Representatives from three nonprofit law firms said the Riverside City Council’s decision to reject millions in state grant funding for an affordable housing project violated the law and could leave the city vulnerable to legal action.
“This issue is not about politics, it’s about legal compliance and civil rights,” Veronica Garcia, the Inland Counties Legal Services’ housing practice group director, said at a Tuesday press conference outside of Riverside City Hall. “[The city] has an obligation to align its decisions with its adopted Housing Element, fair housing laws and state housing requirements. We are calling for that realignment.”
The event was held in response to the council’s January 13 vote to reject a $20 million state grant. That funding, if accepted, would have been used to convert a motel on University Avenue into 114 studio apartments for low income residents and people transitioning out of homelessness.
Council members Philip Falcone, Steven Robillard, Chuck Conder and Sean Mill voted against the project. During council deliberations, and in the weeks after, the four said residents were left out of the planning phase and the project would have negated years of slow revitalization in the neighborhood. They also said they didn’t agree with the state’s Housing First model, which focuses on getting people into housing first and then providing wraparound services.
Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California (ACLU), the Inland Counties Legal Services (ICLS) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP), said that decision went against a policy related to homelessness included in the city’s Housing Element.
The state-required plan, updated in 2021, serves as the foundation of the city’s housing strategy and established goals, objectives and policies. Included in the policy is the city’s commitment to the Housing First model and the integration of supportive housing units into all affordable housing projects.
Stay up to date with the latest from The Record. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter today!
“The city’s obligation under its Housing Element, that’s a mandatory duty,” Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson, PILP staff attorney, said. “Those obligations are long standing, they are existing in the state laws and the city of Riverside is duty-bound to follow them.”
The law firm representatives said continued noncompliance could expose the city to legal action and financial consequences, including the loss of its prohousing designation by the state. As part of the designation, Riverside receives priority and preference when applying for certain state grants.
According to the firms, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the agency that issued the grant, also has the power to revoke the classification.
The firms also alleged the council’s decision constituted discrimination under state and federal fair housing laws and could also leave the city vulnerable to litigation. Those concerns were first outlined in a letter the firms sent the council on February 10, the procedural deadline for one of the four dissenting council members to reconsider their vote according to an email sent by the city clerk to The Riverside Record.
“We’re looking right now toward HCD, and the developer, to see if they’re going to be taking any legal action relating to a lot of the issues,” Garcia said. “We are in communication with them and trying to find out what their stance is right now, before we make any firm statements regarding potential litigation.”
The law firm representatives said they believed the city’s obligations, along with the concerns outlined in the letter, provided the council the ability to legally reconsider the matter.
However, the city of Riverside released a statement February 27 announcing that the procedural deadline had officially passed and that there was no litigation filed at that point.
“The council’s vote on January 13 cannot be reconsidered,” Housing and Human Services Director Michelle Davis said in the statement. “We are issuing this clarification to ensure the community has clear and accurate information regarding its status.”
In a March 2 email to The Record, an HCD spokesperson said it was open to re-awarding the grant if the council were to reconsider.
Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, who spoke during Tuesday’s press conference, said the council planned to review the letter sent by the firms during closed session sometime in April.
In an op-ed published by the Raincross Gazette, Robillard said the threat of litigation should “concern residents,” arguing that policy disagreements should not become lawsuits in an effort to circumvent the council’s decision.
Falcone and Mill, in response to The Riverside Record’s request for comment, pointed to the city’s February 27 statement. Conder did not immediately respond.
The Riverside Record is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news outlet providing Riverside County with high-quality journalism free of charge. We’re able to do this because of the generous donations of supporters like you!