g 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 affordable units had already been sold to unqualified investors months ago. The purchasers were neither seniors nor low to moderate income qualified. It is unclear as to why neither staff nor the developer came forward with this information at the previous meeting. If the item were not flagged by the SGVOG at the November 1 meeting, it is very likely that it would have passed without discussion.
To further complicate the matter, the city attorney rendered the opinion that the city could not impose any restrictions as to whom the units could be rented.
Commissioner Enrique Garcia said, “To me, the spirit was very clear that the 16 units were to be for purchase and occupancy by senior citizens of low and moderate income.” Likewise, Commissioner Gary Frueholz said that “the conditions were clear and he’s not really confused by this.”
But Commissioner Stan Yonemoto cited Mr. Wong’s good intentions and the contradictory information provided by the city to him with regard to the agreement. The resulting vote by the commission approved, by a 4-3 vote, the proposed revision which essentially allows the 16 units to be open for purchase and rent by anyone .
In the end, the 16 units which were originally intended to be owner-occupied by low to moderate-income seniors are now open to anyone. Investors were allowed to purchase at the same below-market rates and allowed to rent out the units unrestricted. This action appears to be illegal. It is no doubt unethical as it hurts both those in need of affordable housing as well as local residents who tolerate the higher density provisions and conversion of owner-occupied units to rentals.
The affordable housing practices of the former Alhambra Redevelopment Agency (ARA)
There are many in the city who do not realize that one of the main goals of the redevelopment agency was to provide affordable housing. State law even mandates that a minimum of 20% of the tax increment revenue must be dedicated to the creation of affordable housing. But Alhambra has consistently focused revenues ba