 1, 1998
Zonlno Add~ Slntet Name # Unl1s ColO Mlxed-U..? lotS'" City lAlln?
BCD 1457 16111S1 4 7,500 No
Subtotal 4
BSG-2 331 S Monica Blvd. 5/17/2001 Ves
S_tal
C2 728 MortanaAve. 6 5/18/1_ Ves No
C2 1230 Momna Ave. -----A 8/2612002 Ves 14,996 No
Subtotal 18
C3 12t.! Ves 15,000 No
C3 No 7,$7$ Yes
C3 24 No 7,$75 Ves
C3 24 No 7:lf,7 No
C3 48 9/912002 Yes 1~1()QO No
C3 48 Yes 15,000 No
C3 48 Yes 15,000 No
C3 VeS 1$,000 No
C3 Yes 11.000 No
C3 Ave. No 1~,.459 Yes
C3 620SMonica Blvit No 15:000 No
C3 631 Wil$hireBIVd. -----A 111111999 Ve. No
S._I 482
~ 1335 O4thS1 6 Ve. 7,594 No
~ 1231 05lh$1 28 Ves 7,531 No
~ 42$ Broadway ~ 5/ Yes 22,500 No
S._, US
C4 28Cl7 lW1c;olo BlVd. 40 111311999 No 30,oae Ves
C4 1005 Pioo BlVd. ~ 117/2000 No 13,332 Ves
Subtotal 82
SUBTOTAl.. COMMeRCIAL 879
OP,2 702 HilISt. 3 211/2002 8,450 No
S._I 3
R2 1838 OilthSt. 7 119120Q1 No 7,250 No
R2 843 15th St. 3 1115/1999 No 7,463 No
R2 960 16111 51 10 5I6<1llll8 No 7,285 No
R2 153417thSt 10 611712003 No 15,016 No
R2 1763 17th 5t. 5 911712001 No 7,750 No
R2 1757 17th 5t. 9 4115/1998 No 9,300 No
R2 111718thSt. 5 611612002 No 7,992 No
R2 838 11ll1t5t. 5 No 8,000 No
R2 9571Ill1tSt. 4 31412003 No 8,000 No
R2 1943 19th 5t. 3 121711999 No 8,000 Ves
R2 750 21st St. 6 312612002 No 8,940 No
R2 84621st 5t. 5 411112001 No 8,000 No
R2 1226 23"'51. 9 1012912002 No No
R2 1243 23AfSt. 4 11/20/2002 No No
R2 1247 23n1 St. 4 5/611998 No 5:31;9 No
R2 23()7 3200 St 6 61511999 No 0,567 No
R2 1513 Belkeley Sl 10 No 1$,000 No
R2 1849 Belf<eloy St. 2 11312002 No 5,268 No
R2 2030 california Ave. 4 No 6,750 No
R2 1457 centinela Ave. 7 31911999 No $,457 No
R2 1854 E_ St. 7 311811998 No 7,485 No
R2 2002 Iotaho Ave. 4 517/2002 No 8,000 No
R2 718 lW1c;olnBIVd. 5 516<1998 No 7,5ll8 No
R2 ,2726 Montana Ave. 5 8/2712001 No 7,059 No
R2 1 148 $tantonl St. ----l! 21412000 No No
$ubtotal 148
R2,NW 838 10111 at. 4 412212002 No 7,500 No
R2,NW 931 IOthSt. 4 8/2112003 No 7,493 No
R2,NW 1022 10111 St. 5 512912001 No 7,490 No
R2~ 1111 lOth$t. 5 1118/2002 No 7,484 No
R2,NW 811 l1thSt. 7 1011/2001 No 7,469 No
R2,NW 1043 l1thSt. 5 611111998 No 7,500 No
R2.NW 1011 11th St. 70 5/2312000 Ves 20.000 Yes
R2,NW 849 14th St 8 5/2012003 No 14,993 No
R2,NW 954 14th St. 5 5/25/2001 No 7.500 No
R2~ 812 EudirJ$t. 4 12117/2002 No 7,500 No
R2~ 938 lincon Blvd. 9 7/612003 No 15.000 No
R2~.A 1144 05thSt. ---1Z 4/2911998 No 29,783 Ves
Subtotal 158
R3 1048 03n1 St. 5 7,495 No
R3 1544 09th St. 8 6/2811999 No 7,500 Ves
R3 1544 12th St. 12 11/2512002 No 14,974 No
R3 1437 16111 St. $ 31512001 No 7,500 No
R3 1438 16th St. 17 7/2911999 No 14,964 Ve.
