SR-407-002-02-03 (3)I~d_~
la~ '~"'
ATTACHMENT B
Constraints Analysis and Nexus Study; Condominium Review
HAMILTON, BABINOVITZ & ALJCHULER, TnC.
Po~icy, Financial & ManUgemeret Cun,ulta~et~
MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert Moncrief, Housing Manager
MEMORANDUM FROM: Paul J. Silvern
SUBJECT: Characteristics of Recent Condominium Projects
DATE: December 7, 1999
This memorandum summarizes the characteristics of 30 new condominium projects
submitted to the City of Santa Monica ("City") for land use entitlement approvals, between March
l, 1998 and April 30, 1999, a period that includes final approval of the Affordable Housing
Production Program.' The number of applications was a surprise to City staff and decision
makers, and a source of concern about the implications of these projects for City housing policies
and impacts on the neighborhoods in which they would be constructed. On May 25, 1999, the
City Council adopted Interim Emergency Ordinance 1944, which established a 45-day
moratorium on multi-family development in the City's multi-family residential zoning districts, to
enable the City to assess the impacts of new development and other related housing issues. The
moratorium was subsequently extended for nine additional months.
The analysis reported here explores the degree to which the 30 new projects differ in any
significant ways from condominium projects proposed in past years, and the motivations
underlying the developers' decision to apply for permits at this time. Following a summary of
our findings and conclusions, the memorandum presents (beginning at page 4) the physical and
operational characteristics of the 30 recent projects, and compares them with past patterns of
condominium development, based on HR&A analyses prepared for the City's Housing Element
Updatez and its Affordab]e Housing Production Program.' We then report (beginning at page 17)
the results of telephone interviews with nearly all of the new project developers regarding their
motivations for proposing their projects, including the relative importance of changed masket
~ Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC), Chapter 9.56, commencing with § 9.56.00.
Z City of Santa Monica, 1998-2003 Ilou,ring F_len:ent Update, 1998, including a Tccluvcal Appendix
containing 10 HR&A memoranda and reports, whose subjects include assessments of the City's Conditional Use
Permit process for ncw condominiums, and its previous Inclusionary Housing Program (Ordinance 1615), as
potential or actual "constraints" on the development of new housing in the City. (Hcreinafter, "Housing Element
Update").
' HR&A, Ine., "Revised Inclusionary Housing Prograni for the City of Santa Monica," a memorandum
report, dated April 6. 1998. (Hereinafter, "Re~-~sed Inclusionary Housing Program Memo'}; and HR&A, Inc., The
Nexus Between R'ew Market Rate Multi-Farnily Developments in the City of Santa 1Llonica arrd the Need for
Affordable Hor~sing, July Z 1999. (Hereinafter "Neavs Studt").
i~~:> >oc'r~-[ Bc~vl~ Dizrt~r-. Scirf ~?,, Lus A~c,Fr_ss, C~u.[FOx~i,~ 9cc>~ , T~~_ _~.o.Szo.3443 • P~a: ;raiS~o-677Fi
N~~~,, y~~Kti Los An;ce~es
Characterrstics ofRecent
Condominium Projects
circumstances and recent changes in City development regulations, including fee option in the
Affordable Housing Production Program.°
In a separate memorandum we analyze the financial feasibility implications of the changes
in market conditions, as reflected by these projects, for the nexus calculations underlying the
Affordable Housing Production Program's fee option.
4 SMMC § 9.56.070.
HA_~1IL'fON, Rr16INOVITZ & ALSCHLI[,~2; INC. Page 2
Characteristics of Recent
('nvir)nminivm Prnin~l~
I. OVERVLEW AND SUMMARY OF RECENT CONDOMINIUIVI PROJECTS
Thirty new condominium projects, with 176 units, were submitted to the City of Santa
Monica for land use entitlements between May 1, 1998 and Apri130, 1999. The following is a
summary of their characteristics, and comparisons with condominium developments during the
past decade.
The number of condominium projects, and proposed units, is Zarge by
comparison with most of the I990s, but is not unprecedented in Santa Monica's
recent history. The number of projects is significantly higher than in most of the
vears of the 1990s_ a neriod that included a severe economic recession and
~ - ---- -~-~--- --- - - - -
numerous changes in City development regulations. But, the volume falls short of
.L- - --i--- _r___~.__~.___ m_~ A..1~,_ ~L_ 1_..s _..,,1 .. „_i.,,~ ~,...1_ .,f 1 hDl1
uic iiuiuuci vi a~Yu~auuii~ iucu uuiuiy uic ia~~ icai cSiaic iiiaiac~ ~ca~ vi i7o7-
199o, when over half the total number of condominium project applications in the
p~st 10 years were r:ied. The 30 new pro~ects are abe ~' *wo-tturds ofthe n;~~ .5er
proposed in 1989, and one-third of the 1990 total.
Tlen mrorn7/ c~nlv nasil ir'foHCihr nfflro vimar nrniorfc ir cirnilnw is~ sv~nrf rocs~ v.~fc
...., ....,....... ~........ ......... ..........,,. y J ...... ....... t.~ J...,..., ... .,........... ~ .... ,,....,.. ... ~,...,...,~
to past condorninium projects, but they are more heavily concentrated north of
~lshire Boulevard and have somewhat larger average unit sizes. Most of the
new projects are relatively small, as in the recent past. They are primarily one-lot
developments on sites zoned for low-density multi-family development, and all
have 12 or fewer units each; about three-quarters have five or fewer units. A
much larger proportion of the newer projects than in the recent past, however, are
planned for sites north of Wilshire Boulevard (63%), and fewer (10°/a) will be
located south of Pico Boulevard. Oce-lot pro~ects with two-be~room units, the
dominant project type, are slightly larger (by 237 square feet, or 3%), on average,
than in the recent past, and the average size of the two-bedroom units is larger (by
222 square feet, or 16%).
~72e new conuominium projects wiii repiace rentai units to a greater riegree
than in the recent past. Two-thirds of the new project sites contain, or previously
contained, rental units, and the other one-third were vacant or featured single-
familv hnmec Thi~ is a reversal in the relative nrnnnrtinns nf nri~r uses cmm~arerl
-- - - ~ -- -~----
with the recent past. It reflects further depletion of the supply of vacant and
._l., C ..._:1"" ,. "Ia: l ~'7"' _ ".,11 .. ,_L..~.~,.,, : ....__i_~.,_"
3iiigic-iaiiury ~iic5 iTi iiiuuriauury cGiic9, a~ wcu as ciiau~c~ u~ ic~uiawiy
procedures, including changes influenced by court decisions, that make it easier to
remove controlled rental units under the Ellis Act today.
