> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Council props up Prop R housing - URL: https://www.smdp.com/council-props-up-prop-r-housing/ - Published: 2005-05-19T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T07:10:41.000Z - Author: Ryan Hyatt - Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Council seeking more affordable housing* CITY HALL — For the average worker, living in Santa Monica may become more affordable in the future. That’s if the City Council’s plan to make developers pay more into a citywide affordable housing fund and provide them with incentives to build more units proves successful. The council provided city staff with multiple suggestions on Tuesday designed to entice developers to increase the number of affordable housing units produced in Santa Monica over the next decade. The move comes on the heels of a presentation that indicates there are irregularities in the number of affordable housing units produced in the city since 1995. Spearheaded by Councilman Kevin McKeown, the suggestions were also supported by Councilmen Richard Bloom and Ken Genser and Mayor Pam O’Connor, each of whom voted to increase affordable housing “in-lieu” fees for developers to a higher citywide average. The council also directed staff to create a new housing ordinance that would encourage the creation of more affordable housing on or close to free-market developments. Councilman Bobby Shriver was the lone dissenting vote, saying the steps were too dramatic, lacking sufficient financial analysis and developer input. Councilmen Bob Holbrook and Herb Katz were absent from Tuesday’s meeting. “We are doing well with housing production overall in Santa Monica, but we need to do something to increase the proportion of affordable housing being built,” said McKeown. “We need to focus (on the future), because affordable housing is going south.” Proposition R — a measure approved by Santa Monica voters requiring 30 percent of housing units constructed in the city each year to be affordable — has been met or exceeded five out of the last 10 years, according to information provided by Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler, the firm helping Santa Monica manage its affordable housing portfolio. However, that rate of production has been declining steadily in the past few years, prompting elected officials to take action. The City Council agreed city staff should draft a resolution which would increase the in-lieu fee for apartment developments from $6.14 per square foot, a rate established in 1998, to $21.68 per square foot citywide. Condominium development fees, which were $11.01 per square foot as of 2000, would be bumped to $25.63 per square foot citywide. Jim Kemper, a senior systems analyst at City Hall who is familiar with affordable housing financing, said developer “in lieu” fees comprised approximately $500,000 of the $12 million that went toward the affordable housing fund in Santa Monica last year. The vast majority of the affordable housing fund — $9.2 million — came from re-development taxes accrued and distributed through Los Angeles County, which the city has no direct control of. Kemper said it was difficult to speculate what effect bumps to in lieu fees might have on development in Santa Monica and the affordable housing fund since the two factors are inter-related. He said the fees could contribute significantly to the affordable housing fund if development continues at the same pace or increases, but he said an adverse effect of slowing development was a possible result. In addition to increasing the developer fees, McKeown directed city staff to explore incentives for new housing projects which would offer more multiple-bedroom housing units for families. He also suggested that affordable housing be built for moderate-income households, not just low-income families. In order to increase economic diversity within housing projects, McKeown also suggested that developers be required to produce twice as much if they choose to build affordable housing off site from their free-market developments. The City Council plans to meet behind closed doors next week to discuss implications of any changes to the city’s affordable housing plan in anticipation of possible legal challenges. Meanwhile, staff will continue to develop the City Council’s suggestions. Any permanent changes to the housing plan will be brought back to the City Council for review and final approval in coming weeks. Santa Monica attorneys Ken Kutcher and Chris Harding, who represent numerous developers and property owners, shared Shriver’s concerns that the actions may be premature. “The current program is working,” Kutcher said. “To take dramatic steps to change it, in our view, would not be wise without knowing the implications.” Shriver compared the affordable housing suggestions to a broad change in a business plan without considering its effect on customers. “While I support the idea (of considering affordable housing changes), I would like to know, say, if this were my business, what effect we might expect on my customers,” Shriver said. “Right now, I don’t know what developers would have to say about these changes. We need more financial analysis.” The majority of councilmembers appeared confident the direction they chose was supported by a majority of residents. They also added that the public will have a chance to comment on the plans before they are approved. “If (the affordable housing changes) did not satisfy development, I don’t think the community would be upset with that,” Genser said. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 19, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/051905.pdf?ref=smdp.com)