gh rents which, in turn, contributes to the high turnover rate amongst failed businesses. In this regard, the business lobby is hurting its customer base rather than helping it.
Characterizing those who qualify for low-income housing as pariahs is unjust. Studies for the Western San Gabriel Valley have shown occupations that would qualify as low income include security guards, EMTs and paramedics, retail salespersons, preschool teachers, mental health counselors, and cosmetologists among others—the very people who contribute to a successful city (Table 3) . These are people who are key to the local economy but cannot even afford to rent a home, let alone purchase one. To afford a two-bedroom apartment, a family needs an annual income of $57,880 in Los Angeles County, and this assumes no monthly debt such as car or credit car payments .
The trend continues
After 2008, the city changed their density bonus laws to comply with state law. But after nearly 20 years of non-compliance, the city is mostly built-out in terms of large rental units. And although the city now complies with state law, it hasn’t stopped them from exceeding density bonus regulations. Even worse, they are granting density bonuses without any return to the community in the form of affordable units. Specific Plans are the new vehicle of choice to circumvent city planning ordinances which otherwise restrict the number of units per acre. These are special zones that are engineered by the city to serve their needs. Most recently, they have been employed to allow mixed-use housing developments along Main Street with densities that exceed the requirements as listed in the general plan. This policy appears to be at odds with the state law, yet they are routinely passed with little to no discussion at the city’s open meetings. Because they are city-engineered maps, there is no requirement for any set-asides for affordable units.
The Zen Terrace debacle
The city’s development services department was found to be less than diligent when it comes to protecting the city’s affordable housing obligations. Case in point: At the November 15, 2010 Alhambra Planning Commission meeting, the city allowed a group of investors to purchase new condominiums at below-market rates which were originally dedicated to low to moderate income seniors.
The recently constructed, 64-unit Zen Terrace condominium complex located on the Northwest corner of Atlantic and Commonwealth was built with the promise that 16 of those units would be dedicated for low to moderate income seniors. In return, the developer, Sam Wong, was granted a density bonus which would allow him to construct 50% more units per acre than normally allowed under city ordinances.
At a previous planning commission meeting on November 1, 2010 city staff placed an item on the consent agenda asking for a revision to the agreement. The proposed revision would have allowed anyone to purchase the units, at the affordable rates, regardless of the purchaser’s need. The proposal also allowed units to be rented out; the only stipulation being that such units must be rented to seniors who meet low-income requirements.
At the November 1 meeting, Sam Wong stated the reason for the proposed revision was due to difficulty in selling the units. Wong cited the poor economic climate as the reason and said there was a lack of qualified purchasers.
At the same meeting, James Funk, Director of Development Services, provided statements that were contradictory to the city’s affordable housing policies. He stated that the original agreement did not place any restrictions on the purchase price. Commissioner Gary Frueholz expressed his confusion with the statement. Others also expressed confusion and the meeting was continued to November 15.
One cannot discount the needs of seniors, and there are obviously significant numbers in need of affordable housing. But why did the city largely ignore everyone else?
But when the commission next met on November 15, it was revealed that the reason for the proposed revision was due to the fact that 9 of the 16 a