The necv condominium projects s~epresent n net ancrease of dwelling units an the
City's housing stock, but a reducPion in the number of units #hat rent at prices
affarclable to lower-income households. Overall, the 176 new condominium
HAM[LTON, R,4BINOVITZ & ALSCFICR.GR, I'VC. ~ P3gC 3
Characteristlcs ofRecent
('nnllnminivsn Prnio~ta
units will replace lo9 existing, or previously e~sting dwelling units, for a net
increase of 67 units. Ninety-one of the previous units had restricted rents under
the City's Rent Control Law. About two-thirds (62, or 68%) of these units rented
at prices that today would be "affordable" to lower-income households, based on
City definitions that include rent and number of bedrooms per unit.
The ne-v condominiums will produce abaut $2.I million in Affordable Hausing
Fee revenue, which can support development of 14-16 new units affordable to
lower-income households. If all 30 projects eventually pay the new Affordable
Housing Fee of $7.31 per square foot, as elections to do so stated in 21 of the
nroiect annlications sueeest_ the fee nroceeds will sunnort develonment of 14 units
affordable to a low-income household, or 16 units affordable to a very low-income
,~_......,~..,a .~... ~:...,.. .. ..~...:a.. _
iiuu~ciiviu, ai ~iic ~,uy ~ av2ia~c jici-iii~ii Suu~iuy ia~2.
~'aty land use entitde.;.~nt processing outcomes for r.c~se projects are similar to
past trends, hut hearin~ bndy deeision time lines are faster. All of the new
condominium projects that reached the Planning Comtnission or City Council prior
+.. fhP rr. r~+nr:~.m .> >Pra ~vith rnnrli4innc anA mnct Ya~Pra avamnt Frnm 4ha
w u.v ...v.uw..~a.,, v.wv c~i.^yr~v~.... ...~,. ........ .... ......~.. ....... ..«..,..r.....,... ~,...
California Environmental Quality Act, due to their small number of units. It now
takes less time to obtain discretionary decisions, from the date an application is
accepted for processing compared with the recent past.
C'hanges an market condition~i. ~, the ability to sell units for a higher price-is
the primary reason applicants initiated the new condominium projects, not
changes an City regulations. Structured telephone interviews with the sponsors
of nearly all of the 30 new condominium projecta indicate that improved market
conditions is the primary motivation for seeking City approvals of their projects at
this time. Only one applicant mentioned the new Affordable Housing Fee, and
only as a secondary factor. This case involved a project approved six years ago
,.:+I, ~ h~„t,or ~ff ,-.7~l,lo i,.,.,~;,,.. C P rP.,,,;rA..,A..+
..... ~ ...b..,,. ~...,.,.w,..,. ...,.,~...b ..,., ..,y.....,....,..~.
1 iee new projects are projecting higher sa~es prices than an past years, but they
are paying more for land and construction costs. Interviews with project
applicants indicate that although sales prices have risen over the past few years, so
hava lanrl rnctc anrl cnnatmctinn cncts ThP fPasihilitv imnlinatinnc nf thPSP
"-' - -~'- -~.._.. _'-_ -~"..`-...-`-~" -_.._... --'- --_..'..'-°~ "-'r"--'-~"., _- "'-.._
changes, and what they imply for the City's Affordable Housing Fee, are addressed
'--------__r,,,o-~ -------~--
1T1 A SC~3IdLC I7iC0.'K IIICIIIOCGiIUUIII.
I3AMIi;PON, RABINOViT7 & ALSCHULER, INC. Page 4
Characteristics of Recent
r„~a,,,,,;.,;,,~., vr,,;o,.t.
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW PROJECTS AND COMPARI50NS WITH
PAST TRENDS
The following sections present the characteristics ofthe 30 condominium projects filed
between May 1, 1998 and Apri130, 1999, based on a detailed review of the City's application
files.s Where possible, the analysis also presents comparisons between these projects and new
condominium project applications filed between 1989 and 1995, or in some cases, between 1989
and 1997. The historical patterns used for comparison are those contained in analysis prepared by
HR&A for the Housing Element Update.
A_ Numher nf PrniP~tc Prnnnserl
--' "-----° -----u-------r-'-_ .
m~- -----L- -° ---~--°--'---- ---~-`- -_~ _______a _._:.,. :.. i..___ ~__ __.v_....:..__ ---:.L
t ne nurn~er ui ~unuurimuu~u pru~c~w, auu ~iu~weu uws_, i~ iaige vy wiii~raii~~ii wiiii
most of the 199os, but is not unprecedented in Santa Monica's recent history. As shown in Table
1, 1998 was the first year in nearly a decade that more than 10 new condominium projects have
been proposed in a single vear. On the other hand, the 32 new condominium projects filed in all
of 1998 and 1999, through April 30,6 fall far short of the numbers prnposed during the tast real
a~+~+A ..,o.-lrP4 nP~l~ nf 1 QRQ_ 1 OQ(1 Tho annliratinnc filarl in inet thneP t~x~n voarc arrnnnt fnr nvPr
.,~.........K,...,, Y.,~.~ ~. .,,,, .,,.,. ...., wrr...,.....,.,., ....,.. . .~ ..... ......... ... ~..~.., .....,.,..... ..,. ..,.,.
half (61%) the total projects and units (58%) proposed in the past decade. The number of project
applications in 1998 is about two-thirds of the 1989 total, and about one-third of the 1990 total.
The pace of 1999 applications, as of the end of April, indicates that the number of projects and
units filed in 1999, on an annualized basis, would have been a little larger than 1998 (i.e., about 27
projects and l 56 units), if not for the moratorium, but of similar magnitude compared with the
1989-1990 peak.
' A copy of the application audit protocol used by HR&A to eatract inforntation about each project from
City files is included as Appendix A.
~ For purposes of dcscribing the relauve volume of applicaUons, we include~ one additional project (957
19°i Street) filed in 1998, but prior to the May 1 cut-oETdate used in other analyses presenled in this memo, and
anotl~er project filed during the analysis period (1513 9'~ Street), but whose application file was unavailable for
analysis. In most other cases, the analysis focuses on 30 new projects.