R3 1252 Euclid 5t. ----!i 612612001 No 7,500 No
Subtotal 53
R~NW 1018 O4th St. 14 611412000 No 7,456 No
R3-NW 951 Ocean Ave. 16 511411998 No No
R~NW-A 1136 O4thSt. --l!!i 1211912001 No 44,850 Ves
Subtotal 96
RVC 1637 Appian Way 25 81511999 No 17,996 Ves
Subtotal 25
SUBT01"Al.. ReSI)ENTIAL 483
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL 679 58.4%
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL ----4n 41.6%
OVERALL TOTAL 1,162
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department; HR&A. Inc.
PsgelolS
Hamlton. Rabinovlz & AIsthuIer,Inc.
1011/2003
98-03Productio_Jds (C of OS}
h-i~;l 0\,.;60
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1998
Zoning Address Street Name # Units Project Status Bldg Permit PZ Approval Lot size City Loan?
BCD 1513 09th 51. 6 Planning Appr. 3/2/2001 12/1/1999 7,500 No
BCD 1507 10th 51. 5 Bldg. Permtt 4/28/1999 6/23/1998 15,000 No
BCD 1421 Broadway 7 Bldg. Permtt 3/2/2001 15,000 No
BCD 1424 Broadway 7 Bldg. Permtt 11/5//2001
BCD 1525 Euclid SI. 12 Bldg. Permtt 1/7/2000 2/22/1999 Yes
Subtotal 38
B5C-3 1207 04th 51. 3 Bldg. Permtt 4/8/1998 3/3/1997 No
B5C-3 1447 04th SI. ~ Bldg. Permtt 11/11/1998 3/31/1998 15,000 No
5ubtotal 27
C2 729 Montana Ave. 2 Bldg. Permtt 8/17/1998 12/10/1996 No
Subtotal
C3 1445 06th 51. 48 Bldg. Permit 8/311999 2/4/1999 15,000 No
C3 1528 06th 51. 48 Bldg. Permtt 3/20/2002 4/12/2001
C3 1540 06th 51. 48 Bldg. Permit 12/13/2001 12/28/2000 15,000 No
C3 1432 07th SI. 26 Bldg. Permtt 7,468 No
C3 1537 07th SI. 26 Bldg. Permit 6/10/2002 2/2312001
C3 1522 06th St. 26 Bldg. Permtt 2/19/2003 81912001
C3 1531 06th SI. ~ Bldg. Permit 10/15/2001 5/1112001
270
C4 708 Pico Blvd. 20 Bldg. Permit 8/1711998 1011711996 16,373 Yes
C5 2200 Colorado Ave. 350 Bldg. Permit 814/1998 11111/1997 73,170 No
CP-3 1312 15th 5t 81 Bldg. Permit 4/812002 9/20/2000
Cp-3 1318 16th 51. 1!! Bldg. Permtt 91411998 5/2/1997 7,500 No
99
LMSD 2425 Michigan Ave. Bldg. Permit 11/17/1998 7/15/1998 No
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL 810
OP-2 2618 06th SI. Bldg. Permtt 12/2212000 9/2/1996 6,395 No
R2 93315th51. 5 Bldg. Permit 5/2011999 11/4/1998 7,500 No
R2 838 17th 51. 5 Bldg. Permit 10/21/1998 412/1997 7,484 No
R2 844 17th 51. 5 Bldg. Permit 12/8/1998 31411998 No
R2 83718thSI. 5 Bldg. Permit 6/1312002 5116/2001 No
R2 83219th51. 5 Bldg. Permtt 1/2/2002 6/1911999
R2 838 19th 51. 5 Bldg. Permtt 1/12/2002 6/16/1999
R2 1254 24th 51. 4 Bldg. Permtt 8/18/2000 6/1911999 No
R2 1315 26th 51. 10 Bldg. Permit 8/5/2002 11/2512001
R2 1513 Berkeley 5t 10 Bldg. Permtt 8/2312001 6/1912000
R2 1927 Cloverfield Blvd. 5 Bldg. Permtt 10/4/2001 4/10/2000 8,000 No
R2 2021 Montana Ave. 6 Bldg. Permit 5/2212000 5/1911999 No
R2 2922 Montana Ave. 5 Bldg. Permtt 5/20/1999 12/2/1998 7,200 No
R2 1027 Pearl Ave. ~ Bldg. Permit 2/15/2002
Subtotal 73
R2-NW 911 07th 51. 5 Bldg. Permit 4/15/1999 10/7/1998 7,500 No
R2-NW 911 12th 51. Q Bldg. Permtt 6/12/2002 11/2/2000 7,500 No
10
R3 1327 14th 51. Q Bldg. Permit 1/9/2002 7,506 No
Subtotal 5
1107 Princeton 51. Q Bldg. Permit 12/22/1999 3/3/1999 7,880 No
Subtotal 5
R3-NW 844 03rd 51. Bldg. Permtt 5124/1999 12/16/1998 7,500 No
R3-NW 1024 03rd 51. Bldg. Permtt 8/5/1997 918/1995 No
Subtotal
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERALL TOTAL
810
282
1,092
74.2%
25.8%
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department; HR&A, Inc.
