City Council Sides with BIA
on In-Lieu Fee
On Monday, the San Diego City Council voted (5-3)
to change the date on which the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee is set for a
development. When the inclusionary ordinance was adopted, the fee was set at
the time that the building permit application was deemed complete. The
Building Industry Association sued the City claiming that the original motion
that set the parameters for the ordinance intended that the fee used would be
amount in effect on the date that the tentative map or development permit
application was deemed complete. The City Council entered into a settlement
agreement with the BIA in May of 2004 where the City agreed to review the
language.
Since that time the he Housing Commission adopted
a recommendation that the BIA recommendation be used but that the fee has to
be reset every 3 years if the building permits have not been pulled. This was
the basic staff recommendation that was brought forward to the Council on
Monday. It included a provision that any development that has already
submitted a complete application for a tentative map or development permit
would pay the current fee of $2.50 a square foot.
The Federation, as well as, the San Diego
Organizing Project, the Affordable Housing Coalition of San Diego County and
the Center for Policy Initiatives all argued for not changing the ordinance.
In addition, the Independent Budget Analyst argued against changing the date
due to the fiscal impact. The City Attorney said that the City had a strong
case, but could not guaranty the outcome. The Federation's letter and
testimony pointed out that when the Council approved the final ordinance that
they fully discussed the two methods of setting the fee and chose to use the
later date.
During Council discussion, Council Member Frye
said that the compromise had already been made when the Council adopted an
in-lieu fee instead for requiring the all units be built. Council Members
Atkins and Hueso joined Ms. Frye in voting against the change.
Council President Scott Peters said he was
supporting the motion because of the risk of the lawsuit. However he said that
the Council will be reviewing the in-lieu fee policy this year because it is
clear that too many developers are choosing the fee instead of building the
units. That sentiment was echoed by Council members Madaffer and
Young.
Housing Bond in
Jeopardy
The inclusion of Prop. 46 programs in the state
infrastructure bond is facing strong opposition by the Republicans. Phone
calls and meetings with our local delegation are needed next week while they
are here on their spring break. Assemblyman George Plescia from Northern San
Diego and other North County cities has been elected Republican Caucus Leader.
His support will be crucial. Furthermore, both he and Assemblymember Mark
Wyland's districts have received the bulk of the MHP funding we have received
here.
It is absolutely essential to let these
Republicans know that MHP and the CalHFA homeownership programs leverage
private capital, are not welfare grants and they create jobs.
George Plescia
9909 Mira Mesa Blvd., Ste.
130
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: (858) 689-6290
Fax: (858)
689-6296
E-Mail: assemblymember.plescia@assembly.ca.gov
Mark Wyland
1800 Thibodo Rd, Ste.
300
Vista, CA 92081
Phone: (760) 599-1641
Fax: (760)
599-1650
E-Mail: assemblymember.wyland@assembly.ca.gov
One Tax Credit Application
from San Diego County
There was one application for 9% low income
housing tax credits made from San Diego County for Round 1 of 2006. The
geographic allocation for the round is $2,095,147. The
application is requesting $1,135,833 for an 80 unit senior project in National
City. The Plaza City Apartments is being developed by Willow Partners, LLC
of Westlake Village, CA.
TCAC
Publishes Study of Augmentation of Existing Tax Credit
Awards
In response to requests for supplemental tax
credit allocations for projects whose constructions cost increased
dramatically due to changing market conditions, TCAC conducted a study of what
other states due. The study was published this week.
The major conclusion of the study was
that:
California's
9% allocation process is quite different in that it is (a) dramatically
oversubscribed, and (b) competitively driven with a heavy emphasis on tax
credit usage efficiency. Therefore, any system that allows a back-end
petition for additional credits jeopardizes the good public policy outcomes
sought by the current scoring scheme. Good faith users of California's 9%
system have candidly told staff that they would err on the side of
understating estimated development costs if a readily-available augmentation
mechanism existed. This is contrary to the credit-efficiency objectives we
seek with our scoring.
The compete study is available at: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/.
Celebrating 15
Years of Support and Advocacy for Affordable Housing
ã 2006 San Diego
Housing Federation, 450 B Street, Suite 1010, San Diego, CA 92101 (619)
239-6693
Website: http://www.housingsandiego.org Email:
sdhfstaf@housingsandiego.org