HAM[LTON, RAQ[NOVTTZ & ALSCHLILLR, INC. Page 5
Characteristics of Recent
('nv~~ mini»m Pvnia~fc
., ................»... _ ...~_.,..,
Tahle 1
Number of Condominium Project Applications in Santa Monica, 1989-1999
Application Number of Projects Number of Units
Year
Number Percent Number Percerrt
1989 33 20.1 % 190 19.6%
1990 67 40.9% 370 38.3%
1991 12 7.3% 75 7.8%
1992 8 4.9% 63 6.5%
1 QQv7 . ~ .'2,7% G9 F_7 W
1994 0 0.0% 0 0.0°k
1995 3 1.8% 1~ 1.0°k
1996 2 1.2% 10 1.0%
1997 1 0.6% 5 0.5%
1998° 23 14.0% 133 13.8~
1999b 9 5.5~0 52 5.4°h
Total 16`4 7~U.(7`~ .. iVU.U%
° Inrinriac n iar+filnrl in Fahri~~r~. 1QQR
............~. ..~P N~~~~~. ...~~ ... . ~~. ~~. ~ . ~~~.
' Through April 30, 1 999, including one project which is nat ana lyzed in
subsequent sections.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; HR&A
B. Project Location
The locations of the 30 projects proposed between May 1, 1998 and Apri130, 1999, are
illustrated in Figure 1, on the following page. Nearly two-thirds (19, or 63%) are located north
of Wilshire Boulevard, with about one-quarter (eight, or 27%) located in the central part of the
City, including downtown, and the remainder (three, or 10%) are in Ocean Park. As Table 2
inAiratac thP rnnrantratinn nfrarunt nrniarte in fha nnrtharn r~art nftha (~it<r ic a Aar~arti~ra frnm
,.w...w. .... ................~...~., ... ....+....~ ~.,..~...,w ... ..,... ,.........,,.. r,... ~ .,. ...... ",.-J ., .. .,t........... ...,,..
the trend during the earlier years of the past decade, when the distribution was more
geographicaiiy even, norch io souin. - ne cenirai pari oi ine i;iiy ~i.e., downiown and ine iviid-
City area) received a somewhat smaller share of the new condominium activity than was the case
previously, and the proportion of more recent projects in the Ocean Park area is significantly
lower than in the rest of the 199os.
HnMiLTOn~, Rnsit~ovrrz & Ai.scrtu~~,R, Irrc. Page 6
MAP KEY
0.6 0 U.6 1.2 Miles
~
9. 2922 Montana
2. 2728 Montana
3. 1107 Prlnceton
4. Sd6 21st
5. 2021 Montana
6. 2002 idaho
7. 2030 California
8. 838 19th
9. 834 16th
10. 933 15th
11. 954 14tlt
12. 838 10th
13. 1~2210~
14. 1111 10th
15. 938 Llncoln
16. 911 7th
17. 401 Montana
18. 844 3rd
19. 1046 3rd
20. 1573 Berkeley
21. 1254 24th
22. 1238 22nd
23. 1534~38 97th
24. 1252 Euclid
25. 1544-48 12th
26. 1719 Ocean Front
27. 639 Paciflc
28. 1751 Applan
29. 702 HIII
S0. 2618 Bth
~f Roads
Zip Codes
90401
<:~ 90402
~ 90403
90404
~ 80405
' Namiitan, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Condominlur~ ProJectApplicatlons Deemed '
1990 So. Bundy Drive, Suite 777 Flgure 1 I
Los Angeles, CA 90025 Complete, March 7, 1998 -April S0, 1989,
310-820-3444 City oP Santa Monlca
Characteristics of Recent
!'..,,.,J,..,,.;v.;,,,., D,.,.;,,..~..
iauviiunsum i ~ ~c
Table 2
Locations of Candominium Project Applications
in the City of Santa Monica, 9989-1999
Number of Projects Number of Units
Area of the City
Number Percent Number Percent
1989-1997
North of Wilshire 48 36.4% 288 36.8%
Dowrrtown/Mid-City 50 37.9% 285 36.4%
c..~..ti ..s o:....
~ V, ,yV ~n 7F ilc~L. 7no 7F 7M
Total 132 100.0% 782 100.0%
1998-1999°
North of Wilshire 20 62.5% 115 62.2~
Downtown/Mid-City 9 28.1 % 62 33.5%
South ofi Pico 3 9.4~Yo 8 4.3%
Total 32 ilJ~.O%a lu5 iUU.~`Yo
~ rti...~~..ti e.,.~i ~n ~ o0o
~ ~~~...,y~ ~.r... .. . ....,.,. i.,..i~.,~e~ +,..,.. „~,~~+~.,.,~i ., cP.-r~ .,a, f..
...... ........ ..... ..........,.... r.'~~_.., r... ... .,+.,,,+a~ r~
,.........~ ...
Table 1.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; HR&A
C. Zoning Districts
As in the recent past, the low-density, multi-family districts (i.e., R2, R2-NW and OP-2)
predominate among the recent projects, accounting for the locations of over three-quarters of all
projects (23, or 77%). These districts permit two-story build~t~gs, between 28 and 30 feet in
height. The medium density districts (R3,R3-NW and R3-R) account for the remaining one-
quarter of the new projects (7, or 23%). Five of these projects are three-stories, up to 40 feet in
heighi, whiie ihe oiher iwo are iwo-siory projects.
Table 3 compares the distribution of projects by zoning district with 32 randomly selected
and renresentative condominium nroiects filed between 1989 and 1995. that were analvzed in the
Housing Element Update. It shows little change in the relative distribution of projects as between
~..... .~.......~.. .....~ «....~...~... .~..«...4.. .~...4T...4.. n «....... ~~... ~~... .~.......4.. .a...4~.i.4.. ~.i..........r 4~..~ r ..«4
ivw-ucu~i~y auu uicuiuiu-ucuauy ui~~u~.w. ~uu~ug uic ivw-ucuouy umui~.w~ iivwcvci~ wc ~ct,ciu
projects show a higher representation of RZ-NW District sites, consistent with the c~ncentration
of these pro~ects north of Wilsture B~ulevard, where that zorung dtstrict is located.
HAMILTON, RA[3IN0~'ITZ BC ALSCIiULER, INC. P3g0 8
Characteristics ofRecent
('nndnmi»ium Prnioctc
Table 3
Zoning Districts for Condominium Project Applications
in the City of 5anta Monica, 1989-1999
32 Representative 1998-1999 Prajects'
Area of the City 1989-1995 Projects
Number Percent Numher Percent
Zoning District
R2
OR2
R2-NW
Subtotal Law Density
R3
R3-NW
R3-R
.~~,UDIOteI ivietiium i~ensi'ry
RQ ~L-I~yl~ fle..3'!„
27 65.6% 13 43.3%
2 ~,3% 3 14.n%
1 3.1 % 7 23.3%
24 75.0% 23 76.6%
6 18.8°~ 3 10.0%
1 3.1 °~ 3 7 0.0%
O
% 0.0%
L I ..~770 1
'F 3.3%
L3.37o
i g,~ne, n n,noi
Totai 32 100.0% 30 100.0%
' Through April 30, 1999.