Page 2 of 5
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & A1schuler, Inc.
1011/2003
98-03Production-Revised.xls [Bldg. Permits]
Wf:"l (.....6 J
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH ALL PLANNING APPROVALS, BUT NO BUIILDING PERMIT, SINCE
.JANUARY 1, 1998
Zoning
Address
Street Name
# Units
Project Status
Bldg Permit
PZ Approval
Lot size J:ity Loan?
C3
C3
C3
C3
1411 07th 51.
1418 07th 51.
1544 07th 51.
606 ~roadway
52 Planning Appr.
48 Planning Appr.
17 Planning Appr.
~ Planning Appr.
170
15,000
No
9/15/2003
6/16/2003
C3C
C3C
C3e
1321 05th 5t
1410 05th 5t
1450 05th 5t
16 Planning Appr,
56 Planning Appr.
56 Planning Appr.
128
9/15/2003
10/7/2002
CM2
2012 Main 5t
26 Planning Appr,
9/18/2002
CM3
CM3
CM3
2012 Main 5t
2209 Main 5t
2216 Main 51.
107 Planning Appr.
35 Planning Appr,
~ Planning Appr.
144
9/18/2002
9/17/2003
9/20/1999
5,200
Yes
No
CM4
212 Marine 5t
24 Planning Appr,
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL
492
OP-2
OP-2
OP-2
OP-2
OP-2
OP-2
2618 06th 51.
2424 07th. SI.
2209 Maih St
235 Ocean Park Blvd,
126 Pacific 51.
639 Pacific St.
11/17/1999
5,935
No
Subtotal
2 Planning Appr,
1 Planning Appr.
9 Planning Appr,
3 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr.
~ Planning Appr.
23
9/2/1998
7/7/1999
9/17/2003
6,395
8,000
No
No
Yes
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
944 05th St
1750 10thSt.
838 16th 5t
1520 16th St
2013 21st 51.
1238 22nd 51.
2013 21st St.
1224 24th SI.
1237 24th 51.
2512 28th St.
923 29th 51.
1927 Cloverlield
1243 Franklin 5t
5 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr.
10 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr.
4 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr,
4 Planning Appr.
4 Planning Appr.
10 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr.
5 Planning Appr,
.!i Planning Appr.
1/8/2003
No
5/15/2002
1/8/2003
7/15/1998
6,500
No
No
No
9/15/2000
11/26/2002
8/7/2002
4/10/2000
9/15/2003
8.000
No
Subtotal
R2-NW
1027 10th 51.
Subtotal
Q Planning Appr.
5
No
R3R*
1719 Ocean Front Walk
5 Planning Appr.
12/18/2001
No
SUSTOT,AL RESIDENTIAL
105
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERALL. TOT AIL
492
105
597
82,4%
17,6%
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department; HR&A, Inc.
Page 3 of 5
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & A1schuler, Inc.
10/1/2003
98-03Production-Revised.xls [Plan'g Approvals}
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS PENDING PLANNING APPROVALS SINCE JANUARY 1,1998
Zoning Address Street Name # Units Project Status Flied PZ Approval Lot size City Loan?
