HomeMy Public PortalAbout10B) 9.A. Attachment BATTACHMENT B
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 13-4908
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 13-1)
APPROVING THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY 2008-2014 HOUSING
ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the
administrative record which includes but is not limited to:
1. Staff Reports, the Draft Housing Element, and other project related data and
analysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and
2. The Temple City Municipal Code, General Plan, and all other applicable regulations
and codes; and
3. The Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and any supporting documentation
prepared by the Community Development Department.
4. Public comments, both written and oral, received or submitted prior to the public
hearing, supporting or opposing the proposed actions; and
5. Testimony and comments submitted by the applicant (City of Temple City) and
representatives in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing; and
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-132373PC, adopted April 9, 2013; and
7. All other related documents received or submitted prior to the public hearing.
SECTION 2. This resolution is made with reference to the following facts as more fully set
forth in the administrative record:
1. The City Council is charged with the responsibility to approve land -use regulations
for the City;
2. It is necessary from time to time to amend the controlling land use document, the
City's general plan;
3. The proposed general plan amendment would provide for an update of the City of
Temple City Housing Element for the 2008-2014 housing planning period in a
manner consistent with state law applicable to general plan housing elements, and
with goals, policies and programs that are consistent with the other elements of the
City of Temple City General Plan.
4. Pursuant to Section 65353 of the Government Code, the Planning Commission
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Housing Element and
draft Initial Study on April 9, 2013, at which time public comments were received
by the Planning Commission.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No.
May 7, 2013
Page 2
5. A public hearing was held by the City Council on the proposed general plan
amendment on May 7, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.;
6. Notice of the public hearing was published at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing.
7. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in
Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091.
8. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65588(a) of the California Code, the City
Council has reviewed the City of Temple City 2008-2014 Housing Element and
determined that it is appropriate to revise that general plan element to address
state housing element law for the provision of housing for all economic segments of
the community; and
9. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b), the City prepared a draft revised
City of Temple City 2008-2014 Housing Element ("the revised Housing Element")
and submitted it to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review and comment. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(e), the City further revised the Housing Element in response to
comments received from HCD. HCD completed its review of the revised draft
Housing Element and issued a review letter on December 4, 2013.
Section 3. The City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and in view of all of the evidence concludes as follows:
Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental
assessment for the application, the City Council finds that with the proposed mitigation
measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
upon the environment and recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA guidelines
promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial
Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council;
and, further, this City Council has reviewed and considered the information
contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
2. Based upon the mitigation measures incorporated, no significant adverse
environmental effects will occur.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No.
May 7, 2013
Page 3
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the City Council finds that in considering the record as a whole,
including the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project,
there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse
impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends.
Furthermore, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided
to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c -1-d) of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 4. Based on the public hearing for the requested amendment of the Temple
City General Plan Housing Element, the City Council finds:
1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65588(a) of the California Code, the City
Council has reviewed the City of Temple City 2008-2014 Housing Element and
determined that it is appropriate to revise that general plan element to address
state housing element law for the provision of housing for all economic segments of
the community; and
2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b), the City prepared a draft revised
City of Temple City 2008-2014 Housing Element ("the revised Housing Element")
and submitted it to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for review and comment. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(e), the City further revised the Housing Element in response to
comments received from HCD. HCD completed its review of the revised draft
Housing Element and issued a review letter on December 4, 2013.
3. The revised Housing Element is in full compliance with the requirements of Article
10.6 of the Government Code;
4. The revised Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the City of
Temple City General Plan;
5. The revised Housing Element goals, policies and programs are appropriate for the
City of Temple City to contribute to the attainment of state housing goals;
6. The adoption of the revised Housing Element will aid the City's efforts to assist in
public-private collaboration in the development of housing for all economic
segments of the community; and,
7. The adoption of the revised Housing Element is in the public interest.
City Council of the City of Temple City
Resolution No.
May 7, 2013
Page 4
SECTION 6: The City Council of the City of Temple City does hereby approve the Initial
Study and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adopt the City of Temple City
2008-2014 Housing Element (Exhibit 1) as an amendment of the City's general plan
(General Plan Amendment 13-01).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ day of , 2013.
MAYOR
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, Resolution No. , was adopted
by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the
, by the following vote:
AYES:
Council Members:
NOES:
Council Members:
ABSENT:
Council Members:
Attest: City Clerk
Exhibit 1
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2008-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
Pham WEARim DRAFT
March 26, 2013
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
:r:TI
KAREN WARNER ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TEMPLE CITY HOUSING ELEMENT
SECTION 1 —INTRODUCTION
A—Scope and Content................................................................................................. 1-1
B — Background and Authorization............................................................................. 1-2
C — Organization of the Housing Element .................................. ........ ........................ 1-2
SECTION 2 — HOUSING PROGRAM
A — Introduction
2-1
B — Program Administration and Utilization of Financing Programs ...................... 2-1
1. Land Use and Development Controls....................................................................
2-1
2. Regulatory Concessions and Incentives................................................................
2-2
3. Financing Programs...............................................................................................2-2
C — Responsible Agencies, General Plan Consistency, Public Participation........
2-5
1. Responsible Agencies ..................... ....... —............................................................
2-5
2. General Plan Consistency......................................................................................
2-5
3. Public Participation Effort .......................................................................................
2-5
D — Draft Housing Program..........................................................................................2-8
1. Program Categories and Meanings of Goals, Policies and Objectives .................
2-8
2. Quantified Objectives Can Be Less than Total Housing Needs ............................
2-9
3. Quantified Objectives by Income Group................................................................
2-9
4. Objectives and Programs for Extremely Low Income Households .......................
2-11
5. Housing Programs — Overpaying and Overcrowding ............................................
2-12
6. Housing Programs Overview.................................................................................2-12
Actions to Make Sites Available to Accommodate the RHNA .............................
2-15
Assist in the Development of Adequate Housing ...............................................
2-21
Address Governmental Constraints to Housing ....... ...................... ....... — .......
.. 2-28
Conserve and improve the Condition of the Existing Stock of Affordable Housing
2-31
Promote Housing Opportunities for All Persons ................................................
2-34
List of Tables
2-1
Definitions of Income Groups as a Percentage of AMI ...................................
2-10
2-2
2012 LA County Income Limits by Household Size .........................................
2-10
2-3
Quantified Objectives: 2006-2014...................................................................
2-10
2-4
Rehabilitation Objectives by Activity................................................................
2-11
2-5
Housing Element Programs by Category .........................................................
2-13
2-6
Housing Program Summary .............................................................................2-14
2-7
Regional Housing Needs (RHNA)..................................................................
2-17
2-8
2012 LA County Section 8 Fair Housing Market Rents...................................2-24
Attachments
Attachment A Density Bonus Provisions
4M
Attachment B LA County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing .......................... 2-39
Technical Appendices
Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix C Non -Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
Appendix E Progress Report
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
A. SCOPE AND CONTENT
Government Code Section 65583 states:
The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and
projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives,
financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites
for housing, including rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobilehomes,
and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.
The Housing Element Law requires Temple City to prepare and adopt a Housing Element of the
community's General Plan. Temple City's Housing Element must include four major
components:
❑ An assessment of the City's housing needs.
❑ An inventory of resources to meet needs and of the constraints that
impede public and private sector efforts to meet the needs.
❑ A statement of the City's goals, quantified objectives and policies relative
to the construction, rehabilitation, conservation and preservation of
housing.
❑ An implementation program which sets forth a schedule of actions which
the City is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies
and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element.
B. BACKGROUND AND AUTHORIZATION
Housing elements of the general plan were first mandated by State legislation enacted in 1967.
In 1977, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) published
"Housing Element Guidelines". The "guidelines" spelled out not only the detailed content
requirements of housing elements, but also gave HCD a "review and approval" function over
this element of the general plan. In 1981, Article 10.6 of the Government Code was enacted,
which placed the guidelines into statutory language and changed HCD's role from "review and
approval" to one of "review and comment" on local housing elements.
This update complies with the housing element planning period from January 1, 2006 through
June 30, 2014.
1-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
C. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Section 2 describes the City's Housing Strategy. The efforts the City will undertake during the
planning period to address the community's housing needs within the framework of the Housing
Element Law are described in Section 2.
Section 2 describes the goals, policies and quantified objectives of the Draft Housing Element.
Of particular importance are the quantified objectives which represent numerical targets for the
construction, rehabilitation, conservation and preservation of housing.
The Housing Strategy also describes 18 specific housing programs that will be implemented
during the planning period. The 18 programs are organized according to the five categories that
are required by the Housing Element Law.
The Housing Element also contains detailed information to comply with each pertinent section of
the Government Code. A description of each Technical Appendix is given below:
❑ Technical Appendix A contains all of the detailed data, statistics and
analyses pertaining to the City's housing needs, existing and future.
❑ Technical Appendix B describes potential and actual governmental
constraints that impede efforts at addressing housing needs.
❑ Technical Appendix C describes non-governmental constraints such as
the cost of land and construction.
❑ Technical Appendix D contains the detailed information on the inventory
of housing sites and explains how the sites accommodate the City's share
of regional housing needs.
❑ Technical Appendix E is the Housing Element Progress Report. This
Technical Appendix assesses the progress made toward implementation
of the prior Housing Element.
1-2
SECTION 2
A. INTRODUCTION
HOUSING PROGRAM
Section 2 presents the City's Housing Program. The Housing Program describes the efforts the
City will undertake during the program period to address the community's housing needs.
With respect to program administration, Section 2 describes: 1) land use and development
controls that encourage and facilitate affordable housing; 2) regulatory concessions and
incentives; and 3) the funding resources that will most likely be utilized to meet housing needs.
In addition, the Housing Program explains 1) the agencies responsible for program
implementation; 2) the consistency of the Housing Element with the General Plan; and 3) the
public participation efforts undertaken during the development of the Housing Element.
This section sets forth the goals, policies and quantified objectives of the Housing Element. Of
particular importance are the quantified objectives which represent numerical targets for the
construction, rehabilitation, conservation and preservation of housing.
The Housing Program also describes 18 specific housing programs that will be implemented
during the planning period. The 18 programs are organized according the five categories that
are required by the Housing Element Law.
B. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND UTILIZATION OF FINANCING PROGRAMS
Section 65583(c) requires that the housing element include:
"Arp ogram which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government
is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the
goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land
use and develooment controls, provision of reoulatory concessions and
incentives and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and
subsidv programs when available and the utilization of moneys in a Low and
Moderate Income Housinq Fund of an agency if the locality has established a
redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law."
(emphasis added)
Land Use and Development Controls
With respect to affordable housing land use controls, the City will establish a density bonus
ordinance consistent with the statewide requirements of SB 1818; increased densities will be
provided on R-3 parcels which do not abut R-1 zones; and an administrative site and
architectural review process will replace the conditional use permit currently required for multi-
family development. The City will also consider implementation of an inclusionary housing policy
to encourage the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
2-1
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2. Regulatory Concessions and Incentives
The City has one specific plan — the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan and that specific plan
encourages and facilitates the development of high density housing and affordable senior
housing. The specific plan encourages and facilitates the development of the high density
housing by granting several lot consolidation incentives, density bonus incentives and other
regulatory concessions and incentives. The plan's regulatory concessions and incentives are
described as part of Program #1 (Downtown Specific Plan) and in Technical Appendix B, which
is the analysis of governmental constraints.
3. Financing Programs
The following section discusses the major sources of funding available to carry out housing and
community development activities in Temple City.
Redevelopment Aaencv Low and Moderate Income Housina Fund
The primary local source of funds for affordable housing in Temple City has traditionally been its
Redevelopment Agency's Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. However, due to passage
of Assembly Bill (AB) 1X 26, redevelopment agencies across California have been eliminated as
of February 1, 2012, removing the primary local tool for creating affordable housing.
b. Community Development Block Grant (CDBGI Funds
Temple City is a participating city in the County of Los Angeles Community Development
Commission's CDBG Program, through which it receives an annual allocation of CDBG funds.
Annually, the City has allocated a portion of its CDBG funds for the Handyworker Assistance
Program and for the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. During the 8'/ year Housing
Element planning period, the City projects to receive CDBG funds in the amount of $1,419,500
for housing rehabilitation (8.5 X $167,000) This amount excludes personnel and operating
expenses.
G. HOME Funds
One of the key resources for financing affordable housing is the HOME Investment Partnerships
Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and
administered by the Community Development Commission on behalf of the County of Los
Angeles.
HOME funds are allocated to the County by the federal government on an annual basis.
Approximately $5.5 million dollars are made available annually for housing development, with
15% of these funds reserved exclusively for use by non-profit Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs).
HOME funds are awarded to proposed developments, based on proposals that are submitted by
developers and evaluated on a competitive basis. The funds are allocated only to developments
in the unincorporated county areas and in 46 cities that participate in the Commission's Urban
County Program. Participating cities are those with less than 50,000 in population. Temple City
is a participating city.
2-2
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
HOME Program funds are awarded for use along with other financial resources. The funds are
awarded to finance the "affordability gap' in affordable multifamily rental and for -sale housing
development. The "affordability gap' is the dollar amount of financing needed when the rental
revenues are inadequate to repay a loan(s) needed for the development of housing or when a
mortgage amount available to a low-income household is not enough to purchase a house.
Affordable rental developments proposing to use HOME funds are required to set aside a
minimum of 20% of the units for households that earn 50% or less of the median income for the
Los Angeles/Long Beach area. For -sale developments proposing to use HOME funds must
make all units available to households earning 80% or less of the median income.
Applications to use HOME funds are accepted upon the issuance of a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA).
d. City of Industry Housina Funds Program
The City of Industry Housing Funds Program is another financing resource for the development
of affordable housing in Temple City. These funds are tax -increment set-aside funds from the
City of Industry that are administered by the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles.
Funds from this program can be used to help finance affordable rental housing for non -special
needs and special needs populations, and affordable homeownership developments. Since the
program began, over $165 million in City of Industry housing funds have leveraged over $1.1
billion from other funding sources to help create over 7,900 units of affordable housing
throughout Los Angeles County.
Applications for non -special needs and special needs rental housing and for homeownership
housing are only accepted following the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles'
issuance of a notice of funding availability (NOFA). NOFAs are periodically released to invite
proposals for the development of affordable and special needs housing. Industry funds may be
used in any jurisdiction within a 15 -mile radius of the City of Industry. The City of Temple City is
located within the 15 mile radius.
Given the elimination of redevelopment agencies throughout California, it is uncertain at this
time how much longer City of Industry Funds will be available to fund affordable housing
activities.
e. Low Income Housina Tax Credits (LIHTC)
This program provides for a significant share of funding for affordable housing projects. In
2007, the Los Angeles County share of the statewide funding was $19.4 million, or 33% of the
total annual funding amount. Experienced private and non-profit housing developers often use
this funding source as a key piece of funding an affordable housing project. In 2007, LIHTC
funded 70 projects that produced 4,424 affordable housing units. According to the State Tax
Credit Allocation Committee, only 10 of every 32 project applications receive funding, meaning
that keen competition exists for the available funding.
2-3
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
f. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Housinq Proqram
Jointly administered by the California Department of Mental Health and the California Housing
Finance Agency (CaIHFA) on behalf of counties, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA)
Housing Program offers permanent financing and capitalized operating subsidies for the
development of permanent supportive housing, including both rental and shared housing, to
serve persons with serious mental illness and their families who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness. MHSA Housing Program funds will be allocated for the development,
acquisition, construction, and/or rehabilitation of permanent supportive housing.
According to CaIHFA, California counties have committed an initial $400 million for the
programs. Applications for the program became available in August 2007. A county mental
health department can only submit applications; however, funds may be distributed to qualified
developers.
g. Other Proqrams
The State of California has funding for a variety of housing programs. These resources usually
are a funding source for affordable housing projects. Experienced private and nonprofit
developers frequently include state funding as one piece of the total funding package. The HCD
and CaIHFA bond -funded housing programs are the result of Proposition 46 (2002) and
Proposition 1C (2006).
2-4
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
C. RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES, GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
Section 65583(c)(7) states:
"The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials
responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by
which consistencv will be achieved with other aeneral plan elements and
communitv goals. The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve
public oarticioation of all economic segments of the community in the
development of the housing element and the program shall describe this effort."
[emphasis added]
1. Responsible Agencies
Eighteen housing programs will be implemented during the program period. The agencies
responsible for program implementation include:
City of Temple City Community Development Department
County of Los Angeles Housing Authority
Housing Rights Center (fair housing services)
2. General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element is consistent with all other General Plan Elements.
3. Public Participation Effort
a. Efforts to Encourage Public Participation
To encourage public participation in the development of the Housing Element, the City Council
decided to form a Housing Task Committee. In order to solicit task committee participants from
all economic segments of the community, the City took the following actions:
1) Invited all community organizations to indicate persons interested in serving on
the Housing Task Committee.
2) Sent a notice with school age children indicating to parents that the City was
seeking interested individuals to serve on a Housing Task Committee,
3) Announced in the City's Newsletter the need for individuals to serve on the
Housing Task Committee.
4) Announced the formation of a Housing Task Committee in the City Manager's
Weekly Report. (The report also is published in the local newspaper.)
The City Council ultimately selected a Housing Task Committee comprised of the following 24
Temple City residents; half of these residents are low and moderate income.
2-5
SECTION 2
Joe Castillo (Co -Chair)
Loraine Lefler (Co -Chair)
Vincent Yu (Planning Commission)
Mary Burke
Peggy Miller
Manuel Valenzuela III
Bob Welemin
Gilbert Yeh
Jim Clift Eve Burnaday
Janice Helmer Joey Castillo
Mary Kokayko Phil Chessir
Aileen Lam Joe Donofrio
T. Arthur Boing
b. Effectiveness of the Participation Efforts
HOUSING PROGRAM
Bob DuFresne
Lee DuFresne
Clifford Gordan
Mike O'Malley
Silenus Ong
Cecelia Rudar
Joan Vizcarra
Joe Lambert (Staff)
Once formed, the Housing Task Committee conducted 12 public meetings/workshops focused
on strategies and action programs that could address the community's housing needs and also
be incorporated into the Draft Housing Element. The Housing Task Committee completed its
role in the development of the Draft Housing Element through the following process:
• Reviewed existing Housing Element and updates
• Analyzed comments from California Department of Housing Community
Development (HCD)
• Became educated on housing topics and terminology
"Brain -stormed" ideas
Discussed and formalized housing related concepts
Documented, categorized, and prioritized recommendations
Voted on each recommendation
Presented findings and recommendations.
The Committee, after its series of meetings/workshops, agreed on 25 draft recommendations in
14 specific areas:
1) Zone designation changes
2) Encourage mixed-use developments
3) Evaluate parking requirements
4) Encourage affordable senior housing
5) Easing of code requirements for second units in single-family zones
6) Allow incentives for design features
7) Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance
8) Eliminate conditional use permit requirement for multiple family unit projects
9) Perform an annual audit of second units
10) Create a density bonus ordinance
11) Property incentives for affordable housing projects
12) Encourage subsidized housing
13) Expand redevelopment area
14) Acquire and convert motel property.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
C. Incorporation of Recommendations into the Housina Element
The Committee's 25 recommendations were forwarded to the City's Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission held three public hearings on the Housing Task Committee
recommendations. During the public hearings, the general public and Task Committee members
provided comments and input to the Planning Commission. After the public hearings, the
Planning Commission decided to include the following recommendations in the Draft Housing
Element:
1) Create new zone to allow a density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
2) Encourage senior affordable housing by increasing the height limit.
3) Establish incentives for the development of affordable second units.
4) Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance requiring a percentage of new units in a
multiple unit project to be affordable, or pay an in -lieu fee into the City's Housing
Trust Fund.
5) Continue to monitor the affordability of second units.
6) Create a density bonus ordinance consistent with the requirements of SB 1818.
7) Permit housing projects meeting affordable housing criteria to be eligible for City
subsidies.
8) Extend the boundaries of the redevelopment areas to expand potential sites for
affordable housing.
The City Council reviewed the recommendations at a meeting held on August 19, 2008, and the
draft Housing Element was subsequently finalized and submitted to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. HCD issued their first
review letter on the draft Housing Element in November 2008, and identified numerous technical
and policy revisions that were necessary to bring the element into compliance with housing
element law. City staff and its consultant revised the draft Element in response to HCD's
recommendations, and in October 2009 resubmitted the revised draft Element for State review.
In December 2009, HCD issued their second review letter on Temple City's draft Housing
Element. The letter indicated that while the revised draft Element addressed some of the
statutory requirements previously identified, further revision was needed for the City's Element
to comply with housing element law. The primary outstanding issues pertained to the
Element's failure to identify adequate sites to address the City's regional housing needs (RHNA)
for all economic segments of the community; the conditional use permit requirement for multi-
family development; and the need to strengthen program commitments.
In early 2012, the City brought on a new consultant to assist in responding to the State's
concerns. A detailed citywide land use survey was completed to identify potential development
sites consistent with the City's RHNA. The draft Housing Element was revised to incorporate
the updated sites inventory, as well as several new programs to more fully address statutory
requirements. The public was provided an opportunity to review the updated Housing Element
at a public study session conducted on September 27, 2012 before the Planning Commission
and City Council. Subsequent to State HCD review of the revised draft Housing Element,
noticed public hearings will be conducted to consider adoption of the Element.
2-7
SECTION 2
D. HOUSING PROGRAM
HOUSING PROGRAM
1. Programs Categories and Meanings of Goals, Policies and Objectives
Government Code Section 65583(c) requires that the City's Housing Element Program:
❑ Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning
period of the general plan with appropriate zoning and development standards
and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's share of
the regional housing need for each income level that could not be
accommodated on sites identified in the sites inventory.
❑ Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and
moderate -income households.
❑ Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
❑ Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock.
❑ Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color.
❑ Preserve for lower income households the assisted housing developments at risk
of conversion to market rate housing.
(Temple City does not have rent -restricted multi -family rental housing at risk of conversion to
market rate housing. Therefore, the last program category does not apply to the City.)
Government Code Section 65583 (b) requires that the Housing Element include:
A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative
to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. "
HCD defines these terms as follows:
'Goals are general statements of purpose. Housing element goals will indicate
the general direction that the jurisdiction intends to take with respect to its
housing problems. While reflecting local community values, the goals should be
consistent with the legislative findings (Section 65580) and legislative intent
(Section 65581) of Article 10.6 and other expressions of state housing goals
contained in the housing element law. Goals may extend beyond the time frame
of a given housing element.
Policies provide a link between housing goals and programs; they guide and
shape actions taken to meet housing objectives.
0
SECTION 2
Section 65583(b)(2) states:
HOUSING PROGRAM
The quantified objectives shall establish the maximum number of housing
units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year
period. [emphasis added]
HCD defines quantified objectives as follows:
Quantified objectives are the maximum actual numbers of housing units that the
jurisdiction projects can be constructed, rehabilitated, conserved and preserved
over a five-year time frame. In order to more realistically plan for the
implementation of housing programs, it is useful for localities to establish
objectives for each housing program which will be implemented during the time
frame of the element. Objectives may therefore be short-term in outlook
compared to community's goals." (emphasis added)
2. Quantified Objectives Can Be Less than Total Housing Needs
The Housing Element Law states that needs may exceed resources and, therefore, allows cities
to set forth objectives less than the total housing needs. More exactly, Section 65583(b)(2)
states:
"It is recognized that the total housing needs ... may exceed available resources
and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general
plan requirements outlined in article 6 (commencing with Section 65300). Under
these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total
housing needs."
This interpretation is confirmed by Opinion No. 03-104 (May 18, 2005) of the Office of the
Attorney General that states:
"We conclude that a community may establish its maximum number of housing
units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved
over the next five-year period below the number of housing units that would meet
the community's goal of achieving its share of the regional housing needs
established pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law if the community finds its
available resources in the aggregate, including but not limited to federal and state
funds for its housing programs, its own local funds, tax or density credits, and
other affordable housing programs, are insufficient to meet those needs."
3. Quantified Objectives by Income Group
As required by Section 65583(b), quantified objectives by income group for the 2006-2014
program period are stated in this Section. Table 2-1 shows how State law defines the income
groups in terms of the percentage of the Los Angeles County median household income.
2-9
SECTION 2
Table 2-1
Definitions of Income Groups as a
Percentage of Area Median Income
Income Group
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
% of Median Income
0-30%
30-50%
50-80%
80-120%
120%+
HOUSING PROGRAM
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and HCD update annually the
household income limits for each group. Table 2-2 below presents the 2012 income limits for
Los Angeles County by household size.
Table 2-2
2012 -A County Income Limits by Household Size
Household Size
Extremely
Very Low
Low
Moderate
(# of persons)
Low Income
Income
Income
Income
1 person
$17,750
$29,550
$47,250
$54,450
2 persons
$20,250
$33,750
$54,000
$62,200
3 persons
$22,800
$37,950
$60,750
$70,000
4 persons
$25,300
$42,150
$67,450
$77,750
5 persons
$27,350
$45,550
$72,850
$83,950
6 persons
$29,350
$48,900
$78,250
$90,200
7 persons
$31,400
$52,300
$83,650
$96,400
8 persons
$33,400
$55,650
$89,050
$102,650
Source: State Department
of Housing
and Community
Development,
Year 2012
Income Limits, February
2012.
Table 2-3 shows the City's quantified objectives by income group and category.
Table 2-3
City of Temple City Quantified Ob'ectives: 2006-2014
Construction: The Sites Inventory and Analysis (Technical Appendix D) shows sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need (RHNA) for all income categories.
Temple City's quantified objective for construction is thus for the 937 units identified by the
RHNA, broken down by income category as shown in Table 2-3 above.
Rehabilitation: The quantified objectives include the Handyworker Assistance Program and the
Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. The objectives for these two programs are:
2-10
Extremely
Above
Category
Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Total
Construction
124
125
156
165
417
987
Rehabilitation
18
35
36
0
0
89
Conservation
44
15
0
0
0
59
Preservation
0
0
0
0
0
0
Construction: The Sites Inventory and Analysis (Technical Appendix D) shows sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need (RHNA) for all income categories.
Temple City's quantified objective for construction is thus for the 937 units identified by the
RHNA, broken down by income category as shown in Table 2-3 above.
Rehabilitation: The quantified objectives include the Handyworker Assistance Program and the
Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. The objectives for these two programs are:
2-10
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
Table 2-4
City of Temple City Rehabilitation Objectives by Activity
Rehabilitation
Extremely
Very Low
Low
Total,
Activities
Low
Handyworker
9 26
16
51
Deferred Loan
9 9
20
38
Total
18 35
36
89
Conservation: This objective includes a continuation of 59 lower income elderly, disabled and
low income families that receive assistance from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
Program. The income group objectives are based on 75% of the assisted households in the
extremely low income group (44) and 25% of the assisted households in the very low income
group (15).
Preservation: The City has no rent restricted multifamily rental housing at risk of conversion to
market rate housing.
4. Objectives and Programs for Extremely Low Income Households
Through implementation of Housing Element programs, Temple City's goal will be to assist 184
extremely low income households through actions to achieve affordable construction,
rehabilitation and conservation (refer to Table 2-3). Programs to achieve the construction
objective include second units (34 households), as well as potential development on opportunity
sites within the Downtown Specific Plan and underutilized R-3 sites not abutting R-1 zones.
Programs to achieve the rehabilitation objective include the Handyworker Assistance Program
and the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
will achieve the conservation objective.
5. Housing Programs - Overpaying and Overcrowding
Reducing the cost burdens experienced by the City's extremely low and very low income
households is the objective of the City's participation in the Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program. Other programs including density bonus, inclusionary and second units also contribute
to reducing costs burdens.
The City's Planning Commission did consider at a public hearing the possibility of a local rental
assistance program. However, this option is too expensive given that the average rental
assistance is $7,500-$9,000 per assisted household (County of Los Angeles Housing Authority).
Moreover, this level of assistance would be needed on more than an annual basis as many
lower income households need the assistance for many years because they are working poor
families, permanently disabled or frail elderly, Under these circumstances, the City does not
have the financial resources to implement a long-term rental assistance program.
Overcrowding is directly addressed by the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. Under
the provisions of this program, "bedroom additions to relieve overcrowding" is an eligible activity.
Currently, the deferred loan amount is $25,000. The City will increase this amount for bedroom
additions in order to provide assistance to a higher number of extremely low, very low and low
income households.
2-11
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
Overcrowding also is alleviated by households assisted by the Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program. Assisted households move from overcrowded conditions to rental housing that meets
the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (which include enough space for the number of
persons in the households.)
Overcrowding also will be alleviated in the future as density bonus, inclusionary housing and
second units are constructed. Although second units serve primarily one and two person
households, they provide the opportunity for these small households to move from situations
where one, two or three families are living.
6. Housing Programs Overview
Table 2-5 shows how the 18 specific programs are categorized into the five statutory program
categories (defined earlier on page 2-8), and Table 2-6 provides the following information for
each program:
• Responsible Implementing Agency
• Quantified Objective
• Time Schedule and
• Funding Source.
The narrative section which follows is organized by the five statutory program categories, and
presents a summary of related housing needs; goals, policies and quantified objectives; and
description of each implementing program.
2-12
SECTION 2
Table 2-5
Housing Element Programs by Category
Program Category I Implementing Program
Category 1
Adequate Housing Sites
Category 2
Assist in the Development of Low and
Moderate Income Housing
Category 3
Removal of Governmental Constraints
Category 4
Conserving Existing Affordable Housing
Category 5
Fair Housing
HOUSING PROGRAM
1. Downtown Specific Plan
2. Multi -family Sites Inventory and
Development Incentives
3. Lot Consolidation Incentives
4. Zoning for Special Needs
5. Energy Conservation Program
6. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
7. Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
8. Second Units
9. Revise Density Bonus Procedures
10. Prepare Inclusionary Housing Policy
11. Multi -family Residential Review Process
12. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Program
13. Housing for the Disabled Zoning Code
Amendments Program
14. Housing Code Enforcement Program
15. Handyworker Assistance Program
16. Home Improvement Deferred
Loan Program
17. Fair Housing Services
18. Fair Housing Information
2-13
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
2-14
Funding Source
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
Table 2-6
Housing Program Summary
Housing Program
Responsible
2006-2014 Objective
Time
Agency
Schedule
ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
1. Downtown
Community
Promote opportunity
Within six
Specific Plan (DSP)
Development
sites and lot
months of
Department
consolidation incentives
Housing
to the development
Element
community and on the
adoption.
City's website. Amend
residential development
standards in DSP to
better facilitate
development.
2. Multi -family
Community
Maintain inventory of
Within six
Sites Inventory and
Development
vacant /underutilized
months of
Development
Department
multi -family residential
Housing
Incentives
sites; place on City's
Element
website; disseminate to
adoption.
developers. Adopt
zoning text amendments
for non -R-1 adjacent R-3
parcels to facilitate
redevelopment at higher
densities.
3. Lot Consolidation
Community
Adopt R-3 lot
Within six
Incentives
Development
consolidation incentives
months of
Department
modeled after DSP
Housing
program, including
Element
increased density and
adoption.
height, reduced parking,
reduced processing
time, vacation of alleys,
and fee reductions.
4. Zoning for
Community
Amend zoning ordinance
Within six
Special Needs
Development
to: add emergency
months of
Department
shelters as a permitted
Housing
use and SROs as a
Element
conditionally permitted
adoption.
use in the C-3 zone
along Rosemead Blvd;
make explicit provisions
to regulate transitional
and supportive housing
as a residential use.
5. Energy
Community
Adopt Energy Efficiency
Adopt Energy
Conservation
Development
Plan and provide
Plan by end of
Program
Department
educational information
2012. Include
on City website.
in General
Incorporate energy
Plan Update
utilization and
scheduled for
conservation policies
2013.
within the General Plan,
2-14
Funding Source
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
Housing Program
Responsible
Agency
2006-2014 Objective
Time
Schedule
Funding Source
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6. Section 8 Rental
Housing Authority
Maintain existing level of
Ongoing
County Section 8
Assistance
of the County of
housing vouchers to
contract with HUD
Program
Los Angeles
serve 59 lower income
households
7. Affordable
Community
Provide financial and
Ongoing
General Fund,
Housing
Development
regulatory incentives to
other public and
Development
Department
private developers for
private resources
Assistance
development of quality
affordable housing for
families and seniors.
Seek additional funding
sources to meet City
housing goals.
8.Second Units
Community
Educate residents on the
Expanded
General Fund for
Development
availability of second
second unit
Dept. staff work
Department
units through
outreach in
development of
2013.
informational materials
for distribution at the
public counter, and
through advertisement
on the City's website.
Seek to achieve 34
second units for very low
and low Income
households.
9. Revise Density
Community
Update density bonus
Update zoning
General Fund for
Bonus Procedures
Development
provisions consistent
code
Dept. staff work
Department
with State requirements.
provisions for
Advertise on City's
density bonus
website and disseminate
in 2013.
to developers.
10. Prepare
Community
Conduct inclusionary
Conduct nexus
General Fund for
Inclusionary
Development
housing nexus study to
study (in 2013)
professional
Housing Policy
Department
document the
to assess basis
consulting
relationship between
for adoption of
assistance with
residential development
an inclusionary
nexus study, and
and demand for
ordinance.
for Dept. staff
affordable housing, and
coordination and
to determine in -lieu fee
follow-up work
amount. Based on study
results, consider
adoption of an
inclusionary housing
policy/ordinance.
2-15
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
Housing Program
Responsible
Agency
2006-2014 Objective
I
Time
Schedule
Funding Source
REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
complaints to Housing
Funds
11. Multi -family
Community
Eliminate CUP
Zoning code
General Fund for
Residential Review
Development
requirement for multi-
revisions within
Dept. staff work
Process
Department
family within the
six months of
Disseminate fair housing 2010-2014
General Fund for
Information
Downtown Specific Plan,
Housing
Dept. staff work
Program
Department
and for mutli-family in
Element
and on City's website.
R-2 and R-3 zones.
adoption.
Replace with a non -
discretionary review
process conducted by
staff utilizing the existing
design guidelines.
12. Adopt a
Community
Implement a reasonable
Implementation
General Fund for
Reasonable
Development
accommodation
by the end of
Dept. staff work
Accommodation
Department
procedure through
2011
Procedure
adoption of a code
amendment. Advertise
the procedure through
City brochure/flyers and
the City's website,
13. Housing for the
Community
Revise the zoning code
Implementation
General Fund for
Disabled Zoning
Development
definition of "family."
by the end of
Dept. staff work
Code Amendments
Department
Allow small residential
2013.
Program
care facilities "by right" in
all residential zones.
Streamline application
process for residential
care facilities housing
seven or more disabled
persons.
CONSERVING EXISTING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
14. Housing Code
Community
125 housing cases per
2006-2014
General Fund for
Enforcement
Development
year
Dept. staff work
Program
Department
15.Handyworker
Community
51 rehabilitated
2006-2011
CDBG Funds
Assistance
Development
housing units
RDA Funds
Program
Department
16. Home
Community
38 rehabilitated
2006-2014
CDBG Funds
Improvement
Development
housing units
Deferred Loan
Department
Program
FAIR HOUSING
17, Fair Housing
Community
Refer fair housing 2006-2014
County CDBG
Services
Development
complaints to Housing
Funds
Department,
Rights Center
Housing Rights
Center
18.Fair Housing
Community
Disseminate fair housing 2010-2014
General Fund for
Information
Development
information in flyers at
Dept. staff work
Program
Department
key community locations
and on City's website.
2-16
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
PROGRAM CATEGORY #1:
ACTIONS TO MAKE SITES AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE RHNA
Section 65583(c)(1) states that the housing program must:
"Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning
period of the general plan with appropriate zoning and development standards
and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's ... share
of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be
accommodated on sites identified in the inventory ... without rezoning...
"Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development
of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental
housing, factory -built housing, mobile homes, and housing for agricultural
employees, supportive housing single -room occupancy units, emergency
shelters, and transitional housing."
[emphasis added]
1. Housing Need Summary
Through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG has allocated a new housing
construction need to the City of almost 1,000 housing units. Table 2-7 shows the City's share of
the regional housing need by five income groups.
Table 2-7
Regional Housing Needs
January 2006- June 2014)
Income
2006-2014
Category
Number Percent
Extremely Low
118 12.0%
Very Low
131 13.3%
Low
156 15.8%
Moderate
165 16.7%
Above Moderate
417 42.2%
Total:
987 100.0%
Source. Southern California Association of Governments, Final
Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan, July 12, 2007.
2. Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
a. Goals
Accommodate a portion of the housing needs of all income groups as quantified
by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Facilitate the construction of the maximum feasible number of housing units for
all income groups.
2-17
SECTION 2
b. Policies
HOUSING PROGRAM
Implement the Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Downtown Specific Plan to
achieve adequate sites for all income groups.
Facilitate and encourage residential development through lot consolidation
incentives including density and height increases, reduced processing time,
vacation of alleys, and fee reductions.
Designate sites that accommodate a variety of housing needs.
C. Quantified Obiectives
The Sites Inventory and Analysis (Technical Appendix D) shows sufficient sites to
accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need (RHNA) for all income categories.
Temple City's quantified objective for adequate sites is thus for the 987 units identified by the
RHNA, broken down by income category as shown in Table 2-7.
3. Housing Programs
Program 1. Terri Citv Downtown Specific Plan
Temple City's commercial core was founded along Las Tunas Boulevard in the 1920s. Over the
past several decades, numerous downtown businesses have been lost to competing
commercial areas, many of the buildings have become deteriorated and obsolete, and a large
number of parcels are physically and economically underutilized and functioning at well below
their market potential.
In December 2002, the City Council adopted the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan to guide
in the area's revitalization and to re-establish the downtown as a destination where residents
can live, work, shop, dine and attend community events. One of the Plan's land use strategies
is to introduce multi -family residential and mixed use development into the downtown. The
Housing Element sites analysis (refer to Appendix D) identifies thirteen development opportunity
sites in the downtown as suitable for recycling to residential use within the planning period,
providing zoning capacity for over 300 new units. In order to better facilitate the integration of
housing on these sites, the City will adopt the following adjustments to the development
standards within the Specific Plan:
• Allowance for horizontal (side-by-side) commercial/residential mixed use with ground
floor residential in all districts, with the exception of parcels fronting on Las Tunas Drive
in the City Center (CC) Commercial District
• Establishment of 30 unit/acre residential densities for non -senior housing, with no
established density cap for senior housing
• Elimination of the conditional use permit
• Elimination of one acre minimum lot size requirement for mixed use.