Source: Housing Element Update; HR&A
D. Project Size
1. Lot Sizes
A1130 of the recent condominium applications are for projects with 12 or fewer units,
consistent with past trends favoring relatively small projects on one or two lots. The eight largest
new prolects (i.e., 9-12 units) are on sites exceeding 10,000 square feet in size, mostly two lots.
One project with five units is on an over-sized 10,000 square foot site, and the other 21 projects
„Rio_i„+ aa.,o1,,,,,,,a„r~ ,.f+l,roo r., ~ ,,;+~ o"-t, Tol.lo ~.. ~+t,e ~;.o .,
ua~ ~~~~s~~ ~v~. ~IVV~~v1J~al~1i1.J vi ~.t~l~V 4v Jln UiL4J VC4Vll. 1CLV~V ~ VVmYG~VJ L~i~ J1Ll~ CLL~CL
characteristics of the recent projects with 32 representative condominium projects filed between
iy~y anp iyy~. It snows tnat the more recent projects tenci to feature iarger iots (i.e., at ieast one
standard City lot of 7,500 s.f.) than during past years. This is consistent with the change in the
geographic distribution of the more recent projects, with many fewer in the southern parts of the
Citv. where substandard size lots are more nrevalent.
HAMILTON, Rr1BI]~~UVITZ & ALSCi[ULER, INC. PagC 9
Characteristics of Recent
Condominium Prniect~
Tahle 4
Project Site Area for Condominium Project Applications
in the City of Santa Monica, 1989-7999
32 Representative 7998-1999 Projects'
Site Area 7 989-1995 Projects
Isquare festl
Num6er Percent Number Perceni
5,000-6,000 9 28.1 °~ 1 3.3%
6,001-7,000 2 6.3% 4 13.3%
~ nm-R n~n i~ s~.5~~, i~ ~a.s~,
8,000+ 6 18.8°h 9 30.0%
Unknown 3 9.4°~ 0 0.0%
Total 32 700.0% 30 100.0%
' i nrougn Aprii 3u, i yyy.
Snurre~ Hrn~sine Element Uodate~ HR&A
Totai rrojeci rioor Area
Total project size, as measured in floor area, varies with the number of units and unit sizes
in the project. Among the 23 one-lot projects, which include between two and six units each, the
average project size is 7,780 square feet. Five, two-lot, two-story projects average 15,249 square
feet, and two, two-lot, three-story projects average 25,133 square feet. Table 5 summarizes these
project size patterns.
Among the 15 one-lot, all two-bedroom unit projects, which account for half of the 30
new projects, the average total project floor area is 7,832 squar ~ feet. All but one of these
projects includes loft area, ranging from 385 square feet to 1,424 square feet, or between 5. I
percent and 14.4 percent of total floor area. Lofts account for 10 percent or more of total floor
area in aboui haii oi tne aii-two-oedroom projecis. i ne average toiai i~oor in inese newer
projects exceeds, by 237 square feet, or 3.1 percent, the average assumed for such projects in
HR&A's "constraints" analysis' and in the analysis underlying the recommended amount of the
Affordable Housin~ Fee. The imnlications of this difference for the "constraints" analvsis and the
fee are addressed in HR&A's companion memorandum.
' Tlus analysis for the Housiug ElcmenYUpdate established the level of fcc that could be charged a new
apartment or condominiuxn project to offset its impact on affordable housing w~thout causing the return on
investment to drop below levels that are unacceptable in the development indusiry. See, Re~rised Inclusionary
Housing Memo.
HAMTLTON, RARINO\~IT7, & AISCHI.JLER, INC. PagO 10
Characteristics ofRecent
Condominium Proiects
Table 5
Total ProJect Floor Area in
30 Condominium Project Applications
in the City of Santa Monica, 1998-1999
Projects by Scale Average Project Percent of
Floor Area (s.f.) All Projects
1-Lot Projects, 2-BRs Only 7,787 50.0%
1-Lot Projects, 3-BRs Only 8,214 73.396
1-Lot Projects, Mixed BRs 7,480 13.3°/a
i_~ „+ o.,,~a,-r~ nu ~ ~nn ~F ~~
2-Lot, Low-Densitv 15,249 16.7%
2-Lot, Medium-Density 25,133 6.7 %
All Projects 100.0%
1-LV[ rfU~Cl:I~~ L'DnJ VIIIy HVO(aLJO rIVJC14l IYICU.j~i ffVJG4l
(15 projects) Floor Area (s.f.) Floor Area (s.f.)
Avg. Area {non-Loft) 7,087 7,098
Avq. Loft Area 807 692
Average Total Area' 7,787 7,946
~ Averages are calculated separately for each component and for the total.
The~efore, average non-loft area and average loft area do not equal
average total floor area.
Source: HR&A
Unit Sizes
Ofthe 176 proposed new units in the 30 new condominium projects, a large majority (124
units, or 71%) are two-bedroom units, and about one-quarter are three-bedroom units (45, or
26°/o). The remainder include efficiencies and one-bedroom units (one each), and five, four-
bedroom units. About four in 10 !43%1 of the oroiects consist of two-bedroom units onlv_
another one in five consist of three-bedroom units only, and the remaining one-third include a
._.L:__.:~_ _r.._:...
Gv~uvuiau~u ~i uiu~ aiZcS.
The average urut size for the two-bedroom umts is 1,622 square feet; 2,144 square feet for
the three-bedroom units; and 2,994 square feet for the four-bedroom units. These unit size
relationships are shown in Table 6.
H.AMILTON, RABINOVITZ cR, ALSCFIi_JLER, INC. PagC 11
Characteristics ofRecent
Condominium Projects
Table 6
Unit Type and Size Distribution for
30 Condominium Project Applications
in the City ot Santa Monica, 1998-1999
Unit Tvaes. All Proiects Number Percent
0-BR 1 0.6%
1-BR 1 0.6%
2-BR 124 70.5%
3-BR 45 25.6%
4-BR 5 2.8%
Total 176 1 ~0.~%
Proiects, bv Unit Mix Number Percent
2-BR Oniy 13 43.3%
3-BR Only 6 20.0°.G
Mix of Units 11 36.': '
Total 30 100.0%
Avera4e Unit Size Averaae Floor Area
0-6R 1 ,195
1-BR 928
2-BR 1,622
3-BR 2,144
4-BR 2,994
Source: HR&A
The two-bedroom units in the recent projects, which are more charactEristic of trends in
the northern part of the City, include more floor area than was assumed in HR&A's financial
modeling work for the Affordable Housing Fee analysis (about 1,400 square feet), conducted in
early 1998, which studied averages across the City. The upward trend in new condominium floor
area on the north side of the City is also evident from data on sales of two-bedroom units in
recently built condominium projects. The median size of a two-bedroom unit in condominiums
soid north of Wilshire Boulevard since 1997 is 1,546 square feet.g
D. Prior Use of the Project Site
According to data in the project application files, which was cross-checked with the City's
Rent Control Administration records, all but one of the new condominium project sites was
° Source: HR&A, based on analysis of 1997-1999 monllily closed sales data reported by First American
Real Esta[e Solutions. These data are an atlachment to HR&A's companion memorandum.
