Trying to Skirt Affordable Housing Law : Government: Rich communities are trying to make deals with neighbors to accept their share of required multifamily units. Critics say it is segregation.
San Marino has a housing problem: The small, wealthy community has been told by the state that it must provide 18 units of affordable housing by 1994.
But in San Marino, where the median home price is more than $500,000 and apartment dwellings have been forbidden, city officials say they cannot, and will not, comply.
Seven miles east lies Duarte. Duarte already has 925 units of low- and moderate-income, multifamily housing, and more in the works. Duarte officials say that with a median home price of about $170,000 and a mix of housing options, their city is an ideal setting for even more affordable rental homes for those who cannot afford California’s inflated real estate.
City officials, housing industry experts and even some legislators have suggested that a city such as San Marino might pay a city such as Duarte to take over its affordable housing requirements.
No formal proposal has been made. But as both cities see it, with a trade of dollars for housing, San Marino would satisfy its requirement, Duarte would be paid for doing what it already does and the state would meet its low- and moderate-income housing goals in the region.
Such a trade is not permitted under state law, but San Marino, with a population of 12,959, represents a problem that has been developing in cities throughout California: for a variety of reasons, some are rejecting the “fair-share” housing laws set up by the state to provide accessible housing for people at all income levels.
“I see trading as a viable possibility for the future,” said state Sen. Frank Hill (R-Whittier), a member of the Senate Local Government Committee who is drafting legislation for the City of Industry that would allow it to fulfill its housing obligation by donating land for a high school to Diamond Bar.
“If your goal is more low- and moderate-income housing, then what does it matter if it’s on the other side of the street?” Hill asked. “Shouldn’t you use some common sense?”
Some affordable housing advocates, on the other hand, say the idea amounts to economic and racial segregation by affluent cities. William Powers, former director of the Sacramento-based Western Center for Law and Poverty, derided Hill’s proposal and the idea of trading.
“Given the weakness of (state) law, we believe many better-off communities would rush to send their (low- and moderate-income housing) funds out of their jurisdiction,” Powers testified last month before the state Senate Local Government Committee, which looked into the trading idea.
“We would be closing down housing opportunities and exacerbating conditions which already separate communities by economics and race,” he said.
The Senate Local Government Committee took no action. But Hill said he would continue to pursue the City of Industry proposal.
Under the Housing Policy Act of 1970, every city in the state is required to provide a certain amount of low- and moderate-income housing. In Southern California, each city’s goal is decided by the Southern California Assn. of Governments based on several criteria, including need, population and commuting patterns. Each city must adopt a housing plan for affordable units and outline how the goal will be met. There is no requirement, though, that cities actually meet the goals.
Because its intent is to distribute affordable housing as evenly as possible, the law prohibits any city from bartering away its requirement.
In the last two decades, more requirements have been added. For instance, cities must submit progress reports on their projects. And in 1977, the state applied strict standards to cities with redevelopment agencies, requiring them to spend 20% of the tax money gained from agency projects on building and fixing up low- and moderate-income housing. Cities without redevelopment funding remain under the weaker 1970 law.
Over the years, however, there has been little compliance with any of the laws, mostly because the state has no means of enforcement, except in cities that get community development money. In fact, the state Department of Housing and Community Development has determined that 80% of all local governments in California are not complying with housing allocation goals.
In the San Gabriel Valley, only Pasadena is in compliance, according to the SCAG, the six-county agency responsible for determining housing needs in the region. All other cities have either not met their goals, are under review or have not submitted a housing plan, SCAG reported.
“There really is a problem here, and it goes way beyond San Marino,” said SCAG’s Joseph Carreras, a housing program manager. “Right now it’s obvious that there is a great deal of resistance to the law. It’s something that needs to be resolved.”
Political pressure against the housing requirements is growing locally. In Glendora, for instance, several recent City Council and Planning Commission meetings have been packed with residents opposed to a tentative plan to provide 338 units of low-income housing over the next four years.