The presence of small, underutilized parcels and irregularly shaped lots has been identified as
one of the constraints affecting future development in portions of the downtown. The Specific
Plan provides various density, height and parking incentives for the consolidation of smaller lots
2-18
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
into larger development sites as a means of achieving the scale and quality of development
envisioned for the area. For instance, for multifamily residential projects, the consolidation of
four to six lots will result in.a 15% increase in the number of allowable units and a one story
increase to the maximum height. Additional incentives within the Downtown Specific Plan for lot
consolidation include reductions in processing time, vacation of alleys, and fee reductions
including processing fees, in -lieu fess and utility connection fees.
2006-2014 Objective: Promote identified opportunity sites and lot consolidation
incentives to the residential development community and on the City's website. Amend
residential development standards within the Specific Plan to better facilitate
development.
Program 2. Multi -family Sites Inventory and Development Incentives
The majority of residential development in Temple City occurs through redevelopment of
underutilized R-2 (medium density) and R-3 (high density) sites, either by adding to existing
units, or more commonly, through the demolition of existing units and replacement with a
greater number of units as permitted under zoning. As part of the City's Housing Element
update, City staff has conducted a vacant and underutilized land use survey of all parcels
located in the R-2 and R-3 zone districts (refer to Appendix D). In order to narrow the multi-
family sites inventory to those underutilized properties that have realistic development potential
within the 2006-2014 Housing Element planning period, the following criteria were applied
based on review of past Temple City projects:
• Ratio of existing building floor area to parcel size (FAR) of 0.30 or less in the R-2 zone
and 0.50 or less in the R-3 zone;
• Low building structure value, measured by a minimum 60% ratio of assessed land value
to total assessed property value;
• Age of improvements on site minimum of 30 years old;
• Visual checks to ascertain the actual build -out and visual conditions of buildings.
This systematic analysis of the City's multi -family zoned properties identifies 153 sites in the R-2
zone and 31 sites in the R-3 zone that are underutilized per this criteria. Particularly along
Rosemead and Temple City boulevards, groupings of underutilized R-3 parcels developed with
only a single, older unit provide significant opportunities for lot consolidation.
As a means of facilitating recycling, the City is supportive of allowing increased multi -family
densities on parcels which do not directly impact single-family residential neighborhoods. An R-
3 by -right density allowance of 30 units/acre would serve as a strong economic incentive for
development, and by limiting these supplemental densities to non -R-1 adjacent parcels, would
preserve Temple City's existing transition of densities from multi -family zoned areas to abutting
single-family neighborhoods. To this end, the City will adopt the following zoning text
amendments for R-3 parcels that do not border R-1 zoned properties:
• Establishment of a by -right' 30 unit/acre residential density, and 20 unit/acre density
floor
• Establishment of building heights to 3 stories
' Consistent with Govn Code Section 65583.2(i), "by right' shall mean the City's review shall not require a CUP, a
planned development permit, or other discretionary action that would constitute a "project' under CEQA.
2-19
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
• Allowance for reduced parking based on a parking study demonstrating reduced parking
demand resulting from transit accessibility or other factors
• Elimination of CUP requirement for projects with 3 or more units
• Lot consolidation incentives (described further under Program 3).
2006-2014 Objective: Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized multi -family
residential sites and place on the City's website, and provide to developers in
conjunction with information on available development incentives. Adopt zoning text
amendments for R-3 parcels that do not abut single family neighborhoods to facilitate
program implementation.
Program 3. Lot Consolidation Incentives
As described under Program 1 (Downtown Specific Plan), the Specific Plan establishes a
variety of density, height and parking incentives for the consolidation of parcels into larger
development sites as a means of achieving the scale and quality of development envisioned for
the area. Within the City's R-3 zoning districts, the Housing Element sites inventory identifies
significant potential for consolidation of adjacent underutilized parcels into larger development
sites, and specifically identifies adjacent parcels under common ownership. Given the small lot
sizes in the R-3 zone, the majority of apartment and condominium projects combine one or
more parcels, as illustrated by the four recent projects evaluated in Appendix D that all
combined parcels to achieve lot sizes ranging from 19,000 to 32,000 square feet.
In order to further facilitate lot consolidation and achieve the necessary economies of scale for
affordable housing, the City will extend the Downtown Specific Plan lot consolidation program to
the R-3 zone district.
2006-2014 Objective: Adopt incentives for lot consolidation in the R-3 zone modeled
after the Downtown Specific Plan program, and contact property owners of 2 or more
adjacent underutilized parcels to encourage consolidation. The following incentives will
be provided. increased density and height, reduced parking, reduced processing time,
vacation of alleys, and fee reductions.
Program 4. Zoning for Special Needs
The Zoning for Special Needs Program will meet the need to facilitate and encourage a variety
of housing types. More specifically, the program aims to facilitate and encourage the following
housing types:
• Emergency shelters
• Transitional and Supportive housing
• Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units.
Emergency Shelters: The municipal code will be amended to establish a zone where
emergency shelters are a permitted use and with sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's
need for emergency shelter. This amendment will satisfy Government Code Section
65583(a)(4)(A) which requires the City to identify —
2-20
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
.. a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use
without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. The identified zone
or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for
emergency shelter.... except that each local government shall identify a zone or
zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter."
"If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity,
the local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to
meet the requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the
housing element." [emphasis added]
The City's commercial zones are located along Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City Boulevard
and Las Tunas Drive. The Zoning Code establishes two commercial zones — a General
Commercial (C-2) Zone and a Heavy Commercial (C-3) Zone — plus commercial areas within
the Downtown Specific Plan. The C-3 Zone located along Rosemead Boulevard between Las
Tunas Drive and Broadway will be the zone where emergency shelters will be permitted by
right. Sites and buildings within this area can accommodate the City's homeless need of 28
persons (per the 2009 homeless count of the San Gabriel Valley Regional Homeless Services
Strategy).
Emergency shelters will be subject to the same development and management standards as
other permitted uses in the C-3 Zone. The City will, however, develop written, objective
standards for emergency shelters to regulate the following, as permitted under SB 2 (which
amended Sections 65582, 65583 and 65589.5 of the California Government Code):
• The maximum number of beds/persons permitted to be served nightly;
• Off-street parking based on demonstrated need, but not to exceed parking
requirements for other residential or commercial uses in the same zone;
• The size/location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas;
• The provision of onsite management;
• The proximity of other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not
required to be more than 300 feet apart;
• The length of stay for occupants;
• Lighting;
• Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
2006-2014 Objective: Amend the zoning ordinance within six months of Housing
Element adoption to add emergency shelters as a permitted in the C-3 zone along
Rosemead Boulevard_ Develop objective standards to regulate emergency shelters as
provided for under SB 2.
Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Another amendment to the municipal code
will identify in the Zoning Code that transitional and supportive housing are considered a
residential use of property. This effort will include definitions consistent with state law, as well as
development standards for these residential uses. Transitional and supportive housing in single-
family dwellings will be permitted in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones. Transitional and supportive
housing in multi -family structures will be permitted in the R-2 and R-3 Zones.
HCD advises that transitional housing sites should be close to public services and facilities,
including transportation. HCD also states that development standards such as parking
2-21
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
requirements, fire regulations, and design standards should not impede the efficient use of the
site as transitional housing.
2006-2014 Objective: Amend the zoning ordinance within six months of Housing
Element adoption to make explicit provisions for transitional and supportive housing.
Single -Room Occupancy Units: This Zoning Code amendment will identify single room
occupancy units as a conditionally permitted use within the C-3 zone district. This effort will
include a definition of SRO units consistent with state law as well as development standards for
this residential use; e.g., site area, unit size and occupancy, kitchen facilities, bathroom
facilities, parking, and management. The City will review SRO ordinances adopted by the City of
Santa Rosa as well as other cities.
2006-2014 Objective: Amend the zoning ordinance within six months of Housing
Element adoption to define and establish parameters for single room occupancy uses
within the C-3 zoning district.
Program 5. Enerav Conservation Proaram
Temple City is one of 27 San Gabriel Valley cities participating in the development of an Energy
Efficiency Plan as part of a unified regional framework for meeting long-term energy efficiency
goals. This framework will allow the Energy Efficiency Plan developed for each city to function
as a stand-alone document tailored to individual communities. The City and the San Gabriel
Council of Governments (SGVCOG) have developed an on-line resident survey and are hosting
a number of workshops and events to gather community input and guide the development of the
Energy Efficiency Plan.
The Energy Efficiency Plan will:
• Summarize the City's existing and future energy use
• Project the City's existing future energy use (through 2020)
• Identify energy efficiency goals and targets
• Create an energy efficiency strategy to meet the City's energy reduction goals
• Assist in meeting State and regional goals of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and long-
term energy efficiency.
The Energy Efficiency Plan project is funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by
Southern California Edison (SCE). The funding was awarded to the SVGCOG to implement
activities to achieve statewide energy efficiency goals.
2006-2014 Objective: Adopt the Energy Efficiency Plan by the end of 2012, anc
continue to provide infonnation on the City's website to educate residents, businesses,
and visitors on actions they can take to reduce energy use and conserve energy.
Incorporate energy utilization and conservation policies within the General Plan update,
targeted for a 2013 start date.
2-22
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
PROGRAM CATEGORY #2:
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
EXTREMELY LOW-, VERY LOW-, LOW-, AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Government Code Section 65583(c)(2) states that a housing program shall:
`Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely
low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households."
The term "development" includes providing for affordability covenants in existing housing and
construction of new affordable housing units.
The City's housing improvement programs, which are described in another section, also
contributes to "adequate housing" by helping to improve housing quality and maintain
affordability.
Housing Need Summary
Overpaying is defined as the number of lower income households that spend 30% or more of
their income on housing costs. Severe overpaying occurs when households pay 50% or more of
their gross income for housing.
In 2000, overpaying — also known as cost burden -- was adversely affecting an estimated 1,364
lower income renter households and 933 lower income owners. In addition, the City's was
allocated 405 housing units as its share of the regional housing need for lower income
households.
2. Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
a. Goals
Facilitate the development of the maximum feasible number of housing units for
extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households.
Relieve the cost burdens of extremely low, very low and low income households.
b. Policies
Provide rental assistance to extremely low and very low income households
through programs administered by the County of Los Angeles Housing Authority.
Continue to implement the second unit ordinance to facilitate and encourage the
development of new housing for extremely low and very low income households.
Enact a density bonus ordinance and consider implementation of an inclusionary
housing policy to encourage and facilitate the development of new housing for
low and moderate income households.
2-23
SECTION 2
C. Objectives
HOUSING PROGRAM
Provide Section 8 rental assistance to 59 extremely low and very low households
Produce 34 housing units affordable to extremely low, very low and low income
households through second units.
3. Housing Programs
Program 6. Rental Assistance (for Existina Cost Burdened Households)
Temple City is a participating city with the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles. As a
result, the Housing Authority administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program within
the City limits.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program is HUD's major program for assisting very low-income
families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private
market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants
are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments.
In general, a family's income may not exceed the very low income limits (50% of the median
income) for Los Angeles County. By law, the Housing Authority must provide 75% of its
vouchers to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30% of the County median income.
Under the provisions of the Voucher Program, the tenant pays approximately 30% of his/her
income towards rent, and the Housing Authority pays the balance of the rent to the property
owner, who participates in the program on a voluntary basis. HUD annually sets rent ceilings by
bedroom size; Table 2-8 shows the FY 2012 rent ceilings.
Table 2-8
2012 LA County Section 8 Fair Market Rents
Unit Size
Fair Market Rent
Studio
$961
1 Bedroom
$1,159
2 Bedrooms
$1,447
3 Bedrooms
$1,943
4 Bedrooms
$2,338
Within Temple City, the Housing Authority assists 59 lower income families, seniors and
disabled householders. The objective maintains this number of assisted households given the
uncertainty of funding in the future for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The
income group objectives are based on 75% of the assisted households in the extremely low
income group (44) and 25% of the assisted households in the very low income group (15).
2-24
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
In order to assist the Housing Authority staff in program implementation, the City will do all of
the following:
Transmit to the Housing Authority the completed Apartment Rental Survey and any
future updates of these surveys. [The completed survey is found at the end of Technical
Appendix C. The City will transmit the completed apartment rental survey to the Housing
Authority during 2012.]
Assist the Housing Authority in conducting its Landlord Outreach Program in Temple
City. The City will contact the Housing Authority staff to determine a schedule for
conducting a Landlord Outreach effort. The City will attempt to complete the Landlord
Outreach Program in FY 2012-2013.
Explore with the Housing Authority staff, opportunities for use of the Section 8 program
in existing apartment housing. The City will explore these opportunities following
completion of the Landlord Outreach Program and the Authority's review of the
Apartment Rental Survey.
2006-2014 Objective: Maintain current levels of Section 8 assistance. Coordinate with
the Housing Authority in conducting landlord outreach and explore opportunities to
expand usage of Section 8 in existing apartment housing.
Program 7. Affordable Housing Development Assistance
The City can play an important role in facilitating the development of quality, affordable housing
in the community through provision of regulatory incentives, land write-downs and direct
financial assistance. By utilizing various tools to facilitate infill development, the City can help to
address the housing needs of its lower and moderate income residents and workforce. The
following are among the types of incentives the City can provide:
• Reduction in development fees
• Flexible development standards
• Density bonuses
• City support in affordable housing funding applications
• Land write-down on City -owned property (such as public parking lots).
Due to the statewide elimination of redevelopment agencies, Temple City's primary local
funding source for affordable housing is no longer available. The City has been successful in
securing in non -redevelopment sources of funds to implement public projects, as evidenced by
the 14 different federal, state, county and other sources of funds being utilized for
implementation of the Rosemead Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification project. In
an effort to meet its housing goals, the City will identify and secure creative funding sources that
may not have been considered previously, such as foundation and private banking resources,
as well as inclusionary housing in -lieu fees (refer to Program 10).
2006-2014 Objectives: Provide financial and regulatory incentives to private developers
for the development of quality affordable housing for families and seniors. Seek
additional funding sources to meet City housing goals.
2-25
SECTION 2
Program 8. Second Units
HOUSING PROGRAM
A second unit is a self-contained living unit with cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation
facilities, either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot.
Second units offer several benefits. First, they typically rent for less than apartments of
comparable size, and can offer affordable rental options for seniors and single persons.
Second, the primary homeowner receives supplementary income by renting out their second
unit, which can help many modest income and elderly homeowners remain in or afford their
homes.
Temple City permits second residential units "by right' in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts,
providing significant additional capacity for second units throughout the community. The City
has structured its second unit regulations to ensure their affordability, requiring rents to be
maintained at levels affordable to very low income (<50% AMI) households and units to be
occupied by very low income households.
With 24 second units receiving final building permits during the planning period (2006 -April 2012
— refer to Attachment A for addresses), the market for second units in Temple City is robust.
Projecting a similar rate of second unit construction during the remaining 2012-2013 period, the
City anticipates an additional ten units to be developed.
2006-2014 Objective: Through implementation of the City's second unit ordinance,
provide additional sites for the provision of rental housing. Educate residents on the
availability of second units through development of informational materials for
distribution at the public counter, and through advertisement on the City's website by
2013. Seek to achieve a total of 34 second units during the planning period.
Program 9. Revise Densitv Bonus Procedures
SB 1818, which took effect on January 1, 2005, revised the State density bonus law —
Government Code Section 65915-65918. The law requires all cities to adopt procedures that
describe how compliance with Sections 65915-65918 will be implemented. Density bonuses
may be given for affordable housing, senior housing, land donations for affordable housing, and
child care facilities. The City will prepare an ordinance describing its procedures for
implementing the revised density bonus law.
Pursuant to the SB 1818 provisions, density bonus units must be granted — when certain
conditions are met by the applicant — for very low-, low-, and moderate -income households as
well as senior citizen housing developments. The list below summarizes the SB 1818 density
provisions (refer to Attachment A at the end of this Section for a more detailed explanation):
A 20% bonus for developments with 5% very low-income units and increases that by
2.5% for every percentage of very low-income units above 5%, up to a cap of 35%.
A 20% bonus for developments with 10% low-income units and increases that by 1.5%
for every percentage of low-income units above 10%, up to a cap of 35%.
A 5% bonus for condo/PUD developments with 10% moderate -income units and
increases that percentage by 1% for every percentage of moderate -income units above
10%, up to a cap of 35%.
2-26
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
A 20% density for a senior citizen housing development. "Senior" and "affordable"
housing density bonuses cannot be combined. That is, an applicant only may seek a
density bonus from one of the very -low, low, moderate or senior categories.
In addition to the density bonus, eligible projects may receive 1-3 additional development
incentives, depending on the proportion of affordable units and level of income targeting. The
following development incentives may be requested:
✓ Reduced site development standards or design requirements.
✓ Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project.
✓ Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the applicant or the City that
would result in identifiable cost reductions.
Applicants are also eligible to utilize the State's alternative parking ratio (inclusive of
handicapped and guest spaces) of 1 space for 0-1 bedroom units, 2 spaces for 2-3 bedroom
units, and 2.5 spaces for 4+ bedrooms.
2006-2014 Objective: Update the City's density bonus provisions consistent with State
requirements by 2013. Encourage the use of density bonus incentives by advertising on
Temple City's website and by providing information on available density and regulatory
incentives in conjunction with discussions with development applicants.
Program 10. Prepare Inclusionary Housing Policv
Temple City will pursue adoption of an inclusionary housing program to require a minimum
percent of units in development to be price -restricted as affordable to lower and moderate
income households. An inclusionary housing ordinance would typically require: (a) provision of
affordable housing on-site; or (b) provision of affordable units off-site; or (c) payment of an
affordable housing in -lieu fee. Current case law (Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los
Angeles) limits the application of inclusionary requirements to: 1) for -sale housing projects, 2)
rental projects receiving financial or regulatory assistance from the city subject to a written
development agreement.
The City will conduct an inclusionary housing nexus study to document the relationship between
residential development and demand for affordable housing, and to determine both the
maximum supportable and recommended in -lieu fee amount. Based on the study's findings, the
City will develop and adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance structured to offer incentives to
help offset the cost of providing affordable units. In -lieu fees generated from the program will be
contributed to the City's Housing Trust Fund.
Incentives offered under the Inclusionary Housing program will be linked with incentives offered
under the City's Density Bonus program (Program #9).
2006-2014 Objective: Conduct an Inclusionary Housing Nexus and In -Lieu Fee Study
to establish the basis for considering adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.
2-27
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
PROGRAM CATEGORY #3:
ADDRESS AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE AND LEGALLY POSSIBLE, REMOVE
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
More specifically, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) states that a housing program must:
`Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints
to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all
income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
"The program shall remove constraints to, or provide reasonable accommodations for
housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for,
persons with disabilities."
Housing Need Summary
Technical Appendix B contains an analysis of several governmental factors that affect the
maintenance, improvement and development of housing. The analysis indicates that the City
should take certain actions to remove or ameliorate governmental constraints, as follows:
Adopt a reasonable accommodation procedure.
Allow residential care facilities for seven or more disabled persons to submit applications
through the adopted reasonable accommodation procedure.
Revise the Zoning Code definition of "family."
Include "residential care facilities' — as required by State law — among the uses
permitted in zones that allow single-family dwellings.
2. Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
a. Goals
Remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.
b. Policies
Provide Zoning Code provisions that address the fair housing needs of disabled
persons.
Ensure that Zoning Code provisions do not adversely impact the housing needs
of disabled persons.
C. Quantified Obiectives
Accomplish the housing programs by the end of 2013.
2-28
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
3. Housing Programs
Program 11. Multi-familv Residential Review Process
Temple City currently requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for multi -family development of
three or more units in the R2 and R3 zone districts and for all multi -development within the
Downtown Specific Plan, necessitating a public hearing before the Planning Commission. While
the Housing Element constraints analysis (Appendix B) concludes that the City's processing
procedures are efficient and do not serve as a constraint to development, the added $1,000 fee
and processing time associated with the CUP does add cost and a degree of uncertainty to
development.
As a means of better facilitating housing, the City will implement a new administrative review
process for multi -family development focused on site and architectural review that will be
permitted "by right" rather than subject to a discretionary review process. In administering the
process, staff will apply the City's existing detailed multi -family design guidelines, which are
specified in the zoning code, to regulate development consistent with the quality and character
of the Temple City community. With design guidelines in place, the City is in a position to
replace the current multi -family CUP review and approval process with a ministerial design and
site review process to be conducted by the Community Development Department's site plan
review committee.
2008-2014 Objective: Eliminate the CUP requirement for new multi -family residential
development within the Downtown Specific Plan and in the R-2 and R-3 zones for
projects with greater than 2 units, and replace with a non -discretionary review process
based on compliance with existing code -based design guidelines.
Program 12. Adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
The adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure is a means of addressing the special
needs of the disabled population. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a
modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the siting, development and
use of housing or housing -related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a
person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. Technical Appendix B
includes information on the nature and scope of a reasonable accommodation procedure.
The Federal Departments' of Justice (DOJ) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well
as the California Attorney General all encourage cities to adopt a reasonable accommodation
procedure. For example, both the DOJ and HUD state that -
"Local governments are encouraged to provide mechanisms for requesting
reasonable accommodations that operate promptly and efficiently, without
imposing significant costs or delays. The local government should also make
efforts to insure that the availability of such mechanisms is well known within the
community.`
`Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act, August 18,
1999, page 4.
2-29
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
The Office of the State Attorney General advises localities to consider adoption of a reasonable
accommodation procedure. In 2001, the Attorney General stated:
"Both the federal Fair Housing Act ('FHA') and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act ('FEHA') impose an affirmative duty on local governments to
make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their
zoning laws and other land use regulations and practices when such
accommodations 'may be necessary to afford' disabled persons 'an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling."
2006-2014 Objective: The City's Reasonable Accommodation Procedure Program will
accomplish the following by the end of 2013:
• Complete research on Federal and State laws and policies that require
adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure. This task will be
completed by the end of 2009.
• Review and evaluate at least three reasonable accommodation procedures
adopted by California cities.
• Conduct outreach with the disabled populations to review initial drafts of the
procedure and gather input. The outreach will include but not be limited to
Mental Health Advisory Services, Inc.
• Process the reasonable accommodation procedure through a Zoning Code
Amendment.
• Display brochures/flyers of the procedure at the Community Development
Department counter.
• Advertise the procedure and application requirements on the City's website.
Program 13. Housina for the Disabled Zonina Code Amendments
The analysis of governmental factors (Technical Appendix B) identifies three amendments that
the City will adopt to affirmatively further adequate housing opportunities for disabled persons.
The Zoning Code amendments are to:
Revise the City's definition of "family." A definition of family should refer to a
housekeeping unit or household instead of distinguishing between related and
unrelated persons, as the City's current definition does.
Include the licensed residential care facilities that are required by state law to be
permitted uses in the zones that allow single-family dwellings.
Establish a streamlined procedure for applications for residential care facilities
housing seven or more disabled persons.
2006-2014 Objective: The City will complete the above zoning code amendments by
the end of 2013.
2-30
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
PROGRAM CATEGORY #4: CONSERVEAND IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF THE
EXISTING STOCK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Government Code Section 65583(c)(4) states that a housing program shall describe actions to:
"Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may
include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public and
private actions."
1. Housing Need Summary
Based on a windshield survey, the prior Housing Element estimated 650 housing units were
substandard and suitable for rehabilitation. Since 2000, homeowners have made improvements
to the housing stock and some substandard housing units have been demolished. In addition,
the City's code enforcement actions have resulted in repairs and improvements to existing
housing. Taking into account the home improvements made since 2000, and that some
housing units have declined in quality during the past eight years, the current estimate is that
500 housing units are in need of rehabilitation.
According to the prior Housing Element, an estimated 100 housing units were beyond repair
and should be replaced. Census 2000 reported that 65 housing units lacked complete plumbing
facilities and 168 lacked complete kitchen facilities. The replacement housing need is estimated
to be between 100 and 125 housing units, based on estimates of the prior Housing Element,
Census 2000 indicators, and demolition activity between 2000 and 2007.
2. Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
a. Goals
Achieve a housing stock free of substandard conditions.
b. Policies
Continue to implement the City's Housing Code Enforcement Program.
Continue to implement the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program.
C. Quantified Objectives
Housing code enforcement at an average level of 125 new cases per year for all
income levels.
Rehabilitation of 51 housing units through the Handyworker Assistance Program (2006-
2011).
Rehabilitation of 38 housing units through the Home Improvement Deferred Loan
Program (2006-2014).
2-31
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
3. Housing Programs
Program 14. Housina Code Enforcement Proqram
The City's Housing Code Enforcement Program involves the enforcement of all municipal codes
and ordinances, various State and local laws and health and safety regulations as they relate to
conditions or activity within the City. The primary method that the City uses to obtain code
compliance is voluntary compliance. If this method does not attain compliance, then other legal
actions are taken to eliminate substandard conditions.
The City continuously conducts housing code enforcement through two approaches. The first
approach is drive by inspections focusing on fire hazards, nuisances and other violations of the
housing and building codes. The second approach is complaint driven and often results in stop
orders on illegal building practices (construction without appropriate permits).
A primary objective of the program is to achieve code compliance through rehabilitation. As a
result, code enforcement personnel are knowledgeable on the City's housing rehabilitation
efforts, and refer homeowners to the rehabilitation specialist for information on how the loan and
grant programs can help them to correct the code violations.
Program 15. Handvworker Assistance Proaram
The Handyworker Program is geared to assisting lower income homeowner households. Eligible
improvements include exterior weatherization and the repair or replacement of obsolete or non-
functioning heating, plumbing, electrical, or structural components of their owner -occupied
residence. The program provides grants up to $10,000.
The City's objectives under the program for the 2006-2011 period are as follows:
Extremely Low Income 9 households/units
Very Low Income 26 households/units
Low Income 16 households/units
The program has been funded primarily through the City's Redevelopment Agency, with some
additional funding from the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
allocation. However, due to the State of California's elimination of redevelopment agencies, and
the federal government's ongoing reduction in annual CDBG allocations for cities, in 2011 the
City suspended the Handyworker Assistance Program until additional funding becomes
available.
2006-2014 Objective: Provide handyworker assistance grants to 51 households.
Program 16. Home Improvement Deferred Loan Proqram
This program offers assistance to owner -occupied households to make repairs or replace
obsolete or non-functioning heating, plumbing, electrical, or structural components of the
residence. The program features include:
Deferred loans up to a $25,000 maximum
2-32
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
3% per annum simple interest
Interest accrues for 20 years
Principal and interest are not due and payable until sale or change in title
No prepayment penalty
Examples of eligible repairs include:
Bedroom additions to relieve overcrowding
Roof repair/replacement
Structural repair
Plumbing/electrical repair
Furnace repair/replacement
Painting/stucco
Yard clean-up
Termite repair
Insulation for energy/conservation
Other repairs as needed
The Deferred Loan Program has been expanded to include -- as eligible expenditures of CDBG
funds -- modifications and retrofits to homes occupied by one or more disabled persons. The
eligible modifications and retrofits include, but are not limited, to:
Installation of grab bars
Wheelchair ramps
Lifts
Expanded/modified doorways
Railings
Modifications of steps
Outreach for the Deferred Loan Program involves the following:
Program announcements on the City's Website
Availability of program flyers at the Community Development Department
Availability of program flyers at the Live Oak Park Community Center
Display ads in the local newspaper
Announcements in the City's quarterly newsletter
Periodic workshops
Resident interest and participation in the program is high, with the number of applications
frequently exceeding available funds.
2006-2014 Objective: Continue to provide program outreach to achieve the following
levels of assistance through the 2006 - 2014 period:
Extremely Low Income 9 households/units
Very Low Income 9 households/units
Low Income 20 households/units
2-33
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
PROGRAM CATEGORY #5
PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS
Section 65583(c)(5) requires that the housing program:
"Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex,
marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability."
Housing Need Summary
In California, housing discrimination is against the law. The California Fair Employment and
Housing Act -
i Provides protection from harassment or discrimination in housing because of:
o Race
o Calor
o Religion
o Sex
o Sexual Orientation
o Marital Status
o National Origin
o Ancestry
o Familial Status
o Source of Income
o Disability
Prohibits discrimination and harassment in all aspects of housing including sales and
rentals, evictions, terms and conditions, mortgage loans and insurance, and land use
and zoning.
Requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodation in rules and
practices to permit persons with disabilities to use and enjoy a dwelling and to allow
persons with disabilities to make reasonable modifications of the premises.
Prohibits retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint with the
Department, participated in a Department investigation or opposed any activity
prohibited by the Act.
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act. In
2006, the DFEH received 1,096 FEHA housing complaints, 39 Ralph Civil Rights Act complaints
and 125 Unruh Civil Rights Act Complaints. The Ralph Civil Rights Act provides protection from
hate crimes based on characteristics such as race, color, disability and age. The Unruh Civil
Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments based on
characteristics of color, disability, national origin and race.
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) governing the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program requires that entitlement jurisdictions prepare an assessment of impediments
to providing fair housing choice within their jurisdiction (CFR 570.904 [c][1]). "Fair housing
2-34
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
choice" means the ability of persons of similar income levels regardless of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, handicap and familial status to have available to them the same housing
choices.
Temple City is a participating city in the County of Los Angeles CDBG Program. The County's
Community Development Commission is the entity responsible for preparation of the Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al). The County's 2006 Al made the following conclusion:
Evidence demonstrates that households with protected classes, such as familial
status, the disabled, and race and national origin, are still affected by
discriminatory terms and conditions as well as discriminatory refusal and lack of
reasonable accommodation, including advertising activities by housing providers.
The Al recommends that the County Community Development Commission encourage
participating cities to undertake the following actions:
Adopt procedures for reasonable accommodation
Remove or modify the definition of family in zoning ordinances to eliminate restrictions
based on whether household occupants are related or unrelated
Ensure zoning ordinances are in compliance with the Lanterman Development
Disabilities Services Act.
The Temple City Housing Element sets forth programs to address each of these three Al
recommendations (refer to Programs #12 and #13). A summary of the AI's complete findings
and recommendations is included in Attachment B at the end of this section.
2. Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
a. Goals
Attain a housing market with "fair housing choice" meaning the ability of persons
of similar income levels regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
handicap and familial status to have available to them the same housing choices.
b. Policies
Continue to promote fair housing opportunities through the City's participation in
the County's Community Development Block Grant Program.
Promote fair housing by providing information to residents on agencies that can
help them with their fair housing needs.
C. Quantified Objective
Quantified objectives are not established for this program category because a projection of the
cases and clients to be served cannot be made at this time.
2-35
SECTION 2
3. Housing Programs
Program 17. Fair Housing Services
HOUSING PROGRAM
Through the City's participation in the County's CDBG Program, the Housing Rights Center
provides fair housing services to Temple City's residents. The Center offers the following
services to city residents:
Housing Discrimination Complaints: HRC investigates housing discrimination complaints
brought under both State and Federal fair housing laws. A housing discrimination complaint can
be investigated through testing, the gathering of witness statements, or through research
surveys. HRC resolves cases in a number of ways including conciliation, litigation or referrals.
Outreach and Education: HRC has established an effective and comprehensive outreach and
education program. The Center continuously develops and distributes written materials that
describe the applicable laws that protect against housing discrimination and ways to prevent
housing injustices.
Additionally, HRC presents fair housing law workshops and programs to target audiences to
teach communities how to stop housing inequity. The Center's materials and programs are
offered to a variety of audiences such as property personnel (e.g. landlords, property managers,
and realtors), tenants, prospective homebuyers, code enforcement personnel, police officers,
city employees, and other non-profit organizations. Depending on the audience, the written
materials and presentations can be translated by HRC staff into Armenian, Korean, Mandarin,
Spanish, or Russian.
Tenant/Landlord Counseling: HRC provides telephone and in-person counseling to both tenants
and landlords regarding their respective rights and responsibilities under California law and local
city ordinances. In addition to answering basic housing questions, counselors commonly cite
specific civil codes that pertain to the client's matter and/or provide sample letters that discuss a
particular issue.
When a client's matter is outside the scope of HRC's services, the Center provides appropriate
referral information. These referrals include, but are not limited to local housing authorities,
health and building & safety departments, legal assistance agencies, and other social service
providers.
Beginning in FY 2012-2013, the City will co-sponsor an annual Temple City Fair Housing
Workshop and Temple City Walk-in Clinic. The Walk-in Clinic will be held at the Community
Center.
2006-2014 Objective: Continue to promote fairhousing practices, and refer fair housing
and tenant/landlord complaints to the Housing Rights Center.
Program 13. Fair Housina Information
The City furthers fair housing education and outreach in the local community by making fair
housing information available at City Hall, Chamber of Commerce, Live Oak Park Community
Center, the Temple City Library and the City's Newsletter. Information includes brochures and
2-36
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
other written information obtained from the Housing Rights Center, HUD, DFEH and other
sources.
In addition, the City will make information available on its Website and provide links to additional
resources such as the following:
Reasonable Accommodations
State Department of Fair Employment and Housing's (DFEH) video on reasonable
accommodations for tenants htto://www.dfeh.ca.aov/fairHousinaVdeo.asr)x
Fair Housing Information for New Developments
Accessibility Requirements fo'r Buildings -
htto://www. hud. aov/offices/fheo/disabilities/accessibilitvR.cfm
HUD Fair Housing Act Design Manual -
htto://www.huduser.om/r)ublications/destech/fairhousina.htm]
"Fair Housing Accessibility First Website" —
httn://www.fairhousinafirst.cra/index.asr)
Zoning Activities Covered Under Fair Housing Laws
Information on the Fair Housing Act as it relates to Group Homes and Local Land Use
Additional HUD Fair Housing Information
HUD Office of Fair Housina and Edual Opportunity
HUD information on Fair Housina as it relates to Senior Housina
2006-2094 Objective: Advertise services available through the fair housing program
through distribution of fair housing brochures in community locations, and provide
information on fair housing resources on the Temple City Website.
2-37
SECTION 2
ATTACHMENT A
SB 1818 Density Bonus Provisions
For the very low-income density bonus, SB
HOUSING PROGRAM
1818 gives a 20% bonus for developments with For the moderate income condo/PUD density
5% low-income units and increases that by bonus, SB 1818 gives a 5% bonus for
2.5% for every percentage of low-income units condo/PUD developments with 10% moderate
above 5%, up to a cap of ?5% income units and increases that by 1 % for every
percentage of low-income units above 10%, up to
% Very Low -Income % Density Bonus a cap of 35%.
Units
20
% Moderate Income Units
% Density Bonus
5 22.5
6 25
10
5
7 27.5
11
6
8 30
12
7
9 32.5
13
8
10 35
14
9
11
15
10
16
11
17
12
For the low-income density bonus, SB 1818
18
13
gives a 20% bonus for developments with 10%
19
14
low-income units and increases that by 1.5% for
20
15
every percentage of low-income units above
21
16
10%, up to a cap of 35%
22
17
23
18
% Low -Income Units % Density Bonus
24
19
25
20
10 20
26
21
11 21.5
27
22
12 23
28
23
13 24.5
29
24
14 26
30
25
15 27.5
31
26
16 29
32
27
17 30.5
33
28
18 32
34
29
19 33.5
35
30
20 35
36
31
37
32
38
33
39
34
40
35
2-38
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT B
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Los Angeles Urban County Final Report
October 5, 2006
SECTION VIII. 2006 IMPEDIMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
2006 IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
The 2006 Analysis of Impediments presents
Community Development Commission (CDC)
are separately enumerated below.
FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
four Fair Housing Impediments. Actions the
can consider in overcoming these impediments
Impediment #1: A lack of adequate resources for the effective delivery of fair housing services
exists in the Los Angeles Urban County. This leads to insufficient public awareness of fair
housing and fair housing services, as well as lower than needed testing, audit, and enforcement
activities.
LENDING PRACTICES
Impediment #2: Predatory lending by sub -prime lenders is being practiced in the Los Angeles
Urban County. Furthermore, unreasonably high loan denial rates for selected racial and ethnic
minorities are occurring, and specific geographic areas are suffering higher denial rates than
may be warranted.
DISCRIMINATION
Impediment #3: Unlawful discrimination against protected classes in both the rental and
homeownership markets persists, with ongoing issues pertaining to illegal actions in both
housing markets.
PUBLIC POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Impediment #4: Some participating jurisdictions have public policies and practices that are not in
the spirit of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
ACTIONS FOR THE CDC TO CONSIDER
FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
Recommendation 1: Increase fair housing resources to the Housing Rights Center, and its
affiliated organizations, by providing technical assistance in the form of HUD Fair Housing
Initiative Program grant application writing skills. This task will assist in successful application
for the Housing Rights Center and affiliated groups for FHIP funding from HUD in the upcoming
NOFA funding cycles. The 2006 grant application cycle for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program
opened in early March of 2006 and closed in latter May 2006.
2-39
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
With this grant cycle in mind, the CDC should consider preparing for this assistance in late
2006. The ultimate goals of this effort are as follows:
Increase resources devoted to education and outreach
Increase resources devoted to testing and enforcement.
Recommendation 2: The CDC should ensure that contracted fair housing providers:
Concentrate the areas in which trainings, booths, and other outreach efforts occur to
areas with high disproportionate shares of low income and selected minority households,
including geographic areas with extremely high loan application denial rates.
Seek ways to increase attendance at housing fairs and fair housing events. This can, in
part, be done by having the Housing Rights Center share mailing and email lists with the
CDC and the CDC building and maintaining email and communication lists for future
Analysis of Impediments updates and Consolidated Planning activities.
Ensure that additional opportunities for stakeholders and other housing experts to
enhance their understanding of fair housing law exist.