Hf\b411.TON, RARINOVITZ Xt AI.SCHC.'LER, iNC. PfigO 12
Characteristics ofRecent
Condominium Proiect:
previously developed with a dwelling unit. Nine projects contained single-family homes and 20
projects (67%) contained apartment units.
The newer projects represent a higher incidence of redeveloping sites that previously had
rental units on them, than was the case in the recent past. Table 7 shows that for 32
representative condominium projects for which applications were filed during the 1989-1995
period, about one-quarter of the condominium sites had rentals, nearly one in 10 was previously
vacant, and almost half previously contained single-family homes.
Table 7
Previous Uses on Condominium Project Sites
in the City of Santa Monica, 1989-1999
Previous Use 32 Represerrtative 1998-7999 Projects'
ot Projsct Site 1989-7 995 Projects
Num6er Percent Number Percent
Vacant 3 9.4% 1 3.3°~
Single-Family Home 15 46.9% 9 30.0%
Apartments 8 25.0% 2~ 66.7%
Other Uses 4 12.5% 0 0.0°~
Unknown 2 6.3% 0 0.0%
Total 32 100.0°,6 30 100.0°~
' Through April 30, 1999.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; Rent Control
Administration; Housing Element Update; HR&A
Altogether, the 176 new condominium units in these 30 projects will replace 107
previously e~cisting dwelling units, for a net housing stock gain of 69 units, or an average of 2.3
additional dwelling units per project. Not all projects represent net increases, however. As
shown in Table 8, there will be a net increase of 87 dwelling units in 22 projects, no change in the
number of units in five projects, and a net loss of 18 dwelling units in three projects.
HAMILTON, Rr~BINO~~ITZ & ALSCHiJLER, IKC. Page 13
Characteristics of Recent
Condominium Projects
Table 8
Net Change in Dwelling Units for 30 Condominium Projects
in the City ot Santa Monica, 7998-7999
Change # Rojeds Units Units Net Average Units
Before After Change Change Per Project
Net Gain 22 49 132 83 3.8
No Change 5 25 25 0 0.0
Net Loss 3 35 19 ~ 15.3)
Total 3~ 109 176 67 2.2
' Through April 30, 1999.
Source: Planning & Community Development Dept.; Rent Control Administration;
Housing Element Update; HR&A
Most of the rental units that will be replaced by the 30 new condominium projects wPrP
under the jurisdiction of the City's Rent Control Law at one time or another, but the degree to
which the rent level in these units was controlled varies with the circumstance of the unit. For
example, parcels with three or fewer units are eligible for rent level exemptions if certain on-site
resident ownership criteria are met. Under more recent changes in State law, ~acant units are no
longer subject to controls upon re-rental, provided the unit was voluntarily vacated by the prior
tenant.9 (The new rent must be maintained for the duration of the new tenancy, subject to the rent
Control Board's annual rent adjustment determination.) Further, units may be removed from
jurisdiction of the Rent Control Law through use of procedures allowed under the Ellis Act.10
Nearly half of the 30 new projects (14, or 47%) , involve use of the Ellis Act to remove 61
previously controlled rental units. One additional ur~it was pending withdrawal at the time the
files were reviewed. Another 29 units in four projects still had regulated rents that were not
involved in Ellis Act withdrawals. Thus, 91 controlled rental units (not including owner-occupied
exemptions) will be replaced as a consequence of 19 new condominium projects, or an average
replacement of 4.8 controlled rental units per project.
' Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, Civil Code § 1954.50. Analysis of the implicaUons of this State
law for the City's housing stock is included in the Technical Appendix to the Housing Elemeut Update, a more
recent study by the City's Rent Control Adminislra[ion, and Scction 8 rent level projections prepared by HR&A for
llie City's Housing Authority.
lo This State slatule (GovL Code §7060 et seq.), wlucl~ was adopted initially in 1986, provides procedures
for landlords [o exit the rental business, subject to certain statutory requiremcnts and local rcgulations. Thc
evolulion of the Ciry's Ellis Act procedures is documented in the Housing Element Update. See, HRc~A, Inc.,
"Assessment of ihe Rent Control Board's Ellis Act Removal Pernut Process as a Potential or Actual Governmental
ConsCraint on the Development of Housing," Housing Element Update, Technical Appendix, Section 4.
HAMILTOV, RABItQOVITZ 8L ALSCHULER, INC. . P3gC 14
Characteristics ofRecent
('nndnminivm Prnioct~
In evaluating this outcome, it should be recalled that the City's Ellis Act withdrawal
procedures have been simplified in recent years, in part as a result of court decisions. Thus, it is
procedurally easier today to remove an apartment building from the City's rent control
regulations, and replace it with a new use, such as condominiums, than it was earlier in the 1990s.
E, Affordable Housing Stock Implications
Maximum Allowable Rent data provided by the City's Rent Control Administration
indicate that about two-thirds of the 91 units (62, or 68%) previously subject to price controls had
rents that would be affordable to verv low- and/or low-income households todav, accordin~ to
City definitions based on both rent level and unit size. Stated another way, each of the 19 new
,..,a .....:..:..... .. o,.t.. «~..,+ .,,:n ,. .,:... .~..,+ w.,,.e ,. ,~i<. a.,a ,,.,+..,,ue,~ ,-e.,,~
l+Vll{JV11L111U111 NivJa.~w 11~Q~ WlllllilllVYG UlLL1.J L1lQL 11QYli~ Vl ^y.~J.^vu~,y ~~au~ Y1LVl~ l~V1l~lV11VLL llilLLJ
will remove, on average, 3.3 units that would be affordable to lower-income households today.
