Rialto Attains Housing Element Compliance, Urging Compromise as Affordable Housing Opportunities Increase

Following the Council’s vote on Tuesday, March 10, Rialto has achieved compliance with California Housing Element requirements, aligning the city’s long-term housing plan with state law. While some welcome the city’s recent compliance, others remain skeptical. 

A Housing Element is a state-mandated section of a city’s General Plan that analyzes current and projected housing needs and outlines policies and programs to meet those needs across all income levels. California law requires local governments to update their Housing Elements roughly every eight years and submit them to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification. 

The Housing Element also identifies sites where housing can be built and details strategies for preserving existing housing, increasing supply and improving affordability for residents. 

Rialto’s current plan covers the state’s sixth planning cycle, from 2021 to 2029, and outlines how the city will accommodate housing growth required under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which allocates housing production targets to cities throughout Southern California. 

With compliance achieved, the city is now positioned to move forward with housing programs and development opportunities identified in the plan, which are intended to expand housing availability while supporting economic and community growth. 

For Ana Gonzalez, executive director of Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), the process took too long. 

“This element is long overdue,” Gonzalez said to the Council during public comment. “It was supposed to pass in 2021.”

After public comment closed, Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott expressed his concerns regarding what he described as a “disturbing” litigious trend, citing 19 lawsuits filed by CCAEJ in the region. 

“I find it disturbing that an organization goes around suing cities so they can get money out of them in settlements,” Scott said. 

Gonzalez then disputed Scott’s insinuation that CCAEJ profited from these lawsuits. 

Inland Empire Community News (IECN) issued a request for comment to Scott, who did not respond at the time of publication.  

However, IECN spoke with Gonzalez about the exchange, which she described as “a performative political tactic,” in which he failed to address “the fact that the city failed to enforce state law.”

“The comment that really rubbed us [CCAEJ] the wrong way was that he said that we go after cities to get some benefit, in this case, a monetary benefit for ourselves—which has never been the case, and people can go look at our financials . . . available on our website,” Gonzalez said. “Anytime that we engage in litigation it is because either the city or developer has violated some type of state law.” 

For Councilmember Edward Montoya Jr., the pressing concern centered on the potential for mishandled funds, public misunderstanding and how compliance may affect current residents. 

“There’s going to be some obstacles our current residents are going to have to navigate through, pretty much whether they like it or not,” Montoya said in an interview with IECN, specifying issues such as parking, traffic, building density and increased dust and noise pollution from affordable housing developments. 

Another concern for Montoya was the supposed affordability of the units on offer. 

“New housing opportunities give options to our current residents,” Montoya said. “Will it be more affordable? I don’t know—it has the ability for some. At the same time . . . even though we’re building affordable units, they are not all so affordable.” 

In Montoya’s view, the public needs to appreciate that not every unit within a new complex is affordable. A complex may be marketed as affordable, despite there being a much smaller number of affordable units available to “those who are less fortunate,” he said. 

Gonzalez said the Council ultimately decides on and approves the details of any project, emphasizing the Council’s need to practice due diligence. 

While the Council has the authority to approve or deny housing projects, there are limits to their capacity to set the standard. The definition of affordable is established at the State and Federal level, based on a mathematical formula to the Area Median Income (AMI) of the county where the city is located.

According to the RHNA, the total development capacity of Rialto is 8,272 units, whereby 2,218 are marked for very low income, 1,206 for low income, 1,371 for moderate income and 3,477 for above moderate income. 

Scott expressed worry regarding the small number of very low and low income units, given that almost half of the development capacity set by the RHNA is slated for above moderate income brackets, according to the slides presented to the Council by Director of Community Development Christina Taylor. 

Further, To Scott and Montoya, that the standard is set at the State level is troublesome because it hamstrings local governance initiatives. 

For example, the HCD sets specific income limits based on AMI according to five categories: acutely low income, extremely low income, very low income, lower income and moderate income. Local governments must use state-defined income brackets when drafting their Housing Elements.

Montoya also said there’s the potential to abuse affordable housing grants, citing examples of fraud, misuse and oversight issues in affordable housing programs, including a recent Los Angeles case where one developer, Shangri-La Industries, allegedly submitted fake bank records to secure and misuse $25.9 million in grants for a development in Thousand Oaks. 

To protect against fraud while satisfying California’s Housing Element, cities must implement strict audit controls. 

Be that as it may, Rialto residents will need to compromise on how commercial and residential projects are negotiated to meet the community’s needs, as some sites with existing businesses are marked for possible affordable housing developments. 

“I welcome continuous collaboration with the commercial landlords and city staff to get a win-win for everyone,” Gonzalez said as she recalled how the Vista View Apartment fire victims were directly affected by the lack of affordable housing. She later told IECN that roughly half of the displaced families moved to nearby cities because they could not secure affordable housing in Rialto.

Mayor Joe Baca motioned for the Council to accept staff recommendations and amendments. Councilmember Karla Perez seconded the motion, and, with the exception of Councilmember Andy Carrizales who recused himself, the Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion. 

“In support of very low income and low income housing—and not the taking away of any commercial properties—I vote aye,” Scott said.