Loading...
SR-400-005 (7) f:\atty\muni\strpts\bar\drthresholds.doc City Council Meeting 9-24-02 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Modifying the Development Review Thresholds in the C3, C3C, and BSC Districts to 7,500 Square Feet, and Exempting Affordable Housing Projects With No More Than 50 Units from Development Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit Requirements in All Zoning Districts Except in the LMSD, DP, BP, and R-MH Districts; and Discussion of Planning and Community Development Priorities to Include Future Modifications to the Development Review Process, Development of Design Guidelines for the Downtown and Modification of the Traffic Impact Significance Threshold INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim ordinance which would lower the development review thresholds in the Downtown to 7,500 square feet, but which differs in two significant ways from the proposed threshold ordinance before the City Council in July. First, the new ordinance would change the percentage of affordable units, and the affordability level of these units, that is required for a project to be exempt from the ordinance. Second, the new ordinance would add a broader, largely Citywide exemption for 100% affordable housing projects containing fifty units or less, exempting these projects from development review and conditional use permit requirements. Attachment A to this report is the new, proposed ordinance. This report also presents recommendations on future modifications to the development review process, the development of design guidelines for the Downtown, and the development of 1 revised traffic impact significance thresholds. BACKGROUND At the May 21, 2002, City Council meeting, members of the public expressed concerns about development in the Downtown. They testified that large-scale development projects were creating adverse traffic, parking, privacy, aesthetic and other impacts, which were threatening their quality of life and the ambiance of the area. In response, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would lower the development review threshold in the Downtown to 7,500 square feet and to prepare a constraint analysis so that the Council could evaluate whether the proposed threshold reduction would constrain the production of housing. On July 23, 2002, staff returned to Council with the constraint analysis, an ordinance lowering the development review threshold and an alternative ordinance, which would have addressed concerns about construction impacts by imposing construction rating. During the public hearing, members of the development community expressed concerns about the uncertainty and the length of the development review process. They also questioned both some of the assumptions in the constraint analysis and the conclusion that a project with 25% affordable units would be economically feasible. Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced the ordinance lowering the development review threshold and also directed staff to return with recommendations on improving the development review process and developing community consensus on a 2 vision of the Downtown as to the scale and design of future development. After the rd meeting of the 23, and in response to input from the development community, staff and the Citys consultant reviewed the constraint analysis and concluded that modifications = were needed to some of the financial feasibility assumptions. Specifically, the average unit sizes used in the financial feasibility models inadvertently retained the upper floor corridor areas used to estimate the number of units. Factoring out the corridor areas and considering average unit size information in recently constructed apartment projects results in a change to the rentable floor area per unit. In addition, the assumptions about average rent per market rate unit have been modified. The constraint analysis has been revised accordingly. Attachment B to this report is the revised constraint analysis. Attachment C to this report is a detailed response prepared by the City’s consultant to comments received from the development community about the July 16, 2002 constraint analysis. DISCUSSION The New, Proposed Ordinance The revised constraint analysis indicates that a project with 25% of the units affordable (10% very-low, 15% low income) may not in fact be economically viable based on the land costs to develop the property. Accordingly, the proposed interim ordinance has been modified to exempt residential projects with at least 20% of the units affordable to low income households (60% of median income) or 10% of the units affordable to very low income households (50% of median income). These percentages now mirror the 3 requirements of the Citys Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) and use its = median income thresholds, rather than those specified in Ordinance No. 1999 (CCS). Alternatively, the exemptions could be narrowed; however, staff recommends against that option because it could increase the chance of a legal challenge. Additionally, in order to ensure the success of the Citys ongoing efforts to promote the = development of affordable housing (notwithstanding the change in the exemption and other factors), the proposed ordinance has been modified to exempt affordable housing projects consisting of not more than 50 residential units from any requirement to obtain Development Review Permits and/or Conditional Use Permits in all zoning districts Citywide except the LMSD, DP, BP, and R-MH Districts. An affordable housing project is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as housing in which 100% of the dwelling units are restricted for occupancy by low or moderate income households. Such projects may also include non-residential uses as long as such uses do not exceed 33% of the floor area of the total project. However, the interim ordinance would restrict occupancy to low income households only and would authorize non-residential uses up to 15% of the floor area to maximize the amount of affordable housing produced and to mirror the definition of affordable housing in State law. Non-residential uses would only be permitted as a matter of right if these uses are presently permitted uses in the Zoning District in which the project would be located. Conditionally permitted non-residential uses would continue to need a Conditional Use Permit. 