Alhambra’s Affordable Housing Plan Needs Incentives to Build

GUEST OPINION – PART 2

Alhambra City Hall (Photo – ColoradoBlvd.net)

A policy meant to make housing more affordable in Alhambra could end up doing the opposite, unless the City gets the details right.

By Alborz Mohtashami

On April 13, the City Council will debate updates to its inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). While inclusionary housing has noble goals, it is worth viewing housing policy as an ecosystem, where each piece affects the rest. The proposed updates lack key provisions that would help the policy succeed: an additional density bonus, reduced development fees, and more flexible parking requirements.

Alhambra’s IHO is meant to ensure affordable units are included in multifamily developments, applying to any project with five or more units. City staff have proposed requiring 7.5% of rental units for Very Low Income (VLI) residents (earning less than 50% of Area Median Income [AMI]), 7.5% for Low Income (LI) residents (less than 80% of AMI), and 15% of for-sale units for Moderate Income (MI) residents (less than 120% of AMI).

The goal is to ensure residents of all income levels can live near their workplaces, access quality education, and avoid being priced out of their community. Mixed-income neighborhoods also have well-documented benefits for upward mobility, safety, and social cohesion.

However, these requirements alone are unlikely to address the severe housing shortage driving rising costs. Alongside restrictive zoning and property tax constraints, high construction costs, lengthy permitting processes, and limited new supply are worsening California’s housing challenges. Inclusionary policies can also increase the cost of market-rate housing, as developers subsidize affordable units and often pass those costs on. In a city not on track to meet housing targets in the current eight-year cycle ending in October 2029, this requires a cautious approach.

Complicating matters further, at the March 2 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners recommended increasing set-asides to 10% VLI and 5% LI, despite warnings from the City’s consultant that such changes could further constrain development. This may conflict with state law, the City’s housing element, and expose the City to legal risk.

Local government can instead pair affordability requirements with incentives that keep development feasible. These include a local density bonus beyond state law, reduced development fees, and lower parking minimums to reduce construction costs and improve land use.

The City’s Housing Element already reflects this approach. Program 5 outlines incentives such as density bonuses, fee reductions, and flexible development standards. Program 17 proposes fee deferrals or exemptions for lower-income projects, and Program 20 calls for a feasibility study examining constraints like the IHO.

I urge the City Council to use this moment to strengthen Alhambra’s housing supply through these incentives. Doing so will improve the IHO’s effectiveness by ensuring more income-restricted units are actually built. Pairing affordability requirements with density bonuses, reduced fees, and relaxed parking standards will help address the housing shortage and support production across income levels, keeping the city accessible to all.

Alborz Mohtashami is an Alhambra resident, music lover, coffee enthusiast, library browser, and urbanism advocate. He is the co-chair of Alhambra Urbanists, a local chapter of Abundant Housing LA.