Require the Housing Rights Center to establish a reporting system that presents the
protected class and discriminatory issues associated with all housing complaints.
LENDING PRACTICES
Recommendation 3: The CDC needs to ensure that racial and ethnic minorities, as well as all
lower-income clientele, better understand the overall operation of the credit markets, the use of
sub -prime credit, and the importance of having good credit.
The CDC should enhance its outreach and education of credit for homebuyers and
prospective low-income homeowners.
The CDC should target these activities to areas having the most severe denial rates and
areas having a higher percentage of sub -prime refinanced mortgages in the Los Angeles
Urban County.
The CDC should require the Housing Rights Center, and its affiliated agencies, to
incorporate the topic of predatory sub -prime refinancing of existing mortgages, and
typical predatory terms and activities, in its outreach and education efforts.
The CDC should distribute the list of major sub -prime lenders operating in the Los
Angeles Urban County to housing providers and housing rights organizations.
DISCRIMINATION
Recommendation 4: The CDC should work to enhance outreach and education, as well as
testing and enforcement activities by the three fair housing entities under the Housing Rights
Center umbrella, particularly for protected classes and areas with higher concentrations of
minority racial and ethnic households.
Evidence demonstrates that households with protected classes, such as familial status,
the disabled, and race and national origin, are still affected by discriminatory terms and
conditions as well as discriminatory refusal and lack of reasonable accommodation,
including advertising activities by housing providers. The CDC should continue to
monitor this issue.
2-40
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
• Comments received during the 2006 Fair Housing Surveys referred to redlining and
steering occurring in the Urban County. The CDC and the fair housing contract service
providers should enhance efforts to encourage inclusive housing activities by the
facilitators and marketers of housing products, including continued exposure to fair
housing training.
• The CDC should refer all prospective housing complaints to the Housing Rights Center
and affiliated agencies
• The Housing Rights Center, and affiliated agencies, should increase testing and
enforcement activities as soon as FHIP funding is received.
PUBLIC POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Recommendation 5: While some progress in affirmatively furthering fair housing has been
achieved by participating jurisdictions over the last few years, the CDC should continue to
encourage these jurisdictions to do the following:
Come into compliance with the State Housing Element law
Adopt procedures for reasonable accommodation
Remove standards that limit the number of persons that may share a housing unit
Remove or modify the definition of family in zoning ordinances
Have zoning ordinances in compliance with the Lanterman Development Disabilities
Services Act.
2-41
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2008-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix C: Non -Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix D: Sites Inventory and Analysis
Appendix E: Progress Report
March 26, 2013
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
I ►®A/1
KAREN WARNER ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Appendix A
Housing Needs Assessment
A — Introduction & Summary...............................................................A-1
Introduction...................................................................................................................... - A-1
2. Housing Needs Summary .................................................................................................. A-2
B — Housing Characteristics and Existing Housing Needs......................A-6
1. Housing and Household Characteristics .................... ............ .......................... .....
....... --. A-6
(A) Existing Housing Stock .......... -.... ............................................. ...................................
A-6
(B) Housing Types Occupied by Owners/Renters......................... ............. .......................
A-7
(C) Vacant Housing Units ........................... .................. .................................. ...................
A-8
(D) Year Housholder Moved to Unit...................................................................................
A-9
(E) Household Income-2000..............................................................................................
A-10
(F) Household Income Groups-2008.................................................................................
A-11
(G) Temple City's Income Groups.....................................................................................
A-13
(H) Temple City's Households by Income, Household Type and Tenure ...................
...... A-13
2. Overpaying.........................................................................................................................
A-14
(A) Guidelines ...... ................ ...................................................... ......................................
- A-14
(B) Analysis........................................................................................................................
A-14
(C) Conclusions and Findings............................................................................................
A-16
3. Overcrowding ............................. ................................... ................................
...A-19
(A) Guidelines....................................................................................................................
A-19
(B) Analysis........................................................................................................................
A-19
(C) Conclusions and Findings .................................. ...................................... ....................
A-20
4. Conditions of the Existing Housing Stock ............. .................................. ................
A-20
(A) Guidelines... ........ __ ..... .......................................................................................
__ .... A-20
(B) Analysis........................................................................................................................
A-20
(C) Conclusions and Findings........ ........................................ ...........................................
A-21
5. At -Risk Housing Assessment ...... ............................................. ..........................
A-23
(A) Guidelines....................................................................................................................
A-23
(B) Analysis........................................................................................................................
A-23
(C) Conclusions and Findings............................................................................................
A-23
C— Special Housing Needs.............................................................................A-24
Elderly................................................................................................................................ A-24
(A) Definitions.................................................................................................................... A-24
(B) Special Housing Needs of the Elderly..........-............................................................. A-25
(C) Temple City's Older Persons....................................................................................... A-26
(D) Many Older Persons Have Low Income and Are Cost Burdened ............................... A-27
(E) Housing for the Elderly...... . . ......................................... - .......................................... _ A-27
(F) Conclusions and Findings............................................................................................ A-28
2. Persons with Disabilities....................................................................................................A-28
(A) Definitions....--...........................................................................................................
A-28
(B) Special Housing Needs for Persons with Disabilities..................................................
A-29
(C) People with Disabilities........................................................... .......... ......
.......... ........... A-29
(D) Housing for the Disabled ................................................. -...... -..............
......... ......... - A-32
(E) Conclusions and Findings............................................................... ......
.............. --..... A-32
3. Large Families ............ .................................................. .............
................. .... A-32
(A) Definitions....................................................................................................................
A-32
(B) Special Housing Needs ................................. -.................. ....... ....................
--........... A-32
(C) Large Families/Households...................................................... -.........
................ ........ A-33
(D) Housing for Large Families/Households.... ........ ......... ............ -...............
...... .........-- A-34
(E) Housing Affordability....................................................................................................
A-34
(F) Conclusions and Findings............................................................. --
.......................... A-35
4. Farmworkers.............................................................. ........ .......................
......................... A-35
(A) Guidelines....................................................................................................................
A-35
(B) Definitions....................................................... —... ......... ...........................
-- ...... —...... A-35
(C) Farmworkers in Temple City........................................................................................
A-35
(D) Conclusions and Findings ....................................... ......... ..... --.... -.............................
A-36
5. Female Householders ...................... ......... --- .............................................
........... -- .... A-36
(A) Definitions....................................................................................................................
A-36
(B) Special Housing Needs of Female Householders ............. --- ....... --
......................... A-36
(C) Estimate of Female Householders...............................................................................
A-37
(D) Conclusions and Findings............................................................................................
A-37
6. Families and Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter.......................................................A-39
(A) Guidelines ......... .................... .......................................................................................
A-39
(B) Definitions....................................................................................................................
A-39
(C) Special Housing Needs.................................................—.......................................—
A-40
(D) Estimates of Homelessness ..................................... ........ —..... ........ ...........................
A-40
(E) Homeless Shelters and Services .............................................. -..... ....
........................ A-41
(F) Conclusions and Findings ............................................... -........ ...................................
A-41
D — Projected Housing Needs ............ ....... .......................................... .A-41
Population Trends and Projections.. ... ........... - ................................................................. A-41
2. Employment Trends and Projections..... —........................................................................ A-42
(A) Jobs Located in the City .................................................... --... ....... -- ............. ........... A-42
(B) Labor Force — Workers Employed Residents.............................................................. A-43
3. Share of Regional Housing Needs.................................................................................... A-43
E — Analysis of Opportunities For Energy Conservation ........................A-45
List of Tables
A-1
Housing Stock by Type of Unit Jan. 1 2008 .............................................A-7
A-2
Tenure by Units in Structure 2000...........................................................A-8
A-3
Vacant Housing Units by Units in Structure 2000 ....................................A-9
A-4
Year Householder Moved into Unit 2000 ................... ..............................
A-10
A-5
Household Income by Tenure 2000 ........................................................
A-11
A-6
Los Angeles County 2008 Annual Income Limits Adjusted by Household Size
..........................................................................................................
A-12
A-7
Los Angeles County Income Limits for a 3 -person Household ................
A-12
A-8
Annual Household Income Distribution by Tenure 2000 ..........................
A-13
A-9
Number of Households by Household Type, Income and Tenure ............
A-15
A-10
Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income 1999 ...................................... ....
A-15
A-11
Cost Burdened Renter Households by Income Group and Household Type
-
2000........................................................................................................
A-17
A-12
Severely Cost Burdened Renter Households by Income Group - 2000...
A-17
A-13
Cost Burdened Owner Households by Income Group - 2000 ..................
A-18
A-14
Severely Cost Burdened Owner Households By Income Group 2000.....
A-18
A-15
Persons per Room by Tenure 2000 ........................................................A
-20
A-16
Age of Housing Stock by Year Built 2000 ................................................
A-22
A-17
Demolitions Submitted to State Department of Finance 2000-2007 ........
A-22
A-18
Senior Population by Age Group and Gender 2000 ................................
A-26
A-19
Senior Householders (65+) by tenure and Household Type 2000 ...........
A-27
A-20
Total Disabilities Reports by Type 2000 ..................................................
A-30
A-21
Disability Prevalence Rates by Age Group (5+years)..............................A-31
A-22
Households with Disabled Persons by Income Group and Tenure..........
A-32
A-23
Number of Households by Household Size and Tenure 2000 .................
A-33
A-24
Large Family Renters and Owners with Housing Assistance Needs by
Income
Group2000.............................................................................................A-34
A-25
Female Householders by Tenure 2000 ...................................................
A-37
A-26
Female Households by Tenure and Age of Householder 2000 ...............
A-38
A-27
Population Growth Trends 1970 -2008 .....................................................A-42
A-28
Housing Stock Trends 1990-2008...........................................................A-42
A-29
Share if Regional Housing Needs January 1 2006 -June 30 2015 ............
A-44
List of Charts
A-1 Housing Needs.......................................................................................A-3
A-2 Summary of Housing Needs................................................................... A-4
A-3 Definitions of Income Groups as a Percentage of Area Median Income.. A-11
Attachment A:
Los Angeles County Senior Population Profile Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging
Preparing for the Future: A Report on the Expected Needs of Los Angeles County's Older
AdultPopulation...........................................................................................A-47
Attachment B:
Los Angeles County Office of Education Referral Guide for Homeless Children, Youth and Families
Service Providers Located Near Temple City. ................................ ........................ — ...A-50
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
A. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Introduction
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
According to State law, Temple City's Housing Element must contain:
1. An analysis and documentation of household characteristics,
including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing
characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock
condition.
2. An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are
eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next
10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage
prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.
3. An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the
elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers,
families with female heads of households, and families and
persons in need of emergency shelter.
4. An analysis of population and employment trends and
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of
the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584.
Technical Appendix A provides estimates and projections on the City's housing needs,
as those needs are defined by the State Housing Element Law. In addition to serving as
a beginning point for looking at the community's housing needs, Technical Appendix A
also serves the following functions:
❑ Benchmark data to track trends later in this decade.
❑ Establish a community "housing" profile.
❑ Meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law.
❑ Quantify the "need" among different population groups.
❑ Provide a shared understanding of the nature and scope of
housing needs.
❑ Provide information helpful to setting priorities.
A-1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
2. Housing Needs Summary
Chart A-1 shows the three housing need categories and the specific needs included in
each category.
Chart A-2 provides estimates of the City's housing needs.
A-2
O Overcrowding O Disabled O Employment Trends
and Projections
O Housing Condition O Large Families O Share of Regional
Housing Needs
O "At Risk" Housing O Farmworkers
O Female
Householders
O Homeless
city of Temple City Housing Element Update
HOUSING
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Existing ,
Special•` :-:
ProjeeEed
Housing ;;
:Needs
Housing
fV"eeds..:._
Poulatibns
Needs
O Overpaying
O Elderly
y
O Population Trends
and Projections
O Overcrowding O Disabled O Employment Trends
and Projections
O Housing Condition O Large Families O Share of Regional
Housing Needs
O "At Risk" Housing O Farmworkers
O Female
Householders
O Homeless
city of Temple City Housing Element Update
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Chart A-2
City of Temple City
Summary of Housing Needs
Existing Housing Needs
An estimated 600 female householders are
lower-income, occupy rental housing and
are overpayinq
A-4
As of January 2008, the City has 11,921
housing units and 11,578 households
Census 2000 reports the City had 7,178
owner- and 4,215 renter -occupied housing
units
General Household Characteristics: The homeownership rate is 63+%
The largest number of renters (almost
3,000) occupies single- family homes, not
apartment units
58.2% of all households moved into their
housing unit prior to 1995
Ove a in
y g'
1,364 lower income renters are overpaying
933 lower income owners are overpaying
842 owners are overcrowded
Overcrowding:
396 owners are severely overcrowded
902 renters are overcrowded
451 renters are severely overcrowded
Rehabilitation Need.
500 housing units
Replacement Need:
100-125 housing units
At Risk" Housinq
None
Special Hot sing Needs
13.9% of the population are seniors
20.7% of the households are seniors 170
Elderly:
lower income senior renters are
overpaying. 270 lower income senior
owners are overpayinq
Census 2000 indicates that 5,468 persons
Disabled:
5 years and over reported a disability
A total of 10,227 disabilities were reported
Between 1990-2000, the number of large
Large Families:
households increased from 1,391 to 1,667
219 and 170 lower income large family
renters and owners are overpayinq
No farmworker jobs are located in the City;
Farmworkers:
25 residents had jobs in the "agricultural"
industry
3,225 of the City's householders are
female householders (28.4%)
About 43% of female householders live
Female Householders:
alone
An estimated 600 female householders are
lower-income, occupy rental housing and
are overpayinq
A-4
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Los Angeles Homeless Services
Homeless: Authority estimates 36 homeless persons
in Temple City
Projected Hcusing Needs
As of January 2008, the City's population
was estimated to be 35,683
In both the 1980's and 1990s the City
Population Trends: gained more than 2,000 persons
Since 2000 the City's population has
increased by about 2,300 persons
Employment Trends:
Share of Regional Need:
There are an estimated 6,000 to 6,500 jobs
in the City
SCAG projects an increase of 439 jobs
between 2005 to 2015
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment
allocates 987 housing units to Temple City
for the January 1, 2006 -June 30, 2014 time
period
Of the total housing units allocated to the
City, 41 % are in the extremely low, very
low- and low-income groups
A-5
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS
Part B includes data and analysis on:
❑ Housing and household characteristics — for example, the existing
housing stock and household incomes.
❑ Overpaying —for example, lower income households who are cost
burdened because housing costs exceed 30% of their income.
❑ Overcrowding —too many people living in a home.
❑ Condition of the housing stock — for instance, the need to
rehabilitate or replace existing dwellings.
1. Housing and Household Characteristics
Part B 1 provides a "profile" of some key housing and household characteristics. This
part includes information on —
❑ Existing Housing Stock
❑ Housing Types Occupied by Owners and Renters
❑ Vacant Housing Units
❑ Year Householders Moved into Unit
❑ Household Income by Tenure
❑ 2008 Household Income Groups
❑ City Household Income Groups
a. Existing Housinq Stock
As of January 1, 2008, 11,921 dwellings comprise the City's housing stock. Table A-1
shows that more than eight out of ten housing units are single-family detached
structures.
Less than 7% of the dwellings are attached single-family homes
Only one half of one percent of the housing stock is mobile homes.
During the past two calendar years — 2006 and 2007 — 65 single family homes have
been added to Temple City's housing stock.
Lu
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5+ units
Mobile homes'
Total Housing Units
983
Table A-1
58
0.5%
City of Temple City
100.0%
Housing Stock
by Type of Unit—January 1, 2008
Type of Unit
Number of Units
Percent
1 unit, detached
9,657
81.0%
1 unit, attached
802
6.7%
2 to 4 units
421
3.5%
5+ units
Mobile homes'
Total Housing Units
983
8.3%
58
0.5%
11,921
100.0%
'City records indicate there are mobile home units or parks in
Temple City.
Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit, Citv/County Population and Housing Estimates,
January 1, 2008
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
b. Housino Tvoes Occupied by Owners/Renters
Census 2000 reports 11,393 occupied housing units – 7,178 owners and 4,215 renters.
As of January 1, 2008, there are 11,578 occupied housing units, according to the State
Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit.
The housing types occupied by owners and renters, as of 2000, are presented in Table
A-2. According to Census 2000, 63% of the housing stock is owner occupied and 37%
is renter occupied. Between April 1, 2000 and January 1, 2008, the number of occupied
housing units has increased by 185. The City's homeownership rate has increased since
2000 because all of the new housing has been single family homes.
The percentage figures in Table A-2 represent the percentage of housing units of that
type that are occupied by owners or renters. For example, 72.4% of the occupied
single-family detached structures are owner -occupied while 27.6% are renter occupied.
In 2000, the vast majority of owners lived in single-family detached (6,647) and attached
(321) housing units. Renters live in all housing types; however, the largest numbers
reside in single-family detached and attached units as well as apartment projects with 5
to 9 units.
A-7
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-2
City of Temple City
Tenure by Units in Structure — 2000
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table H32 Units in Structure by Tenure
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C. Vacant Housino Units
Less than three percent of the housing units were vacant at the time of Census 2000.
Table A-3 indicates the vacant units by housing type. The highest vacancy rates occur
in single-family attached units. Stated differently, the City had a scant 313 vacant
housing units when Census 2000 was taken. The State Department of Finance's
Demographic Research Unit estimates 343 vacant units and a 2.88% vacancy rate as of
January 1, 2008, essentially the same vacancy rate as in 2000.
GID
Owner
Percent of
Renter
Percent of
Total
Units in Structure
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
Occupied
1, detached
6,647
72.4%
2,535
27.6%
9,182
1, attached
321
42.2%
439
57.8%
760
2
30
24.6%
92
75.4%
122
3 or 4
19
6.5%
275
93.5%
294
5 to 9
62
14.0%
382
86.0%
444
10 to 19
44
13.3%
286
86.7%
330
20-49
16
8.7%
168
91.3%
1841
50 or more
0
0.0%
19
100.0%
19
Mobile Home
39
73.6%
14
26.4%
53
RV, Van
0
0.0%
5
100.0%
5
Total
7,178
63.0%
4,215
37.0%
11,393
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table H32 Units in Structure by Tenure
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C. Vacant Housino Units
Less than three percent of the housing units were vacant at the time of Census 2000.
Table A-3 indicates the vacant units by housing type. The highest vacancy rates occur
in single-family attached units. Stated differently, the City had a scant 313 vacant
housing units when Census 2000 was taken. The State Department of Finance's
Demographic Research Unit estimates 343 vacant units and a 2.88% vacancy rate as of
January 1, 2008, essentially the same vacancy rate as in 2000.
GID
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-3
City of Temple City
Vacant Housing Units by Units in Structure — 2000
Units in
Vacant
Total
Percent
Structure
Units
Units
Vacant
1, detached
254
9,436
2.7%
1, attached
44
804
5.5%
2
4
126
3.2%
3 or 4
2
296
0.7%
5 to 9
6
450
1.3%
10 to 19
0
330
0.0%
20-49
3
187
1.6%
50 or more
0
19
0.0%
Mobile Home
0
53
0.0%
RV, Van
0
5
0.0%
Total
313
11,706
2.7%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table H30 -H31
Units in Structure by TenureA/acancy Status
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Year Householder Moved to Unit
Another characteristic of interest is how recently householders have moved to their
Temple City housing unit. Table A-4 on the next page shows that as of April 2000,
74.2% of all owners had moved to their unit prior to 1995. By comparison, 30.9% of all
renters had moved to their unit prior to 1995.
The data indicate that owners have been residents of Temple City for a longer period of
time than renters. However, it must be noted that the data does not mean that 69.1 % of
all renters actually moved to Temple City between 1995 and 2000. Indeed, some may
have moved from one unit in Temple City to another one in the City after 1995.
A-9
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-4
City of Temple City
Year Householder Moved into Unit -2000
Owner Renter
Year
Occupied
Percent
Occupied
1999-2000
544
7.6%
1,217
1995-1998
1,306
18.2%
1,695
<1995
5,328
74.2%
1,303
Total
7,178
100.0%
4,215
Percent Total Percent
28.9% 1,761 15.5%
40.2% 3,001 26.3%
30.9% 6,631 58.2%
100.0% 11,393 100.0%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table H38, Year Householder Moved Into Unit
Table construction by Castarieda & Associates
e. Household Income -- 2000
Lower income renter households, to a higher degree than owners, experience many of
the housing needs addressed by the Housing Element Law, such as overpaying,
overcrowding and living in substandard housing. Therefore, communities having a
majority of renter households also will have more housing needs than communities
where owners predominate.
In Temple City, owners occupy 63% and renters occupy 37% of all housing units. Table
A-5 presents data on household income by tenure. In 2000, about one of every six
households had annual incomes of less than $20,000. Households in this income
category can afford a maximum of $500 per month on housing costs, based on the 30%
of income standard.
In the income groups between $20,000 and $50,000, the number of owners (2,996) and
renters (2,934) are almost identical. However, in the income groups of $50,000 or more,
the owners outnumber the renters by more than 3:1 — 4,182 owners and 1,281 renters.
A way to measure basic income changes is the median household income in 1999 --
$48,722 -- and 1989 -- $38,789. The median household income increased by nearly
26% during the period between the 1990 and 2000 Census'. The income percentage
gains are far less than the increases in the cost of existing homes and condominiums
that the City experienced in the same period.
A-10
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-5
City of Temple City
Household Income by Tenure - 2000
Owner Renter
Household Income
Occupied
Percent
Occupied
Percent
Total
Percent
<$20,000
833
11.6%
1,123
26.6%
1,956
17.2%
$20,000-$24,999
318
4.4%
300
7.1%
618
5.4%
$25,000-$34,999
677
9.4%
629
14.9%
1,306
11.5%
$35,000-$49,999
1,168
16.3%
882
20.9%
2,050
18.0%
$50,000-$74,999
1,706
23.8%
823
19.5%
2,529
22.2%
$75,000-$99,999
1,231
17.1%
258
6.1%
1,489
13.1%
$100,000-$149,999
856
11.9%
147
3.5%
1,003
8.8%
$150,000 or more
389
5.4%
53
1.3%
442
3.9%
Total
7,178
100.0%
4,215
100.0%
11,393
100.0%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table HCT11 - Household Income in 1999 by Tenure
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
f. Household Income Groups -- 2008
By way of background, the State Housing Element Law defines five income groups
based on increasing percentages of the median income of Los Angeles County. Chart
A-3 defines each income group.
Chart A-3
Los Angeles County
Definitions of Income Groups as a
Percentage of Area Median Income
Income Group
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
% of Median Income
0-30%
30-50%
50-80%
80-120%
120%+
A-11
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-6 shows the 2008 household income limits for four income groups, adjusted by
household size. The above moderate income group encompasses households with
incomes more than the upper limits of the moderate -income category.
Table A-6
Los Angeles County
2008 Annual Income Limits Adjusted by Household Size
Household Size
Extremely
Very Low
Lower
Moderate
(# of persons)
Low Income
Income
Income
Income
1 person
$15,950
$26,550
$42,450
$50,300
2 persons
$18,200
$30,300
$48,500
$57,400
3 persons
$20,500
$34,100
$54,600
$64,600
4 persons
$22,750
$37,900
$60,650
$71,800
5 persons
$24,550
$40,950
$65,500
$77,500
6 persons
$26,400
$43,950
$70,350
$83,300
7 persons
$28,200
$47,000
$75,200
$89,000
8 persons
$30,050
$50,050
$80,050
$94,800
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2008 Income Limits,
February 13, 2008. State Department of Housing and Community Development, Year
2008 Income Limits, February 28, 2008.
The City's average household size is 3.038 persons. (State Department of Finance,
Demographic Research Unit, CitylCounty Population and Housing Estimates, January 1,
2008) For illustration purposes, Table A-7 shows the low to high ranges of the income
limits for a three-person household.
Source: Table A-6.
A-12
Table A-7
Los Angeles County
Income
Limits for a 3 -Person Household
Income Group
Income Limits
Monthly Income
Extremely Low
less than $20,500
less than $1,708
Very Low
$20,501-$34,100
$1,709-$2,841
Low
$34,101-$54,600
$2,842-$4,550
Moderate
$54,601-$64,600
$4,551-$5,383
Above Moderate
$64,601 plus
$5,384+
Source: Table A-6.
A-12
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
g. Temple Citv's Income Groups
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
At this time, data are unavailable on the numbers of owners and renters in each group —
extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate -income. Table A-8 — which bases the
income groups on Census 2000 — reveals that about 30% of the households have
annual incomes less than the "lower" level and that nearly 70% have annual income
above that threshold.
Table A-8
City of Temple City
Annual Household Income Distribution by Tenure —2000
Income
Renter
Owner
Total
Percent
Group
Households
Households
Households
Distribution
Extremely Low (0-
30% AMI)
561
332
893
7.9%
Very Low
(30-50% AMI)
534
462
996
8.8%
Lower
(50-80% AMI)
750
804
1,554
13.7%
Above Lower
(>80%AMI)
2,316
5,559
7,875
69.6%
Total
4,161
7,157
11,318
100.0%
Percentage 36.8% 63.2% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS Data Book, "Housing
Problems for All Households," published 2004
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
h. Temple Citv's Households by Income, Household Tvpe and Tenure
The meanings of the four household types are:
Elderly: A one or two person household in which the head of the
household or spouse is at least 62 years of age.
Small Related: A household of 2 to 4 persons that includes at least one
person related to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Larqe Related: A household of 5 or more persons that includes at least
one person related to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption.
Other: A household of one or more persons that does not meet the
definition of a small related, large related, elderly, or special population
household. This category includes all households with only unrelated
individuals present except those qualifying as elderly or special
population households.
A-13
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-9 provides estimates of the number of households by type and income. There
an estimated 3,443 households in the extremely low, very low and low income groups.
The general distribution is:
Small Families42.0%
Elderly 25.3%
Other Households 18.2%
Large Families 14.5%
Altogether Table A-9 identifies 32 individual household groups. Of these 32 groups, the
largest numbers are in the following groups:
Lower income (50-80%) small family renters
418
12.1%
Lower income (50-80%) small family owners
372
10.8%
Lower income (50-80%) elderly owners
274
8.0%
Extremely low income (0-30%) small family renters 233
6.8%
Very low income (30-50%) elderly owners
209
6.1%
2. Overpaying
a. Guidelines
In comparing level of payment with ability to pay, the number of lower-income
households (those at or below 80 percent of the median income) who are overpaying for
housing should be quantified by tenure (ownedrenter).
Overpaying is defined in terms of a percentage of the gross household income a
household spends for housing including utilities. Overpaying for housing is also known
as the housing cost burden, Thirty percent of gross household income is the standard
affordability level. Severe overpaying occurs when households pay 50 percent or more
of their gross income for housing. The element should estimate the number of lower-
income households navino more than 30 oercent of their income for housing and the
number of households who nav 50 oercent or more of their cross income for housing.
(The italicized text is guidance provided
Housing and Community Development in
October 2006.)
b. Analysis
by the State of California Department of
Housing Element Questions and Answers,
When housing costs exceed the ability to pay, other family needs are sacrificed — health
care, childcare, food, insurance, transportation, for example. Therefore, the most serious
problem confronting lower income households often is paying more than they really can
afford for housing. "Need" is quantified separately for lower income renter and owner
households because owners have more financial options (e.g., reverse mortgages) than
renters, and monthly cost assistance to owners is usually unavailable from governmental
sources.
A-14
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-9
City of Temple City
Number of Households by Household Type, Income and Tenure
Total
Eld :rly Small =amity Large =amity All Other Households
Income
Category Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner
Extremely
Low
143
52
110
233
25
89
54
Very Low
209
92
164
148
55
120
34
Lower
274
102
372
418
125
85
33
Above
Lower
1,145
179
3,010
1,264
855
269
549
Total
Households
1,771
425
3,656
2,063
1,060
563
670
Source: U.S.
Department
of Housing
and Urban
Development, CHAS Da
a Book,
for All Households,"
published
2004
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Renter Owner Renter
187 332 561
174 462 534
145 804 750
604 5,559 2,316
1,110 7,157 4,161
lousing Problems
1) Renter Households: Table A-10 shows Census 2000 data on gross rent as a
percentage of income for 3,939 renter households. An estimated 1,656, or 42%, of all
renter households paid 30% or more of their income on rent. An estimated 854, or
21.6%, of all renters paid 50% or more of their income on rent.
Table A-10
City of Temple City
Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income — 1999
Rent as
% of Income
Number
Percent
<30%
2,283
58.0%
30.0-34.9%
332
8.4%
35.0-39.9%
247
6.3%
40.0-49.9%
223
5.7%
50% or more
854
21.6%
Total
3,939
100.0%
Note: Gross rent as a % of income not computed for 273
renter households. Units for which no cash rent is paid and
units occupied by households that reported no income or a
net loss comprise the category "not computed."
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table H69 — Gross
Rent as a Percentage of Income in 1999
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
By comparison, 47.4% of all renters in 1989 paid 30% or more of their income on gross
rent. Comparable 1990 severe overpaying (50%+) percentages are unavailable as the
A-15
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
data was reported only for those paying 35% or more of their income on rent. The rate of
overpaying among all renters, then, has actually decreased by about 5% between 1990
and 2000.
In 2000, overpaying was adversely affecting 1,364 lower income renter households.
(430+478+456) Table A-11 shows that "small related" renter households comprise about
44% of the "cost burdened" lower income renter households. (189+130+283/1,364)
Table A-12 shows that 802 of the 1,364 cost burdened lower income renters are
severely overpaying for housing. These households are spending more than one-half of
their income on housing costs. Extremely low income small families comprise almost
one-fourth of all the lower income renters that are severely cost burdened.
Many overpaying renters probably live in single-family homes rather than apartments
because about 70% of all renters occupy single-family homes (see Table A-2)
The City's participation in the Section 8 rental housing assistance programs helps some
of the cost burdened renters. As of January 2008, 59 Temple City households are being
assisted by the Section 8 program. (171 City householders are on the Section 8 waiting
list.)
2) Owner Households: Housing costs as a percentage of income were calculated
for specified owner -occupied housing units. According to the U.S. Census Bureau:
"Owner costs are the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust,
contracts to purchase, or similar debts on the property; real estate taxes;
fire, hazard, and flood insurance; utilities; and fuels and, where
appropriate, the monthly condominium fee.
Table A-13 shows that in 2000, 993 lower income owners were overpaying. Lower
income small families comprise almost one-half (492 of 993) of the cost burdened
owners.
Table A-14 shows that 767 of the 993 lower income owners who are overpaying are
severely cost burdened. All of the extremely low income small families (95) are severely
cost burdened.
c. Conclusions and Findings
Although the causes of overpaying are uncertain, they could be due to added debt from
equity lines of credit, higher energy costs, loan approvals with housing debt -to -income
ratios exceeding 30%, and unemployment.
In summary, overpaying is often cited as one of the major problems confronting the
lower income population. In Temple City more "lower" renters than owners are cost
burdened (1,364 versus 933). The City has ongoing housing assistance programs to
help lower income renters. However, providing monthly cost assistance to owner is
exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
A-16
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
Income
Group
Extremely Low
0-30% MFI
Very Low
31-50% MFI
Low
51-80% MFI
Above Low
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-11
City of Temple City
Cost Burdened Renter Households
By Income Group and Household Type -2000
Small Large All Other
Elderly Related Related Households
38 189 89 114
84 130
48 283
110
20
154
105
Total
Households
430
478
456
>80% MFI 29 119 30 44 222
Total 199 721 249 417 1,586
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Svstems Comprehensive Housinq Affordability Strategv (CHAS) Data, "Housing
Problems Output for All Households', May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table A-12
City of Temple City
Severely Cost Burdened Renter Households
By Income Group -2000
Income Small Large All Other
Total
Group Elderly Related Related Households
Households
Extremely Low
0-30% MFI 28 189 69 110
396
Very Low
31-50% MFI 74 70 55 90
289
Low
51-80% MFI 19 83 0 15
117
Above Low
>80% MFI 0 4 0 4
8
Total 121 346 124 219
810
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Svstems Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategv (CHAS) Data, "Housing
Problems Output for All Households', May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
A-17
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A-18
Table A-13
City of Temple City
Cost Burdened Owner Households
By Income Group — 2000
Income
Small Large All Other
Total
Group
Elderly
Related Related Households Households
Extremely Low
0-30% MA
108
95 25 40
268
Very Low
31-50% MFI
54
129 55 19
257
Low
51-80% MFI
85 268 90 25
468
Above Low
>80% MFI
76 695 235 195
1,201
Total
322 1,187 405 279
2,194
Source: U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Svstems: Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strateov (CHAS) Data,
"Housing
Problems Output
for All Households," May 2004 [Data current as of 20001
Table construction
by Castaneda & Associates
Table A-14
City of Temple City
Severely Cost Burdened Owner Households
By Income Group — 2000
Income
Small Large All Other
Total
Group
Elderly Related Related Households Households
Extremely Low
0-30% MFI
79 95 25 20
219
Very Low
31-50% MFI
29 114 55 15
213
Low
51-80% MFI
45 205 60 25
335
Above Low
>80% MFI
25 126 55 45
251
Total
178 540 195 105
1,018
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Svstems: Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategv (CHAS) Data.
"Housing
Problems Output for All Households," May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction
by Castaneda & Associates
A-18
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
3. Overcrowding
a. Guidelines
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per
room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room
are considered severely overcrowded. Localities are to estimate the number of
households that live in overcrowded and severely overcrowded units. This incidence of
overcrowding and large households frequently parallel.
An example of overcrowding is an eight -room home: three bedrooms, a living room, a
dining room, a kitchen and two bathrooms. If six persons live in the home, it would be
considered overcrowded (six persons divided by five habitable rooms = 1.2 persons per
room).
b. Analysis
Overcrowding is one result of the shortage of interior living space. Overcrowding reflects
the financial inability of households to buy or rent housing units having enough space for
their needs. Consequently, overcrowding is considered a household characteristic
(instead of a housing structural condition). An 'overcrowded" housing unit does not
necessarily imply one of inadequate physical condition; rather, with fewer persons it
becomes "uncrowded". Overcrowding also may be a temporary situation since some
households will move to larger housing units to meet space requirements.
Overcrowding emerges when households initially move into a unit or overtime. Changes
in household size and composition also can lead to overcrowded conditions. If these
conditions are serious enough, households can move to housing units with enough
space to accommodate family changes. However, financial constraints can prevent
them from moving to larger housing.
For owners, who have ties to neighborhoods, schools and local churches, moving to
another home may not be considered a practical choice. Instead, they can adjust their
lifestyle, or if incomes allow, make physical additions to their home. For renters, making
physical changes to their apartment is not possible. Although renters have a higher
mobility rate than owners, financial constraints can limit their ability to move to housing
with enough space to meet their needs.
Table A-15 shows that in 2000 overcrowding was affecting more than 15% of the
households. Overcrowding, in terms of numbers, is more of a problem for renters than
owners, with 902 renters overcrowded versus 842 owners households. In addition, on a
percentage basis, there is a larger proportion of renters overcrowded (21.4% versus
11.7%). Severe overcrowding affects 5.5% of all owners and 10.7% of all renters.
A-19
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
Persons Per
Room
Less than 1.00
1.01 to 1.50
1.51 to 2.00
2.01 or More
Total
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-15
City of Temple City
Persons per Room by Tenure — 2000
Owner Renter
Occupied Percent Occupied Percent
6,336
446
294
102
7,1781
88.3%
6.2%
4.1
1.4%
100.0%
3,313
451
292
159
4,215
78.6%
10.7%
6.9%
3.8%
100.0%
Total
Households
9,649
897
5861
261
11,393
SourceCensus Summary File 3, Table H2O —Occupants Per Room by Tenure.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C. Conclusions and Findinqs
Percent
84.7%
7.9%
5.1%
2.3%
100.0%
Since 1990, both the number and percentage of overcrowded households has
increased. The number of overcrowded households has increased by 703 renters and
owners while the percentage increased from 9.4% to 15.3%.
The increases in the number and percentage of overcrowded owners and renters could
be due to rising rental costs and home prices that cause households to double -up in
order to bring housing costs closer to their ability to pay. Particularly noteworthy is that
more than one fifth of all renters were severely overcrowded.
4. Condition of the Existing Housing Stock
a. Guidelines
The element should include an analysis of the condition of the housing stock including
an estimate of the total number of substandard units (e.g., those in need of
rehabilitation/repair) and those in need of replacement (demolition). The number of units
to be rehabilitated and/or replaced may be estimated from a recent (within the last five
years) windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the local building department,
knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, nonprofit housing developers or
organizations and redevelopment agencies. Estimates can also be derived from census
data such as percentage of units built before 1960, which can serve as an estimate of
the maximum rehabilitation need.
b. Analysis
There are differences between housing stock condition and housing improvement
needs. The term "condition" refers to the physical quality of the housing stock; for
instance, "fair" or "poor" condition. Housing improvements, on the other hand, refer to
the nature of the 'remedial' actions necessary to correct defects in housing conditions
such as demolition, minor repairs, major repairs and rehabilitation.
1) Rehabilitation Needs: HCD indicates that a general indicator of housing
adequacy is the age of housing. Generally speaking, for owners, the dilemma often is
A-20
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
one of maintenance problems. For these households, low incomes mean a lack of
money for maintenance and repairs. For rental properties, the rents collected may not
result in a cash flow sufficient to catch up to needed maintenance and replacement.
In general, there is a relationship between the age of the housing stock and the
prevalence of poor housing conditions. For instance, the older a home, the greater is
the need for maintenance, repair and/or replacement of key mechanical systems.
Housing condition problems frequently are concentrated in the interior deficiencies.
Generally, two to three times as many units have interior problems as units with exterior
problems.
Table A-16 shows the Census 2000 estimates on the age of the housing stock. Eight
years have been added to each "age" interval to approximate the age as of mid -year
2008. Housing that is 40+ye2rs old is indicator of the maximum rehabilitation need, as
indicated by the HCD guidelines. An estimated 3,751 housing units are at least a 59+
years old, which represents 32.1% of the entire housing stock. Another 5,771 dwellings
are 39 to 58 years old. Housing this old may exhibit rehabilitation needs due to age and
deferred maintenance.
