By Jonathan Friedman
Associate Editor

September 25, 2014 -- City Councilmember Kevin McKeown, who called himself a “houser” who “looks for ways to create affordable housing” had harsh words on Tuesday for his fellow members of the dais and City staff about how they handle developers.

The council was voting on setting fees developers must pay to support the City’s affordable housing and parks and recreation projects. City staff recommended the affordable housing fee, which only applies to commercial developers, be $3.07 per square foot to $11.21 per square foot, depending on the type of commercial use.

McKeown wanted the fee to be quadruple the amount proposed by staff. Not getting any support on the dais for his proposal, McKeown dropped his demand to double what staff proposed. With this, Councilmember Tony Vazquez came to his side. But the other five council members were not interested.

A major fear for other council members was that raising the fee too high would make smaller commercial projects unfeasible, which was what City staff and financial consultant Paul Silvern told them. Developers would then propose larger projects.

Councilmember Ted Winterer said the council needed to consider “unintended consequences of setting these fees so high that we incentivize larger  projects”

This argument did not persuade McKeown, nor was he persuaded by the argument from other council members and City staff that commercial developers with smaller projects might not build at all with a higher fee.

“If [a higher fee] means that fewer commercial projects get built or they take longer because we have to wait for a developer who is better capitalized or frankly has a better more profitable project, I don’t think the residents of this city would be terribly dismayed if there were less commercial development as a result,” he said.

McKeown also added some commentary on how he believes development agreements are handled in Santa Monica.

“I have watched councils over the years on development agreements accept the absolute minimum on affordable housing … Now maybe that’s because it’s very hard for some council members when there’s a developer standing right in front of us to say 'we want to charge you more money.'”

He added, “This is a tremendous lost opportunity. We always get a developer friendly analysis … and then we always undershoot as a result, and we yield our quality of life to increasing development without getting the community benefits that we could get from these projects. And here we go again.”

No council member responded to McKeown’s statement, although his nemesis on the dais Mayor Pam O’Connor said “OK” in what appeared to be a disagreeable or dismissive tone.

After the proposal for a fee double what City staff proposed failed get support from a majority of the council, a vote was taken on the original proposal, and it was supported by everybody but McKeown.

A vote for the parks and recreation fee was not controversial. The council unanimously supported a fee of $4,138 to $7,636 per residential unit and $1.27 per square foot to $3.11 per square foot of commercial development, depending on the type.