1`he actual incor.le characteristics oY the previous tenant households ,° ~~~ing in these units :._
unknown. Previous analysis conducted for the Housing Element Update found that althougr
most tenant households in rent-controlled units had incomes defined as "low" or "moderate,"
ahout 25 nercent were unner-incnme h~ucehnlds North of Wilshire Bnulevard_ where mo..*_ of
----- - ~ .-r , -- --
the new condominiums are located, the proportion of upper-income households residing in
controlled rental units was higher than the Citywide average (31%)."
At the time the project application files were reviewed, 21 of the applicants had declared
the method by which the Affordable Housing Production program requirements would be
satisfied, and all 21 elected to pay the fee of $7.13 per square foot. Assuming that a1130 projects
eventually elect the fee option, the fee total will be $2,123,672. Eighteen ofthe projects will pay
the full fee, at an average of $106,323 per project. ~he other three projects arP proposed on
vacant sites, and are therefore eligible for a 25 percent fee discount. The average fee for these
projects is $69,951. The fee proceeds will help support development of about l4 units affordabla
to low-income households, or about 16 units affordable to very low-income households, at the
averaee Citv subsidv rates ner unit (~154_ 916 and $134_822_ resnectivelvl that were assumed in
-o - ., -- - -.. - r - .- - - - ~ --, r -- .,, - -- - -
the City's Nexus Study for the fee option.
F. City Processing of I.and Use Entitlements
At the time the application files were reviewed, all but two of the applications had been
rleamPrl cmm~latP hv f''itv ataff flver half(5~~/1 nfthe nrniectc har~ heen annrnvPrl hv the
___'-'_... _.."-r.___ .,~ ~__~ .,.»__. ~ . _. ......_ ~~.. , .,~ _.' "'_ r'.,~__.., ....... ...,.,.. _rr'....,~ ..~ ....,
Planning Commission. Architectural Review Board approval had been granted to over one-third
(37%) of the projects. Four projects (13%) had been approved by the City Council, including
" HR&A, Inc., "Results of the 1995 Santa Monica Aparfinent Tenants Survey," Housing Element
lipdate, Teclmical Appendix, Section 1, pp. 27-30.
}IAMIL"PON, RAB[NOVI"IZ & AiSCfIL'LER, INC. PflgO 1$
CLearacteristics ofRecent
!'..a,lln~.oi..~i,.a.. Pvniont~
.......F..,......».,. . . ..~.,.,..
two that were appeated from Planning Commission approvals (11%). None ofthe projects was
denied by either the Planning Commission or City Council. Only one project had been granted a
Building Permit and was then under construction. None had completed construction and received
a Certificate of Occupancy. These distribution of project approvals is shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Status of City Approvals for 30 Condominium Projects
in the City of Santa Manica, 1998-1999
Category of Rental Unit 1998-1999 Projects'
Number Percerrt
v.ppiicacions ueemed ~ompieie 2a 93.s%
Pianning Commission Approval
n...ti:+e,_......i oe..:e.., c,.~.a n...,....,~i 16
„ 53.34~0
~~ ~ot
niu~~ c~.au~o~ ~i v~c. ~vo~~ ~Nr~vvo~
City Council Approval ~~
4 .~v.i n.
13.3%
Buildina Permits 1 3.3%
Under Construction 1 3.3%
Certificate of Cccupancy 0 0.0°~
' Through April 30, 1999.
Source: HR&A
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had been determined
for 29 of the 30 projects. Of these, categorical exemptions were issued for 23 projects (77%),
and Negative Declarations were prepared on the other six (20%), all of which had nine or more
units. None of the projects required preparation of an Envirorvnental Impact Report.
Data on prncessing times was not available from all project files, but some trends are
discernabie. The time between appiication niing and Lity stati's `~aeemed compiete"
determination was availabie for about half the projects (53%), and this phase took a median of 79
days. Among five projects with time data, the period from "deemed complete" to a decision by
the Plannin~ Cnmmissinn wac a median nf 34 davs_ and all but one case was comoleted in Less
o .. -, - - -- - - . _ _
than 35 days. The period from Planning Commission to City Council was a median of 146 days,
r-- - -`i--- ~--- _ :.~ ~ _ ~_~_ mt...... . _a.. :_a:_..,._ w ,. t_..:_.` ~,.i_.... .,. ,l__._.
LUl SflUL11C1 11VG ~1LU~Gl;LJ WlLll L1II1G LLQL"Q. 11IGSG W G11U5 111WGd.lG L1UiG 111LIG iJ UGIll~ IA.KGlI W UGGIIl
an application complete, but once it is, the remaining steps in the process are completed faster
than in the past, as shown in Table 10.
HAMILTON, RABINOVCPL & ALSCHULER, INC. PagO 16
Characteristics ofRecent
Cnnd~minium Pmiect~
Table 10
Application P~ocessing Times for Candominium Projects
in the City of Santa Monica, 1989-1999
32 Representative 1998-1999 Projects'
Approval Step 1989-7995 Projects
Median # Projects Median # Projects
Days Days
Filed to Deemed Complete 15 26 79 16
Deemed Comolete to Plannina
Commission Approval 49 24 34 5
Planning Commission to City
Council Approval 223 3 146 5
, n
~ nivii`yi~ i-~yiii 'av. i ~~~.
SouroP: Housing Elemerrt Update; HR&A
G. Financial Characteristics of New Projects
Recent land purchase data are available from a third party source1z for almost three-
quarters of the 30 new condominium projects. The median price paid per lot was $630,000, or
$84 per square foot. Land value data are available for 10 projects proposed for low-density
zoning districts that are intended to be developed with two-bedroom units only, which was the
prototype used in HR&A's financial feasibility analyses for the Housing Element Update and the
Ai~ordable Housing Fee analyses. The median land value for these 10 projects is $91 per syuare
foot overall. Among seven of these projects locatec? north of Wilshire, the median is $95 per
square foot, and for two projects in the Mid-City area, the median is $63 per square foot. By
comparison, HR&A's feasibility analyses for the Affordable Housing Fee assumed land costs of
t_.'-'..__ mnn m~c c _.
uc~wccii .n~rv-,n i~(~ci Syuai c i~u~.
The City's permit application form requests applicants to disclose the average selling price
for units in the pro.ject. Among 16 projects (53%) that included this information, the median sale
pnce was $475,0~0, but this includes a range of bedroom sizes. Among those projects proposed
fnr tho (~itv'c lmx~_rlancitv mnlti_farr~ilv Tlictrirte ~x~ith t~x~n_harlrr~mm ~nite tha marlian actimafarl
.... ..... ....) .. ..... ..........) .......~. .......,.) ..,~.... ...,, ...., ...~.......,.. ..... .... .....w.... ....~...,........
sales price among five projects proposed north of Wilshire Boulevard is $595,000, or ~333 per
square iooi. Estimaced prices ior two-bedroom units in ine cenirai part or tne i;iiy ranged from
$375,000 east of downtown (two projects), or $251 per square foot, to $640,00~ ($324 per s.f )
near the Ocean (one project). By comparison, HR&A estimated that two-bedroom units needed
to sell at prices between $2l 5 and $284 per square foot, depending on the City submarket, in
~Z 5ource: First American Real Esiale Solulions (formerly RF,DI-TRV~.