4 This proposed exemption would allow affordable housing projects with not more than 50 units (including those with greater than 7,500 square feet of a single use) in the Main Street Commercial (CM) District and projects with more than 75 feet of frontage along Main Street to be approved administratively. In the M1 (Industrial Conservation) District and the C5 (Special Office Commercial) District, affordable multi-family housing of 50 units or less would not require a Conditional Use Permit but would be a permitted use which similarly could be approved administratively. Except for the modifications to the exemptions detailed above, the proposed ordinance remains the same as the ordinance before the Council in July. That ordinance was patterned after Ordinance Number 1999 (CCS) which reduced the development review thresholds in other commercial districts. Like the ordinance considered in July, the attached proposed ordinance would not prohibit additional construction in the Downtown, but would lower discretionary review thresholds and address the concerns expressed by strd the public at the hearings of May 21 and July 23. The constraint analysis concludes that lowering the review threshold in the manner now proposed would not constrain the production of housing. This assessment was based on financial feasibility simulation models of prototypical projects that would be exempt from the proposed ordinance, including residential projects that are similar in scale to what has actually been constructed in the downtown area in recent years, but which would include the percentage of affordable housing specified in the ordinance. The actual number of 5 affordable units was based on an assumption that the total number of units in the project would include the 25% State Density Bonus market rate units. Consequently, the A@ number of affordable units provided was calculated using the remaining 75% of the units as the project base. While the analysis concludes that the proposed ordinance would not constrain housing production, it would adversely impact commercial construction. The analysis indicates that the lowered threshold would discourage certain commercial projects. CEQA Status As prepared, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. Indeed, the proposed Ordinance serves to further protect the environment by ensuring that development projects are designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and incorporate pedestrian design features. Providing an exemption for affordable housing projects consisting of not more than 50 units is consistent with the exemptions for affordable housing provided in CEQA. Permit Processing and Staffing Implications As stated in the July 23, 2002 staff report, the proposed Ordinance has staffing and permit processing implications. Lowering the development review thresholds would lengthen the processing time for the affected applications and would also increase workload because 6 processing development review applications is notably more complicated and time consuming than processing administrative approval applications (particularly if environmental review is necessary). Moreover, the environmental review required for most development review applications will occupy staff potentially deferring other work. These workload impacts may be alleviated if the Development Review Permit process changes substantially following the adoption of specific design guidelines for the Downtown, and/or if the thresholds of significance for traffic impacts are modified and fewer Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are required as a result. Neither of these changes would mitigate impacts while the ordinance is in effect. The Development Review Process and Traffic Thresholds of Significance The City has already undertaken numerous efforts to streamline and improve the overall development review process. Some of the measures implemented within the last year include: assigning a project manager for each project to serve as the central point of contact for customers; providing customers with a comprehensive set of written comments from all affected City departments; offering customers a free pre-submittal meeting with senior staff from all affected City departments to provide customers with early feedback; cutting approximately twelve weeks out of the development process by streamlining the procurement procedures for hiring environmental consultants required to prepare CEQA and NEPA analyses; cutting approximately four weeks out of the development process by streamlining the Citys internal review of environmental documents; creating a master = schedule for better internal tracking of projects requiring environmental review; and, 7 instituting standard turn-around times in plan checks to give customers greater predictability as to timing. In addition to these many improvements, staff has identified several other possibilities for improving the Citys development review process, particularly as they relate to promoting = affordable housing. One of them is modifying the threshold for traffic impacts. Since the Development Review Permit is a discretionary permit, the provisions of CEQA apply and environmental analysis will be required for projects over 7,500 square feet prior to the public hearing unless otherwise exempt. If it is determined that there may be significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. According to the Citys current = significance criteria, a project may be considered to have a significant traffic impact if there is any net increase in traffic, even one additional trip, depending on the location and the level of service at the impacted intersections. The application of these criteria results in an EIR being required for the majority of Downtown development projects, and for many other residential and commercial projects throughout the City. In many cases, because the City is built-out and the preservation of on-street parking and pedestrian amenities is desirable, mitigation measures to alleviate potential traffic impacts are not feasible. A project with significant impacts that cannot be mitigated cannot be approved without adoption of a Statement of Overriding 8 Considerations. This requirement increases processing time and creates uncertainty for the developer. To address this problem, Transportation Planning Management staff is currently investigating the thresholds used in various communities, including the cities of Culver City, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach and Santa Barbara, and evaluating options for Santa Monica. Staff expects to have this analysis completed in several months and will thereafter be prepared to make recommendations to Council on changing criteria for the Downtown. Design Standards for the Downtown To further increase the predictability of the discretionary review process, to reduce delays associated with the current process, and to promote uniformly high-quality design, staff recommends that design standards be developed for the