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.