The prior Housing Element estimated 650 housing units were substandard and suitable
for rehabilitation. Since 2000, homeowners have made improvements to the housing
stock and some substandard housing units have been demolished. Table A-17
estimates that 378 housing units were demolished between 2000 and 2007. In addition,
the City's code enforcement actions have resulted in repairs and improvements to
existing housing.
Taking into account the home improvements made since 2000, and that some housing
units have declined in quality during the past eight years, the current estimate is that 500
housing units are in need of rehabilitation.
2) Replacement Needs: Housing that is beyond reasonable repair or in a
dilapidated condition usually requires replacement, not rehabilitation. According to the
prior Housing Element, an estimated 100 housing units were beyond repair and should
be replaced. Census 2000 reported that 65 housing units lacked complete plumbing
facilities and 168 lacked complete kitchen facilities. As noted above, some substandard
housing units have been demolished since 2000.
The replacement housing need is estimated to be between 100 and 125 housing units,
based on estimates of the prior Housing Element, Census 2000 indicators, and
demolition activity between 2000 and 2007.
C. Conclusions and Findinos
The rehabilitation estimate is 500 housing units. The replacement estimate is 100-125
housing units. The City implements two housing rehabilitation programs: 1) a $5,000
grant to repair non-functioning systems such as plumbing, heating, electrical or structural
elements and 2) a 3% interest loan up a maximum amount of $25,000. These programs
help to address the City's housing rehabilitation needs. In addition, private demolitions
will contribute to meeting a portion of the replacement housing need.
A-21
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-16
City of Temple City
Age of Housing Stock by Year Built— 2000
Age
Number of Units
Percent
69 years+
1,390
11.9%
59 to 68 years
2,361
20.2%
49 to 58 years
3,732
31.9%
39 to 48 years
2,039
17.4%
29 to 38 years
992
8.5%
19 to 28 years
611
5.2%
14 to 18 years
356
3.0%
10 to 13 years
140
1.2%
Less than 10 years
85
0.7%
Total"
11,706
100.0%
Source: Census 2000 Summary
File 3, Table 1-134,
Year Structure
Built by Tenure
Table construction by Castaneda
& Associates
Table A-17
City of Temple City
Demolitions Submitted to State Department of Finance
2000-2007
Number of Cumulative
Year
Demolitions
Total
2000
48 units
48 units
2001
40 units
88 units
2002
56 units
144 units
2003
68 units
212 units
2004
32 units
244 units
2005
49 units
293 units
2006
39 units
332 units
2007
46 units
378 units
Source: City of Temple City, Housing Unit Change Form, "Report
Units Lost From Fire or Demolitions," 2000-2007. [Note: All units
lost were single unit structures.]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
A-22
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
5. At -Risk Housing Assessment
a. Guidelines
Assisted housing developments are multifamily rental housing complexes that receive
government assistance under .... federal, state, and/or local programs .... which are
eligible to change to market -rate housing due to termination (opt -out) of a rent subsidy
contract .... or other expiring use restrictions (e.g., State or local programs) within the 5-
vear Dlannina period of the housina element and the subsequent 5-vear period.
[emphasis added]
b. Analysis
The City has no rental complexes assisted by the following:
❑ Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
❑ Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds
❑ Temple City is not eligible to compete for United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds
❑ State housing financial assistance programs
❑ Local mortgage revenue bond programs
❑ Redevelopment Agency rental housing units assisted with the
Low- and Moderate -Housing Income Fund
❑ Local in -lieu fees and inclusionary housing programs
❑ Local density bonus and directly assisted units
The analysis is based on the following sources:
❑ City of Temple City housing inventory
❑ California Housing Partnership Corporation database
❑ California Department of Housing and Community Development, List of
Affordable Rental Housing Developments
❑ California Debt Allocation Committee database
❑ California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Project History 1987-2007
C. Conclusions and Findinqs
Temple City has no multifamily rental complexes at risk of conversion to market rate
housing.
A-23
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
C. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
The Housing Element must include:
An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly,
persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female
heads of household, and families and persons in need of emergency
shelter."
HCD guidance on special housing needs is cited below:
Special needs are those associated with relatively unusual occupation or demographic
groups which call for very specific program responses, such as preservation of
residential motels or the development of four bedroom apartments. The statute
specifically requires analysis of the special housing needs of the elderly, the disabled,
female headed households, large families, farmworkers and homeless persons and
families.
A thorough analysis of the special needs groups helps a locality identify groups with the
most serious housing needs in order to develop and prioritize responsive programs. A
special needs assessment starts with general knowledge of the community's
demographics. The housing element should analyze the needs of each aroun
specifically mentioned in the statute as well as any other group the locality deems
appropriate. The analysis should include a discussion of the nature of the special
housing need of each group as well as quantification of the need. [emphasis added]
A housing element should include:
A quantification and qualitative description of the need. For instance, of the 600 elderly
households, census data reveals that 400 are homeowners and 200 are renters and that
250 of all elderly households, have incomes below the poverty level. A qualitative
description of the need would include a description of the potential housing problems
faced by the group. For example, the analysis of elderly need might show that an
estimated 30 percent of elderly households below the poverty level live in substandard
housing, indicating a housing rehabilitation need. Most local governments consult
information available for service providers, housing or service waiting lists, and data on
income and housing costs to identify special housing needs. [emphasis added]
So the focus of the analysis is on the nature of the need, potential housing problems,
and a quantification of the persons and/or households in each group.
Elderly
a. Definitions
For purposes of the Housing Element, elderly persons and seniors are considered
synonymous. There are four age groups that are frequently referred to as "seniors' —
55+, 60+, 62+ and 65+. This part includes data on persons that are 62 years of age or
older, as well as those that are 65 years of age and older.
A-24
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
b. Special Housing Needs of the Elderly
Some key housing needs that seniors could potentially experience include, but are not
limited, to:
❑ Affordable housing
❑ Units with accessibility modifications
❑ Units with special accommodations for live-in caretakers
❑ Housing developments that provide on-site supportive services
❑ Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
❑ Housing located near transportation, shopping and medical services
The special housing needs of seniors are unique because of the aging process. The
housing needs of seniors are often the result of the age, gender, health, and economic
status of elderly couples and individuals. Attachment A provides an overview — based on
an Area Agency on Aging report - of the senior population in Los Angeles County.
As the younger seniors become the older old, the types of housing needed to meet their
needs changes. To accommodate the needs of seniors, several special housing types
have evolved over the years, which include, but are not limited, to:
Senior Apartment: Age -restricted multiunit housing with self-contained
living units for older adults who are able to care for themselves.
Independent Living: Multi -unit senior housing developments that may
provide supportive services such as meals, housekeeping, social
activities, and transportation. Independent Living typically encourages
socialization by provision of meals in a central dining area and scheduled
social programs.
Assisted Living: A residential community with services that include meals,
laundry, housekeeping, medication reminders, and assistance with
Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
(IADLs).
[Activities of Daily Living (ADLs): Everyday activities such as bathing,
grooming, eating, toileting, and dressing.
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs): Day-to-day tasks such as
preparing meals, shopping, managing money, taking medication, and
housekeeping.]
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC): Housing planned and
operated to provide a continuum of accommodations and services for
seniors including, but not limited to, independent living, congregate
housing, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. A CCRC resident
contract often involves either an entry fee or buy -in fee in addition to the
monthly service charges, which may change according to the medical
services required.
A-25
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Nursing Home: Facility licensed by the state that provides 24-hour
nursing care, room and board, and activities for convalescent residents
and those with chronic and/or long-term care illnesses.
Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF): A Medicare -certified nursing home, with
increased emphasis on rehabilitative therapies.
Development of these housing types usually involves large project sizes and land area.
Sites for major new developments of this kind are not possible in the City because of
limited land availability. Existing senior housing in Temple City includes the Baldwin
Gardens Nursing Center, Santa Anita Retirement & Assisted Living Center, Santa Anita
Convalescent Hospital and four Adult Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly.
C. Temple Citv's Older Persons
Seniors comprise about 16.4% of the City's total population, according to Census 2000.
Table A-18 shows the 2000 senior population by age group and gender. In 2000,
females comprised 58.6% percent of the City's 5,471 persons 62 years of age and older.
Table A-18
City of Temple City
Senior Population by Age Group and Gender— 2000
Age Group
Male
Female
Total
Percentage
62-64
374
441
815
14.9%
65-66
209
247
456
8.3%
67-69
306
342
648
11.8%
70-74
475
636
1,111
20.3%
75-79
423
614
1,037
19.0%
80-84
259
459
718
13.1%
85+
221
465
686
12.5%
Total
2,267
3,204
5,471
100.0%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1, Table P12 —Age by Sex and Residence
Type (All Persons)
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table A-19 reports on the general characteristics of senior householders. The list below
notes some key characteristics:
❑ Because of their smaller household size, seniors comprise a
larger proportion of the City's households than of the population.
In fact, 13.9% of the population is 65+ whereas 20.7% of the City's
households have a householder 65+.
❑ 79.2% of all senior householders are homeowners (N = 1,869)
❑ 41.8% of all the senior householders are female householders (N = 986)
A-26
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
❑ 39.7% of all senior householders live alone (N = 895)
Table A-19
City of Temple City
Senior Householders (65+) by Tenure and Household Type — 2000
Type of Household
Family households
Married couple family
Male householder, no wife
Female householder, no husband
Subtotal
Nonfamily households
Male householder living alone
Male householder not living alone
Female householder living alone
Female householder not living alone
Subtotal
Total
Owner Renter Total
899
160
1,059
64
17
81
215
57
272
1,178
234
1,412
137
75
212
16
7
23
513
170
683
25
6
31
691
258
949
1,869
492
2,361
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1, Table H17 — Tenure by Household Type
(Including Living Alone) by Age of Householder
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Many Older Persons Have Low Income and Are Cost Burdened
Seniors experience a variety of housing needs because of their fixed and often low
incomes and rising housing -related costs (i.e., home repairs, utilities, etc.)
❑ Elderly households comprise almost one of every five of the City's
households.
❑ 872 elderly households have "lower" incomes (<80% AMI) — 626
owners and 246 renters.
❑ 170 lower income elderly renter households are cost burdened.
❑ 270 lower income elderly owner households are cost burdened.
e. Housino for the Elderly
Census 2000 indicates that just over 5,000 of Temple City's seniors live in households.
However, an estimated 409 seniors live in nursing homes (275 women and 134 men).
The City's nursing home facilities include:
Baldwin Gardens Nursing Center 59 beds
Santa Anita Retirement & Assisted Living Center 95 beds
Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital 391 beds
A-27
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
In addition, the City has four Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) with a
capacity of 24 beds. The California Department of Social Services defines these facilities
as follows:
RCFEs provide care and supervision and assistance with activities of
daily living, such as bathing and grooming. They may also provide
incidental medical services under special care plans. The facilities
provide services to persons 60 years of age and over and persons under
60 with compatible needs. RCFEs may also be known as assisted living
facilities, retirement homes and board and care homes. The facilities can
range in size from six beds or less to over 100 beds. The residents of
these facilities require varying levels of personal care and protective
supervision.
Conclusions and Findings
As previously indicated, an estimated 170 lower income elderly renter households are
cost burdened. The Section 8 rental assistance program can assist some of these
elderly, cost burdened households. Future affordable housing developments should
include 1 -bedroom units to meet the needs of senior couple and individuals.
There are no programs available to address the estimated 270 lower income owners that
are cost burdened. Some owners have or may seek reverse mortgages to help them
reduce their monthly housing costs or meet other needs. The City's housing
rehabilitation program helps lower income homeowners address the need to repair their
homes.
2. Persons with Disabilities
a. Definitions
Census 2000 defines disability status as:
"People 5 years and over are considered to have a disability if they have
one or more of the following: (a) blindness, deafness, or a severe vision
or hearing impairment; (b) a substantial limitation in the ability to perform
basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting,
or carrying; (c) difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating, or (d)
difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home. In addition
to the above criteria, people 16 years and over are considered to have a
disability if they have difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or
visit a doctor's office, and people 16-64 years old are considered to have
a disability if they have difficulty working at a job or business."
A-28
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The 1973 Rehabilitation Act defines "disability" as referring to any person who:
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more of such person's major life activities;
Has a record of such impairment, or
Is regarded as having such impairment
Disability under Social Security is based on a person's inability to work. A person is
considered disabled if he/she is unable to do any kind of work for which he/she is suited
and the disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least a year or to result in death.
(Social Security Administration)
b. Special Housing Needs for Persons with Disabilities
Some key special housing needs may include:
❑ Affordable housing
❑ Units with accessibility modifications
❑ Units with special accommodations for live-in caretakers
❑ Housing developments that provide supportive services
❑ Units accessible to public transportation
❑ Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
❑ Housing with design features that facilitate mobility and independence
The majority of housing units in most communities lack features such as ramps, extra
wide doors, raised toilets, hand rails, lowered counters, or slip -resistant floors that would
make them suitable for, or readily adaptable to, people with mobility limitations and
people using assistive technology. The majority of existing dwellings are inaccessible to
people with a mobility impairment.
C. People With Disabilities
Table A-20 indicates that a total of 10,227 disabilities were reported by the populations 5
years+, meaning that many disabled persons reported having more than one disability.
In fact, there was an average of 1.87 disabilities per disabled person.
A-29
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-20
City of Temple City
Total Disabilities Reported by Type — 2000
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table P41, Types of Disability.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Census 2000 gives the following meanings to the disabilities:
Sensory disability: blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing
impairment.
Phvsical disability: a condition that substantially limits one or more basic
physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or
carrying.
Mental disabilitv: difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating.
Self-care disability: difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting around inside
the home.
Go -outside disability: difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or
visit a doctor's office.
Emolovment disability: difficulty working at a job or business
As noted above, the disabilities having the highest frequency are those that prevent
people from working and go -outside -home disabilities.
Census 2000 data indicates that 5,468 persons 5 years and over reported a disability.
Disability prevalence rates progressively increase as the population ages. For instance,
4.1% of the population 5-15 years of age reports one or more disabilities. By contrast,
56.4% of the population 75+ years reports one or more disabilities. A closer look at
Table A-21 indicates that more than four of every ten seniors over 65 (45%) live with one
or more disability.
A-30
Number of
Type of Disability
Persons
Percent
Sensory Disability
1,093
10.7%
Physical Disability
2,088
20.4%
Mental Disability
1,459
14.3%
Self-care Disability
800
7.8%
Go -outside -home Disability
2,527
24.7%
Employment Disability
2,260
22.1%
Total
10,227
100.0%
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table P41, Types of Disability.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Census 2000 gives the following meanings to the disabilities:
Sensory disability: blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing
impairment.
Phvsical disability: a condition that substantially limits one or more basic
physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or
carrying.
Mental disabilitv: difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating.
Self-care disability: difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting around inside
the home.
Go -outside disability: difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or
visit a doctor's office.
Emolovment disability: difficulty working at a job or business
As noted above, the disabilities having the highest frequency are those that prevent
people from working and go -outside -home disabilities.
Census 2000 data indicates that 5,468 persons 5 years and over reported a disability.
Disability prevalence rates progressively increase as the population ages. For instance,
4.1% of the population 5-15 years of age reports one or more disabilities. By contrast,
56.4% of the population 75+ years reports one or more disabilities. A closer look at
Table A-21 indicates that more than four of every ten seniors over 65 (45%) live with one
or more disability.
A-30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Source, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table P42, Disability Status by Age
Table constructed by Castaneda & Associates
HUD -produced data reveal that 1,664 households had a "mobility or self care limitation,"
representing 14.6% of all households. According to HUD:
This includes all households where one or more persons has 1) a long-
lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activity, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
and/or 2) a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting more than 6
months that creates difficulty with dressing, bathing, or getting around the
home.
What this means is that the data in Table A-22 should not be interpreted as an estimate
of the number of heads of household with a disability. Instead, the disability could be
affecting someone other than a householder, perhaps a spouse, child, grandchild or
grandparent.
The total numbers of owner -disabled householders outnumber disabled renter
householders by a 2.3 to 1 ratio. Key housing need indicators are:
274 `lower" income renter households have a disabled member.
(103+78+98) 81 % experience one or more housing problems.
325 `lower income owner households have a disabled member.
(88+85+152) 41 % experience one or more housing problems.
One or more housing problem includes a cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or
overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
A-31
Table A-21
City of Temple City
Disability Prevalence Rates by Age Group
(5+ Years)
With a
Total Prevalence
Age Group
Disability No Disability
Population
Rate
5to15
211 4,917
5,128
4.1%
16 to 20
232 1,863
2,095
11.1%
21 to 64
3,051 16,467
19,518
15.6%
65 to 74
697 1,441
2,138
32.6%
75+ years
1,277 987
2,264
56.4%
Total
5,468 25,675
31,143
17.6%
Source, Census 2000, Summary File 3, Table P42, Disability Status by Age
Table constructed by Castaneda & Associates
HUD -produced data reveal that 1,664 households had a "mobility or self care limitation,"
representing 14.6% of all households. According to HUD:
This includes all households where one or more persons has 1) a long-
lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activity, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
and/or 2) a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting more than 6
months that creates difficulty with dressing, bathing, or getting around the
home.
What this means is that the data in Table A-22 should not be interpreted as an estimate
of the number of heads of household with a disability. Instead, the disability could be
affecting someone other than a householder, perhaps a spouse, child, grandchild or
grandparent.
The total numbers of owner -disabled householders outnumber disabled renter
householders by a 2.3 to 1 ratio. Key housing need indicators are:
274 `lower" income renter households have a disabled member.
(103+78+98) 81 % experience one or more housing problems.
325 `lower income owner households have a disabled member.
(88+85+152) 41 % experience one or more housing problems.
One or more housing problem includes a cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or
overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
A-31
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-22
City of Temple City
Households With Disabled Persons by Income Group and Tenure
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Systems Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, "Housing
Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitations', May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Housino for the Disabled
Temple City has no rental housing complexes developed exclusively for disabled
persons. However, two of the eight apartment complexes surveyed in March 2008
reported that 31 units were accessible to disabled persons.
In addition, the City has six Adult Residential Facilities (ARFs) having a capacity of 34
beds. ARFs are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-hour non-medical care for
adults ages 18 through 59, who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. Adults
may be physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled.
e. Conclusions and Findinos
The lack of affordable housing and financial resources to make modifications to their
housing units are likely to be serious problems affecting lower income disabled renters.
Owners also may need physical modifications to their home. The City's housing
rehabilitation program may provide grants or loans to owners to help them retrofit or
modify their homes.
3. Large Families
a. Definitions
HCD defines large families as consisting of five or more persons. Census data provides
estimates of households with five, six, seven or more persons.
b. Special Housing Needs
Lower income, large families need three, four or five bedroom housing units at affordable
costs. Since housing with these numbers of bedrooms usually command higher costs
than smaller units, affordability is another key need of large families/households.
A-32
Disabled
Disabled
Total
Percentage
Income Group
Renters
Owners
Households
Distribution
Extremely Low
103
88
191
10.8%
Very Low
73
85
158
9.0%
Low
98
152
250
14.2%
Above Low
254
907
1,161
66.0%
Total
528
1,232
1,760
100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data
Systems Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, "Housing
Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitations', May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Housino for the Disabled
Temple City has no rental housing complexes developed exclusively for disabled
persons. However, two of the eight apartment complexes surveyed in March 2008
reported that 31 units were accessible to disabled persons.
In addition, the City has six Adult Residential Facilities (ARFs) having a capacity of 34
beds. ARFs are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-hour non-medical care for
adults ages 18 through 59, who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. Adults
may be physically handicapped, developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled.
e. Conclusions and Findinos
The lack of affordable housing and financial resources to make modifications to their
housing units are likely to be serious problems affecting lower income disabled renters.
Owners also may need physical modifications to their home. The City's housing
rehabilitation program may provide grants or loans to owners to help them retrofit or
modify their homes.
3. Large Families
a. Definitions
HCD defines large families as consisting of five or more persons. Census data provides
estimates of households with five, six, seven or more persons.
b. Special Housing Needs
Lower income, large families need three, four or five bedroom housing units at affordable
costs. Since housing with these numbers of bedrooms usually command higher costs
than smaller units, affordability is another key need of large families/households.
A-32
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
C. Larne Families/Households
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-23 shows an estimated 1,667 large households with five, six, and seven or more
persons, representing 14.7% of all households. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of
large households residing in Temple City increased by 276 from 1,391 to 1,667. In 2000,
the number of large owner households (1,077) is nearly twice the number of renter
households (590).
Table A-23
City of Temple City
Number of Households By Pousehold Size and Tenure — 2001
Number of
Persons
Owner
Percent
Renter
Percent
Total
Percent
1 person
1,215
17.0%
1023
24.5%
2,238
19.7%
2 persons
2,098
29.3%
1082
25.9%
3,180
28.0%
3 persons
1,386
19.4%
809
19.3%
2,195
19.4%
4 persons
1,380
19.3%
678
16.2%
2,058
18.2%
5 persons
656
9.2%
360
8.6%
1,016
9.0%
6 persons
272
3.8%
136
3.3%
408
3.6%
7 persons+
149
2.1%
94
2.2%
243
2.1%
Total
7,156
100.0%
4,182
100.0%
11,338
100.0%
Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1, Table H15, Household Size by Tenure
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
In 2000, the City's lower-income, large households had multiple housing problems,
including overpaying, overcrowding and substandard housing. Table A-24 reveals that
all extremely low and very low income large family homeowners and renters experience
one or more housing problems. Also, about eight of every nine low income large family
owners and renters experience one or more housing problems.
A-33
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Table A-24
City of Temple City
Large Family Renters and Owners with Housing Assistance Needs
By Income Group -2000
*Note: Any housing problems means cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or
overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data Svstems
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strateov (CHAS) Data, "Housing Problems Output for All
Households", May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Housinq for Larqe Families/Households
Census 2000 reports a total of 5,059 occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+ bedrooms.
A comparison is given below of housing availability for large owner and renter
households:
❑ An estimated 4,244 owner occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+
bedrooms were occupied at the time of the Census. There were a
total of 1,077 large owner households for a ratio over 3.9 to 1.
❑ An estimated 815 renter occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+
bedrooms were occupied at the time of the Census. There were a
total for 590 large renter households for a ratio of 1.4 to 1.
Based on these indicators, housing availability for large renter householders is
significantly less than for owners.
e. Housing Affordabilitv
Besides having enough space, housing affordability is another key need of large
families. Overpaying is a problem affecting large renter and owner households alike.
The list below compares renters and owners.
A-34
% with any
% with any
Income
Housing
Housing
Group
Renters
Problems*
Owners
Problems*
Extremely Low
0-30% MFI
89
100.0%
25
100.0%
Very Low
31-50% MFI
120
100.0%
55
100.0%
Low
51-80% MFI
85
88.2%
125
88.0%
Above Low
>80% MFI
269
65.1%
855
57.3%
Total
563
81.5%
1,060
64.2%
*Note: Any housing problems means cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or
overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data Svstems
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strateov (CHAS) Data, "Housing Problems Output for All
Households", May 2004 [Data current as of 2000]
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
d. Housinq for Larqe Families/Households
Census 2000 reports a total of 5,059 occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+ bedrooms.
A comparison is given below of housing availability for large owner and renter
households:
❑ An estimated 4,244 owner occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+
bedrooms were occupied at the time of the Census. There were a
total of 1,077 large owner households for a ratio over 3.9 to 1.
❑ An estimated 815 renter occupied housing units with 3, 4 or 5+
bedrooms were occupied at the time of the Census. There were a
total for 590 large renter households for a ratio of 1.4 to 1.
Based on these indicators, housing availability for large renter householders is
significantly less than for owners.
e. Housing Affordabilitv
Besides having enough space, housing affordability is another key need of large
families. Overpaying is a problem affecting large renter and owner households alike.
The list below compares renters and owners.
A-34
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
219 lower income (<80% AMI) large renter households were
overpaying in 2000, representing 16% of all the lower income
renters that were overpaying.
170 lower income large owner households were overpaying in
2000, representing 17% of all the lower income owners that were
cost burdened.
Conclusions and Findings
Overcrowding and overpaying are significant problems for large renter households.
These two problems affect most of the 219 lower income large family renters. In the
future, the needs of large families could be effectively addressed by including 3 -bedroom
housing units in market rate and affordable multifamily housing developments.
4. Farmworkers
a. Guidelines
The element should estimate the number of permanent and migrant farmworkers within
the community. The analysis should describe the zones where housing for farmworkers
is allowed, evaluate whether sufficient opportunities for housing for migrant and
permanent farmworkers exists, and describe any conditions on development,
development standards, and processing requirements.
b. Definitions
A farm worker is --
A person who performs manual and/or hand tool labor to plant,
cultivate, harvest, pack and/or load field crops and other plant life.
A person who attends to live farm, ranch or aquacultural animals
including those produced for animal products."
[Source: State of California, Employment Development Department,
Labor Market Information Division Occupational Definition]
Because of their predominantly low incomes, housing affordability is an acute need for
farmworkers.
C. Farmworkers in Temole Citv
The City has no land devoted to the production of field crops and/or other plant life.
Likewise, there is no land used for animals. As a result, there are no farmworkers
employed in Temple City. There may be persons residing or "housed" in the City who
are farmworkers at locations outside the municipal boundaries.
The housed "farmworkers" who may reside in the City would live in a household and
occupy a housing unit. As such, they would be among the existing households counted
as part of the 2000 Census, and estimates of existing and projected housing needs
produced by SCAG. Consequently, the resident low-income "farmworker" households —
A-35
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
if any — would be included among all the households. That is, the resident farmworker
housing needs would be counted as part of the lower income households experiencing
problems of overpaying, overcrowding, and living in substandard housing.
Census 2000 estimates that a total of 25 persons/residents had jobs in the "agricultural,
forestry, fishing, and hunting" industry, Twenty persons were the employee of a private
company. There were no persons employed by private not-for-profit wage and salary
workers. The number of residents employed in "agricultural' compared to "forestry,
fishing and hunting" is unknown.
d. Conclusions and Findinas
The City has not devoted a residential zone exclusively for farmworker housing.
However, housing for farmworkers could be developed in the multifamily residential
zones.
Based on the above information, however, the City concludes that there is not a need for
farmworker housing in Temple City.
5. Female Householders
a. Definitions
By way of background -
"Householders are classified by type according to the sex of the
householder and the presence of relatives. Two types of householders
are distinguished: family householders and non -family householders. A
family householder is a householder living with one or more people
related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder
and all of the people in the household related to him or her are family
members. A nonfamily householder is a householder living alone or with
nonrelatives only." (U.S. Census Bureau)
In most cases, the householder is the person, or one of the people, in whose name the
home is owned, being bought, or rented and who is listed as Person 1 on the Census
questionnaire. A female householder, then, is one who is maintaining a household. A
female householder, no husband present means a familywith a female householder and
no spouse of the householder present.
b. Special Housino Needs of Female Householders
Some key housing needs include:
❑ Affordable housing
❑ Housing developments that provide supportive services
❑ Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
❑ Access to housing which accommodates children
A-36
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
❑ Access to housing which is designed for security and convenience
❑ Access to housing near parks and open space to serve the needs
of female householders with children.
C. Estimate of Female Householders
Of the City's 11,393 households, 3,225 (28.4%) are female householders. Table A-25
shows the owner/renter status of female householders, as well as household type. As
indicated, 55.5% are owners and 44.5% are renters.
Table A-25
City of Temple City
Female Householders by Tenure — 2000
Type of Household
Owner
Renter
Total
Percent
Family, No Husband
829
796
1,625
50.4%
Not Livinq Alone
105
109
214
6.6%
Livinq Alone
855
531
1,386
43.0%
Total
1,789
1,436
3,225
100.0%
Percent
55.5%
44.5%
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table H17 -Tenure by Household Type
(Including Living Alone) by Age of Householder
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
As Table A-25 shows some important female householder characteristics:
❑ 1,625 live in a family of two or more persons with no spouse
present (50.4%)
❑ 1,386 live alone (43.0%)
❑ 214 live in nonfamily households with nonrelatives (6.6%)
Table A-26, on the following page, further describes the tenure and age characteristics
of female householders.
❑ Seniors comprise nearly one-half (683 of 1,386) of all the female
householders living alone. About 62% of these women are
owners.
❑ Female family householders are predominantly non -seniors. The
percentage of owners and renters is nearly 50/50.
❑ There are few non -family female householders.
d. Conclusions and Findinqs
Because so many female householders live alone, overcrowding is not expected to be a
problem as it is for small and large families. Female householders, especially those that
A-37
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
are renting an apartment or home, do have housing affordability concerns. Perhaps, the
key indicator of housing need is the overpaying situation of female householders living in
rental housing. About 600 renter female householders are cost burdened based on the
overpaying rate among all the City's renter households (42% of 1,436 renters).
Table A-26
City of Temple City
Female Households by Tenure and Age of Householder — 2000
Type of Household
Living Alone
15-34
35-64
65+
Total
2 or More Persons, No Husband
15-34
35-64
65+
Total
2 or More, Nonfamily
15-34
35-64
65+
Total
Owner I Renter Total
21
99
120
321
262
583
513
170
683
855
531
1,386
74
213
287
540
526
1,066
215
57
272
829
796
1,625
17
45
62
63
58
121
25
6
31
105
109
214
Source: Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table H17 -Tenure by Household Type
(Including Living Alone) by Age of Householder
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
A-38
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
6. Families and Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter
a. Guidelines
An estimate or count of the daily average number of persons lacking permanent shelter.
Wherever possible, this figure should be divided into single males and females, and
families (one or more adults with children). These subgroups require significantly
different types of shelter.
As local data allows, also include the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, substance
abusers, survivors of domestic violence, and other categories of homeless considered
significant by the jurisdiction.
An inventory of the number, approximate location, and type of existing shelter beds,
hotel/motel vouchers, and units of transitional housing available, Present shelter
resources by type (e.g., family shelter beds, homeless adult female housing, transitional
living units, etc.).
An estimate derived from the figures above, of the number of additional beds or shelters
and transitional housing units needed.
Definitions
The following definitions are those adopted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services
Authority:
Homeless Persons: are people who lack a fixed, regular and adequate
nighttime residence, and have a primary nighttime residence that is either
a public or private shelter, an institution that provides temporary
residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or a public or
private location that is not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular
sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Emergency Shelter. is the provision of a safe alternative to the streets,
either in a shelter facility, or through the use of motel vouchers.
Emergency shelter is short-term, usually for 30 -days or less. Domestic
violence shelters are considered emergency shelter, as they provide safe,
immediate housing for victims and their children.
Transitional Housing: facilitates the movement of homeless individuals
and families to permanent housing. It is housing in which homeless
persons may live up to 24 months and receive supportive services that
enable them to live more independently. Supportive services — which
help promote residential stability, increased skill level or income, and
greater self-determination — may be provided by the organization
managing the housing, or coordinated by that organization and provided
by other public or private agencies. Transitional housing can be provided
in one structure or several structures at one site, or in multiple structures
at scattered sites.
A-39
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Unsheltered Persons: are those homeless who are living on the streets,
in abandoned buildings, storage structures, vehicles, encampments, or
any other place unfit for human habitation. Generally, those not utilizing
Los Angeles County operated emergency or transitional housing shelters
are considered unsheltered.
[Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2007 Greater Los Angeles
Homeless Count, Appendix VIII, Definitions and Abbreviations, pgs. 169 and
170.]
C. Special Housina Needs
HUD's model approach to helping meet the needs of the homeless is referred to as a
Continuum of Care. A Continuum of Care begins with a point of entry in which the needs
of a homeless individual or family are assessed. The intake and assessment component
is performed by an emergency shelter or through a separate assessment center. To
reach and engage homeless persons living on the street, the homeless service system
also includes a strong outreach component.
Once a needs assessment is completed, the person/family may be referred to
permanent housing or to transitional housing where supportive services are provided to
prepare them for independent living. For example, a homeless person with a substance
abuse problem may be referred to a transitional rehabilitation program before being
assisted with permanent housing. Some individuals, particularly persons with chronic
disabilities, may require ongoing supportive services once they move into permanent
housing. The goal of the comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that
homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, housing
and independent living.
d. Estimates of Homelessness
As noted in a recent report —
"...the transience of America's unhoused makes it difficult to quantify the
homeless population and determine who is at risk of becoming homeless.
In addition to having no fixed address, individuals may experience bouts
of homelessness lasting a few days or several years, and a significant
number return to homelessness after leaving the streets, resulting in
constant population fluctuation."
[Helping America's Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing?]
This same report found that the —
"Essential elements of homelessness as a social problem are so extreme
that homeless people cannot remove their homeless condition
themselves."
Whatever the causes of homelessness, the "count" in many communities, including
Temple City, varies within the year, and year to year, and over extended periods of time.
There are an estimated 36 homeless persons in Temple City, according to the 2007
A-40
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
street count (actual enumeration) conducted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services
Authority.
e. Homeless Shelters and Services
Attachment B provides an inventory of homeless shelters and service providers located
near Temple City. There are no emergency shelters or shelters for domestic violence
victims located in Temple City.
Conclusions and Findinqs
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the City to establish a zone or zones
where emergency shelters are a permitted use and with sufficient capacity to
accommodate the City's need for emergency shelter. This same Government Code
Section further states:
"If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient
capacity, the local government shall include a program to amend its
zoning ordinance to meet the requirements of this paragraph within one
year of the adoption of the housing element." [emphasis added]
The City's Housing Program includes a program to amend the Zoning Code to establish
.. a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a
conditional use permit or other discretionary permit."
D. PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
1. Population Trends and Projections
As of January 1, 2008, the City's population was 35,683 persons, according to the State
Department of Finance. Census 2000 estimated a total population of 33,377 persons
consisting of a group quarters population of 511 persons and a household population of
32,866. The majority of the group quarters' population (409) lived in nursing homes,
while the remainder lived in "other non institutional" group quarters (98) and "other
institutions" (4).
Table A-27 shows that in both the 1980s and 1990s, Temple City gained more than
2,000 persons in each decade. Since Census 2000, the City's population has increased
by about 2,300 persons.
The housing stock has experienced modest gains compared to the population growth.
Between April 1, 1990 and January 1, 2008, the City's housing stock has increased by
373 dwelling units. By contrast, the community's population has increased by an
estimated 4,583 persons. That means that some vacant units became occupied during
the 18 -year period and that the average household size has increased. Table A-28
shows Temple City's housing stock trends.
A-41
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Source: U.S. Census for Years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000
State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Population
Estimate for the January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2008
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
April 1, 1990
January 1, 1995
April 1, 2000
January 1, 2005
January 1, 2008
Table A-28
City of Temple City
Housing Stock Trends: 1990-2008
Total Cumulative
Housinq Units
Table A-27
11,548
11,625
City of Temple City
11,674
126
Population Growth Trends: 1970-2008
310
11,921
373
Total Incremental
Percentage
Population
Increase
Increase
April 1, 1970
31,034
---
---
April 1, 1980
28,972
-2,062
-6.6%
April 1, 1990
31,100
2,128
7.3%
April 1, 2000
1 33,377
2,277
7.3%
January 1, 2005
1 35,431
2,054
6.2%
January 1, 2008
1 35,683
252
0.7%
Source: U.S. Census for Years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000
State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Population
Estimate for the January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2008
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
April 1, 1990
January 1, 1995
April 1, 2000
January 1, 2005
January 1, 2008
Table A-28
City of Temple City
Housing Stock Trends: 1990-2008
Total Cumulative
Housinq Units
Increase
11,548
11,625
77
11,674
126
11,858
310
11,921
373
Percentage
Increase
Source: 1990 Census and Census 2000, Summary File 1.
State Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Housing Unit Estimates,
January 1, 2008.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
2. Employment Trends and Projections
a. Jobs Located in the City
SCAG estimates that in 2005 there were 6,534 jobs located in Temple City. Between
2005 and 2015, SCAG projects an increase of 439 jobs from a total of 6,534 to 6,973.
Over the 8 '/2 year housing element period the local jobs would increase by 373, or 44
jobs per year.
The ZIP Code Business Patterns estimates that in 2005 there were almost 4,800 jobs
located in Temple City, an increase of just over 300 jobs since 2000. ZIP Code Business
Patterns presents data on establishments and employment based on the physical
location address reported in Census Bureau programs. Data are excluded for self-
employed persons, employees of private households, railroad employees, agricultural
production workers and most government employees. Therefore, the 4,800 job estimate
does not include employees working at City Hall, the library or fire station. And the
A-42
TECHNICAL APPENDIX HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
estimate probably excludes the 525 workers, who according to Census 2000, worked at
home.
As a result, the number of jobs physically located in Temple City probably ranges
between 6,000 and 6,500. Moreover, job growth during the next few years is expected
to be modest — ranging between 30 and 45 per year -- based on trends between 2000
and 2005, the SCAG projections, and the sluggish economy.
2. Labor Force -- Workers-Emnloved Residents
The City, as of April 2008, has a labor force of 18,600 workers and 17,900 employed
residents, according to the California Employment Development Department. The
unemployment rate is 3.6%.
Census 2000 reports 14,800 workers 16 years of age or over. Almost 1,600 employed
residents (11%) worked at a job located within Temple City. About 4,400 employed
residents worked in the City of Los Angeles and 8,000 worked in another community
located in Los Angeles County.
Census 2000 reports the following commute times
<15 minutes 3,260 workers 22%
15-30 minutes 4,817 workers 33%
30+ minutes 6,727 workers 45%
3. Share of Regional Housing Needs
According to the Housing Element Law:
.. a locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share
of the housing needs of persons at all income levels within the area
significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan."
(Section 65584 [a])
Pursuant to the State Housing Element Law, SCAG is responsible for allocating to each
city its share of the regional housing need.