HAtvIlLTON, RABINOVITZ Rc ALSCHLII,F.ft, InC. Page 17
Characteristics ofRecent
Condominium Project.
order for the project to achieve acceptable levels of return on investment. The applicants'
estimated selling prices suggest these thresholds have now been surpassed.
Development cost data and other project financial characteristics were obtained in the
course of in-person interviews with several developers who consented to discuss project finances.
In general, these interviews indicate that construction costs have increased about 15 percent,
financing costs remain about the same (9.5% construction loan), sales prices have increased,
closing costs have decreased (from 8% to 6%), development fees have increased (from 5-7% to
10%) and construction contingencies have decreased (from 10% to 5%), compared with
assumptions used in HR&A financial feasibility analyses for the Afforda6le Housing Production
Program's fee calculation. The policy implications of these changes are discussed in the
companion HR&A memorandum, which presents sensitivity analyses for the Af~'ordable Housing
Fee calculation.
HAh4ILTOr, R?.BINOVITZ & ALSCHUL~R, INC. Page 18
Characteristics of Recent
Condominium Projects
iII. DEVELOPER MOTIVATIONS
In addition to auditing the new condominium application files, HR&A conducted brief
telephone interviews with nearly a1l of the sponsors of the 30 new condominium projects. The
purpose of the interview was to identify the developers' primary motivations for bringing their
project forward at this time, and to deternune which developers might be willing to discuss
project development costs in more detail.
A. The Telephone Survey
During June 1999, HR&A completed 10-minute telephone interviews with applicants who
account for 24, or 80 percent, of the 30 projects. Representatives of the other six projects
refused to participate, but did not offer a reason. In most cases t~-e respondent was a
representative of the development entity, and in some cases the respondent was the project
architect. In the 3atter cases, the architect was asked to respond to the questionnaire from his or
her client's perspective.
A copy of the questionnaire used in the interviews is includeu as Attachment B. It
included introductory questions to verify certain facts about the project (e.g., address, number and
types of units and approval status), questions about previous development experience in Santa
Monica, questions about motivations for proposing the project, and an indication about
willingness to discuss the project's finances in more detail.
The question regarding motivation allowed the respondent to choose from three possible
responses (stronger real estate market; lower cost of construction financing, recent change in City
policies), or to provide another reason. The answer options were rotated from call to call to
guard against any response bias. If a respondent stated that a recent change in City policies was
the primary reason, the respondent was asked to identify which change, including the ability to
pay the Affordable Housing Fee and the amount of the, or a self-identified change, was the most
important reason. Once again, these response options were rotated among the interviews
B. Survey Results
Develoner Experience
Anecdotal evidence emerged during HR&A's analyses of issues for the Housing Element
Update which indicated that a non-trivial proportion of the condominium projects developed in
Santa Monica were sponsored by applicants with no prior experience developing in the City, and
in some cases, no prior development experience at all. One of the initial interview questions was
intended to explore this situation for the 30 new condominium projects proposed since March 1,
1998.
Hr1MILTON, RABINOVITZ & ALSCHiJI.ER, IKC. P3ge 19
Characterisdics of Recent
Condominium Projects
Most oFthe 30 new condominium projects are being proposed by separate applicants, but
two applicants account for seven of the projects. The survey results make it clear that most of the
applicants have prior experience developing condominiums, either in Santa Monica or elsewhere.
Representatives of nineteen projects (63% of projects overall) stated that this was not their first
condominium project, though it was the first project in five cases. Of the 19 projects whose
developers indicated that they had built other condo projects, most (15) are being pr~posed by
developers with prior projects in Santa Monica.
Priman~ 7UTntivatinn fnr Filina ttia Annlicatinn
_ "'..... , ___..."..."„-- -„- ' `---a -'--'-rr°---'_"
~. ~ . u _ r.~- - -- -- - -'---.._ i.-------`'--- •,., _r~i-- ^^ ---~--`-~ --~-- --------~ .~_
L~eany ui or tine responaenis ~represennng ~~ ui ~ne ~v piu~c~~~~ wuc~ aiwwcicu ~uc
question about their primary motivation for proposing their project now, indicated that the most
important factor was the stronger real estate market (i.e., the ability to sell their units for a higher
nrice). Two resnondents stated that their primarv motivation was to ~ rovide housing for
themselves and immediate family members. No one indicated that recent changes in City rules
~+l~e o F..+.. 0... ~ rl~~+ ~l~ ~l~..lP.a ~ r~~l m~~+ ~ r~rtanf f rtnr
w~,u ~.a., j„^.a,~., ~uv~v.. r,...v..^~ 3..~ . ~~t,C~,~..~ ~,~..~ ..,~., ,............, ... ~... ....... ........ .:.^.y........~ ......
lower financing costs was cited four times, followed by City rules changes (one mention) and
other reasons (deve'lopment ior personai use; one mentionj. T-ne respondent mentioning the ruies
change cited the new Affordable Housing Fee amount applicable to a project that was first
proposed in 1993, and subject to a fee that was considered by the applicant to be prohibitive. The
ability to pay a fee at all was mentioned by one respondent, but as less than a first or second
reason.
Willingness to Discuss Project Financing
Respondents representing half of the 30 new condominium projects stated that they were
willing to meet with HR&A to discuss their projects in more detail. Meetings with some of these
n..li~ .,t~ r tl.Air ~rrl~;rP.-+c 11IlCPllllPtltlV rnn(l~~rtaA inrh~Aina fixvn annlirantc rvcnnncihla
~rr...,..., . ~.~.,.. ~.,......,,, .,,.., .,.,,,~..y,,.,..~.J .,.,.....,.,~., , ...,..,.....b ~..., ..rr ........... .....Y.,...,......
for several projects each. The information gleaned from those interviews is discussed in the
companion iiict¢fi memorandum ihat presenis sensitivi'ry anaiyses on ine t~iordabie riousing ree
calculation.
HAMIL"CON, 12~1B[NOVITZ & ALSCHiJLER, INC. PagC 20
Characteristics of Recent
Condominium Proiect:
APPENDIX A
Condominium Project Application File Audit Protocol
HAMILTON, RABINO~'IT7 & ALSCHLlLER, INC.