Downtown. These standards would be developed through an extensive public process and, therefore, would ensure that the communitys vision for the Downtown is incorporated into a project at the beginning = rather than the end (i.e., Architectural Review Board consideration) of the development process. Once adopted, the standards would ensure that projects designed in compliance with the requirements would not be denied based on design issues. This would increase predictability while incorporating the communitys vision and fostering = quality design. It would also alleviate the shared concern of developers and community 9 members that, under the current process, opportunities for input come too late. Staff further recommends that the new design standards be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. Staff estimates that drafting standards, conducting the associated public process, and preparing the Zoning Ordinance modifications will take approximately one year and cost approximately $150,000. The study would occupy staff time currently dedicated to other Council priorities and no provision for the cost of the study was made in the adopted budget for 2002/03. Additionally, staff recommends that the review and approval process be modified upon adoption of specific design standards. The Interim Ordinance requiring a Development Review Permit for projects with 7,500 square feet or more of floor area, would be replaced by a new permit type and/or review process. Options for this modified process include: 1) review by the Zoning Administrator, with appeal to the Planning Commission; 2) review of project compliance with the new design standards by the Architectural Review Board, with appeal to the Planning Commission; or 3) review of project compliance with the new design standards by an urban designer on City staff with a public hearing held only if the determination is appealed. This third option is similar to the process employed in other communities, including West Hollywood. Staff recommends further consideration of the first of these three options, specifically an approval process that will utilize Zoning Administrator review similar to that used for Performance Standards Permits. It is envisioned that a new permit type such as a 10 Downtown Development Permit, would be required, since the current Performance Standards Permit is focused on the use of the property rather than the design. Alternatively, the Performance Standards Permit findings could be expanded to include conformance with downtown design standards. The Zoning Administrator option is preferable because it does not involve increased staffing, employs an existing process and provides the City with an opportunity to exercise administrative discretion, adopt specific findings of fact to support the resulting decision, and ensure that the project is constructed in a manner consistent with the adopted design standards. The process does allow for continued public involvement since the determination made by the Zoning Administrator to approve or disapprove the project is mailed to residents, businesses and owners of property adjacent to the site, and is provided to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would be involved in the approval process for complicated and/or controversial projects since it would review projects with concurrent applications for a Conditional Use Permit, Text Amendment, Subdivision Map or other permits subject to Commission review. Additionally, the Planning Commission would serve as the appeal body. The preparation of design guidelines and creation of a new permit process could be accomplished within a year provided staff concentrates resources on the issue. This would necessitate re-prioritizing the Planning division workload. The Council could consider deferring the Antenna Ordinance Update and the Auto Dealer Study or the North 11 of Wilshire and Sunset Park R1 development standards, to accommodate design guidelines and creation of a new permit process. Financial Impact If the Council lowers the review threshold, workload will increase and no funds are available to increase staffing. Although the requirement of preparing an EIR will increase costs for development applications, city revenues will not be impacted since applicants reimburse environmental costs. Should the Council initiate design guidelines, the costs of such work could total $150,000 and could be shifted from funds set aside for the Auto Repair Standards or North of Wilshire and Sunset Park R1 standards. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council introduce the attached proposed Ordinance for first reading and direct staff to do the following: 1) revise Planning priorities and direct staff to initiate a public process to create specific design standards for the Downtown; 2) develop revised thresholds of significance for traffic impacts Citywide, with different criteria for different areas of the City; and 3) study the appropriate level of review and propose a new review process for Development Review Permits in the Downtown. PREPARED BY: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development Jay Trevino, Planning Manager 12 ATTACHMENTS: A: Proposed Ordinance B: September 17, 2002 Constraint Analysis C: Responses to Comments on July 16, 2002 Constraint Analysis 13 ATTACHMENT A Proposed Ordinance f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\drintorddowntown-1.wpd City Council Meeting 9-24-02 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS) (City Council Series) AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THRESHOLDS IN C3, C3C AND BSC DISTRICTS TO 7,500 SQUARE FEET AND EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS OF FIFTY UNITS OR LESS FROM A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITYWIDE 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) A development review permit is intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design and siting could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area such as development that is proposed to be built to a greater intensity and building height than generally permitted in the area. (b) A development review permit allows for the review of the location, size, massing and placement of a proposed structure on the site, particularly as the project relates to the existing context of the area in which it is located. The development review process is designed to ensure that the development is compatible with and relates harmoniously with the surrounding neighborhood. (c) The City’s Zoning Ordinance establishes by zoning district square footage threshold criteria for development review permits based upon the floor area of a project. (d) A project that