SCAG's RHNA allocates 987 housing units for the January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014
period. The three components of the City's allocation include household growth,
replacement housing needs, and an ideal vacancy rate:
Replacement housing needs, according to the RHNA Methodology, are
based on the nine-year average between 1997 and 2005 of demolition
permits reported to the State Department of Finance (DOF).
Household growth refers to the housing needed to accommodate the
projected increase in households (i.e., occupied housing units).
Vacancy allowance refers to adjustments in housing units need to make
up for vacancy deficits or surpluses.
A-43
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The components of the City's 987 -unit share of the regional housing need include:
Household Growth 578 housing units
Replacement Housing Need 375 housing units
Vacancy Allowance 34 housing units
In 2006, AB 2634 amended the State housing element law to require that the needs
assessment specifically analyze the "extremely low income' level. The law was
amended to indicate that —
"Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very low income households
allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as extremely low income
households."
The calculations shown in Table A-29 are based on the City's proportion of extremely
low- (.4727) and very low-income (.5273) households among all the households below
50% of the area median income. These two proportions were applied to the RHNA
allocation of housing units to the a50% of median income group.
Table A-29 shows the Final RHNA for all five income groups.
Table A-29
City of Temple City
Share of Regional Housing Needs
January 1, 2006- June 30, 2014
Income
2006-2014
Category
Number
Percent
Extremely Low
118
12.0%
Very Low
131
13.3%
Low
156
15.8%
Moderate
165
16.7%
Above Moderate
417
42.2%
Total:
987
100.0%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Final
Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan — Planning Period January
1, 2006 — June 30, 2014 for Jurisdictions within the Six County
SCAG Region, July 12, 2007.
Technical Appendix D contains the inventory of sites that can accommodate the City's
share of the regional housing need for the January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014 time
period.
A-44
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
E. ANALYSIS OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Cities across the country, State and local governments and nations around the world are
adopting programs and policies that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as
reduced energy bills, air quality improvements, open space conservation, reduced traffic
congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job
creation through energy conservation and the development of new energy technologies.
In order to implement existing opportunities for energy conservation, the City will
accomplish the following:
Adopt an energy conservation goal to reduce per capita energy
consumption by 10% by 2014.
2. Strive to meet or exceed the conservation goal by taking actions in
to be good stewards of our environment.
3. Create and adopt an energy action plan to include the following
milestones:
Determine baseline energy use, including an assessment of
current energy practices within Temple City.
Establish specific targets and long-term goals to create a
framework for implementation of a citywide energy conservation
plan.
Implement policies and measures citywide that increase energy
conservation and efficiency.
Monitor results and showcase positive outcomes
4. Educating residents, businesses, visitors and governments to
reduce energy use and conserve energy:
Share information and promote programs to encourage behavior
changes that lead to lower energy bills.
Encourage lower energy use and off peak use during hot summer
months.
5. Provide incentives, tools, and energy conservation programs that
help individuals and businesses to decrease their peak and
annual power use.
6. Adopt and enforce land use policies that promote efficient energy
use and resource sustainability.
7. Promote awareness and education about sustainability' and
energy conservation through websites, newsletters, and other
community and regional outreach opportunities.
A-45
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Sustainability refers to the physical development and institutional operating practices
that meet the needs of present users without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs, particularly with regard to use and waste of
natural resources. Sustainable practices support ecological, human, and economic
health and vitality. Sustainability presumes that resources are finite, and should be
used conservatively and wisely with a view to long-term priorities and consequences of
the ways in which resources are used. (as defined by the University of California,
2003)
In addition, the City's Website will inform residents of the Southern California Edison's
"Energy Management Assistance Program" (EMA) which provides services designed to
help income -qualified households to conserve energy and reduce their electricity costs.
Through this program, SCE pays all the costs of purchasing and installing energy
efficient appliances and equipment free to homeowners and renters.
The City's Website also will inform residents of The Gas Company's energy efficiency
rebate program. That program offers rebates to the owners of single family homes,
apartments and mobile homes who buy energy efficient appliances.
A-46
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Attachment A
Los Angeles County Senior Population Profile
Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging
Preparing for the Future: A Report on the Expected Needs
of Los Angeles County's Older Adult Population
Greater numbers of older persons, age 65 and over, will reside in Los Angeles
County, characterized by:
• Increased numbers of older persons overall, and a greater proportion of the
population (one in five) that is age 65+;
• Increased ethnic diversity, especially of Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander elderly;
• Increased numbers of older persons for whom English is their second language;
• Increased numbers of persons who are victims of Alzheimer's disease and
related dementias;
• Increased numbers of functionally -Impaired persons;
• Increased prevalence of chronic health conditions;
• Increased numbers of older persons living in poverty;
• Increased longevity, with persons age 85+ comprising one in twenty older
persons;
• A greater number of older persons relying solely on Social Security for income
and Medicare for health insurance, and thus unprepared for the costs of their
own long-term care needs;
• A greater number of the older military veterans relying on County health and
social service systems
More Older Adults Will Live in Poverty — Los Angeles County will see an increase in
the number of persons age 65 and over living in poverty. Poverty rates among non-white
ethnic minority populations are normally higher than among whites (Administration on
Aging, 1997). Because the County is projected to have a high percentage of non-white,
ethnic minority groups, the percentage of County resident's age 65+ living in poverty is
expected to be above the national average.
More Adults Will Live with Functional Disabilities and Chronic Health Problems —
One in five persons age 60+ report some functional impairment ranging from difficulties
performing instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs, e.g., shopping, cooking,
cleaning), to more severe impairments limiting ability to perform the most basic activities
of daily living (ADLs, e.g. bathing, ambulating, eating, dressing) (Gornick Warren, &
Eggers, 1996). Fifty percent (50%) of non -institutionalized persons age 85+ reports the
need for personal assistance (Hobbs & Damon, 1996)
More Older Persons Will Rely on the In -Home Supportive Services Program and
Other Programs for Personal and Home Care Assistance — The federal and state
funded In -Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program is the County's largest home-
based long-term care program for functionally -impaired persons, with the majority if its
clientele (65.5%) age 65 and over. In May 1990, the program aided 56,381 County
residents, whereas by May 1999, the program aided 92,184 County residents.
Assistance in the home can be difficult to obtain and cost prohibitive for older persons on
limited incomes; many people go without the in-home care they need, and deteriorate to
A-47
TECHNICAL APPEND/XA HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
the point of requiring institutionalization (Little Hoover Commission, 1996) In-home care
is an important resource that better answers the needs and wants of older persons and
their families than institutional care (Alzheimer's Association & National Association of
State Units on Aging, 1995; Little Hoover Commission, 1996) Various programs beyond
In -Home Supportive Services provide home care services, both in the public and private
sectors. These include Older Americans Act in-home services under the Area Agency on
Aging, private home care and home health care providers, and others; these are also
important aspects of the long-term care continuum.
Residential Care Facilities Will Continue to Be an Important Option on the
Continuum of Care — Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly vary greatly in size,
ranging from under six beds to more than 100. All licensed residential care facilities,
however, must provide care and supervision, in addition to assessment and linkage to
services that meet a resident's specific needs. Such facilities "...provide a range of
services that stop just short of medical care, including meals, shelter, laundering,
transportation, supervision of medications and limited assistance with activities of daily
living (Little Hoover Commission, 1996). Although the facilities are responsible for their
safety, residents are free to come and go as they please. Residents cannot be
bedridden or require 24 hour nursing care (Little Hoover Commission, 1996).
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly are an important alternative for many older
persons who are unable to continue living at home. These facilities are "a consumer -
favored option for long-term care because of the home -like setting, lower cost and
individual freedom provided" (Little Hoover Commission, 1996)
In Los Angeles County, 43,700 older persons live in 1,200 residential care facilities for
the elderly (also known as "board and care facilities") (M. Arechaederra, personal
communication, October 8, 1999). Although no public funding source pays directly for
the cost of residential care, the government does impose a limit on what facilities may
charge if the resident receives Supplement Security Income/State Supplemental
Payment (SSI/SSP)(Little Hoover Commission, 1996)
Nursing Homes — Although nursing homes are an important part of the service delivery
continuum for older persons, it is also important to note that often older persons are
placed in these facilities due to lack of options rather than a need for 24-hour nursing
care. Consumers prefer to receive care at home instead of in nursing homes (Little
Hoover Commission, 1996)
Nursing homes, which take the lion's share of public funds expended on
long-term care, are an expensive way to deliver care unless the person
actually needs round-the-clock nursing attention. Experts believe that
many existing residents of nursing homes, who receive 24 -hour -a -day
care, could be served in home or community settings if adequate but
limited assistance were available (Little Hoover Commission, 1996)
Considering the projected growth in the elderly population overall, and especially the
projected growth in the frail and chronically -ill elderly population, it is important to
consider new service delivery strategies that address the specialized needs of this
group. As the Little Hoover Commission state, "Many people go without adequate care
and deteriorate to the point of requiring institutionalization because in home assistance
is difficult to obtain. Others are pushed into costly skilled nursing facilities prematurely
A-48
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
because of the perverse financial incentives of government assistance" (Little Hoover
Commission, 1996)
Affordable Housing - Affordable housinc
especially for older adults on fixed incomes.
income older adults from their communities
rent control.
continues to be a critical unmet need
An emerging trend is the "eviction" of low -
(large and highly -developing cities) with no
Women's Issues - The most pivotal demographic indicator reflects the disproportionate
role of women as both care -receivers and caregivers. Women will place a much greater
demand on long-term care services for several core reasons: (i) the total number of
elderly women will increase dramatically in the next three decades, more than doubling
by 2030, (ii) females comprise a larger percentage of the frail elderly (age 85+ years),
outnumbering males by nearly a 2:1 ratio, and (iii) women generally have significantly
fewer financial resources (e.g., pensions and shorter work histories) than men and have
to stretch them further due to lower lifetime earnings and greater longevity. Furthermore,
as caregivers, females constitute an even more significant majority of people who are
engaged in providing some level of informal care to family or friends, about 75% of the
total caregivers according to some estimates. (Mother's Day Report, Washington D.C.:
Older Women's League 2001.
Summary - Senior and disabled care is going to change very suddenly and dramatically,
as the Baby Boomers reach elderly status and enter retirement. In coming decades, the
ranks of the elderly and people with disabilities will swell to a degree that is
unprecedented in history. The growth of this population, coupled with generational
differences between them and the rest of the County's population, will likely overwhelm
County programs and resources unless appropriate plans are made.
A-49
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Attachment B
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Referral Guide for Homeless Children, Youth and Families
Service Providers Located Near Temple City
Department of Public Social Service (DPSS)
EI Monte Office (Cal WORKS, Food Stamps, Medi -Cal)
3350 Aerojet Ave. EI Monte CA 91731
Office Tel: (626) 569-3183 or (626) 569-3688
Housing Sup: Carmen Ruiz
Tel: (626) 569-3487
Housing Dep Dir: Janet Liang
Tel: (626) 569-3691
Director: Elba Rangel
Tel: (626) 569-3677
Access Center
Institute for Urban Research & Development
Project ACHIEVE — EI Monte
11411 E. Valley Blvd., EI Monte CA 91731
Tel: (626) 444-9000
Contact: Joe Colletti
Target Population: All Populations
Services: Outreach, intake and assessment services for homeless persons. On site
supportive services include intake/assessment, case management housing assistance,
veterans' services, mental health services, life skills training, benefits advocacy,
parenting classes and referrals.
Supportive Services
Prototypes: Community Assessment Center
11100 Valley Blvd. Suite 116, EI Monte CA 91731
Tel: (626) 444-0705
Services: Mental Health Outpatient, Adult Day Rehab for Children and Adults
School District Homeless and Foster Youth Liaisons
Arcadia USD
Homeless and Foster Youth Liaisons
Denise Fong
Tel: (626) 821-6613 Fax: (626) 308-4486
E-mail: dfonar&ausd.net
Homeless Liaison
Silvana Aguirre, Homeless Liaison
Tel: (626) 339-6432 Fax: (626) 339-7054
E -Mail: silvanaan..azusausd.kl2.ca.us
A-50
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Foster Liaison
Garry Creel, CWA Coordinator
Tel: (626) 339-6432 Fax: (626) 339-7054
Email: oarrvcZ.asuzausd.k12.ca.us
Temple City USD
Homeless Liaison
David Jaynes, Chief Business Official
Tel: (626) 548-5005 Fax: (626)548-5025
Email: diavnesB-tcusd.net
Foster Liaison
Ann Keyes, Coord. Spec. Ed.
Tel: (626) 548-5009 Fax: (626) 548-5037
E -Mail: akevesa.tcusd.net
Food Pantries
American Asian Pacific Ministries, Inc.
4022 N. Rosemead Blvd. Rosemead CA 91770
Tel: (626) 287-3475
Arcadia Presbyterian Church
121 Alice St., Arcadia CA 91006
Tel: (626) 445-7470
Arcadia Welfare and Thrift Shop
323 N. First St., Arcadia CA 91006
Tel: (626) 447-6864
Catholic Charities EI Monte Community Services
4171 Tyler Ave., EI Monte CA 91731
Tel: (626) 575-7652
Our Saviour Center
4368 Santa Anita Ave., EI Monte CA 91731
Tel: (626) 579-0290
People for People Food Program
860 E. Mission Rd., San Gabriel CA 91776
Tel: (626) 285-2549
Salvation Army San Gabriel Corps
125 E. Valley Blvd., San Gabriel CA 91776
Tel: (626) 288-8846
St. Anthony's Christian Service
1901 San Gabriel Blvd., San Gabriel CA 91776
Tel: (626) 288-8912
A-51
Technical Appendix B
Governmental Constraints
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Appendix B
Governmental Constraints
A — Introduction and Summary ................................................. ........... B-1
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................
B-1
2. Summary............................................................................................................................
B-2
(A) Land Use Controls.......................................................................................................
B-2
(B) State Housing Law and the California Building Code ..................................................
B-2
(C) On and Off Site Improvements....................................................................................
B-3
(D) Fees and Exactions.....................................................................................................
B-3
(E) Processing and Permit Procedures.............................................................................
B-3
(F) Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities...................................................
B-3
(G) Constraints on Meeting Regional Share Housing Needs ............................................
B-3
B— Land Use Controls.............................................................................................. B-4
1. Guidelines..........................................................................................................................
B-4
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
B-4
(A) General Plan Residential Land Use Categories..........................................................
B-4
(B) Residential Zones........................................................................................................
B-5
(C) Residential Zone Development Standards..................................................................
B-7
(D) Mixed Overlay Zone...... ...............................................................................................
B-12
(E) Downtown Specific Plan..............................................................................................
B-14
(F) Senior Housing Overlay Zone....... ...... ........... ......................... ............
... _ ... ......... - B-21
(G) Affordable Second Unit Housing.................................................................................
B-23
(H) Affordable Housing Land Use Controls........-.............................................................
B-23
(1) Moratoria and Prohibitions on Multifamily Housing.......................................................
B-24
(J) Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries.. ........................................................
B-24
3. Conclusions and Findings.................................................................................................. B-24
C — Building Codes and Enforcement......................................................................B-25
1. Guidelines.......................................................................................................................... B-25
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
B-25
(A) State Housing Law.......................................................................................................
B-25
(B) City Building Code ............................................ -.........................................................
B-25
(C) Code Enforcement.......................................................................................................
B-26
3. Conclusions and Findings..................................................................................................
B-27
D — On -Site and Off -Site Improvement Requirements ............................................
B-27
1. Guidelines ...................................... .......................................... ..........................................
B-27
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
B-27
3. Conclusion and Findings...................................................................................................
B-28
E — Fees and Exactions............................................................................................
B-28
1. Guidelines..........................................................................................................................B-28
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
B-29
(A) Fee Categories......................................................................................................._.
B-29
(B) Fees for Typical Multi -Family Housing.........................................................................
B-29
(C) Fees for a Typical Single -Family Housing...................................................................
B-29
(D) Exactions ...... ............. -....... ............................................................................ :............
B-30
3. Conclusions and Findings...... .......... _ ...............................................................................
B-30
F — Processing and Permit Procedures...................................................................
B-30
1. Guidelines ........... .......... ..... ........................ .......................................................................
B-30
2. Analysis., ..... ........ ....... ............................................
B-30
(A) Types of Permits for Residential Land Uses by Zone District .....................................
B-30
(B) Processing Time/Fast Track Processing.....................................................................
B-31
(C) Site Plan Review Process............................................................................................
B-33
(D) Conditional Use Permit Process..................................................................................
B-34
(E) Design Review Guidelines and Processing... ...... .... __ ..... .. ................ ....................
B-35
3. Conclusions and Findings.............................................................. -..................................
B-36
G — Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons .................................................
B-37
1. Guidelines..........................................................................................................................
B-37
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
B-37
(A) Reasonable Accommodation Procedure.....................................................................
B-37
(B) Zoning and Land Use...................................................................................................
B-38
(C) Permits and Processing .................................... ............. -.... .... ___ ....... ,.....................
B-43
(D) Building Codes. ...................................................... ...... _ ......................................
B-44
3. Conclusions and Findings.......................................................................................-......... B-45
H — Constraints on Meeting the City's Share of the Regional Housing Need ....... B-45
1. Guidelines.......................................................................................................................... B-45
2. Analysis.............................................................................................................................. B-46
3. Conclusions and Findings. ............ .................................................................................... B-46
List of Tables
B-1
Residential Zoning and Development Standards .....................................
B-8
B-2
Approved Developments R-2 Zone .........................................................
B-9
B-3
Lot Area and Dimensions........................................................................
B-10
B-4
Setback Requirements for Residential Zone ...........................................
B-12
B-5
Downtown Specific Plan - Land Use Matrix .............................................
B-16
B-6
Downtown Specific Plan — Zoning Summary ...........................................
B-17
B-7
Fees for Multi -Family and Single -Family Housing ...................................
B-29
B-8
Housing Types by Residential Zone and Permits Required .....................
B-32
Attachment
A:
Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act August 18, 1999.......B-47
Attachment B
Background Material — Reasonable Accommodation Procedure ................................... ...... B-49
Attachment C:
Zoning Definitions... ....................... ...... ..... .................... .... ........ B-51
Attachment D:
Sample Group Home Definition ....... .......... ................... ......... ............ ......................... B-56
Attachment E:
Summary of Voluntary Model Universal Design Ordinance.................................................B-57
List of Exhibits
B-1 Land Use Element.................................................................................. B-6
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. Introduction
Technical Appendix B provides:
'An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income
levels....'
The analysis of governmental constraints includes —
Land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local
processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate
local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality
from meeting its share of the regional housing need ... and for meeting the
need for housing for the disabled.
Therefore, the required analysis includes seven subjects:
❑ Land use controls
❑ Building codes and their enforcement
❑ On- and off-site improvements
❑ Fees and exactions
❑ Processing and permit procedures
❑ Constraints on housing for persons with disabilities
❑ Constraints on meeting regional share housing needs
The purpose of the analysis is to find out if a standard or practice -
"...constitute a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development
of housing."
And whether certain policies —
"...have a disproportionate or negative impact on the development of
particular housing types (e.g., multifamily) or on housing developed for
low- or moderate -income households."
A determination should be made for each potential constraint whether it poses an actual
constraint.
AM
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
2. Summary
A brief summary of the governmental constraints analysis is presented below, with the
complete analysis in the sections which follow.
a. Land Use Controls
The analysis of land use controls includes the following:
General Plan Land Use Categories
Residential Zones
Residential Zone Development Standards
Mixed Use Overly Zone
Downtown Specific Plan
Senior Housing Overlay Zone
Affordable Second Unit Housing
Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamily Housing
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
Based on the analysis of land use controls, the Housing Element sets forth
programs to: amend the residential development standards in the Downtown
Specific Plan; adopt zoning text amendments for non -R-1 adjacent R-3 parcels to
provide for development at higher densities; provide incentives for consolidation
of multi -family parcels; and adopt a local density bonus ordinance. b. State
Housino Law and the California Buildino Code
On January 15, 2008, the City Council adopted the "Building Code known and
designated as Title 26: Building Code of the Los Angeles County Code by adopting the
2007 California Building Code and portions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code."
The CBC was adopted by reference with only minor variations that do not adversely
impact the cost of housing. The City's codes are considered to be the minimum
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Codes, which are based
on the State Housing Law and uniform codes, are adopted by many cities throughout
southern California and do not pose a constraint to residential development.
C. On- and Off -Site Improvements
The City's improvement requirements have been applied to existing housing as well as
all residential developments under construction and approved for development. All
development in the City is infill developments on existing (consolidated) lots that have
existing dwellings. Consequently, streets have already been constructed to the
maximum widths and there is existing curbs, gutter, sidewalks and other infrastructure
such as street lights.
d. Fees and Exactions
The City believes that the fees for planning services, user charges, and plan check are
both necessary and appropriate for residential development. The City has established
each fee after careful study and consideration.
B-2
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The fees charges for typical single-family and multi -family housing represent a small
percentage of the total development costs or sales prices.
The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan encourages and facilitates housing
development by allowing reductions in processing fees and utility connection fees.
These incentives are granted through a development agreement process.
e. Processing and Permit Procedures
The City's processing and permit procedures are not a constraint on the development of
housing. The City implements a "fast track" processing system. Nonetheless, in order to
better facilitate housing, the City will implement a new administrative review process for
multi -family and mixed use development focused on site and architectural review,
replacing the current requirement for a conditional use permit.
f. Constraints on Housino for Persons with Disabilities
The City will amend the Zoning Code to ensure that its rules, policies, and standards are
consistent with fair housing laws. The City will develop a reasonable accommodation
procedure that encompasses both zoning and building standards.
Guidance for developing the procedure will be obtained from disabled persons and
advocacy groups. Once adopted, the reasonable accommodation procedure will be
explained on the City's website and prominently displayed at the Community
Development Department counter.
In addition, the City will amend the Zoning Code to ensure that residential care facilities
for six or fewer persons are permitted in all zones that permit single-family homes.
The reasonable accommodation procedure — to be developed and adopted as part of the
Housing Program — will make explicit that facilities housing seven or more disabled
persons may seek an exception or waiver from the Zoning Code standards. Residential
care facilities serving seven or more non -disabled persons will be required to have an
approved Conditional Use Permit.
The City's family definition will be revised to be consistent with fair housing laws, as well
as all Zoning Code definitions that include the term "family."
g. Constraints on Meetino Reoional Share Housino Needs
Local governmental constraints that would prevent the City from meeting its share of the
regional housing need will be ameliorated by the implementing amendments to the
Downtown Specific Plan, allowance for higher densities on R-3 sites not adjacent to R-1
parcels, elimination of conditional use permit requirements for multi -family housing, and
adopting a local density bonus ordinance.
In summary, the City will accomplish the following actions and programs to address
actual or potential governmental constraints:
Downtown Specific Plan — revised residential standards
B-3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Multi -family Development Incentives
Lot Consolidation Incentives
Non -Discretionary Multi -Family Review Procedures
Density Bonus Ordinance
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Revise Family Definition
Include Residential Care Facilities in Zones that Permit Single Family Homes
Zoning Provisions for Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons
Zoning for Special Needs (described in Technical Appendix D)
B. LAND USE CONTROLS
Guidelines
HCD suggests that the analysis of land use controls -
Identify and analyze zoning, density, parking requirements, lot coverage,
height limits, lot sizes, unit sizes, design criteria, floor area ratios,
setbacks, moratoria and prohibitions against multifamily housing
developments, growth controls, urban growth boundaries, open space
requirements, etc.
(The italicized text is guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development in Housing Element Questions and Answers, October
2006, pg. 31.)
The focus of analysis, then, is on whether the City's land use controls facilitate the
development of a variety of housing types that can meet a wide spectrum of needs,
including special housing needs.
2. Analysis
The analysis of land use controls includes the following:
General Plan Land Use Categories
Residential Zones
Residential Zone Development Standards
Mixed Use Overly Zone
Downtown Specific Plan
Senior Housing Overlay Zone
Affordable Second Unit Housing
Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamily Housing
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
a. General Plan Residential Land Use Categories
The City's General Plan provides three residential land use categories, which are
described below:
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Low Densitv Residential: Residential dwelling unit densities in this
category range from one (1) to six (6) units per acre. This particular land
use designation is characterized by single-family detached units and is
found throughout the City. The population intensity with maximum
development is approximately seventeen persons per acre (based on an
average household size of 2.75 persons).
Medium Densitv Residential: This land use designation applies to those
areas of the City in which the allowable densities for residential
development range between seven (7) and twelve (12) units per acre.
Housing units within this density range typically include a mix of single-
family detached and attached units and duplexes. Medium Density
Residential is concentrated in the far eastern, southwestern and
northeastern sections of the City. The population per acre ranges from
nineteen to thirty-three persons, assuming a 2.75 average household
size.
Hioh Densitv Residential: This land use designation refers to those areas
of the City where the allowable residential densities are between thirteen
(13) and twenty-four (24) units per acre. This designation identifies those
neighborhoods where triplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings are
located. The potential population intensity per acre ranges from
approximately thirty-six to sixty-six persons per acre.
Exhibit B-1 on the next page is the City's General Plan Land Use Map..
b. Residential Zones
The Temple City Zoning Code provides for housing in three residential zones.
The R-1 Zone permits single-family homes up to a density of six dwelling
units per acre.
The R-2 Zone permits single-family homes, duplexes and multifamily
housing up a density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
The R-3 zone permits single-family homes, duplexes and multifamily housing up
to a density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
B-5
G7 -n
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
C. Residential Zone Development Standards
Table B-1 on the next page describes seven development standards for each of the
three residential zones. The analysis of development standards is discussed below in
subjects (1) through (7).
1) Density and Lot Area: As illustrated below, housing density ranges from 6 to 18
dwelling units per acre.
The densities noted above are realistic in that the minimum lot size and lot area per
dwelling unit were determined after consideration of the other development standards
including setbacks, minimum lot widths, floor area ratios and maximum lot coverage.
That is, in the R-3 Zone four dwelling units can be constructed (and meet the
development standards) on a lot that meets the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
Likewise, two units can be built on a R-2 lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement
of 7,200 square feet.
It must be noted that Temple City has no vacant residentially zoned sites except for one
R-1 lot. Residential development occurs on infill lots that are consolidated by
investor/builders. As a result, development does not occur on lots of, say, 7,200 square
feet or 14,400 square feet. Most development occurs on R-2 lots of various sizes.
Table B-2 demonstrates that on lots of various sizes the maximum densities can be
attained and the minimum and maximum development standards satisfied. Table B-2
shows the characteristics of five recently approved developments in the R-2 Zone. The
maximum densities were achieved while parking, height, floor area, lot coverage and
open space requirements were met. The lot sizes ranged from 12,017 square feet to
38,006 square feet. As a result, the cumulative effect of the development standards does
not reduce the housing supply capacity below the maximum that can be developed.
Lowering the development standards would not result in bringing new housing within the
cost/rent levels affordable to lower income households. Land costs and the cost of
constructing the housing unit itself exceeds the maximum housing costs affordable to
lower income households pursuant to the HOME Program, California Community
Redevelopment Law and Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
3
Minimum Lot
Lot Area Per
Dwelling Units
Residential Zone
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Dwelling Unit
Per Acre
R-1
7,200
7,200
6
R-2
7,200
3,600
12
R-3
10,000
2,400
18
The densities noted above are realistic in that the minimum lot size and lot area per
dwelling unit were determined after consideration of the other development standards
including setbacks, minimum lot widths, floor area ratios and maximum lot coverage.
That is, in the R-3 Zone four dwelling units can be constructed (and meet the
development standards) on a lot that meets the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
Likewise, two units can be built on a R-2 lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement
of 7,200 square feet.
It must be noted that Temple City has no vacant residentially zoned sites except for one
R-1 lot. Residential development occurs on infill lots that are consolidated by
investor/builders. As a result, development does not occur on lots of, say, 7,200 square
feet or 14,400 square feet. Most development occurs on R-2 lots of various sizes.
Table B-2 demonstrates that on lots of various sizes the maximum densities can be
attained and the minimum and maximum development standards satisfied. Table B-2
shows the characteristics of five recently approved developments in the R-2 Zone. The
maximum densities were achieved while parking, height, floor area, lot coverage and
open space requirements were met. The lot sizes ranged from 12,017 square feet to
38,006 square feet. As a result, the cumulative effect of the development standards does
not reduce the housing supply capacity below the maximum that can be developed.
Lowering the development standards would not result in bringing new housing within the
cost/rent levels affordable to lower income households. Land costs and the cost of
constructing the housing unit itself exceeds the maximum housing costs affordable to
lower income households pursuant to the HOME Program, California Community
Redevelopment Law and Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table B-1
City of Temple City
Residential Zones and Development Standards
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code
Chart construction by Castaneda & Associates
Permitted
Required Yard Setbacks
Max.
Min.
Lot Area
Pef
Min,
Max.
Zone
Uses
Height
Lot
Dwelling
Lot
F.A.R.
Lot
Size
Unit
Width
Cov
Front
Side Rear
R-1
Single
20'
1st story: 5' or 15'
18'
7,200 sf
7200 sf
60'
Single story.
50%
Family
Min,
10% of the lot
(single
(existing
(existing
N/A
Dwelling
width whichever
story)
lots are
lots are
(Up to 6
30'
is greater
exempt)
exempt)
Two story.
du/acre)
Max
Street Side: 10'
26'
35 % of the
(Ord.
2nd story. 15' for
(two
lot size or
98-
the total
story)
3,500 sq. ft ,
823)
combined
whichever is
setback on both
smaller
sides, or 20' if it's
a corner lot
R-2
Single/
20'
Single story: 5' 15'
30'
7,200 sf
3,600 sf
60'
50%
50%
Multiple
Street Side, 10'
(existing
(divide the
(existing
w/garage
Family,
Two story:
lots are
lot size by
lots are
Duplexes
Iststory 10'
exempt)
this number
exempt)
(Up to 12
2nd story. no
to get the
Ju/acre)
less than the 1
max. no. of
story with an
units)
average of 15'
setback
R-3
Single/
20'
Single story: 5' 15'
30'
10,000
2,400 sf
Interior
70%
50%
Multiple
Street side: 10'
sf
(divide the
80Ft
w/garage
Family,
Two story:
(existing
lot size by
Corner
Duplexes
1st story: 10'
lots are
this number
100 It
(Up to 18
2nd story. no
exempt)
to get the
(existing
du/acre)
less than
max. no. of
lots are
_
the 1st story with
units)
exempt)
an average of 15'
setback
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code
Chart construction by Castaneda & Associates
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table B-2
City of Temple City
Approved Developments R-2 Zone
Single-family 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be
located in a garage. 3 garage parking spaces per dwelling
unit for dwellings with more than 4 bedrooms. A den,
library, study or similar habitable room which functionally
could be used as a bedroom shall be considered a
bedroom for purposes of determining required parking.
Multiple 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be
located in a garage or carport, plus 1 space, which shall be
open and unenclosed, for each 2 units or any fraction
thereof.
Second unit 2 parking spaces, each of which shall be in a garage. Said
parking may be in tandem.
Lot Sizes
12,017 S.F.
16,128 S.F.
21,850 S.F.
27,569 S.F.
38,006 SY
# of Units
Maximum
3
4
6
7
10
Proposed
3
4
5
7
10
Garage Parking
Minimum
6
8
10
14
20
Proposed
6
8
10
14
20
Guest Parking
Minimum
3
4
5
7
10
Proposed
3
4
5
9
10
Height
Maximum
30'0"
30'0"
30'0"
30'0"
30'0"
Proposed
23'10"
25'4"
25'11"
24'4"
25'0"
Floor Area
Maximum
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
Proposed
.49
.49
.48
.49
.49
Lot Coverage
Maximum
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Proposed
37%
31%
29%
34%
25%
Open Space
Minimum
1,500SF
2,OOOSF
2,500SF
3,500SF
5,000SF
Proposed
2,576SF
3,136SF
3,489SF
7,100SF
13,395SF
Source: Staff reports
to Planning Commission
on five R-2 Zone projects.
2) Parking Requirements: The
parking requirements
for dwelling
units are as
follows:
Single-family 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be
located in a garage. 3 garage parking spaces per dwelling
unit for dwellings with more than 4 bedrooms. A den,
library, study or similar habitable room which functionally
could be used as a bedroom shall be considered a
bedroom for purposes of determining required parking.
Multiple 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be
located in a garage or carport, plus 1 space, which shall be
open and unenclosed, for each 2 units or any fraction
thereof.
Second unit 2 parking spaces, each of which shall be in a garage. Said
parking may be in tandem.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Condominiums 2 parking spaces (enclosed in a garage with door) per
dwelling unit, plus 1 additional open and unenclosed space
for each 2 dwelling units. Units with 3 or more bedrooms
shall require an additional 1/2 parking space.
Provided that lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones meet the minimum lot sizes, the
parking requirements pose no physical constraints to the development of said parcels.
The residential densities are achievable as the minimum housing unit sizes can be
developed within the framework of lot size, setback, F.A.R. and lot coverage standards.
The cost impact of the City's parking standards pertains primarily to construction costs.
For a given project, the land costs for two parking spaces whether enclosed or in a
carport are essentially the same. According to the Marshall -Swift Building Valuation
Services, the value for a wood frame private garage is $46.02 per square foot.
Therefore, a 400 square foot garage (20' x 20') would have an estimated cost of
$18,408. The monthly cost would be about $116 (30 -year loan amortization, 6.5%
interest rate). Thus, the cost of enclosed parking spaces is very modest in the context of
the total housing construction and production costs. Moreover, the difference in the costs
of a carport ($26.77/SF) and a garage ($46.02/SF) is $19.25 per SF. A carport, then,
would cost $7,700 less than a garage.
The parking standards have not had a negative impact on the supply of housing. The
number of spaces per unit is almost the same as the standards of surrounding cities.
The recent multifamily developments have provided the required off-street parking within
the framework of the lot sizes and maximum densities.
3) Lot Sizes and Dimensions: Table B-3 summarizes lot size and dimensions for
each zone. The minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit were determined after
consideration of the other development standards including setbacks, minimum lot
widths, floor area ratios and maximum lot coverage. The lot area and dimensions
facilitate development at the noted densities of 6, 12 and 18 dwelling units per acre.
Table B-3
City of Temple City
Lot Area and Dimensions
Minimum Lot
Residential Zone
Area
R-1
7,200
R-2
7,200
R-3
10,000
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code
Chart construction by Castaneda & Associates
B-10
Minimum Lot Minimum Lot
Frontage
Depth
60
120
60
120
Interior 80
Interior 125
Corner 100
Corner 100
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
4) Height Limits: The R-1 designation permits single story dwellings to a maximum
of 18 feet, and two story dwellings to 26 feet. Both the R-2 and R-3 zones have a
maximum height of 30 feet. Based on recent development and housing under
construction, the typical heights in R-2 and R-3 Zones are less than the maximum
allowed, ranging from 23'10' to 26'0"
The height limits have posed no development constraints on lots that satisfy the
minimum lot area standards. The Downtown Specific Plan provides increased height
incentives for projects that consolidate lots.
5) Floor Area Ratios and Housing Unit Sizes: Within the R-1 district, two story units
the F.A.R is 35% of the lot size or 3,500 square feet, whichever is smaller. The F.A.R.
on a standard R-1 lot of 7,200 SF is 2,520 SF. The F.A.R. within in the R-2 district is
50% including the garage and 70% including the garage in R-3 zones.
Numerous variables impact the cost of producing new multifamily housing. For a given
level of housing quality, the larger the housing unit size, the more it will cost to construct.
The market rate housing constructed or under construction in Temple City has the
following housing unit sizes:
3 -bedroom unit 1,670 square feet
4 -bedroom unit: 1,492-1,512 square feet (3 bathrooms)
1,619-1,909 square feet
2,294 square feet
Consequently, minimum housing unit sizes have not constrained the production of
market rate housing.
With respect to "affordable housing," housing unit size is but one factor in the total cost
of housing production. For example, the cost savings induced by reducing the housing
unit size by 200 square feet would not be dramatic in the context of total construction
and production costs. For many affordable housing projects, this cost savings would be
wiped out by the imposition of prevailing wage rates. For instance, the Los Angeles
Community Development Commission asks funding applicants to increase construction
costs by 20% if they think the development will be subject to prevailing wages.
As indicated elsewhere, the City will amend the Zoning Code to facilitate and encourage
the production of SRO housing units. SROs have housing unit sizes considerably less
than one -bedroom units. Once the minimum and maximum SRO housing unit sizes are
determined, they will contribute to more dramatic construction cost reductions.
6) Setbacks: According to the Zoning Code, building setback means the minimum
distance between any property line and the closest point of the foundation of any
building or structure on the property. Table B-4 on the following page shows the
setbacks for the three residential zones. As previously explained, the minimum setback
requirements do not pose a physical constraint to the development of housing on lots
that meet the minimum lot area standards of the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones.
B-11
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table B-4
City of Temple City
Setback Requirements for Residential Zones
Residential
Lot Size
Front
Rear
Side Setback
Zone
(Sq. Ft.)
Setback
Setback
R-1
7,200
20
15
1' Story: 5' or 10% of
the lot width
whichever is greater
Side Street: 10'
2nd Story: 15' for the
total combined
setback on both
sides, or 20' if it is a
corner lot
R-2
7,200
20
15
Single Story: 5'
Street Side: 10'
Two Story:
15t Story: 10'
2nd Story: no less
than the 1 st story with
an average of 15'
setback
R-3
10,000
20
15
Sinqle Story: 5'
Street Side: 10'
Two Story:
1' Story: 10'
2nd Story: no less
than the 1st story with
an average of 15'
setback
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code
Chart construction by Castaneda & Associates
7) Open Space Requirements: All R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones require 500 square feet
of landscaped open space per unit. Housing recently constructed and under construction
has met or exceeded the minimum open space requirements. The projects listed in
Table B-2 all exceeded the 500 square foot standard.
d. Mixed Use Overlav Zone
1) General Description of MUZ: Zoning code Article R.1 establishes a Mixed -Use
Zone (MUZ). A mixed use development, according to the MUZ, is a development project
that consists of residential uses in conjunction with commercial and office uses on a
single integrated development site.