CTTY OF SANTA MOMCA
NEW CONSTRUCTION CONDOMINI[~I PRO.TECTS,
MAY 1, 1998-APRIL 30, 1999
FILE AUDTT PROTOCOL
1. PROJECT LOCATION
a. Street Address b. Zip Code
2. APPLICANT INFORMATION (fill in all that apply)
a. Applicant c. Architect
Address Arch. Address
Telephone_ _ Arch. Telep:_u;~e
b. Property Owner d. Attorney
Owner Address Atty. Address ~
Owner Telephone Atty. Telephone
e. City Project File Numberso CUP- ; TM- ; AA- ; ND- ; EIR-
ARB- ; CDP- ; BP-_ ; CO-
Project Planner:
3. SITE INFORMAITON (fill in all}
a. # of Parcels or Lots b. Site Area: s.f. (not inctuding alley}
c. t~lley Area included s.f. d. Total Site Area s.f. (site + alley)
e. Zoning District f. General Plan Land Use Category
4. PRE-PROJECT USE OF 'I`HE SITE (check one; fill in where needed)
a. Vacant Site b. Single-Fami{y Home
c. Rental Units d. Other Use (specify) .
# units:
#0-BR: ,, #1-BR: _, #2-BR; _, #3-BR: _
~a.sn,TOrv, Iiaenvovrrz & Aascxan.~x, l~vc. 1
5. OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS REQUIILED (other than Tract Map and
Architectural Review Board) (check all that apply; fill in where ~}eeded)
a. Yards/setbacks Variance or Adjustment (describe: )
b. Bidg. Height Adjustment (Describe: )
c. Parking Variance (Requested # spaces to be reduced_)
d. Zone Change (from what to what? )
e. General Plan Amendment (from what to what? )
f. ~ther (specify)
6. PROPOSED CONDO UNTT MIX AND UNIT S~ZES
Number of Bedrooms Number of Unikv Average Unit Size (s~
a
i
z
3
4
Total NA
6a. Lofts. Were Loft Areas Included? YES or NO
If YES, how much floor area in lofts: _ s.f.
6b. Building Height: # stories: ; Overatl Building Height: feet
7. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS THROUGH THE APPROVAL PROCESS (fill in)
Base # Units
Allowed Density Banus
^nits for Ou-
Site Affordable Market Rate
Units Affordable Units
Provided On Site Total
Units # Parking
Spaces
As Originally Proposed
As Approved by Planning
Commission
As Approved by City Council
Per Building Permit
Per Certificate of Occupancy
~~R~ffi.TO1Yy ltaraDINOVtI'B. ~L k~.l..n.FfULF,Ry LrCa
8. APPLICASLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATI~N (check one; till in as needed)
a. Ordinance 1615
b. Ordinance 1918
c. Compliance options selected by applicant (check one and fill in):
In Lieu Fee
(Preliminary Fee Calculation: gross s.f._ x (fee per gross sfl =$
(Final Fee Calculation: gross s.f. x (fee per gross sfl =$
(Date Paid: )
tlffordable Units On-Site (# affordable units on site ; rental or for-sale? _~
Affordable Units Off-Site (# affordabte units off-site ; locatian
rental or for-sale? _)
Other (specify:
9_ CEOA CO~IPLIANCE (check one aDOroach: fill in as needed)
a. Exempt Project: (YES or NO)
b. Negative Declaration Prepared (YES oe NO)
If YES, how much time was needed to complete the Negative Declaration? months
If YES, what was the applicant charged for any outside consultant costs to prepare the EIR?
$
(If YES, attach proposed mitigation measures to the pratocal.)
c. Environmental Impact Report (EIlt) Prepared (YES or NO)
If YES, how much time was needed to complete the EIR? months
if YES_ what was the aonlicant charQed for outside consultant costs to Urepare the EIR? $
(If YES, atiach proposed mitigation measures to the protocol.)
10, STAFF RECOMMENDA'I'IONS
a. To Planning Commission: _ Approve w/conditions
l~env (reagons~ 1
_ _'_l \_ _`_____.
b. To City Council re: Appeal of Planning Commission Action
_ Approve w/conditions
_ Deny (reasons: )
c. `~o City Council re: Final Tract Map: _ Approve
_ Deny (reasons: }
HA,IIILTON, RABINOVI'd'Z & AISCFiULER, ~1C.
11. CURRENT APPLICATION STATUS AND OUTCOMES
(circle ail that apply) ,
Application Deemed Complete by Staff Pending Approved Disapproved
Landmarks Commission -
Yes or No Pending Approved Disapproved
Planning Commission -
Consent Calendar or Aearing? Pending Appmved Disapproved
City Council
Consent Calendar or Hearing? Pending Approved Disapproved
Architectural Review Baard Approval Pending Appmved Disapproved
Building Permit Pending Approved Disapproved
Under Construction Pending Approved Disappcoved
accupied Pending ~ Approved Disapproved
What special issues, if any, were raised in the Planing Staff report to the Planning Commission?
(Briefly describe}
What special issues, if any, were raised by the Planning Commission? (Briefly describe)
What special issues, if any, were raised by the City Council on appeal or at Final Tract Map
approval? (Briefly describe)
i1F91Y1e9"~ONy ilF1D l~oV~`i ~ L1A.Jl.aaV°.r.R9 EIVCe
12. PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESSING TINIE LINE
(Enter all dates; if no continued hearing by the Planning Commi~sion, or no City Council appeat,
enter "none." Enter elapsed time in months.)
Action Date Elapsed
Time Notes
Application Submitted to the Planning
Department
0
Application Deemed Complete by Planning
Department
Planning Commission Final Action
Landmarks Commission Final Action
City Council Final Action ~
Arch'1 Review Hoard Final Action
Building Permit Issued
Certificate of Occupancy Issued
13. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STATUS (fill in all)
a. Is this Project located in the City's Coastal Zone? (YES or NO)
b. If YES:
(1) Date of Architectural Review Boazd "conceptual approval"
(2) Type of Coastal Commissaon Action: Exempt _ Administrative Approval
_ Ful1 Coastal Development Permit
(3) Application status (circle all that apply and fill in as needed):
Application Filed {date: )
Application Pending Corrunission Action
Commission Action: _ approval or _ disapproval (date: )
I3.~~.~'ora, Raawovmz & AascHU[.ex, Irrc.
Characterisdcs ofRecent
Condominium Proiect:
APPENDIX B
Condominium Project Applicant Telephone Interview Questionnaire
HAM[1,TON, RAf3INOV"IT"L & ALSCHLILCR, INC.