In December, a hostile crowd of nearly 300 showed up to protest the plan. Critics said it would bring gangs, drug addicts and crime and would strain police services and the school system. Last week, the council flatly rejected a Planning Commission proposal for 141 affordable apartments and condominiums. Duarte City Manager Jesse Duff, a strong proponent of affordable housing, said part of the reluctance in some places is because people think affordable housing is like the drab housing projects for the poor that were built decades ago. Affordable units typically being built today are not like that, and many middle-class people need affordable housing, he said.
“There’s a large percentage of folks that qualify for it,” Duff said. “It’s very hard these days to come straight out of high school and be able to afford a $200,000 home.”
He cited two large-scale developments--the 121-unit Duarte Park Apartments for senior citizens and the 112-unit Highland Downs--as models of low- and moderate-income apartment complexes in his city, which has 20,688 residents. They are bright and modern and look like any other apartment complexes.
But San Marino officials say that even the new types of affordable housing would not fit in their city, which has no multifamily housing and only three open lots, each big enough only for a single-family home. Last month, the City Council passed an updated version of its housing plan, which included 18 units of low- and moderate-income housing. But officials said they have no intention of complying with it.
City Manager Keith Till brought up the idea of trading, saying it might be possible within the next few years. In the meantime, Till said, the city might be able to meet some of its requirement by approving small, one-room units as additions to single-family homes. The units are often referred to as “granny flats,” and can be counted toward a portion of a city’s affordable housing requirement.
In the City of Industry, with a population 631, the question is one of self-determination. Officials there say they do not want to build any kind of housing, affordable or not.
As its name suggests, the city deals almost exclusively in commercial and industrial development. The City of Industry has until 1994 to spend 20% of its redevelopment tax money on affordable housing or forfeit the money.
Hill’s proposal would allow the Industry Urban-Redevelopment Agency to meet its redevelopment requirements by donating 50 acres to Diamond Bar for a high school, which Diamond Bar officials say is badly needed in the fast-growing community. The two cities are discussing plans for affordable housing in Diamond Bar near the school, said Industry City Atty. Graham Ritchie.
Hill said that although the bill is being tailored to the two cities, other cities might be encouraged to seek similar legislative relief.
Other Southern California cities that have had problems complying with the 20% redevelopment law include La Canada Flintridge, Cerritos, Rancho Palos Verdes, Hidden Hills in the San Fernando Valley, Newport Beach in Orange County, Indian Wells in Riverside County, and Carlsbad and Poway, both in San Diego County.
In 1988, then-Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed Indian Wells’ attempt to get around the redevelopment law by building low- and moderate-income housing outside its boundaries.
But SCAG’s Carreras said that he believes the climate has changed since 1988, and that the state will eventually allow trading in housing allocations and redevelopment funds--with certain restrictions.
For example, cities may have to get their trading plans approved by the state. In the process of trading away their requirements, those cities may also have to provide additional funding to the receiving municipalities for increased police and school services. And there may be a stipulation that trades can only be negotiated between adjacent communities, or within a reasonable commuting distance.
“Right now, the state treats San Marino no differently than it treats Los Angeles. And to a lot of people, that doesn’t make any sense,” Carreras said. “I think the Legislature is realizing that and will be providing for some kind of flexibility in the near future.”
BACKGROUND
Affordable rents are established by California housing rules according to family size and income. For example, the maximum affordable rent for a family of four is calculated as 30% of its monthly income. According to the state, the term moderate income describes households earning 80% to 120% of the median annual family income in the county of residence. In Los Angeles, the median income is estimated by the Southern California Assn. of Governments at $42,000. “Low-income” households earn 50% to 80% of the median. In addition, there is a “very low income” category for those earning below 50%. Thus, affordable housing could cost $840 to $1,260 a month for a four-member family of “moderate income,” $525 to $840 for a family of “low income” and $525 or less for a family of “very low income.”