The MUZ provides for a combined mix of medium (12 dus/ac) and high density (18
dus/ac) residential development with retail, office and service uses, with the nonretail
uses located primarily at the street level to create a pedestrian oriented environment.
B-12
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The MUZ intends to encourage new housing opportunities, such as residential over retail
which are proximate to commercial services and promote pedestrian activity.
The Mixed -Use zone is designed as an overlay zone where the General Plan
designation of the property is "commercial" and where the minimum site size is one acre.
The reclassification or rezoning process is the same as that used for rezoning property
in general as set forth in the Zoning Code. Additionally, no property can be designated or
classified as a Mixed -Use Zone unless the rezoning request is accompanied by a
development agreement and a precise plan of development.
In addition to high density residential uses, which would be allowed in conjunction with
any mixed use development, special consideration and/or a density bonus can be
awarded when housing is specifically designated and reserved for low moderate income
households. If the development agreement specifies a low income or moderate income
housing component, specific rent and/or sale price parameters are to be incorporated
into the development agreement to assure that affordable housing is continuously
maintained as such.
2) MUZ Development Standards: No specific development standards are
incorporated in the Overlay Zone as its purpose is to foster creative design and
development solutions. The Mixed Use Overlay Zone is intended to facilitate and
encourage a creative design that accommodates residential and non-residential uses on
commercially zoned sites that are a minimum of one -acre. Through this Overlay Zone,
then, the City encourages housing opportunities on sites that are not zoned residential.
According to the City's Zoning Code:
"The mixed-use zone (MUZ) provides for a combined mix of medium and
high density residential development with retail, office and service uses,
with the nonretail uses located primarily at the street level to create a
pedestrian oriented environment. Development approaches are intended
to encourage new housing opportunities, such as residential over retail
which are proximate to commercial services and promote pedestrian
activity. Plazas, courtyards, outdoor dining and other public gathering
spaces and community amenities may be incorporated into such
developments. Development and design focuses on assuring that mixed
use projects are functionally integrated through the relationships between
location and types of uses and structures, the efficient use of land,
optimal site planning and design elements. Mixed use projects shall also
assure that infill development is distributed and designed in a manner
sensitive to scale and design to the street environment and that such
development incorporates appropriate landscaping and buffering
techniques. (Ord. 05-903, 1-3-2006)" [emphasis added]
In addition, the Zoning Code describes this zone as follows:
"The mixed-use zone as set forth in this article shall be designated as an
overlay zone where the general plan designation of the property is
"commercial" and where the minimum site size is one acre. Any
B-13
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
development in the mixed-use zone (MUZ) shall require the preapproval
of a development agreement between the applicant/owner and the city in
accordance with California Government Code sections 65864, 65865 and
65866. An application for a change to the mixed-use zone overlay
category shall be accompanied by a proposed development agreement
and a precise plan of development which sets forth principal permitted
uses, accessory uses and precise development parameters to include,
but not limited to, fully dimensioned plans that show the proposed amount
of building square footage by use, detailed architectural drawings
showing building elevations and fully dimensioned building scales,
detailed descriptions of points of ingress and egress for both pedestrians
and vehicles and other associated development details deemed
necessary in order to fully evaluate, assess, apply and enforce mitigation
measures or conditions of approval. (Ord. 05-903, 1-3-2006)" [emphasis
added]
"The development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement,
permitted uses, allowed density and intensity of the uses, the maximum
height and size of the proposed buildings and structures and any
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The
benefits of the agreement to the city, if any, shall also be stated. The
agreement may contain other provisions as permitted in the Government
Code. Once signed by all parties to the agreement, the agreement shall
be recorded with the county recorder as a covenant or deed restriction
upon the property. [emphasis added]
"The development agreement and precise plan shall contain all pertinent
information relative to the proposed development project including fully
dimensioned plans that illustrate the total square footage, the building
configuration, building height, the amount of parking, floor area ratio, as
well as the intensity and density of both commercial and residential land
uses. In addition to high density residential uses, which would be allowed
in conjunction with any mixed use development, special consideration
and/or a density bonus shall be awarded when housing is specifically
designated and reserved for low or moderate income households. If the
development agreement specifies a low income or moderate income
housing component, specific rent and/or sale price parameters shall be
incorporated into the development agreement to assure that affordable
housing is continuously maintained as such. (Ord. 05-903, 1-3-2006)"
[emphasis added]
Downtown Specific Plan Area
The City has one specific plan — the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan and that
Specific Plan encourages and facilitates the development of high density housing and
affordable senior housing. The Specific Plan designates a two -acre area as Residential -
Commercial and encourages senior housing throughout the Specific Plan area.
1) Residential Uses Permitted by the Downtown Specific Plan: Convalescent homes
are conditionally permitted in the Temple City Boulevard Commercial District and the Las
B-14
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Tunas East Commercial District. Mixed use projects and senior citizen/congregate care
housing are conditionally permitted throughout the DTSP Area.
Additionally, in the R -C District any property may be improved in accordance with the R-
3 development standards with a CUP or a Senior Citizen Housing development with a
CUP. The R-3 Zone permits non -senior housing. Please refer Table B-5 -- Downtown
Specific Plan Land Use Matrix on the next page.
2) Specific Plan Development Standards: Table B-6 shows the development
standards for each zone within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. The development
standards provide incentives for high intensity development. For instance, the greater
the minimum lot width, the higher the maximum building height and the greater the lot
coverage. In addition, landscaping in the parking areas can satisfy a portion of the total
landscaping requirements. Front yard setbacks are not required in four of the five zones.
Altogether, the development standards seek to facilitate higher intensity land uses in
Temple City's downtown.
B-15
Table B-5
Downtown Specific Plan — Land Use Matrix
Residential Uses' GC WC CC TC EC
Mixed Use — Commercial / Retail / Residential C C C C C
Convalescent Homes (including Adult Day Care Health Care Centers C C
Mixed Use Projects C C G C G
(Commercial / Residential — Minimum One Acre Site)
Senior Citizen / Congregate Care C3 C3 C3 C3 C
'In the R -C District, any property may be improved in accordance with the R-3 development standards with a CUP or a Senior
Citizen Housing project, subject to a CUP. Additionally, property in the R -C district may be developed as commercial when
combined with a commercially -designated lot(s) with frontage on Temple City Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive, utilizing the
applicable commercial development standards of the abutting or adjoining commercial lot(s).
Notes:
1 -Refer to provisions in Chapter Ill
2 -Any permitted outdoor operations are subject to approval of a CUP
3 -Restricted to upper floors only
P -Permitted Use
C -Conditional Use Permit
City of Temple City
Downtown Specific Plan
GC -Gateway Commercial District
WC -Las Tunas West Commercial District
CC -City Center Commercial District
TC -Temple City Blvd. Commercial District
EC -Las Tunas East Commercial District
Land Use and Development Standards
Table B-6
Downtown Specific Pian Zoning
FRONT SIDE REAR
MIN LOT
MAX BLDG
MAX LOT
ZONE SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK LANDSCAPE
WIDTO
HEfGRT4
COVERAGE
LOT SIZE
GC '7 `2 -2 Min. of 5%;
50'ar less
15'
50%
7,000—less
Landscaping in
51'to 75'
30'
70%
7001 -10,000
parking area may be
76'to 100'
45'
100%
10,001.20,000
included in the 56,.
over 100'
45,
100%
over 20,001
WC `1 `2 '2 Min. of 59/6;
50' or loss
I T
50%
7,000 — less
Landscaping in
51'to 75'
3G'
70%
7001 -10,000
parking areas may be
76' to 100'
45'
100 %
10,001-20,001)
included in the 5%.
over 100'
45
100%
over20A01
cc Max 10 R. -2 -2 See T.C. Zoning
25'
3 floors or 45;
100% less the
Code
30' when
req. parking,
Not Applicable
abutifng R zone
setbacks, and
landscapinq
TC '1 -2 '2 Mm. of 5%;
Be, or less
15'
50%
7,000—less
Landscaping in
51' to 75'
30'
70%
7001 •10,000
parking areas may be
76to 100'
45'
100%
.101001-20,000
Included in the 5%.
over 100'
45'
100%
over 20,001
EC 'i "2 '2 Min. of 511e,
50' or less
15'
50%
7,000 — less
Landscaping in
51'to 75'
30'
70%
7001-10,000
parking areas may be
76' to 100'
45'
100%
10,001-20,000
included in the 5%.
over 100'
45'
100%
over 20,001
RC Please contact the Community Development Director for additional information
*1 In the GC, WC, TC and EC Zones, no setback is required; however, a setback may be imposed
as part of the Design Review Process.
*2 As a guideline, the side and rear yard setback shall be 10'-0" for each floor above the ground
floor when abutting an R -Zone. Additional
setbacks may be imposed as part of the Design Review Process.
*3 The minimum lot width for new lots in the GC, WC, TO, and EC zones is 50 feet.
*4 No portion of a building shall exceed 2 stories within 20 feet of an R -zoned let.
City of Temple City
Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Development Standards
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
3) Downtown Residential -Commercial District This district allows high density (R-
3) residential, senior housing, or allows a land use mix if parcels are combined with
parcels fronting Temple City Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive, The R-3 development
standards (18 dus/ac) apply to freestanding high density developments. The R -C
District is comprised of eight parcels having a total of 87,482 square feet. Therefore, 36
high density housing units can be built in the R -C District.
The R -C District contains existing uses such as low density housing, some multifamily
housing, and parking lots (30,100 square feet). The Specific Plan encourages and
facilitates the development of the high density housing by granting the following lot
consolidation/density bonus incentives:
Consolidation of 4-6 lots 15% density bonus
Add 1 story to maximum height
Consolidation of 7 or more lots 20% density bonus
Add 2 stories to maximum height
Other incentives such as vacation of alleys, reductions in processing fees, in lieu
fees, or utility connection fees. These incentives are granted through a
development agreement process.
The purpose and intent of this district is to allow development at the high-density
residential (R-3) level or to allow Senior Citizen Housing or, alternatively to allow lots
designated as RC to be combined with commercial properties with frontage on either
Temple City Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive. If any designated parcel is combined with a
parcel designated as TC or CC, the applicable criteria for the designated District shall
apply.
When any RC zoned property is developed as a freestanding development, the
applicable development standards for R-3 zoned properties shall apply. Likewise, if any
RC zoned property is being developed for Senior Citizen Housing, it shall be in
accordance with the standards set forth herein. When any RC zoned property is
combined for development with a property in the TC District or CC District, applicable
standards as set forth in those Districts shall apply. Any new development project in an
RC District shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
4) Senior Housing Located in the Downtown Specific Plan: The provision of senior
housing is encouraged throughout the Specific Plan area. However, senior citizen living
facilities are restricted from the first floor of the building, unless it is located in the EC
District of this Specific Plan. Senior Citizen living facilities may be up to four stories and
a maximum of 55 feet. A Conditional Use Permit required and density is determined
during the CUP process.
In order to encourage the provision of senior citizen housing within the Downtown
Specific Plan Area, the City may offer a density bonus incentive and other development
and zoning incentives, as follows:
Whenever at least fifty percent of the total dwelling units of a housing
development are made available for qualifying senior citizen residents as
B-18
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
defined by State law (Civic Code 51.2), a density bonus may be
approved.
In addition to the above, the City may offer at least one of the following regulatory
incentives to ensure that the project will be developed at an affordable cost for senior
citizens:
A reduction or modification of Code requirements which exceed the
minimum building standards approved by the State Building Standards
Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of
Division 123 of the Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to, a
reduction in the minimum setback and square footage requirements and
the ratio of off-street parking spaces that would otherwise be required.
Approval of mixed use development in conjunction with senior citizen
residential project if commercial or office use will reduce the cost of the
development and if the project will be compatible internally and with the
existing development in the area.
Other regulatory incentives proposed by the developer or the City which
results in identifiable cost reductions.
Currently, a request for a density bonus requires a Conditional Use Permit. However,
this requirement will be eliminated by the adoption of the City's new density bonus
ordinance. A request for regulatory incentives will require a CUP.
The key senior housing development standards include:
Density: The Specific Plan establishes no minimum or maximum density.
The density is determined through a CUP process, a process which
allows a developer to request a density bonus and additional regulatory
incentives.
Lower Income Group Set -Asides: In order to obtain a density bonus, the
development must set- aside a portion of the housing units for low income
households.
Heiaht Limits: The Specific Plan allows senior housing to be up to four
stories or a maximum height of 55 feet.
Housina Unit Size: The senior housing development standards require a
minimum of 650 square feet for a 1 -bedroom unit and 800 square feet for
a 2 -bedroom unit.
The Specific Plan area includes existing six established and distinct commercial districts.
As business has been lost to competing commercial areas throughout the City and
adjacent cities, there is a need to revitalize the Downtown. The Specific Plan facilitates
and encourages senior housing by the following incentives:
50% housing for qualifying Density Bonus
Senior residents as defined by Reduction of setback, square foot
B-19
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Civil Code 51.2 age and parking requirements
and the same lot consolidation
incentives as for high density
residential
Senior housing density, height limits, and incentives facilitate and encourage the
development of housing at a density of at least 40-45 housing units per acre.
5. Lot Consolidation Incentives in the Downtown Specific Plan Area: The presence
of small, underutilized lots and irregularly shaped lots has been identified as one of the
constraints affecting future development in portions of the Specific Plan Area. It is
desirable to encourage the consolidation of smaller lots into larger development sites in
order to achieve the scale and quality of development envisioned for the area.
In order to qualify for the lot consolidation incentive a project must meet the following
requirements:
A minimum of two existing lots must be combined under single
ownership, or a minimum of three lots may be combined under multiple
ownership if developed as a single integrated project with reciprocal
parking agreements.
In order to qualify for lot consolidation bonus, all lots combined must be
developed as part of a comprehensive planned project to be constructed
in a single phase.
Bonuses are not available in the City Center Commercial District where
the intent is to maintain a small scale of development and allow market
forces to dictate lot consolidation opportunities.
For commercial, office, and mixed use projects meeting the above requirements, the
following development bonuses may be available:
Number of Consolidated Lots
2 to 3 Lots
4 to 6 Lots
7 or More Lots
B-20
Incentive Bonuses
10% Reduction in parking
Add one story to maximum height
15% Reduction in parking
Add two stories to maximum height
15% Reduction in parking
Add three stories to maximum height
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
For multiple family residential projects meeting the above requirements, the following
development bonuses may be available:
Number of Consolidated Lots
4 to 6 Lots
7 or More Lots
Number of Consolidated Lots
15% increase in the number of
allowable units
Add one story to maximum height
10% increase in the number of
allowable units
Add two stories to maximum height
Through the development agreement process, the City may consider other loi
consolidation incentive bonuses such as vacation of alleys, reduction in processing fees,
in -lieu fees, or utility connection fees.
Senior Housino Overlav Zone
1) Description of the Overlay Zone: The purpose of the senior housing overlay zone
is to provide optional standards and incentives for the development of senior housing
which is restricted to residents 62 years of age or older and for married couples of which
one spouse is sixty 62 years of age or older. Whenever the senior citizen housing has
been added to an underlying zone in accordance with the procedures for a zone change,
the property may be developed in accordance with the senior housing overlay zone or
the underlying zone.
Senior citizen housing shall be permitted with a conditional use permit in all zones, with
the exception of the R-1 zone; senior citizen housing within the Downtown Specific Plan
area shall be governed by any special provisions of that specific plan, where applicable.
There are two types of senior housing:
Congregate Care: A senior citizen housing development having
common dining facility and not kitchen facilities in an individual unit.
Independent Living: A senior citizen housing development comprised of
independent self-contained dwelling units having one or more rooms with
private bath and kitchen facilities.
California Government Code Section 65008 (the "California Planning and Zoning Law")
prohibits, among other things, local governments from enacting or administering zoning
laws that would deny housing opportunities because of the "age of the individual or
group of individuals." The implication is housing could not be limited to seniors because
such housing would deny the enjoyment of a residence by non -seniors.
The City will ensure that its approval of new senior housing will abide by all applicable
fair housing laws, including:
Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995
California Unruh Ralph Civil Rights Act
B-21
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
California Office of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 04-704, October
20, 2004 ("a city may adopt a zoning ordinance that limits a specified
parcel of land to use as a mobilehome park for senior citizens")
In addition, before the City approves new senior housing, it will obtain the advice and
opinion of the Housing Rights Center (the City's fair housing services provider).
2) Development Standards: The development standards for senior housing are
briefly described below:
Density: determined at the time of public hearing for the zone change and
conditional use permit.
Density Bonus Units: permitted when a portion of the units are set-aside for
lower-income households. The new density bonus ordinance will establish
density bonus calculations and affordability terms based on the requirements of
SB 1818.
Housing Unit Sizes for Congregate Care Units: One bedroom units shall contain
not less than four hundred (400) square feet. Two (2) bedroom units shall contain
not less than five hundred fifty (550) square feet.
Housing Unit Sizes for Independent Living Senior Units: One bedroom units shall
contain not less than six hundred fifty (650) square feet. Two (2) bedroom units
shall contain not less than eight hundred (800) square feet.
Setbacks and Heights: Determined by the underlying zone.
Off Street Parking: The minimum amount of parking required for any senior
citizen housing development proposal shall be determined in conjunction with the
necessary zone change and conditional use permit. In determining the adequacy
of parking, consideration may be given to the location of the proposed project,
the age of the intended occupants and any other variables deemed pertinent by
the granting body.
Open Space: As described below:
Required Usable Landscaped Open Space: There shall be a minimum of three
hundred (300) square feet of landscaped open space per unit.
Private Open Space: All ground level units shall have a minimum of one hundred
(100) square feet of private open space consisting of a patio or deck. All
aboveground units shall have a minimum of seventy five (75) square feet of
balcony or deck space.
Common Open Space: A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the required usable
open space shall be devoted to common open space when the development
consists of four (4) or more units. Common open space shall be a minimum of
fifteen feet (15) in one direction and be physically separated from private open
space by a wall or hedge. A swimming pool or covered patio may be counted
toward meeting the common open space requirement. (1960 Code)
B-22
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The development standards facilitate and encourage senior housing for the following
reasons:
No maximum density is established. Instead a developer can propose a
residential density.
A density bonus is permitted above the units proposed by the developer in
exchange for a set-aside of lower income housing units.
Housing unit sizes are established at minimal square footage requirements.
Off-street requirements can be less than typically required because the age of
the intended occupants of the new housing.
g. Affordable Second Unit Housina
The City facilitates and encourages the development of affordable second units. The list
below describes the key second unit requirements:
The second unit may not be sold separately, but may be rented; however,
it must be continuously maintained as "affordable" housing for a period of
not less than 30 years from the date of first occupancy.
In order to ensure affordability, any second unit shall be occupied by low
or very low-income households. (Low income is defined at 50% of the
median income for the Los Angeles/Long Beach metropolitan area).
The maximum amount of rent which may be charged is 30% of the total
household income or thirty percent 30% of the income limit for low income
households whichever is less.
Every occupant of a second unit must be qualified for eligibility based
upon annual tax returns. The restrictions are set forth in a recorded
covenant or deed restriction.
It is incumbent upon the property owner to provide documentation on an
annual basis relative to eligibility and the owner shall agree to evict any
tenant, which does not meet the eligibility requirement.
h. Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Many cities encourage and facilitate the development of housing for low and moderate
income households by increased density, density bonuses and inclusionary housing.
The Housing Task Committee recommended to the Planning Commission and City
Council that they consider a zone with increased residential density, density bonuses
and an inclusionary housing policy or ordinance.
Pursuant to Program #1 in the Housing Element, the City Council plans to amend the
residential development standards in the Downtown Specific Plan as follows:
B-23
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
• Allowance for horizontal (side-by-side) commercial/residential mixed use with
ground floor residential in all districts, with the exception of parcels fronting on
Las Tunas Drive in the City Center (CC) Commercial District
• Establishment of 30 unit/acre residential densities for non -senior housing, with no
established density cap for senior housing
• Elimination of the conditional use permit
• Elimination of one acre minimum lot size requirement for mixed use
Housing Element Program #2 establishes the following zoning text amendments for R-3
parcels which do not abut R-1 properties:
• Establishment of 30 unit/acre residential density
• Establishment of building heights to 3 stories
• Allowance for reduced parking based on a parking study demonstrating reduced
parking demand resulting from transit accessibility or other factors
• Elimination of CUP requirement for projects with 3 or more units
• Lot consolidation incentives (described further under Program 3)
Program #11 in the Housing Element eliminates the current conditional use permit
requirement for multi -family housing — both in the Downtown Specific Plan and in R-2
and R-3 zones — and replaces with a non-discretoinary review process based on
compliance with existing code -based design guidelines.
In addition, the City will establish a density bonus ordinance consistent with the
Statewide requirements of SB 1818. The City will also create an inclusionary housing
policy to encourage the development of housing affordable to low and moderate income
households.
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamilv Housing Developments
The City has imposed no moratoria or prohibitions against multifamily housing
developments.
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
The City has no growth control policies or ordinances. Temple City is completely
surrounded by other incorporated cities and a small area of unincorporated Los Angeles
County. The cities adjacent to Temple City include Rosemead, EI Monte and Arcadia.
The City's Sphere of Influence is entirely urbanized.
3. Conclusions and Findings
The City's land use controls provide for housing at a variety of densities and facilitate
and encourage high density, mixed use and senior housing. In order to enhance housing
opportunities, the City's Housing Program includes actions to: amend the residential
development standards in the Downtown Specific Plan; adopt zoning text amendments
for non -R-1 adjacent R-3 parcels to provide for development at higher densities; provide
incentives for consolidation of multi -family parcels; and adopt a local density bonus
ordinance.
B-24
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
C. BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT
1. Guidelines
HCD guidance on this subject indicates that the analysis should:
Identify and analyze any local amendments to the State Housing Law or
Uniform Building Code, and the degree or type of enforcement. A strict
code enforcement program or a code amendment, which specifies
expensive materials and/or methods, can pose a significant constraint to
housing development or maintenance.
2. Analysis
a. State Housing Law
The State Legislature has given Division 13, Part 1.5, commencing with Section 17910,
in the Health and Safety Code the name "State Housing Law." The State Housing Law
charges HCD with the responsibility to adopt administrative regulations necessary to
carry out its provisions, and for proposing building standards to the California Building
Standards Commission (CBSC) for adoption with application to the construction of
hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartments, and dwellings. Additionally, the State
Housing Law mandates preemptive requirements applicable to such housing structures,
including substandard abatement proceedings for local government's enforcement.
The State Housing Law mandates statewide residential building standards for new
construction, which are found in the California Code of Regulations, (CCR), Title 24,
Parts 2 through 5, known as known as the California Building Standards Code.
b. Citv Buildinq Code
On January 15, 2008, the City Council adopted the "Building Code known and
designated as Title 26: Building Code of the Los Angeles County Code by adopting the
2007 California Building Code and portions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code." This
Code "shall be and shall become the Building Code of the City of Temple City, regulating
the erection, construction, enlargement, alternation, repair, moving, removal, demolition,
conversion, occupancy, use, height, area maintenance of all structures and certain
equipment therein specifically regulated and grading within the City of Temple City."
A city (or county) may make such changes or modifications in the requirements
contained in the California Building Standards Code if the city (or county) makes findings
that they are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or
topographical conditions. The Temple City exceptions include:
1. Section 7 of Los Angeles County ordinance 91-0086, relative to
subsection 304(f)(11-13) of title 26 of the Los Angeles County
code; no fee shall be charged for the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, including a temporary certificate of occupancy or
extensions of a temporary certificate of occupancy.
B-25
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
2. Section 8 of Los Angeles County ordinance 91-0086, relative to
subsection 304(j) of title 26 of the Los Angeles County code; no
investigation fee shall be charged when the building official has
determined that an owner/builder of a one- or two-family dwelling,
accessory building or accessory structure had no knowledge that
a permit was necessary and had not previously applied for a
permit.
3. Section 17 of Los Angeles County ordinance 91-0086, relative to
subsection 304.2 of title 26 of the Los Angeles County code; any
exemption of fees for affordable housing shall be contingent upon
city council approval of said exemption and approval of such
certified and subsidized housing development project. (1960
Code; amd. Ord. 91-702; Ord. 95-789; Ord. 99-836; Ord. 03-883)
The regulations governing residential use, maintenance and occupancy for existing
buildings are adopted into the California Code of Regulations. These regulations are not
considered building standards and are not adopted under the purview of the California
Building Standards Commission. The City has adopted the various provisions of the
State Housing Law, as set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 17910 et.
Seq. and the State Housing Law Regulations as set forth in Title 25 of the California
Code of Regulations.
C. Code Enforcement
According to Health and Safety Code Section 17920:
"Enforcement means diligent effort to secure compliance, including review
of plans and permit applications, response to complaints, citation of
violations, and other legal process."
enforcement may, but need not, include inspections of existing
buildings on which no complaint or permit application has been filed..."
California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 defines the conditions that constitute
a "substandard building." The substandard housing conditions include, but are not
limited, to:
Inadequate sanitation
Structural hazards
Defective wiring, plumbing and mechanical equipment
Faulty weather protection.
The City implements a housing Code enforcement program. Enforcement of these
codes has resulted in the repair of substandard housing and the demolition of
deteriorated housing. In some cases, those cited for code violations are referred to the
City's housing rehabilitation deferred loan and grant programs. The City's proactive
enforcement is not a constraint to the appropriate maintenance of the existing housing
stock.
B-26
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
3. Conclusions and Findings
The Los Angeles County Building Code, as noted, was adopted by reference with only
minor variations. The cost of new housing is not adversely impacted by the adopted
amendments. The City's codes are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare. The Codes, which are based on the State Housing
Law and uniform codes, are adopted by many cities throughout southern California and
do not pose a constraint to residential development.
D. ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Guidelines
HCD guidance indicates that the analysis should:
Identify and analyze street widths, curb, gutter, and sidewalk
requirements, water and sewer connections, and circulation improvement
requirements. Describe any generally applicable level of service
standards or mitigation thresholds.
2. Analysis
Pursuant to Title 9 (Zoning), Chapter 2 (Subdivision Regulations), Section 9503 new
housing development requires the following improvements:
No subdivision, lot split or other division of land shall be approved unless
the following improvements are constructed or required to be constructed
in order to service the lots being created:
An adequate water distribution system designed and constructed to
accommodate both domestic and fire flows, together with necessary fire
hydrants to serve each lot proposed to be created.
An adequate sewage system designed and constructed to serve each lot
being created.
An adequate storm water drainage system designed and constructed so
as to serve each of the lots proposed to be created.
An adequate public and/or private street and/or alley system designed
and constructed to serve each lot proposed to be created.
An adequate system designed and constructed so as to provide all
necessary utilities to each lot proposed to be created, including, but not
limited to, facilities for water, natural gas, electricity, telephone services.
Any and all other public improvements, necessary to provide all services
to each lot proposed to be created.
B-27
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Each tentative map shall be reviewed by the staff, the advisory agency and/or the city
council, and thereafter, steps shall be taken to ensure that all of the improvements
reasonably required to service all of the lots proposed to be created are specifically
required as conditions of approval on such tentative maps.
All development in the City is infill developments on existing (consolidated) lots that have
existing dwellings. Consequently, streets have already been constructed to the
maximum widths and there is existing curbs, gutter, sidewalks and other infrastructure
such as street lights.
Residential street standards are 60 feet of right of way from property line to property line.
This standard includes 36 feet for the street and two 12 foot right of ways for parking. All
residential streets are finished.
On-site streets are required for common driveways serving condominium developments.
The size and grade of each public sewer must be such as to provide at all times
sufficient capacity for peak flow rates of discharge. In order to establish estimates of
sanitary sewage at peak flow, the owner or developer of a building must submit plans of
intended construction to the City Engineer.
Water and sewer connections are required for new housing units. A new meter is
required for each housing unit.
Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are required. If there are no sidewalks fronting the
property, a sidewalk must be installed.
3. Conclusions and Findings
The improvement requirements described above have been applied to existing housing
as well as all residential developments under construction and approved for
development. The improvement requirements are not considered a constraint, as they
are necessary to provided adequate services and facilities to the future occupants of
new housing. The backbone system for the services and facilities exist because all new
development occurs on infill sites.
E. FEES AND EXACTIONS
Guidelines
HCD guidance on this subject indicates that the analysis should:
Identify and analyze permit, development and impact fees (e.g., park,
school, open space, parking district, etc.) in -lieu fees, land dedication
requirements (e.g., streets, public utility and other right-of-ways,
easements, parks, open spaces, etc.) and other exactions imposed on
developers. Describe any contribution or payment required as an
authorized precondition for receiving any type of development permit by
type of development (i.e., multifamily and single-family).
B-28
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
2. Analysis
a. Fee Categories
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Typical residential developments incur the following fees:
Building Plan Check
Building Permits
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Sewer Permits
Park Acquisition Fee
Sewer Reconstruction
Sanitation District
School District
The majority of the City is serviced by the Temple City School District. However, east of
Baldwin Avenue, within the City, the Arcadia and EI Monte school districts also service
the City. The school impact fees as of April 30, 2008 for the districts are as follows:
Temple City School District $2.63 per square foot
Arcadia School District $3.03 per square foot
EI Monte School District $2.63 per square foot
b. Fees for Tvpical Multi -Family Housinq
Table B-7 shows the total fees for a typical multi -family development in Temple City. The
total fees are almost $64,600. School and sanitation district fees are $20,951 or about
one-third of the fee total. The per unit fees are $16, 149. On a per unit basis, the fees
represent 2.4% of the cost/price of a multi -family housing unit. (Sales price of a new
1600 SF condominium was $675,000 in 2007.)
C. Fees for a Tvpical Single-Familv Housing
Table B-7 shows the total fees for a typical single family development in Temple City.
The total fees are almost $19,124 per unit. The school and sanitation district fees equal
more than one-half of the total fees. On a per unit basis, the fees represent 1.9% of the
cost/price of a single family housing unit. (Sales price of a new 3000 SF single family
home was about $1,000,000 in 2007.)
Table B-7
Fees for Multi -Family and Single -Family Housing
4844 Arden Drive Four (4) Detached Condominium
(8,052 square feet: 6,452 sf living space, 1,600 sf garage space)
Building Plan Check $5,285.14
Building Permits
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Sewer Permits
Park Acquisition Fee
Sewer Reconstruction
Sanitation District
School District
B-29
$8,206.28
$3,155.03
$2,000.00 ($500.00 Per Unit)
$25,000.00
$4,876.00
$16,074.56 ($2.63 Per Sq. ft)
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
5621 Golden West Avenue Single Family Dwelling
(3,132 square feet of living space and a 600 square foot garage)
Building Plan Check $3,377.22
Building Permit $4,046.10
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Sewer Permits
$1,240.11
Park Acquisition Fee
$500.00
Sanitation District
$1,750.00
School District
$8,210.86
b. Exactions
By definition, an exaction is a large capital improvement included in a project's approval
for development (e.g., land dedication for parks and schools, etc.). Temple City does
not require large-scale capital improvements to be constructed by project applicants.
Instead, the City's development impact fees are intended to finance construction of such
facilities.
3. Conclusions and Findings
The City fees for typical multi -family and single family housing represent a small
percentage of total development cost. Therefore, fees are not a constraint to the
development of new housing.
Since the City does not impose exactions, they are not a constraint to local
development. As explained earlier, residential projects must dedicate land for street and
alley widening when necessary.
PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
1. Guidelines
Identify and analyze the tvoes of permits. discretionary and standard
approval procedures, and processina time required for recent residential
projects, including all permits applicable to residential development. The
element should also identify and analyze any overlav zones (e.g.,
Community Plan Implementation Zones, Hillside Overlay Zones,
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, etc.). The element should identify and
analyze the permitted uses in each zone. For example, if the jurisdiction
requires a conditional use permit for multifamily housing zone, the
element should analyze this permit procedure as a constraint. Other
applicable regulations such as landscaping, design review policies,
planned districts should also be included. For this analysis, localities
should compare the permit and approvals process for a typical single-
family subdivision and a typical multifamily project. [emphasis added]
2. Analysis
a. Tvoes of Permits for Residential Land Uses by Zone District
B-30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table B-8 identifies 15 different housing types and the how they are addressed by five
different zones: R-1, R-2, R-3, Mixed Use and Senior Housing Overlay.
Table B-8 also identifies for each zone whether the housing types are:
Permitted
Not Permitted
Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit
No Specific Reference (meaning the Zoning Code does mention the use)
Multifamily housing is permitted in the R-2, R-3 and Mixed Use Zones. The Zoning Code
will be amended to provide for the following housing types: emergency shelters, single
room occupancy, transitional housing and supportive housing. These housing types are
described in Technical Appendix D, Part G. The Zoning Code also will be amended to
permit residential care facilities for six or fewer persons in all zones that permit single-
family housing.
b. Processing Time/ Fast Track Processing
A typical single family development requires Site Plan Review and Building Plan Check.
The former typically is completed in one to three weeks and the latter is completed in
four to six weeks.
A typical subdivision multi -family development requires a Site Plan Review, Tentative
Tract Map, Final Tract Map and Building Plan Check. The processing times are listed
below:
Site Plan Review
1-3 weeks
Tentative Map
2 to 6 months
Final Map
2 to 6 months
Building Plan Check
4 to 6 weeks
B-31
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table B-8
City of Temple City
Housing Types by Residential Zone and Permits Required
Residential Use
R-1
R-2
R-3
Zone
Mixed Use'
Senior Housingz
SF- Detached
P
P
P
NP
NP
SF -Attached
NP
NP
P
P
NP
2-3 DU
NP
P
P
P
NP
4+ DU
NP
CUP
CUP
CUP
CUP
Senior Housing
NP
CUP
CUP
CUP
ZC and CUP
Residential Care <6P
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
Residential Care >6P
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
Emergency Shelter
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Single -Room
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
Occupancy
Manufactured Homes
P
NP
NP
NP
NP
Mobilehomes
P
NP
NP
NP
NP
Transitional Housing
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
Supportive Housing
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
NSR
Farmworker Housing NSR NSR NSR NSR NSR
Second Units3 NP P P NP NP
P = Permitted NP = Not Permitted CUP = Conditional Use NSR = No Specific Reference
'MUZ is an overlay zone. The MUZ can be applied to sites where the General Plan designation is
commercial and where the minimum site size is one acre. Application for an MUZ requires a zone
change, precise plan of development and development agreement.
2Senior housing is an overlay zone. Senior housing is permitted in all zones except the R-1 zone
with a conditional use permit. Senior housing may be developed in accordance with the
development standards of the underlying zone (e.g., R-3) or the standards of the senior housing
overlay zone.
For rental multi -family developments, the Tentative and Final Map phases are not
required.
The processing time frames are well recognized by the development community. Most of
the residential developments in Temple City are processed by architects, engineers,
developers and builders that are very familiar with the City's standards and processing
procedures, requirements and timelines.
B-32
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
All timelines are minimal. For example, the processing timeline for multifamily housing
with fewer than three units is minimal as only a Site Plan Review and Building Plan
Check is required. (The Site Plan Review process is explained on the next page.) In
order to further reduce the Building Plan Check timelines, the City recently decided to
contract with a private firm rather than continue with the County of Los Angeles. The
supply of housing is not adversely impacted as these requirements do not consider the
use of the land. Rather, they involve the processing of a use permitted by the Zoning
Code.
In Temple City, the processing of a Site Plan or Tentative Map, for example, is on land
owned by the project applicant. In these cases, there is no holding costs and, therefore,
no adverse impacts on the ultimate cost of housing. The processing requirements and
timelines have only marginal impacts on the cost of housing and reducing the timelines
would not result in the production of housing affordable to lower income households.
The Zoning Code provides administrative relief and fast track processing of CUP and
variance applications. The Zoning Code establishes a "fast track modification committee"
consisting of the City Manager, City Attorney and Chairman of the Planning
Commission. Section 9152 of the Zoning Code states:
"When an application for a CUP or variance is filed pursuant to the
provisions of this code and fifty percent (50%) of the fee prescribed for
regular variances or CUPs has been paid, such application shall first be
presented to the FTMC together with the completed initial study and
environmental assessment...."
The Committee may decide to refer CUP and variance applications directly to the
Planning Commission when the Committee makes certain findings involving public
health, safety and welfare and the absence of environmental impacts. The referral to the
Planning Commission reduces processing time.
C. Site Plan Review Process
A site plan must include the following information:
The name, address and telephone number of the applicant, and of the
person which prepared the plan.
The street address and a brief legal description of the property involved,
and the names of the nearest streets which intersect the street or streets
on which the subject property is located.
The number of lots involved, if more than one, and the lot dimensions and
lot area.
The approximate size and location of all buildings and structures,
including off street parking facilities.
Open areas and landscaped areas
The proposed use or uses.
B-33
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Building elevations, front, side and rear.
Such other information the director deems necessary to meet the purpose
of this article.
This site plan information is typically required by southern California cities prior to the
issuance of a building permit in the case of new structure or certificate of occupancy
prior to completion of a renovation.
The site plan review is conducted by the Community Development Department and does
not require a public hearing before either the Planning Commission or City Council. The
site plan review process does not hinder the development of permitted or conditionally
permitted uses.
d. Conditional Use Permit Process
The City currently requires residential development with three or more units to have an
approved conditional use permit (CUP). Residential and mixed use development within
the Downtown Specific Plan is also subject to a CUP. In order to help and guide
applicants through this process, the City has published and makes available to
applicants a 2 -page brochure. This brochure explains the CUP as follows.
Conditional Use Permits are required for certain uses which typically have
distinctive site development or operating characteristics and require
special consideration so that they may be designed and operated
compatibly with the surrounding neighborhood. These uses are listed in
the Zoning Code as uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The
Conditional Use Permit process allows the Planning Commission to
review how the project will be developed and operated. In order to ensure
that the proposed use does not have a negative effect on surrounding
properties, the Planning Commission may impose conditions regulating
the operation of the use or physical site design.