requires a development review permit is subject to public review by the Planning Commission, with appeal to the City Council, whereas a project below the development permit review threshold can be administratively approved. (e) Presently, under the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City’s development review thresholds vary from 5,000 square feet in the C2 district along Montana Avenue to 30,000 square feet in the downtown zoning districts, the industrial zoning districts, the C5 Special Office District, portions of the RVC Residential Visitor Commercial District and the C6 district along Wilshire Boulevard. (f) However, the City presently has in place an interim ordinance which modified the development review threshold in the RVC Residential Visitor, BCD, C2, C4, C5, C6, CM, CP, M1 and LMSD Districts to 7,500 square feet with certain exceptions, including housing projects with at least 15% of the units deed restricted as affordable to households with 80% of median incomes and 10% of the units deed restricted as affordable to households with 60% of median incomes and housing projects with 100% of the units deed restricted to households with 80% of median incomes. (g) The City itself is extremely dense with a land area of just eight square miles and a population of approximately 85,000 people. Additionally, about 300,000 people work in the City and approximately 500,000 people visit the City on weekends. The downtown business district is particularly dense and busy. (h) Since the early 1990's, the City has promoted housing by creating substantial incentives for developers to build such housing in the downtown area. These incentives have particularly favored affordable housing. (i) During recent years, the City has experienced an unprecedented economic prosperity. (j) As a result of these two factors, and others, construction in the downtown has boomed, far exceeding expectations. Indeed, there are currently approximately 800 new housing units in various stages of completion in the downtown area, having obtained either a certificate of occupancy, a building permit, or all necessary City approvals but a building permit. (k) Some of the housing developers have taken advantage of the opportunity to build multiple, large, identical or nearly identical projects on adjacent lots or on lots in close proximity pursuant to administrative approvals. (l) These projects helped the City achieve its goal of promoting housing; and, today, the downtown is home to many Santa Monica residents. (m) However, the impact upon residents and businesses of the building boom in general and the building of multiple identical or similar large projects on the same block has been substantial and dire. (n) Because such projects have, individually, been beneath the downtown review threshold of 60,000 square feet, they have been subject to only administrative review. (o) The current development review thresholds in the downtown area of the City is too high since these thresholds have resulted in the administrative approval of projects that create significant adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Yet, given the ministerial nature of the approval process, the City was not able to mitigate or address these impacts. (p) More specifically, these larger scale developments have created adverse noise, traffic, parking, aesthetic, privacy, light and air, shade and shadow impacts on these residential areas and are incompatible with the existing scale and character of these neighborhoods. (q) During the period of May 1997 through May 2002, thirty-three (33) administrative approvals were issued both for new buildings and additions in the C3, C3C, and BSC Districts of the City. (r) The median new building project size equaled over twenty-eight thousand feet with fourteen projects exceeding forty-eight thousand feet. (s) Because of the high threshold for discretionary review, residential neighbors and members of the business community have not had the opportunity to express particular concerns relating to such issues as the location of loading docks, trash collection sites, driveway access, and impacts upon light and shade – an opportunity they have in the discretionary review process. (t) Consequently, because the downtown has become much more dense in recent years and because it has become home to a large number of City residents, it is necessary to lower the development review threshold to ensure that the quality of the area is preserved for the benefit of residents, workers, and visitors alike. Reducing the development review threshold to 7,500 square feet would allow thorough review of the impacts of large projects and enable the public to participate in this review. Reducing the development review threshold would also ensure that administrative approval is only available to smaller scale developments which produce far fewer adverse impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. However, adoption of this ordinance would not prohibit any uses currently authorized in the downtown. (u) Indeed, reducing the development review threshold would not alter the City’s substantial commitment to promoting residential uses in non-residential zoning districts which is manifest in City policy and law. (v) Residential development in all of the City’s commercial districts would still be authorized. Thus, residential development could still occur in over 80% of the City’s acreage. (w) Moreover, City policy provides substantial development incentives for residential housing. For instance, in the BSC, C3, and C3C districts, any floor area devoted to residential use is eligible to receive a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) discount of 50%. For instance, a residential development located on two adjoining lots in portions of the C3C district would be eligible to develop a 60,000 square foot project in contrast to a 30,000 square foot commercial project. (x) Additionally, the City has eliminated the restriction on the number of stories that can be built if the structure contains at least one floor of residential use and has increased the maximum height of projects with a designated number of floors of residential use. (y) The City’s Affordable Housing Production Program housing fees are also discounted for residential development in commercial areas. (z) Additionally, in determining whether a development review permit is required for new development, floor area devoted to residential uses is discounted by fifty percent (50%). Thus, even with the proposed changes, residential development of up to 15,000 square feet could be approved administratively. (aa) Further, this ordinance exempts projects that are one hundred percent affordable to