BCD 1424 Broadway 41 Pending 6/30/2003
BCD 1906 Broadway 32 Pending 12/19/2002 6/20/2003
73
C3 1453 06th SI. 6 Pending 4/22/2002 5/21/2003
C3 1522 06th SI. 26 Pending 8/9/2001
C3 507 Wilshire Blvd 50 Pending 9/16/2003
Subtotal 82
C3-C 1420 05th SI. 50 Pending 6/30/2003
C3-C 1442 05th 51. 50 Pending 5/29/2003 9/1712003
C3-C 430 Arizona 39 Pending 12/31/2001 4/312003
Subtotal 139
C4 2601 Santa Monica Blvd 44 Pending 5/2112003
C6 1801 Wilshire Blvd. 30 Pending 4/12/2001
SUEliOTAL CQ:MMERClAL $68
if;n'j,5-3~f::i;1 . , '::.do<--j
'")>,,,,:) G F'l![M:!ln~l 112~.J2tllJ(~
Subtotal 5
OP-3 125 Pacific St 9 Pending 8/25/2003
Subtotal 9
R2 1415 16th 5t 6 Pending 4/29/2002
R2 1537 16th St 5 Pending 4/112003
R2 1803 17th St 11 Pending 9/11/2003
R2 2018 19th St 5 Pending 9/412003
R2 923 20th St 5 Pending 1/28/2002
R2 1237 24th SI. 4 Pending 4/23/2001 10/10/2001
R2 2512 28th St 10 Pending 5/10/2001 11/26/2002
R2 2702 Arizona Ave 3 Pending 7/15/2003
R2 1455 Berkeley SI. 4 Pending 4/19/2001
R2 1311 Centinela 8 Pending 7/11/2002
R2 2815 Colorado 5 Pending
R2 2019 Delaware 3 Pending 10/21/2002
R2 1723 Franklin 8 Pending 2/18/2002
R2 2015 Idaho 6 Pending 2/5/2003
R2 2121 Oak 2 Pending 4/8/2003
R2 1528 Princeton 8 Pending 12/30/2002
R2 2121 Virginia Ave 12 Pending 7/24/2003
Subtotal 105
R2-NW 914 05th SI. 4 Pending 1/30/2003
R2-NW 944 05th St 5 Pending 11/29/2001
R2-NW 839 09th St Q Pending
14
R3 1415 16th St 6 Pending 7/19/2002 18/18/2002
R3 1751 Appian Way 14 Pending 11/7/2002 8/6/2003
Subtotal 20
R3-NW 947 04th St 5 Pending 7/1812003
R3-NW 1032 03rd St Q Pending 2/512003 7/9/2003 No
10
Stl~TOTAL RE!lil!t::l,~p.n1At.. 'Ill,;!
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL 368 69,3%
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL 163 30,7%
OVERALL TOTAL 531
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, HR&A; Inc.
Page 4 of 5
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc.
10/1/2003
98-03Production-Revised.xls [Plan'g Pending]
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH WITHDRAWN OR EXPIRED PLANNING APPROVALS
SINCE JANUARY 1,1998
Zoning Address Street Name # Units Project Status Bldg Permit PZ Approval Lot size City Loan?
C3-C 1442 05th St. 57 Withdrawn
BCD 1527 14th St. 16 Expired 5/2/1990 15,000 No
C2 3205 Plco Blvd. 3 Expired 9/28/1993 2,541 No
C4 1331-33 Pico Blvd. 39 Withdrawn
C6 1211 09th St. 5 Expired 9/6/1995 17,428 No
C6 1801 Wilshire Blvd 30 Withdrawn
LMSD 3025 Olympic Blvd, 66 Withdrawn No
LMSD 1818 Stanford 2 Withdrawn
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL 222
R2 1801 09th St 12 Withdrawn 10/21/1996
R2 1750 10th St. 8 Withdrawn No
R2 183712thSt. 14 Withdrawn
R2 1949 17th St. 8 Withdrawn No
R2 834 16th St. 10 Denied
R2 937 16th St. 4 Expired 5/5/1993 7,550 No
R2 1938 18th St. 8 Expired 5/811991 No
R2 2815 Colorado Ave. 5 Withdrawn No
R2 1837 12th St. 8 Withdrawn No
R2 1843 12th St. 8 Withdrawn No
R2 1229 22nd St, 4 Denied 11/17/2001
R2 3004 Broadway 4 Abandoned
R2-NW 1027 10th St. 5 Abandoned
R2-NW 954 15th St. 7 itA 8/16/2002
R3-NW 825 Ocean Ave, 6 Expired 12/211992 11 ,236 No
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL 111
SUBTOTAL COMMERCIAL
SUBTOTAL RESIDENTIAL
OVERALL TOTAL
222
111
333
66.7%
33.3%
20,5% Share of Approved & Pending & Withdrawn
29,3% Share of Approved & Pending & Withdrawn
Withdrawn/Expired Share of
Approved, Pending & Withdrawn (Overall)
22,8%
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department; HR&A, Inc.
Page 5of5
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & A1schuler, Inc.
1 011/2003
98-03Production-Revised .xls [Withdrawn]
Ih.
~'.,P