The Zoning Code, however, does provides administrative relief and fast track processing
of CUP and variance applications. The Zoning Code establishes a "fast track
modification committee" consisting of the City Manager, City Attorney and Chairman of
the Planning Commission. Section 9152 of the Zoning Code states:
"When an application for a CUP or variance is filed pursuant to the
provisions of this code and fifty percent (50%) of the fee prescribed for
regular variances or CUPs has been paid, such application shall first be
presented to the FTMC together with the completed initial study and
environmental assessment...."
The Committee may decide to refer CUP and variance applications directly to the
Planning Commission when the Committee makes certain findings involving public
health, safety and welfare and the absence of environmental impacts. The referral to the
Planning Commission reduces processing time.
B-34
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
As measured by the significant level of residential development activity in Temple City,
the CUP requirement has not served as a significant constraint. Nonetheless, the added
$1,000 fee and processing time associated with the CUP does add cost and a degree of
uncertainty to development.
As a means of better facilitating housing, the City will implement a new administrative
review process for multi -family development focused on site and architectural review that
will be permitted "by right" rather than subject to a discretionary review process. In
administering the process, staff will apply the City's existing detailed multi -family design
guidelines, which are specified in the zoning code, to regulate development consistent
with the quality and character of the Temple City community. With design guidelines in
place, the City is in a position to replace the current multi -family CUP review and
approval process with a ministerial design and site review process to be conducted by
the Community Development Department's site plan review committee.
e. Desian Review Guidelines and Processina
1) Role of Design Review Process: The Zoning Code establishes design guidelines
for development in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones. The guidelines are intended to be
advisory rather than mandatory, and are to be applied by the Community Development
Department to the extent possible and reasonable. It is the intent that all new
construction and reconstruction shall comply with as many such guidelines as may be
amiably negotiated by the city staff with a property owner, builder or developer.
If a person complies with the goals and intent of such guidelines, even though a minor
portion of them cannot or will not be accommodated by the property owner, builder or
developer, then the guidelines shall be deemed satisfied and the requisite permits shall
be issued. If, on the other hand, a property owner, builder or developer cannot or will not
comply with a substantial portion of the goals established by said guidelines, then
permits may be denied by the Community Development Department. Any such denial
may be appealed to the Planning Commission via the procedures set forth in the site
plan review process. Any action of the Planning Commission may also be appealed to
the City Council via the procedure set forth in the site plan review process.
In evaluating an appeal, the Planning Commission or the City Council shall make a
determination based upon the following considerations: a) does the proposed project
substantially meet the overall intent, purpose and goals of the design guidelines, b)
would the proposed project adversely impact property values within the neighborhood, c)
could the proposed project adversely impact the peace, quiet and enjoyment of the area
and d) would the proposed project be so incompatible with the surrounding area that
noncompliance would result in anticipated adverse impacts, including possible adverse
aesthetic impacts.
2) Obiective Written Standards: The design guideline checklist includes the
following:
Site Planning
Landscaping
Building Design
Windows
B-35
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Roof Materials and Forms
Walls and Fences
Utilitarian Aspects
Applicants for residential development permits can easily determine what is required to
satisfy the City's design guidelines. The guidelines are, in fact, written standards that
are predominantly stated in quantitative terms so that compliance can be measured by
the applicant. For example, the design standards state the following:
The suggested size of trees and shrubs is stated.
Examples of how to achieve building design are stated.
Examples of architectural elements to add visual interest, scale and character
are provided.
Examples of how to attain window articulation are stated.
Examples of roof materials are stated. However, no specific materials are
mandated.
Examples of wall and fence materials are provided; no specific materials are
mandated.
3) Impact on Housing Affordabilitv: Landscaping, concrete, windows, roofs, garage
doors, walls, fences are all elements required to build a finished housing product. These
materials and elements are required of all housing regardless of whether the City has
design standards or not. The City's design guidelines/standards do not require specific
materials or products and therefore do not generate incremental costs above those
already required to build a finished home or apartment unit.
There is no negative impact on affordability because all new construction in Temple City
as well as other southern California cities exceeds the maximum housing costs
affordable to lower income households that are allowed by the provisions of the
California Community Redevelopment Law, Federal HOME Program, and Low Income
Housing Tax Credits. Having no design standards or guidelines does not reduce housing
production costs to a level affordable to lower income households.
Design review and site plan review are concurrent processes. Therefore, additional time
is not need to evaluate a project's consistency with the design guidelines and standards.
3. Conclusions and Findings
Compliance with the design guidelines is negotiated by the City staff with the property
owner, builder or developer. In addition, design review is accomplished concurrently with
the processing of other applications. As a result, design review is not considered a
constraint to the development of new housing.
F-30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
G. CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING FOR DISABLED PERSONS
Guidelines
HCD guidance indicates that the Housing Element should:
Analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development,
maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities
and demonstrate local efforts to remove any such constraints.
More specifically, HCD recommends an analysis -
To identify whether the locality has an established reasonable
accommodation procedure, review zoning laws, policies, and practices for
compliance with fair housing laws; evaluate permits and processing as
they affect applications from disabled persons; and review Building Code
amendments and practices that might diminish the ability to
accommodate persons with disabilities.
2. Analysis
a. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
HCD recommends the analysis -
Identify whether the locality has an established reasonable
accommodation procedure and describe how that procedure operates
with respect to zoning, permit processing, or building codes,
accommodating procedures for the approval of licensed residential care
facilities, Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) physical accessibility
efforts, and an evaluation of the zoning code for FHAA compliance.
The City has not adopted a formal procedure for a disabled applicant's request for a
reasonable accommodation. Generally, a request for reasonable accommodation may
include a modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the siting,
development and use of housing or housing- related facilities that would eliminate
regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of
their choice.
Attachment A (pg. 40) contains information on group homes, local zoning, and the
importance of adopting a "reasonable accommodation procedure:' Attachment B (pg.
43) provides additional information specific to a reasonable accommodation procedure.
The Federal Departments' of Justice (DOJ) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
as well as the 'California Attomey General all encourage cities to adopt a reasonable
accommodation procedure. For example, both DOJ and HUD state that -
"Local governments are encouraged to provide mechanisms for
requesting reasonable accommodations that operate promptly and
efficiently, without imposing significant costs or delays. The local
government should also make efforts to insure that the availability of such
mechanisms is well known within the community."*
B-37
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
"Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Group Homes, Local Land Use, and
the Fair Housing Act, August 18, 1999, page 4.
On May 15, 2001 the State Attorney General transmitted a letter to all local governments
advising the localities to consider adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure.
In that letter, the Attorney General stated:
"Both the federal Fair Housing Act ('FHA') and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ('FEHA') impose an affirmative duty on
local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e.,
modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use
regulations and practices when such accommodations 'may be necessary
to afford' disabled persons 'an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling."'
The City will adopt a specific reasonable accommodation procedure, as it would directly
respond to the issues discussed by DOJ, HUD and the State Attorney General Office.
b. Zoning and Land Use
HCD recommends -
A review of all zoning laws, policies and practices for compliance with fair
housing laws; broaden the definition of family, identify zones allowing
licensed residential care facilities including those zones where facilities
for seven or more persons are permitted, review siting or separation
requirements for licensed residential care facilities, and residential
parking requirements for persons with disabilities.
1) Definition of Family: In 1980, the California Supreme Court in the City of Santa
Barbara v. Adamson struck down a municipal ordinance that permitted any number of
related people to live in a house in a R1 zone, but limited the number of unrelated
people who were allowed to do so to five. A group home for individuals with disabilities
that functions like a family could be excluded from the R1 zone solely because the
residents are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.
Both State and Federal fair housing laws prohibit definitions of family that either
intentionally discriminate against people with disabilities or have the effect of excluding
such individuals from housing. Fair housing laws, for instance, prohibit definitions of
family that limit the development and siting of group homes for individuals with
disabilities (but not families similarly sized and situated). Such definitions are prohibited
because they could have the effective of denying housing opportunities to those who,
because of their disability, live in a group setting. The failure to modify the definition of
family or make an exception for group homes for people with disabilities may also
constitute a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.
B-38
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City's definition of family is:
"Persons, related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a
single housekeeping unit in an apartment or dwelling unit."Family" also
includes a group of persons, including not to exceed six (6) roomers
unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption, when living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit."
A definition of family, according to a recently completed study, should look to whether
the household functions as a cohesive unit instead of distinguishing between related and
unrelated persons. The definition of "family" should emphasize the functioning of
members as a cohesive household. Two examples are given below and on the next
page.
Example #1: One or more persons living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
Single housekeeping unit: One person or two or more individuals living
together sharing household responsibilities and activities including, for
example, sharing expenses, chores, eating evening meals together and
participating in recreational activities and having close social, economic
and psychological commitments to each other.
Dwelling unit: A group of two or more rooms, one of which is a kitchen,
designed for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes.
Example #2: Any group of individuals living together as the functional
equivalent of a family where the residents share living expenses and
chores, eat meals together and are a close group with social, economic
and psychological commitments to each other. A family includes, for
example, the residents of residential care facilities and group homes for
people with disabilities. A family does not include larger institutional
group living situations such as dormitories, fraternities, sororities,
monasteries or nunneries.
The City will revise the Zoning Code definition of family to be consistent with the letter
and spirit of fair housing laws. Concurrently, the City will examine the changes that may
be needed to the Zoning Code "dwelling" related definitions noted below:
DWELLING, SINGLE OR ONE -FAMILY: A building designed or used for
occupancy, as living quarters, by one family.
DWELLING UNIT: One or more rooms in a building or portion thereof,
designed for, and intended to be used, for occupancy by one family, for
living quarters. A single dwelling unit shall contain a maximum of one
kitchen or cooking facilities therefore, and all habitable rooms shall be
internally accessible from within the dwelling unit. A bedroom or private
space shall not be used as an accessway to one or more other rooms.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment C (page 46) provides several Zoning Code definitions including those
pertinent to the analysis of constraints on housing for disabled persons.
2) Zones Allowing Residential Care Facilities: Residential care facilities are not
specifically referenced as a permitted use in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones. Under
California state law, licensed facilities serving six persons or fewer receive special land
use protection. The Zoning Code does provide definitions of two facilities that are similar
to the uses that fall within the meaning of residential care facilities:
FAMILY HOME (Mentally III): A facility intended solely for the admission
of not more than six (6) mentally ill or emotionally disordered patients who
are provided with a program of services and protective supervision in a
home setting.
FAMILY HOME (Mentally Retarded): A facility intended solely for the
admission of one or more mentally retarded patients who are provided
with a program of services and protective supervision in a home setting.
California requires that many types of licensed facilities serving six persons or fewer be
treated for zoning purposes like single-family homes. Except in extraordinary cases in
which even a single-family home requires a conditional use permit, these laws bar
conditional use permits for facilities that serve six or fewer persons.
The land use protection applies to --
Intermediate care facilities for individuals who have developmental
disabilities (Health and Safety Code Section 1267.8)
Residential facilities for persons with disabilities and for abused children
(Health and Safety Code Section 1566.3, and Welfare and Institution
Code Section 5116)
Residential care facility for the elderly (Health and Safety Code Section
1569.87)
Alcoholism and drug treatment facilities (Health and Safety Code Section
11834.23)
Residential facilities for persons with chronic life threatening illness
(Health and Safety Code Section 1568.0831)'
"Law Offices of Goldfarb & Lipman, Between the Lines: A Question and
Answer Guide on Legal Issues in Supportive Housing, 1999, pg. 110.
Health and Safety Code Section 1566.3 states:
"No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance
shall be required of a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons
which is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same
zone."
[emphasis added]
B-40
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A residential facility
"...means any family home, group care facility, or similar facility for 24-
hour nonmedical care of persons in need of personal services,
supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily
living or for the protection of the individual.
Further:
family dwelling,' includes, but is not limited to, single-family dwellings,
units in multifamily dwellings, including units in duplexes and units in
apartment dwellings, mobilehomes, including mobilehomes located in
mobilehome parks, units in cooperatives, units in condominiums, units in
townhouses, and units in planned developments."
To achieve consistency with fair housing laws, the City will amend the Zoning Code with
respect to permitting residential care facilities for six or fewer persons in all zones that
permit single-family homes. As a part of the Zoning Code amendments, the City may
establish an all-inclusive term such as "licensed group homes' to identify the scope of
residential care facilities to be permitted unconditionally. Attachment D (pg. 52) provides
a sample licensed group home definition.
In addition, State law requires that residential care facilities not be defined within the
meaning of boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors,
the aged, or the mentally infirm, foster care home, guest home, rest home, sanitarium,
mental hygiene home, or other similar term which implies that a residential facility is a
business run for profit. The City's Zoning Code has definitions for four related terms:
CONVALESCENT HOME: The same as the definition of Nursing and
Convalescent Hospital.
HOME FOR THE AGED: Any building or portion thereof, other than a
hospital or a rest home, used and maintained to provide living
accommodations, including board, room, or care, for ambulatory aged
persons.
NURSING AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL: Any place or institution
which provides bed accommodations for one or more chronic or
convalescent patients, who, by reason of illness or physical infirmity, are
unable to properly care for themselves. Alcoholics, drug addicts, persons
with mental or communicable diseases, including contagious tuberculosis,
shall not be admitted or cared for in nursing and convalescent hospitals.
REST HOME: The same as the definition of Nursing and Convalescent
Hospital.
The City, therefore, does not include residential care facilities within meaning of the
above terms.
B-41
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
3) Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons: State law -- as the
summary below explains -- allows cities to require a conditional use permit for residential
care facilities for seven or more persons.
"Because California law only protects facilities serving six or fewer
residents, many cities and counties restrict the location of facilities
housing seven or more clients. They may do this by requiring use
permits, adopting special parking and other standards for these homes, or
prohibiting these large facilities outright in certain zoning districts. While
this practice may raise fair housing issues, no published California
decision prohibits the practice, and analyses of recent State legislation
appear to assume that localities can restrict facilities with seven or more
clients. Some cases in other federal circuits have found that requiring a
conditional use permit for large group homes violates the federal Fair
Housing Act. However, the federal Ninth Circuit, whose decisions are
binding in California, found that requiring a conditional use permit for a
building atypical in size and bulk for a single-family residence does not
violate the Fair Housing Act.* [emphasis added]
(*Barbara Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP, Select California Laws Relating
to Residential Recovery Facilities and Group Homes, pg. 3, (presented at
the Residential Recovery Facilities Conference, Newport Beach, March 2,
2007)
However, the City would adhere to the DOJ and HUD interpretation of the Fair Housing
Act. In this regard, the two Departments state that
"...because persons with disabilities are entitled to request reasonable
accommodations in rules and policies, the group home for seven persons
with disabilities would have to be given the opportunity to seek an
exception or waiver."
The reasonable accommodation procedure — to be developed and adopted as part of the
Housing Program — will make explicit that facilities housing seven or more disabled
persons may seek an exception or waiver from the Zoning Code standards. Residential
care facilities serving seven or more non -disabled persons will be required to have an
approved Conditional Use Permit.
4) Siting or Separation Requirements for Licensed Residential Care Facilities: The
City's Zoning Code does not establish siting or separation requirements for the facilities.
Over concentration of certain care homes in a neighborhood is regulated by the State for
licensed facilities. Except for foster homes and elderly care, licenses issued by the
California Department of Social Services (CDSS) must be a minimum of 300 feet away
from any other licensed home (as measured from the outside walls of the house —
Health and Safety Code Section 1520.5) If a home is less than the 300 feet, an
exemption must be granted by the city, otherwise the license in denied. This 300 -foot
separation restriction does not apply to licenses issued by the State Department of
Alcohol and Drugs for rehabilitation homes.
B-42
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
CDSS must submit any application for a facility covered by the law to the city where the
facility will be located. The city may request that the license be denied based on the
over concentration of an existing facility (or within 1,000 feet of a congregate living
health facility) unless the city approves the application. Even if there is adequate
separation between the facilities, a city or county may ask that the license be denied
based on over concentration.
These separation requirements apply only to facilities with the same type of license. For
instance, a community care facility would not violate the separation requirements even if
located next to a drug and alcohol treatment facility.
The City complies with fair housing laws as they relate to spacing and separation
requirements. The City has not adopted a standard different from or more stringent than
the one the State applies. Moreover, the DOJ and HUD acknowledge that
neighborhoods as well as the disabled may suffer if licensed residential care facilities are
over concentrated. The DOJ and HUD offer the following guidance;
"...if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes, that
could adversely affect individuals with disabilities and would be
inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons with disabilities into
the community. Especially in the licensing and regulatory process, it is
appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a group home. A
consideration of over -concentration could be considered in this context.
This objective does not, however, justify requiring separations which have
the effect of foreclosing group homes from locating in entire
neighborhoods."
('Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Group Homes, Local Land Use, and
the Fair Housing Act, August 18, 1999, page 4.)
5) Parking Requirements for Persons with Disabilities: The City's parking standards
are established for different uses, not in terms of the occupants of the use. For instance,
the City does not have parking standards for single- or multi -family housing occupied by
disabled or elderly persons.
The City, however, recognizes that disabled persons who occupy licensed residential
care facilities generate a parking need different from non -disabled persons. For
instance, developmentally disabled persons may not have licenses to drive a car. The
"reasonable accommodation procedure" will include an opportunity for disabled persons
(or their representatives) to request a reduction and/or waiver of parking requirements.
C. Permits and Processina
According to HCD -
Issues to evaluate include the process for requesting retrofit for
accessibility, ensuring compliance with all State laws regulating permit
requirement of licensed residential care facilities with fewer than six
persons in single-family zones, and identification of any conditions or use
B-43
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
restrictions for licensed residential care facilities with greater than 6
persons or group homes that will be providing services on-site.
1) Requesting Retrofit for Accessibility: Non-structural retrofits within buildings like
adding grab bars, replacing doorknobs with single -lever doorknobs, and exchanging
toilets do not require building permits, or City approvals. Structural retrofits like widening
doorways or constructing ramps requires a building permit. These requirements are the
same for single- and multi -family housing. Tenants residing in apartments must first
obtain permission from the owner and/or property manager to make the retrofits.
2) Ensuring Compliance with all State Laws Regulating Requirements for Licensed
Residential Care Facilities: As explained earlier, the City will complete Zoning Code
amendments in order to ensure compliance with all State laws that regulate licensed
residential care facilities.
3) Conditions or Use Restrictions for Licensed Residential Care Facilities with
Greater than 6 persons or Group Homes that will be Providing Services On -Site: The
City's Zoning Code does not specify residential care facilities as a permitted or
conditionally permitted use in any of the residential zones. The Zoning Code will be
amended to define this use and include it as a conditionally permitted use in one or more
zones. Group homes serving seven or more persons fall within the meaning of
transitional and supportive housing and the Zoning Code will be amended to include
these uses as a residential use of property.
d. Building Codes
HCD recommends the analysis -
The year of the Uniform Building Code adoption and any amendments
that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities,
identification of adopted universal design elements in the building code,
the provision of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in
the enforcement of building codes and the issuance of building permits.
1) Building Code Adoption and Amendments: The City has adopted the 2007
California Building Code (CBC) with three amendments. The amendments do not impact
the development of housing for disabled persons.
2) Universal Design Elements: Although the City has not adopted a "universal
design ordinance" this is not deemed a constraint on existing or new housing for
disabled persons. The City understands that universal design aims to serve all people of
all ages, sizes, and abilities and is applied to all buildings. For instance, a universal
design feature is any component of a house that can be used by everyone regardless of
his or her level of ability or disability. A feature, for instance, such as no steps at
entrances. Or single -lever water controls at all plumbing fixtures and faucets.
California law, section 17959.6 of the Health and Safety Code, requires a builder of new
for -sale residential units to provide buyers with a list of specific `universal design
features' which make a home safer and easier to use for persons who are aging or frail,
or who have certain temporary or permanent activity limitations or disabilities. A
developer is not required to provide the listed features during construction or at any
B-44
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
other time, unless the developer has offered to provide a feature and the buyer has
requested to and agrees to provide payment.
AB 2787 (2002) mandated HCD to develop one or more model ordinances for voluntary
local government adoption that would establish universal design building standards
without a significant impact on housing cost or affordability. After meetings with various
stakeholders representing the interests of persons with disabilities, seniors, the building
industry, and assistive technology, HCD developed a pair of draft ordinances.
On October 31, 2005, HCD certified and made available the "Model Universal Design
Local Ordinance." HCD indicated that the Ordinance might be adopted voluntarily in
substantially the same form by any city or county pursuant to Section 17959.
Attachment E (page 53) is a Summary of the Voluntary Model Universal Design
Ordinance (AB 2787).
The City's enforcement of the Uniform Building Code does not create an impediment to
fair housing choice. However, the City may explore the application of universal design
features in both existing and new housing.
3) Building Code Reasonable Accommodations: The City, as described earlier,
does not have a reasonable accommodation procedure with respect to modifications of
zoning development standards. A procedure will be prepared and adopted for building
code modifications as well as ones pertaining to zoning.
3. Conclusions and Findings
The City will amend the Zoning Code to ensure that its rules, policies, and standards are
consistent with fair housing laws. The City, as previously explained, will develop a
reasonable accommodation procedure that encompasses both zoning and building
standards. Guidance for developing the procedure will be obtained from disabled
persons and advocacy groups. Once adopted, the reasonable accommodation
procedure will be explained on the City's website and prominently displayed at the
Community Development Department counter.
In addition, the City will amend the Zoning Code to ensure that residential care facilities
are permitted in all zones that permit single-family homes.
H. CONSTRAINTS ON MEETING THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL
HOUSING NEED
1. Guidelines
The Housing Element Law requires the City to identify and remove any governmental
constraints that hinder meeting the community's share of the regional housing need.
Moreover, in regulating subdivisions, Government Code Section 65913.2 provides --
that a local government may not impose design criteria for the purpose of
rendering an affordable housing development infeasible. A community
may not impose standards and criteria for public improvements (e.g.
streets, sewers, schools, or parks) that exceed those imposed on other
developments in similar zones. Additionally, the effect of a community's
B-45
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
ordinances and actions on accommodating the housing needs of the
region must be considered.
2. Analysis
987 housing units have been allocated to the City as its share of the regional housing
need (Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment). The Sites Inventory and Analysis
(Technical Appendix D) documents the availability of sites for future development and
the adequacy of these sites to address Temple City's regional housing needs. The City
plans to fulfill its regional housing needs using a combination of the following methods:
• Housing units built or issued permits during the planning period;
• Residential development within the Downtown Specific Plan;
• Underutilized sites zoned for residential use; and
• Residential second units.
As previously discussed, the Housing Element establishes programs to provide for
increased densities in the Downtown Specific Plan and in R-3 zones not adjacent to R-1
neighborhoods.
In addition, the City will enact land use affordability incentives, including a density bonus
ordinance, an inclusionary housing policy and second unit development incentives.
3. Conclusions and Findings
Local governmental constraints that would prevent the City from meeting its share of the
regional housing need will be ameliorated by Housing Element programs.
B-46
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment A
Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the Fair Housing Act
August 18, 1999
The DOJ and HUD in August 1999 issued a Joint Statement pertaining to several issues
on housing for the disabled. Group homes and local procedures to consider requests for
reasonable accommodations were among the issues addressed in the Joint Statement.
Below is a summary of the Joint Statement.
"...the term `group home' refers to housing occupied by groups of
unrelated individuals with disabilities. Sometimes, but not always,
housing is provided by organizations that also offer services for
individuals with disabilities living in the group home. Sometimes it is this
group home operator, rather than the individuals who live in the home,
that interacts with local government in seeking permits and making
requests for reasonable accommodations on behalf of those individuals.
"The term 'group home' is also sometimes applied to any group of
unrelated persons who live together in a dwelling — such as a group of
students who voluntarily agree to share the rent on a house. The Act
does not generally affect the ability of local governments to regulate
housing of this kind, as long as they do not discriminate against residents
on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, handicap
(disability) or familial status (families with minor children).
"The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap.
"Handicap" has the same legal meaning as the term "disability." Persons
with disabilities (handicaps) are individuals with physical or mental
impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The
term physical or mental impairment may include conditions such as
blindness, hearing impairment, mobility impairment, HIV infection, mental
retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, chronic fatigue, learning disability,
head injury, and mental illness. The term major life activity may include
seeing, hearing, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for
oneself, learning, speaking, or working.
"Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons
with disabilities less favorably than similar groups of unrelated persons
without disabilities violate the Fair Housing Act. For example, suppose a
city's zoning ordinance defines "family" to include up to six unrelated
persons living together as a household unit, and gives such a group of
unrelated persons the right to live in any zoning district without special
permission. If that ordinance also disallows a group home for six or fewer
people with disabilities in a certain district or requires this home to seek a
use permit, such requirements would conflict with the Fair Housing Act.
The ordinance treats persons with disabilities worse than persons without
disabilities."
B-47
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
"A local government may generally restrict the ability of groups of
unrelated persons to live together as long as the restrictions are imposed
on all such groups. Thus, in the case where a family is defined to include
up to six unrelated people, an ordinance would not, on its face, violate the
Act if a group home of seven unrelated people with disabilities was not
allowed to locate in single-family zoned neighborhood, because a group
of seven unrelated people without disabilities would also not be allowed."
"As a general rule, the Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful to refuse to
make `reasonable accommodations' (modifications or exceptions) to
rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may
be necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to
use or enjoy a dwelling.
"Even though a zoning ordinance imposes on group homes the same
restrictions it imposes on other groups of unrelated people, a local
government may be required, in individual cases and when requested to
do so, to grant a reasonable accommodation to a group home for persons
with disabilities. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to
waive a setback required so that a paved path of travel can be provided
to residents who have mobility impairments. A similar waiver might not
be required for a different type of group home where residents do not
have difficulty negotiating steps and do not need a setback in order to
have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
"Where a local zoning scheme specifies procedures for seeking a
departure from the general rule, courts have decided, and the Department
of Justice and HUD agree, that these procedures must ordinarily be
followed. If no procedure is specified, persons with disabilities may,
nevertheless, request a reasonable accommodation in some other way,
and a local government is obligated to grant it if it meets the criteria
discussed above. A local government's failure to respond to a request for
reasonable accommodation or an inordinate delay in responding could
also violate the Act.
"Whether a procedure for requesting accommodations is provided or not,
if local government officials have previously made statements or
otherwise indicated that an application would not receive fair
consideration, or if the procedure itself is discriminatory, then the
individuals with disabilities living in a group home (and/or operator) might
be able to go to court to request an order for an accommodation.
"Local governments are encouraged to provide mechanisms for
requesting reasonable accommodations that operate promptly and
efficiently, without imposing significant costs or delays. The local
government should also make efforts to insure that the availability of such
mechanisms is well known within the community."*
(*Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Group Homes, Local Land Use, and
the Fair Housing Act, August 18, 1999, pages 2, 3 and 4.)
_ZIE
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment B
Background Material — Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
State of California Guidance -- Office of the Attorney General
On May 15, 2001 the State Attorney General transmitted a letter to all local governments
advising the localities to consider adoption of a reasonable accommodation procedure.
In that letter, the Attorney General stated:
"Both the federal Fair Housing Act ('FHA') and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ('FEHA') impose an affirmative duty on
local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e.,
modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use
regulations and practices when such accommodations 'may be necessary
to afford' disabled persons 'an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling."'
Many jurisdictions currently handle requests for relief from the zoning ordinance through
variance or conditional use permits. The Attorney General also remarked that:
"...the criteria for determining whether to grant a variance or conditional
use permit typically differ from those which govern the determination
whether a requested accommodation is reasonable within the meaning of
fair housing laws.
"Thus, municipalities relying upon these alternative procedures have
found themselves in the position of having refused to approve a project as
a result of considerations which, while sufficient to justify the refusal
under the criteria applicable to grant of a variance or conditional use
permit, were insufficient to justify the denial when judged in light of the fair
housing laws' reasonable accommodations mandate."
The Attorney General also stated that the variance and conditional use permit
procedures — with their different governing criteria — serve to encourage community
opposition to projects housing the disabled. The Attorney General then wrote:
"Yet this is the very type of opposition that, for example, the typical
conditional use permit procedure, with its general health, safety and
welfare standard, would seem rather predictably to invite, whereas a
procedure conducted pursuant to the more focused criteria applicable to
the reasonable accommodation determination would not."
Definitions of Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
One city has defined the purpose of this procedure as:
"Codification of a formal procedure for persons with disabilities seeking
equal access to housing to request reasonable accommodation in the
application of the City's land use regulations, and establishment of
relevant criteria to be used when considering such requests to ensure
B-49
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
prompt, fair and efficient handling of such requests in accordance with the
fair housing laws' reasonable accommodation mandate."
Another city has defined this procedure as follows:
"It is the purpose of this chapter, in compliance with the Fair Housing
Laws, to provide a procedure to evaluate requests for reasonable
accommodation related to specific applications of the zoning law in order
to assure that no person is discriminated against because of race, color,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability,
national origin, source of income, or ancestry by being denied an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and to authorize the application of
exceptions to the zoning law if warranted"
Factors Considered In Evaluating a Request for a Reasonable Accommodation
A request for a fair housing reasonable accommodation considers the following factors:
Is the housing, which is the subject of the request for reasonable
accommodation, to be used by an individual protected under fair housing
laws?
Is the request for reasonable accommodation necessary to make specific
housing available to an individual protected under fair housing laws?
Will the requested accommodation impose an undue financial or
administrative burden on the jurisdiction?
Will the requested accommodation require a fundamental alteration in the
zoning code?
If the applicant establishes protection under the law and that the requested
accommodation is necessary, then the accommodation must be provided unless a city
can present evidence that doing so would either create an undue burden or result in a
fundamental alteration of the code. Many requests for accommodation involve a
modification or waiver of a regulation or procedure. This accommodation would be a
request for non -enforcement of a rule and, therefore, not create an undue burden.
In addition to not imposing an undue financial or administrative burden, a reasonable
accommodation must also not result in the "fundamental alteration" in the nature of a
zoning program. In the land use and zoning context, "fundamental alteration in the
nature of the program" means an alteration so far reaching that it would change the
essential zoning scheme of a municipality. In most instances, granting a request to
modify or waive a zoning policy or procedure does not result in a fundamental alteration
in the nature of a program.
B-50
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 8 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment C
City of Temple City
Zoning Code Definitions
APARTMENT: The same as the definition of Dwelling, Multiple.
BUILDING, ACCESSORY: A single story detached building not to exceed fifteen feet
(15') in height, housing a permitted accessory use, located on the same lot as the main
building or principal use. Provided, that if the same is attached to a main building by a
cornmon wall or roof, it shall be deemed to be a part of such main building.
BUILDING, MAIN: A building in which is conducted a principal use permitted upon the lot
upon which it is situated. In a residential zone a dwelling shall be deemed to be a main
building.
BUILDING OR STRUCTURE HEIGHT: The vertical distance from the average finished
grade of the lot to the highest point of the building or structure.
CARPORT: A permanently roofed structure with not more than two (2) enclosed sides,
used or intended to be used for automobile shelter and storage.
CONVALESCENT HOME: The same as the definition of Nursing and Convalescent
Hospital.
DETACHED LIVING QUARTERS: The same as the definition of Guesthouse.
DUPLEX: The same as the definition of Dwelling, Two -Family.
DWELLING, MULTIPLE: The same as building designed or used for occupancy, as
living quarters, by two (2) or more families on the same lot and containing one dwelling
unit for each such family.
DWELLING, NEW: Any residential structure which is to be newly constructed or
voluntarily demolished and reconstructed. A remodel or house addition shall be
considered a new dwelling if either of the two (2) following conditions exist:
A. The proposed project involves voluntary demolition of fifty percent (50%) or more
of the existing square footage of the structure including any attached garage; and/or
B. The proposed new construction wou
footage of the dwelling. (For purposes
construction projects within any 24 month
construction project.)
d more than double the existing square
of administering this definition, multiple
period of time shall be considered a single
Any reconstruction or rebuilding or repair of any nonconforming building or structure
which was damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or any other
casualty shall not be considered a new dwelling as defined herein and shall be
governed by the provisions of section 9274 of this chapter.
B-51
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
DWELLING, SINGLE OR ONE -FAMILY: A building designed or used for occupancy, as
living quarters, one family.
DWELLING, THREE-FAMILY: A building designed or used for occupancy, as living
quarters, by three (3) families and containing three (3) dwelling units.
DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A building designed or used for occupancy, as living
quarters, by two (2) families and containing two (2) dwelling units.
DWELLING UNIT: One or more rooms in a building or portion thereof, designed for, and
intended to be used, for occupancy by one family, for living quarters. A single dwelling
unit shall contain a maximum of one kitchen or cooking facilities therefore, and all
habitable rooms shall be internally accessible from within the dwelling unit. A bedroom or
private space shall not be used as an accessway to one or more other rooms.
FAMILY: Persons, related by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single
housekeeping unit in an apartment or dwelling unit. "Family" also includes a group of
persons, including not to exceed six (6) roomers unrelated by blood, marriage or
adoption, when living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
FAMILY HOME (Mentally III): A facility intended solely for the admission of not more than
six (6) mentally ill or emotionally disordered patients who are provided with a program of
services and protective supervision in a home setting.
FAMILY HOME (Mentally Retarded): A facility intended solely for the admission of one
or more mentally retarded patients who are provided with a program of services and
protective supervision in a home setting.
FLOOR AREA, GROSS: The total horizontal area of all the floors of a building included
within the surrounding walls, exclusive of vents, shafts, courts and off street parking
facilities.
FLOOR AREA RATIO: The total gross floor area included within the surrounding exterior
walls of a building(s) or portion thereof divided by the gross area of the lot, prior to any
required dedications. In calculating floor area ratio (FAR), the exterior walls shall be
counted as gross square footage. The floor area shall be counted twice for any portion of
the dwelling where the distance between the floor and the ceiling directly above exceeds
twelve feet (12') or in instances where the height of a single story structure or single
story portion of a two-story structure exceeds eighteen feet (18'). In the R-1 zone the
floor area ratio limitations shall apply only to the total living area of any two-story
dwelling or single story dwelling in excess of eighteen feet (18') in height; floor area
limitations shall not apply to attached or detached garages or single story accessory
buildings not intended for human habitation. In the R-2 and R-3 zones, floor area ratio
limitations shall apply to all structures on a lot including enclosed garages and accessory
buildings.
GARAGE: Any building, with three (3) enclosed sides, having not less than two hundred
(200) square feet of floor area, provided with a closable access door or doors, which is
used or intended to be used for automobile shelter or storage.
B-52
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
HOME FOR THE AGED: Any building or portion thereof, other than a hospital or a rest
home, used and maintained to provide living accommodations, including board, room, or
care, for ambulatory aged persons.
LOT, AREA: The total area, measured in a horizontal plan, included within the lot lines of
a lot. Any portion of a lot area which is within a designated flood control easement shall
not be considered as usable lot area for purposes of determining or calculating permitted
density, lot coverage, floor area ratio, etc.
LOT, CORNER: A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) or more streets and
highways.
LOT, DEPTH: The horizontal distance measured between the midpoints of the front and
rear lot lines.
LOT, INTERIOR: A lot other than a corner or reversed corner lot
LOT LINE, FRONT: A line separating an interior lot from a street; in the case of a corner
lot, the lot line separating the narrowest street frontage of the lot from the street; in the
case of a lot having no street frontage, the same shall mean the narrowest lot line
parallel and closest to the nearest street or highway, as determined by the director.
LOT LINE, REAR: A lot line which is most distant from the front lot line.
LOT LINE, SIDE: Any lot boundary line which is not a front or rear lot line.
LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND: A. A parcel of real property which is shown as a lot in a
subdivision recorded pursuant to the provisions of the subdivision map act; or
B. A parcel of real property, the dimensions and boundaries of which are defined by
a recorded record or survey map; or
C. A parcel of real property shown on a parcel map, recorded pursuant to the
provisions of the subdivision map act; or
D. A parcel of real property lawfully created and dimensioned in accordance with city
ordinances prior to January 1, 1967.
The minimum frontage upon a public street or highway for R-1 zoned lots shall be
sixty feet (60') except for cul-de-sacs and knuckles, in which cases the minimum
frontage may be reduced to thirty five feet (35') provided the average lot width is sixty
feet (60').
Exception: R-1 zoned lots in existence on the effective date of this chapter (May 5,
1988) may be subdivided subject to the following restrictions:
1. No existing lot shall be subdivided into more than two (2) lots.
2. Each subdivision shall be subject to the approval of a parcel map.
B-53
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
3. The original existing lot to be subdivided shall have a street frontage of at least
seventy feet (70') but less than one hundred feet (100'), and
4. Each such subdivision shall be limited to the creation of no more than one flag
lot, with a minimum street frontage of fifteen feet (16), and
5. A minimum of seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet of lot area shall
be provided per newly created lot, exclusive of any "pole" portion of a flag lot.
6. No such "flag lot" subdivision shall be created on Halifax Road between Daines
Drive and Live Oak Avenue, legally described as lots #1-12, block A, lots #1-8,
block B and portion of lots #9-11, block B of tract no. 11695, Los Angeles County
recorder map book 215-23-24 and a portion of lot 32 of E.J. Baldwin's addition #1
to Santa Anita Colony, Los Angeles County recorder's miscellaneous records 52-
60, as shown on exhibit A.
7. No "flag lot" created after September 15, 1989, under the provisions of this
section shall be improved with any structure which exceeds twenty feet (20') in
height.
LOT, REVERSED CORNER: A corner lot, the side lot line of which is substantially a
continuation of the front line of a lot which adjoins the rear lot line of said corner lot.
LOT, THROUGH: A lot, having frontage on two (2) approximately parallel streets or
highways.
LOT, WIDTH: The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured between two
(2) points each located on the side lot lines at a distance midway between the front and
rear lot lines.
MOBILEHOME: See definitions of Modular Home and Trailer Coach.
MODULAR HOME: Factory constructed, single-family, one story detached dwellings,
certified under the national mobilehome construction and safety standards act of 1974,
with approved sticker attached, and placed on full, county engineer approved foundation
and permanently anchored thereto.
NURSERY (Mentally Retarded): A facility intended primarily for the admission of
nonambulatory mentally retarded patients, who are provided nursing services primarily in
crib accommodations.