households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or less or projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent of the floor area is devoted to multi-family housing with fifteen percent of the housing units affordable to households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or ten percent of the housing units devoted to households with incomes of sixty percent of median income or less. Such projects could be administratively approved if the projects were less than 60,000 square feet. This ordinance would also establish affordable rental housing projects with no more than 50 units as a permitted use in all districts in the City which already authorizes this use and would eliminate the development review permit requirement for these projects. (bb) The ordinance’s exemptions for affordable housing projects and projects with a significant percentage of their units affordable to low income tenants advances several goals and policies of the City’s Housing Element including, but not limited to, Housing Element Policy 2.8 (Continue to provide development incentives and reduced planning fees for development of affordable housing). (cc) In preparing its 2000-2005 Housing Element, the City contracted with the policy, financial, and management consulting firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler (“HR&A”). HR&A undertook an extensive review and analysis of numerous governmental programs to assess whether these programs operated as a constraint on housing development. Although not generally required in conjunction with the adoption of an ordinance, the City subsequently retained HR&A and voluntarily undertook a constraint analysis on the proposed ordinance because of the City’s strong municipal commitment to fostering affordable 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 operate as a constraint within the meaning of State Housing Element law because it will not add costs to a project that are so substantial that it would render an otherwise feasible project to become infeasible. (dd) However, for the reasons detailed above, it is not appropriate that all housing projects above 15,000 square feet continue to be approved without discretionary review unless these projects constitute affordable housing projects or contain a significant portion of affordable housing. (ee) Given the circumstances described above, the Zoning Ordinance requires review and revision as it pertains to the development review permit threshold in the C3, C3C, and BSC districts. (ff) Pending the study and possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, it is necessary, on an interim basis, to extend the modifications to the existing project design and development standards in these districts establishing a 7,500 square foot threshold for requiring a development review permit. (gg) 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 modifications to the development review thresholds be implemented and that the following standards for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts on an interim basis. SECTION 2. Interim Zoning. Except as provided in Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance: (a) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the C3 District, unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing C3 District property development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (b) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the C3C District unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing C3C District property development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (c) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the BSC District unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing BSC District property development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. SECTION 3. The following projects shall be exempt from this ordinance: (a) Projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least twenty percent (20%) of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of sixty percent (60%) of median income or less or at least ten percent (10%) of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of fifty percent (50%) of median income or less. The required percentage of affordable housing units shall not apply to the 25% State density bonus units if so provided in the project. (b) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent (100%) of the housing units are deed- restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent (80%) of median income or less. SECTION 4. Affordable Rental Housing Projects with no more than fifty units shall be considered a permitted use, shall not require a development review permit, and shall not be subject to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.28.040 (v) and (w). All other property development standards and architectural review requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel is located shall apply. For purposes of this Section, an affordable rental housing project shall be defined as rental housing in which 100% of the dwelling units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent (80%) of median income or less. An affordable rental housing project may also include non-residential uses, as long as such uses constitute neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail uses that do not exceed fifteen percent of the floor area of the total project and these neighborhood-serving goods, services or retail uses are designated as permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel is located. This Section 4 shall not apply in the LMSD, the DP, the BP, and the R-MH districts. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect forty-five days from the date of its adoption, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, or any successor ordinance thereto, the City Council, by majority vote, extends this interim ordinance. SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, appendices thereto, or any interim ordinance 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 effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. 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 of this 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 8. This Ordinance shall be applicable to applications for development projects deemed complete on or after May 21, 2002. SECTION 9. 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 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE City Attorney ATTACHMENT B September 17, 2002 Constraint Analysis Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries. ATTACHMENT C Responses to Comments on July 16, 2002 Constraint Analysis Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.