NURSING AND CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL: Any place or institution which provides
bed accommodations for one or more chronic or convalescent patients, who, by reason
of illness or physical infirmity, are unable to properly care for themselves. Alcoholics,
drug addicts, persons with mental or communicable diseases, including contagious
tuberculosis, shall not be admitted or cared for in nursing and convalescent hospitals.
RESIDENCE, SINGLE-FAMILY: A structure containing one dwelling unit. "Residence,
single-family" shall also include a modular home manufactured and certified under the
B-54
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
national mobilehome construction and safety standard act of 1974 on a permanent
foundation system approved by the county engineer.
RESIDENT FACILITY (Mentally Retarded): An institution of one bed capacity or more
intended solely for the admission of mentally retarded patients who require supervision
and who are provided with an organized program of services.
RESIDENT SCHOOL (Mentally Retarded): A facility intended primarily for the training
and education of mentally retarded persons.
REST HOME: The same as the definition of Nursing and Convalescent Hospital.
SECOND UNIT: An attached or detached residential dwelling unit, which provides
complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the
single-family dwelling is situated.
STORY: That portion of a building including between the upper surface of any floor and
the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that
portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the
ceiling or roof above. "Story" includes a basement.
TRIPLEX: The same as the definition of Dwelling, Three -Family.
UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The construction, maintenance and operation of any
combination of two (2) or more permitted uses, buildings and structures, based on a
comprehensive and complete design or plan treating the entire complex of land,
buildings, structures and uses as a single project.
YARD: An area upon a lot or parcel of land, other than a court or open space, required
as a front, side or rear yard, which shall be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed
from the ground upward; provided that encroachment shall be permitted in yards only as
expressly authorized by this chapter.
YARD, FRONT: A yard extending across the full width of the front of a lot. The depth of a
required front yard shall be a specified horizontal distance measured between the front
lot line and a parallel thereto, on the lot.
YARD, REAR: A yard extending across the full width of the rear of a lot. The depth of a
required rear yard shall be a specified horizontal distance measured between the rear lot
line and a line parallel thereto on the lot.
YARD, SIDE: A yard extending from the rear line of the required front yard, or the front
lot line where no front yard is required, to the front line of the required rear yard, or the
rear lot line where no rear yard is required. The width of a required side yard shall be a
specified horizontal measured distance between each side lot line and a line parallel
thereto on the lot.
B-55
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment D
Sample Group Home Definition
Group care home. A residential care facility licensed or supervised by any federal,
state, or local agency, which provides housing and nonmedical care for children, elderly
persons, or physically and mentally handicapped persons in a family -like environment.
Group care homes include the following:
(a) An intermediate care facility, developmentally disabled habilitative and
intermediate care facility/developmentally disabled -nursing or a congregate living facility
as identified in state of California Health and Safety Code section 1267.8;
(b) A community care facility as identified in state of California Health and Safety
Code section 1566.3;
(c) A residential care facility for the elderly as identified in state of California Health
and Safety Code section 1569.85;
(d) An alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility as identified in state of
California Health and Safety Code section 11834.02;
(e) A home for the care of mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons as
identified in state of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 5116;
(f) A home for the care of dependent and neglected children as identified in the
state of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, but not including wards of
the court as identified in the state of California Welfare and Institutions Code section
601 ff.
Group care home does not include homeless shelters, half -way houses for parolees or
convicted persons, or living groups as defined in this chapter.
B-56
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment E
Summary of Voluntary Model Universal Design Ordinance
(AB 2787)
Assembly Bill 2787 (Chapter 726 of Statutes of 2002) adopted Section 17959 of the
Health & Safety Code. This law required HCD to develop and certify one or more model
universal design ordinances applicable to new construction and alterations for voluntary
adoption by local governments.
The Department's model ordinance identifies rooms and denotes features which must be
offered by a builder in residential units subject to the ordinance that are being newly -
constructed or substantially rehabilitated but only installed if requested by the
buyer/owner and which would not cause an unreasonable delay or significant un -
reimbursable costs to the developer or builder. In general, the model ordinance provides:
Definitions for critical terms
Local option as to types of units (owner -occupied and/or rental), and number of units
Specific exemptions and enforcement mechanisms
Examples of rooms and areas for which it is mandatory to offer certain design features:
Accessible path of travel to dwelling
32" wide interior doors
Handrail and handrail reinforcement in hallways
Entry door high/low peephole viewer
Doorbell at 48" maximum height in accessible location (36")
Switches and outlets at 15" to 48" above the floor
Rocker light switches
Closet rods and shelves adjustable from T to 5-6" high
Up to 42" wide hallway
Bathrooms/Powder Room
At least one bathroom or powder room on the primary entry level
Grab bars and grab bar backing in walls
30" X 48" clear space at fixtures
Lavatory with lever faucet controls
Removable base cabinets or open lavatory with knee space and protection panel
Clear space for a 48" to 60" diameter circle
Accessible bathtub or roll -in shower
Hand-held adjustable showerhead
Kitchen on the primary entry level
Accessible route to the kitchen
30" X 48" clear space at appliances
Removable base cabinets at sink
30" X 48" clear space at sink
Lever controls at kitchen sink faucet
Switches and outlets at 15" to 48" above the floor
18" counter or breadboard for clear work area
B-57
Technical Appendix C
Non -Governmental Constraints
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Appendix C
Non Governmental Constraints
A — Introduction and Summary ......................................................
.......................... C-1
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................
C-1
2. Summary............................................................................................................................
C-1
(A) Affordable Housing Costs .................. ..................................................
........ - ... .......... . C-1
(B) Availability of Financing...............................................................................................
C-2
(C) Price of Land................................................................................................................
C-3
(D) Cost of Construction....................................................................................................
C-3
B —Availability of Financing.....................................................................................
C-4
1. Guidelines.. ........................................................................................................................
C-4
2. Analysis..............................................................................................................................
C-4
(A) Loan Denial Rates.......................................................................................................
C-4
(B) Interest Rates—............................................................................................................
C-9
3. Conclusions and Findings ........................................... —....................................................
C-13
C— Land Costs., .............. ........................................................ _ ..................... C-13
Guidelines....... ........... ...... —.......... ...................................... ___ .... —... — ....... ...... ____ ....... C-13
2. Analysis ....................................... .......... ................................................. .... —..................... C-13
3. Conclusions and Findings .................................... —... ..... ................................................... C-14
D — Construction Costs ..................... ........ ...................................................... C-14
1. Guidelines .... ........................ -.......... ....................... .................. ............................ ............. C-14
2. Analysis.............................................................................................................................. C-14
(A) Components of Construction Costs............................................................................. C-14
(B) Constructions Cost Estimates...................................................................................... C-15
(C) Construction Cost Estimate for a Single -Family Home ............................................... C-16
(D) Construction Cost Impact of State Laws -Prevailing Wage and Fish & Game Fees.... C-16
3. Conclusions and Findings ................................................. .......... -................ ..................... C-17
E — Housing Costs — Sales Prices and Apartment Rents.............................0-17
1. Sales Prices ....................... ......................................................... ..._............. ................... ..0-17
(A) Calendar Year 2006 and 2007 Sales Prices ...................... ...... -.... ........ - ...... .............. C-17
(B) 2007 Sales Prices ............. .....-................................................ ......... ............ .........—... C-17
(C) 2008 Sales Prices........................................................................................................ C-19
(D) Conclusions and Findings............................................................................................ C-19
2. Monthly Rents and Vacancy Rates ............................... -............ ....................................... C-20
List of Tables
C-1 Affordable Gross Monthly Rents by Income Group and Number of Bedrooms
.................................................................................................... C-2
C-2 Affordable Gross Monthly Housing Costs for Ownership Housing by Income
Group and Number of Bedrooms............................................................ C-2
C-3 Conventional and Home Improvement Loan Denial Rates 2006 ............. C-6
C-4 Conventional Loan Denial Rates by Census Tract and Percent Minority and
Low/Mod Populations 2006..................................................................... C-7
C-5 Los Angeles County: Reasons for Conventional and Home Improvement Loan
Application Denials 2006......................................................................... C-9
C-6 Average Mortgage Rates Weekly Survey of 60 Southland Lenders as of July
302008 ................................................................................................... C-10
C-7 California Housing Finance Agency Interest Rate Schedule Effective August 8
2008................................................................................................... C-12
C-8 Inventory of Land Costs per Residential Zone, Per Housing Unit and Per
Square Foot May 2008............................................................................ C-14
C-9 2006 and 2007 Median Sales Prices ....................................................... C-17
C-10 2007 Home Sales................................................................................... C-18
C-11 Summary of New and Existing Home Sales ............................................ C-19
C-12 2008 Home Sales................................................................................... C-20
C-13 Monthly Rental Costs 2007..................................................................... C-21
C-14 2008 Section 8 Fair Market Rents........................................................... C-21
C-15 Apartment Vacancy Rates March 2008 ................................................... C-22
List of Exhibits
C-1 Census Tract Boundaries........................................................................ C-8
Attachment A:
2007 Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Cost Worksheet ............................ ........... ..0-23
Affordable Housing Costs for Owner -Occupied Housing Units ......................................... C-23
2. Affordable Housing Costs for Renter -Occupied Housing Units... .... — ............................... C-24
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Introduction
For purposes of providing guidance to cities, HCD has offered the following advice:
Although nongovernmental constraints are primarily market driven and generally
outside direct government control, localities can significantly influence and offset
the negative impact of nongovernmental constraints through responsive
programs and policies. Analyzing specific housing cost components including
the cost of land, construction costs, and the availability of financing assists the
locality in developing and implementing housing and land -use programs that
respond to existing local or regional conditions. While the price of new housing
depends on some factors beyond a locality's control, local governments can
create essential site preconditions (favorable zoning and development standards,
fast track permit processing, etc.) that encourage and facilitate development of a
variety of housing types and prices.
Per State law, the non-governmental factors that must be analyzed are:
Availability of financing
Price of land
Cost of construction
In addition, the analysis includes the cost of existing and new housing and apartment rents.
2. Summary
Affordable Housing Costs
Land, construction and financing costs each contribute to establishing the minimum costs to
produce housing.
Financing costs have been at historic lows for several years and are still at low levels compared
to the interest rates prevailing in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
In Temple City, as well as other southern California cities, land costs alone and construction
costs alone can exceed the housing costs "affordable" to lower income households. What this
means is that the private housing market cannot produce new rental or ownership housing
within the means of lower income households.
Basically, the dollar amount that can be expended on housing is far below what it takes to
produce new housing. Economists refer to this fact as "ineffective demand" — a demand too
weak to make new housing production feasible for certain income groups.
State and Federal laws define "lower" income and stipulate the monthly costs that are
"affordable" for this income group. "Affordable" housing costs for lower income households are
constrained by four factors:
Household income ceilings (which vary by household size)
Gross monthly housing costs (as set forth by State and Federal housing programs)
C-1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Expenses subtracted from the gross monthly housing costs
Net monthly income available for contract rent or a loan payment
Tables C-1 and C-2 indicate the gross monthly costs affordable to renter and owners in the
extremely low, very low, and lower income groups by bedroom size.
Table C-1
Los Angeles County
Affordable Gross Monthly Rents
By Income Group and Number of Bedrooms
Table C-2
Los Angeles County
Affordable Gross Monthly Housing Costs for Ownership Housing
By Income Group and Number of Bedrooms
Number of Bedrooms
Income Group 0 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low $297 $339 $382 $424 $458 $491
Very Low $495 $565 $636 $706 $763 $819
Lower $693 $791 $891 $989 $1,068 $1,146
Note: Where necessary gross housing costs are rounded. The gross housing costs for renters and
owners are the same except for the "lower" income group. Affordable housing costs are calculated
at 60% of Area Median Income for renters and 70% for owners.
Source: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, 2007 Los Angeles County Affordable Housing
Worksheet.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Attachment A explains how the affordable housing costs are computed and the payments and
expenses subtracted from the gross monthly affordable housing costs. After these expenses
and payments are deducted, the net monthly affordable costs equal about 60% to 70% of the
gross costs.
b. Availability of Financing
Financing has been readily available until early 2007. Because of the large number of southern
California owners defaulting on subprime loans and the number of foreclosed homes, financing
is not as available as it was prior to these two events. The number of approved loans also has
dropped as mortgage loan standards have tightened, including the unavailability of 100%
C-2
Number of Bedrooms
Income Group
0
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely Low
$297
$339
$382
$424
$458
$491
Very Low
$495
$565
$636
$706
$763
$819
Lower
$594
$678
$764 $848
$915
$983
Note: Where necessary gross monthly
rents are rounded.
Source: Stradling
Yocca Carlson
& Rauth,
2007 Los Angeles County
Affordable
Housing
Worksheet.
Table construction
by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-2
Los Angeles County
Affordable Gross Monthly Housing Costs for Ownership Housing
By Income Group and Number of Bedrooms
Number of Bedrooms
Income Group 0 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low $297 $339 $382 $424 $458 $491
Very Low $495 $565 $636 $706 $763 $819
Lower $693 $791 $891 $989 $1,068 $1,146
Note: Where necessary gross housing costs are rounded. The gross housing costs for renters and
owners are the same except for the "lower" income group. Affordable housing costs are calculated
at 60% of Area Median Income for renters and 70% for owners.
Source: Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, 2007 Los Angeles County Affordable Housing
Worksheet.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Attachment A explains how the affordable housing costs are computed and the payments and
expenses subtracted from the gross monthly affordable housing costs. After these expenses
and payments are deducted, the net monthly affordable costs equal about 60% to 70% of the
gross costs.
b. Availability of Financing
Financing has been readily available until early 2007. Because of the large number of southern
California owners defaulting on subprime loans and the number of foreclosed homes, financing
is not as available as it was prior to these two events. The number of approved loans also has
dropped as mortgage loan standards have tightened, including the unavailability of 100%
C-2
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
financing, the need for larger down payments, and a requirement for a solid credit history
including high FICO scores.
As a result, the loan denial rates reported on Tables D-3 and D-4 should be interpreted with
some caution. In part, the denial rates reflect periods of both easy credit approvals and
financing and the start of more stringent standards in mid -2006. In fact, some might argue that -
- given the subprime loan debacle and its aftermath -- loan denial rates should have been
higher.
For borrowers with a solid credit history, savings to pay a 20% down payment and good income,
financing is still available at reasonable interest rates. Fixed rate, 30 -year loans are available for
interest rates around 6.0%.
C. Price of Land
Vacant land really means vacant lots that are considerably less than an acre in size. One
recently sold R-3 lot had the lowest per unit cost of $153,333.
In Temple City, however, the land costs alone exceed the housing costs affordable to lower
income households. In the single-family home market, land costs actually reflect the value of the
land and the existing home. These existing homes often are purchased, demolished, and a new
and larger home is constructed on the lot. The land + home costs are typically in the
neighborhood of $500,000.
d. Cost of Construction
The cost of construction varies considerably due to several factors including the quality of
construction. Utilizing the per square foot construction costs above for a standard wood frame
dwelling unit a 1,600 square foot, three bedroom home with an attached two car garage would
cost $233,448 to build. The amount is calculated as follows:
1,600 Square Feet X $134.40 = $215,040
400 Square Foot Two Car Garage X $46.02 $18,408
Total $233,448
This amount, however, does not include costs for off-site construction (grading, storm drains,
sewers, curbs and gutters and utilities). Nor does it include any city or county developer impact
fees (school fees, road fees, connection fees, building fees). In addition, it does not include any
allowance for developer expenses such as sales and marketing, overhead or profit.
Consequently, the cost of construction often — if not always — exceeds the total housing costs
affordable by lower income households.
C-3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
B. AVAILBILITY OF FINANCING
Guidelines
HCD guidance on this nongovernmental factor states:
This analysis could indicate whether mortgage deficient areas or underserved
groups exist in the community.
A lack of, or limited access to, take out (new construction, rehabilitation, and/or
permanent (mortgage) financing could be addressed through responsive housing
finance programs such as mortgage revenue bonding, a mortgage credit
certificate program, use of tax credits, first time homebuyer and down payment
assistance programs, and/or targeted low-interest CDBG or HOME rehabilitation
loans.
(The italicized text is guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development in Housing Element Questions and Answers, October
2006, pg. 35.)
2. Analysis
a. Loan Denial Rates (HMDA Data)
HCD has advised cities that an understanding of the geographic areas and or groups without
sufficient access to credit will help localities to design programs to address known deficiencies.
The information that helps most to understand the geographic areas served by credit is the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act or HMDA data.
HMDA requires lenders to disclose the number, amount, and census tract location of mortgage
and home improvement loan applications. The HMDA data encompasses lender activity for
conventional, FHA, home improvement loans and refinancing loans. The data identifies five
types of action taken on a loan application: loan originated, application -approved by the lender
and not accepted by the applicant, application withdrawn, file closed for incompleteness and
application denied.
The 2006 denial rates were computed using HMDA data based on the applications that went
completely through the underwriting process because a denial could not be made on withdrawn
or incomplete applications. Therefore, the denial rate is based on the number of loans denied
as a percentage of loans originated + applications approved but not accepted + applications
denied.
1) Conventional Loan Applications: The number of conventional loan applications was 969
in 2006. About 20% of all conventional loan applications were denied in 2006. The lowest
denial rates occurred in Census Tract 4321.01 (9.21%). The highest denial rate was in Census
Tract 4319.00 (26.88%). Refer to Table C-3.
29 Home Improvement Loan Applications: Usually, home improvement loan applicants
experience the highest loan denial rates. In Temple City, there are few home improvement loan
applicants compared to conventional loan applications. In 2006, there were 214 home
improvement loan applications and 34.58% were denied. Census Tract 4318.00 had the lowest
C-4
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
denial rate — 14.29%. Census Tract 4319.00 had the highest denial rate — 68.75%.
Occasionally, it is helpful to focus housing rehabilitation programs in neighborhoods with high
denial rates. The City may consider focusing efforts and/or having lenders refer denied
aklicants to the City's programs. Refer to Table C-3.
3) Census Tract Denial Rates and Minority and Low income Populations: Table C-4
provides indicators of whether census tracts with higher percentages of minority and low income
populations also have higher conventional loan denial rates. Census Tract 4812.01 has the
highest percent minority and percent low/mod income populations. This census tract, though,
ranks eight lowest among the nine census tracts with a conventional loan denial rate of 14.49%
Census Tract 4801.00 has the second highest percent minority, yet ranks seventh lowest in
terms of a conventional loan denial rate.
Only Census Tract 4800.12 has a correlation between high percent minority, high percent
low/mod income and a high denial rate. This Census Tract ranks third highest in percent
minority, second highest in percent low/mod income and second highest in the conventional
loan denial rate. However, only about one-fifth of the area of this tract is located within the
boundaries of the City of Temple City.
It is important to note that census tract location refers to location of the property for which a loan
application is being made. From the above analysis, the denial rates do not seem to be related
to the minority and/or low income characteristics of the nine census tracts. Exhibit C-1 shows
the census tract boundaries (page C-8).
C-5
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-3
City of Temple City
Conventional and Home Improvement Loan Denial Rates - 2006
4315.00 4318.00 4319.00 4320.00 4321.01
Percent Minority' 60% 57% 59% 56% 64%
Percent Low/Moderate Income 38.0% 32.9% 33.4% 29.6% 31.4%
Home Purchase Loans
Conventional
Loans Originated
Application Approved, Not Accepted
Application Denied
Total Applications
Percent Denied
Home Improvement Loans
Loans Originated
1 Application Approved, Not Accepted
1 Application Denied
1 Total Applications
Percent Denied
1 Total Applications
1 Percent Denied
Percent Minority'
Percent Low/Moderate Income
Home Purchase Loans
Conventional
Loans Originated
Application Approved, Not Accepted
Application Denied
Total Applications
Percent Denied
Home Improvement Loans
Loans Originated
Application Approved, Not Accepted
Application Denied
Total Applications
Percent Denied
1
114 114 47 96 66
33 20 21 27 3
42 38 25 31 7
189 172 93 154 761
22.22% 22.09% 1 26.88% 20.13% 9.21% 1
I
28 15 5 16 11 1
5 3 0 4 2
19 3 11 7 15 1
52 21 16 27 28
36.54% 14.29% 68.75% 25.93% 53.57%
241 193 109 181 1041
25.31% 21.24% 33.03% 20.99% 21.15% 1
City
4321.02 4800.12 4801.01 4812.01 Total
1 64% 65% 67% 72% 1
1 28.7% 39.4% 29.1% 45.4% 1
I
I
67 34 41 451 6241
11 9 12 14 150
17 15 10 10 195
95 58 63 69 969)
1 17.89% 25.86% 15.87% 14.49% 20.12% 1
I
18 11 12 8 124 1
0 1 1 0 161
8 3 5 3 741
26 15 18 11 214 1
30,77% 20.00% 27.78% 27.27% 1 34.58%
1 Total Applications 1 121 73 81 80 1,183 1
1 Percent Denied 1 20.66% 24.66% 18.52% 16.25% 22.74% 1
Percent Minority is from 2000 Census Data as provided from the HMDA data
z Percent Low/Moderate Income from 2006 data provided by HUD
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C-6
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-4
City of Temple City
Conventional Loan Denial Rates by Census Tract
and Percent Minority and Low/Mod Populations — 2006
Denial
Census
2006
Rank
Tract
% Minority
% Low/Mod
% Denied
Order
4812.01
72%
45.4%
14.49%
8
4801.01
67%
29.1%
15.87%
7
4800.12
65%
39.4%
25.86%
2
4321.01
64%
31.4%
9.21%
9
4321.02
64%
28.7%
17.89%
6
4315.00
60%
38.0%
22.20%
3
4319.00
59%
33.4%
26.88%
1
4318.00
57%
32.9%
22.09%
4
4320.00
56%
29.6%
20.13%
5
Source: Table C-3.
9 Percent Minority is from 2000 Census Data as provided from the HMDA
data
2 Percent Low/Moderate Income from 2006 data provided by HUD
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C-7
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Exhibit C-1
City of Temple City
Census Tract Boundaries
C-8
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
4) Reasons for Conventional Loan Denials: Data on "reasons" is available only for the
entire Los Angeles County area. Table C-5 shows the nine reasons for a loan denial.
Unfortunately, the largest category is "other." For the known reasons, "unverifiable information"
and "credit history" are the two highest reasons a lender gives for denying a conventional loan
application. Down payment assistance programs may be of help to applicants who are denied
because of "debt -to -income ratios," "lack of collateral," and "insufficient cash." It seems unlikely
that a city can develop programs to overcome the other denial reasons.
5) Reasons for Home Improvement Loan Denials: Table C-5 also shows the nine reasons
for a home improvement loan denial. For the known reasons, "credit history" and "debt -to -
income" ratio are the two highest reasons a lender gives for denying a home improvement loan
application. The City's housing rehabilitation program can assist some of these denied
applicants through grants and deferred loans. These grants and deferred loans would not
increase an applicant's debt -to -income ratio. In addition, the City can be somewhat more lenient
than a private lender insofar as past credit history.
Table C-5
Los Angeles County: Reasons for
Conventional and Home Improvement
Loan Application Denials -- 2006
Reason for Denial Conventional Home
Improvement
Debt -to -Income Ratio
10.4%
18.5%
Employment History
1.7%
1.0%
Credit History
16.3%
30.2%
Collateral
10.1%
10.4%
Insufficient Cash
3.9%
1.5%
Unverifiable Information
19.5%
5.0%
Credit App. Incomplete
10.6%
7.4%
Mortgage Insurance Denied
0.0%
0.2%
Other
27.5%
25.8%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
Total Denials
57,599
16,088
Source: Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council,
"Aggregate Table 8-2: Reasons for Denial of Applications for
Conventional Home -Purchase Loans, 1 to 4 Family and Manufactured
Home Dwellings, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Income of Applicant,
2006."
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, "Aggregate Table 8-
4: Reasons for Denial of Applications for Home Improvement Loans, 1 to
4 Family and Manufactured Home Dwellings, by Race, Ethnicity, Gender
and Income of Applicant, 2006."
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
b. Interest Rates
1) Market Interest Rates: For a sustained period, market mortgage interest rates have been
either very reasonable or at historic lows. Table C-6 shows interest rates for two points in time.
According to a weekly survey of 30 southland lenders, as of July 30, 2008, the average
C-9
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
mortgage interest rates on all loans have increased during the past six months. The one
exception is CalVet 30 -year loans. For loans up to $417,000, a 30 -year fixed rate loan is
available at an interest of 6.09%, a rate that is very reasonable compared to historic rates.
However, for adjustable rate loans, the interest rates for conforming and "jumbo" loan amounts
have increased from 6.60% to 7.33% in the past six months.
Table C-6
Average Mortgage Rates
Weekly Survey of 60 Southland Lenders -- As of July 30, 2008
Source: Compiled by National Financial News Service, Weekly
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-6 also shows the average points. Points is a term used by the lending industry to refer
to the loan origination fee. One point is equal to 1% of the loan amount.
It should be noted that not all would be homebuyers would qualify for the lowest interest rates
available. The most favorable interest rates are available to loan applicants who have good
FICO credit scores.
(FICO refers to Fair Issac Corporation, a firm that developed the mathematical formulas used to
produce FICO scores. A FICO score is a snapshot of an applicant's credit risk; the higher the
score, the lower the risk to lenders. Five main kinds of information are used to compute the
FICO score: payment history, amount owed, length of credit history, new credit, and types of
credit in use.)
The City has no direct influence on mitigating the effect of interest rates on reducing housing
affordability. If first time homebuyer programs were feasible, the City could provide down
payment assistance at a zero interest rate deferred until the home is sold. The City provides
home improvement financing at no cost through grants and deferred home rehabilitation loans.
2) Below Market Interest Rates: With respect to below market interest rates, the California
Housing Finance Agency (CaIHFA) assists low and moderate -income homebuyers in the
realization of their goal of homeownership. CaIHFA offers below market interest rate 30 -year
fixed loans to first-time homebuyers who meet the income and sales price limits for the County
in which they wish to purchase. Borrowers are to contact an approved CaIHFA lender for
complete program details.
C-10
Last Week
Six Months Prior
Rates for loans up to $417,000
30 -year fixed
6.09%/1.28 pt.
5.65%/1.24 pt.
30 -year ARM start rate
4.93%/0.78 pt.
4,41%/0.74 pt.
15 -year fixed
5.76%/1.17 pt.
5.21%/1.31 pt.
Rates for loans of $417, 001
to $729.750
30 -year fixed
7.33%/1.68 pt.
6.60%/1.23 pt.
30 -year ARM start rate
5.12%/1.05 pt.
4.99%/0.94 pt.
15 -year fixed
5.76%/1.61 pt.
6.18%/1.24 pt.
FHA or VA Mortgage
6.81%/1.54 pt.
6.54%/1.99 pt.
CALVET 30 -year
6.10%/0.00 pt.
6.10%/0.00pt.
Source: Compiled by National Financial News Service, Weekly
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-6 also shows the average points. Points is a term used by the lending industry to refer
to the loan origination fee. One point is equal to 1% of the loan amount.
It should be noted that not all would be homebuyers would qualify for the lowest interest rates
available. The most favorable interest rates are available to loan applicants who have good
FICO credit scores.
(FICO refers to Fair Issac Corporation, a firm that developed the mathematical formulas used to
produce FICO scores. A FICO score is a snapshot of an applicant's credit risk; the higher the
score, the lower the risk to lenders. Five main kinds of information are used to compute the
FICO score: payment history, amount owed, length of credit history, new credit, and types of
credit in use.)
The City has no direct influence on mitigating the effect of interest rates on reducing housing
affordability. If first time homebuyer programs were feasible, the City could provide down
payment assistance at a zero interest rate deferred until the home is sold. The City provides
home improvement financing at no cost through grants and deferred home rehabilitation loans.
2) Below Market Interest Rates: With respect to below market interest rates, the California
Housing Finance Agency (CaIHFA) assists low and moderate -income homebuyers in the
realization of their goal of homeownership. CaIHFA offers below market interest rate 30 -year
fixed loans to first-time homebuyers who meet the income and sales price limits for the County
in which they wish to purchase. Borrowers are to contact an approved CaIHFA lender for
complete program details.
C-10
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-7 on the next page lists the various interest rates established by CaIHFA. For low-
income households, interest rates can be as low as 3.00% for a fixed rate, 30 -year loan. The
maximum homeownership income limits are:
Low Income
Moderate Income
& 2 persons
Existing
New
Resale
Construction
$54,576
$63,672
$90,960
$90,960
3+ persons
Existing
New
Resale
Construction
$62,762
$73,223,
$106,120
$106,1201
As of August 2008, the CaIHFA maximum sales price limit that applies to Temple City is
$729,750 for existing resale and new construction units.
Over the past 12 months, loan underwriting guidelines have generally become stricter — larger
downpayments and higher FICO scores. The CaIFHA loan underwriting guidelines, however, do
not require 20% down payments and a FICO score at the 700 level. Quoted below are CaIFHA
underwriting guidelines for credit scores, debt -to -income ratios and mortgage insurance.
Minimum Credit Scores
Whether a loan is manually or AUS underwritten, conventional loans with a Loan -to -Value (LTV)
greater than 95% will require borrowers to have a minimum representative credit score of 680.
Loans with an LTV equal to or less than 95% will require a minimum representative credit score
of 620. A representative credit score for a single borrower is the middle credit score, or for
multiple borrowers it is the lowest middle of their three individual scores. If no score is available,
alternative documentation may be used only on loans with an LTV of 95% or less that
demonstrate credit worthiness.
Debt Ratio Limits
Maximum debt -to -income ratio (DTI) should not exceed 45% on manually underwritten loans, or
55% on AUS underwritten loans regardless of the AUS finding. Interest only loans are qualified
in accordance with Fannie Mae requirements. For example, qualifying debt -to -income ratio
uses a principal, interest, tax, and insurance (PITT) payment calculated assuming full
amortization over the total period of the loan and does not utilize the interest -only monthly
payment.
Exceptions are possible with strong compensating factors on a case-by-case basis on
underwritten loans submitted for review by CaIHFA.
Mortoaoe Insurance
CaIFHA Mortgage Insurance provides credit underwriting on all CaIFHA conventional loans and
mortgage insurance coverage on all CaIFHA conventional loans with a loan -to -value (LTV) ratio
greater than 80%. Mortgage insurance services automatically include HomeOpeners, a
mortgage protection program that makes up to six monthly payments if the borrower becomes
involuntarily unemployed, is receiving California Employment Development Department
benefits, and is seeking reemployment.
C-11
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-7
California Housing Finance Agency
Interest Rate Schedule
Effective August 8, 2008
First Mortgage Fixed Rate Loan Programs Interest
Rate'
Interest only PLUS'" (35 -Year Fixed Mortgage) loans of $450,000 or less 7.000% �
Interest only PLUS` (35 -Year Fixed Mortgage) loans of $450,000 or more 7.375% �
40 -Year Fixed Mortgage 7.000%
Self -Help Builder Assistance Program (SHBAP)'— Low Income Only 3.250%
30 -Year Fixed Mortgage
Moderate Income
6.750%
Low Income'
6.250%
Nonprofits & Affordable Housing Partnership Program (AHPP) — Low Income Only
6.250%
Extra Credit Teacher Program (ECTP)
6.250%
HomeChoice Program
4.000%
Self -Help Builder Assistance Program (SHBAP)3
3.000%
Down Payment Assistance Programs
Term matches term of first mortgage
High Cost Area Home Purchase Assistance Program (HiCAP)"
7.000%
CalHFA Housing Assistance Program (CHAP)
7.000%
California Homebuver s Downpavment Assistance Program (CHDAP)
3.250%
Extra Credit Teach Program (ECTP)
5.250%
' The interest rates are those in effect on the date shown. The down payment assistance loan interest
rates are calculated as simple interest per annum. However, all of the rates shown are subject to change
without notice. CaIHFA does not lend money directly to consumers. CaIHFA works through and uses
approved private lenders to qualify consumers and to make all mortgage loans. The fees consumers pay
could be different depending on the lender and the program.
2 Lenders who obtain a reduced interest rate reservation for low-income applicants who are subsequently
determined to have an annual income that exceeds the low-income limit will be offered the interest rate
for moderate -income families, assuming they meet CalHFA's moderate -income limits.
3Rates quoted for Nonprofit and/or SHBAP developers are offered only through the BLOCK Program.
Nonprofit and/or SHBAP developers may use 180 -day locks; however, the interest rate will be set at the
rate available at the time of lock.
'Eligible counties for the HiCAP program are Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles (except
Palmdale/Lancaster areas), Marin, Monterey, Napa, Orange, San Benito, San Francisco, San Luis
Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solaro, Sonoma, and Ventura Counties.
C-12
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Conclusions and Findings
Financing has been readily available until early 2007. Because of the large number of southern
California owners defaulting on subprime loans and the number of foreclosed homes, financing
is not as available as it was prior to these two events. The number of approved loans also has
dropped as mortgage loan standards have tightened, including the unavailability of 100%
financing, the need for larger down payments, verified income, and a requirement for solid credit
history including high FICO scores.
As a result, the loan denial rates reported on Tables C-3 should be interpreted with some
caution. In part, the denial rates reflect a period of transition from less to more stringent
underwriting standards, making it more difficult for homebuyers without a large down payment to
purchase a home. In fact, some might argue that -- given the subprime loan debacle and its
aftermath -- loan denial rates should have been higher from 2000 through 2005.
For borrowers with a solid credit history, savings to pay a 20% down payment and good income,
financing is still available at reasonable interest rates. For low income families, fixed rate, 30 -
year loans are available from CalFHA at a 6.5% interest rate.
However, Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) in early August 2008 doubled
the fee it charges to lenders and brokers, making loans more expensive for borrowers.
Refinancing/cash out loans also were made more expensive due to a revamping of the points
charged depending on the size of down payment and credit score. Because of these changes,
low income borrowers will need to improve their credit scores and come up with larger down
payments.
C. LAND COSTS
1. Guidelines
HCD suggests that —
In looking at the price of land, estimate the average per unit cost of land, or the
range of costs for developable parcels, in both single-family and multifamily
zones.
2. Analysis
The City does not have large tracts of vacant land that is measured in acres. Instead, vacant
land really means vacant lots that are considerably less than an acre in size. Table C-8 provides
insights on land costs based on actual sales and land for sale. All lots in all zones are
expensive. The R-3 sold lot had the lowest per unit cost of $153,333.
C-13
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Note: Sold refers to a lot that sold during the period from January 1, 2007 through May 16, 2008.
Active means a lot for sale as of May 27, 2008.
Source: Southern California MLS Alliance
3. Conclusions and Findings
In Temple City, the land costs alone exceed the housing costs affordable to lower income
households. In the single-family home market, land costs actually reflect the value of the land
and the existing home. These existing homes are purchased, demolished, and a new and larger
home is constructed on the lot. The land + home costs are typically in the neighborhood of
$500,000.
D. CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Guidelines
HCD suggests —
The analysis of construction costs, for typical single-family and multifamily
projects, should focus on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but
including land, fees, material, labor and financing.
2. Analysis
a. Components of Construction Costs
Little has changedover the years with respect to the components of a typical house. While
there have been some technological advances, they are still essentially "sticks and bricks".
However, with every new building code change the costs of construction do rise. Increases can
occur as a result of code changes requiring higher energy efficiency requirements, handicapped
access, and required changes in building materials. Even with new tools and some building
materials requiring less onsite labor, contractors have not achieved improvements in labor
productivity experienced in other industries.
Labor represents the highest cost component in the cost of construction. The cost of labor is
based on a number of factors, including housing demand, the number and availability of
contractors, and unionization of workers. In some instances it is difficult to pinpoint exact labor
costs because subcontractors often supply materials as well as labor.
C-14
Table C-8
City of Temple City
Inventory of Land Costs Per Residential
Zone,
Per Housing Unit
and Per Square Foot— May 2008
Status
Residential
Lot Size
Sales Price # of Units
Price Per
Price Per
Zone
Unit
Sq. Ft.
Sold
R-1
15,840
$729,000 2
$364,500
$46.02
Active
R-1
19,281
$799,000 1
$799,000
$41.44
Active
R-1
14,100
$799,000 1
$799,000
$56.67
Active
R-2
16,128
$1,050,000 4
$262,500
$65.10
Sold
R-3
14,470
$920,000 6
$153,333
$63.58
Note: Sold refers to a lot that sold during the period from January 1, 2007 through May 16, 2008.
Active means a lot for sale as of May 27, 2008.
Source: Southern California MLS Alliance
3. Conclusions and Findings
In Temple City, the land costs alone exceed the housing costs affordable to lower income
households. In the single-family home market, land costs actually reflect the value of the land
and the existing home. These existing homes are purchased, demolished, and a new and larger
home is constructed on the lot. The land + home costs are typically in the neighborhood of
$500,000.
D. CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Guidelines
HCD suggests —
The analysis of construction costs, for typical single-family and multifamily
projects, should focus on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but
including land, fees, material, labor and financing.
2. Analysis
a. Components of Construction Costs
Little has changedover the years with respect to the components of a typical house. While
there have been some technological advances, they are still essentially "sticks and bricks".
However, with every new building code change the costs of construction do rise. Increases can
occur as a result of code changes requiring higher energy efficiency requirements, handicapped
access, and required changes in building materials. Even with new tools and some building
materials requiring less onsite labor, contractors have not achieved improvements in labor
productivity experienced in other industries.
Labor represents the highest cost component in the cost of construction. The cost of labor is
based on a number of factors, including housing demand, the number and availability of
contractors, and unionization of workers. In some instances it is difficult to pinpoint exact labor
costs because subcontractors often supply materials as well as labor.
C-14
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to the "sticks and bricks" constructions costs, there are several more costs
associated with the construction of new homes. These include the following:
Engineering Costs: Costs associated with taking raw land to an entitled stage
such as a subdivision. Also included are grading plans,
sewer plans, storm drain plans, street improvements plans
and engineer calculations for energy efficiency (Title 24)
and structural calculations.
Architectural Plans: The actual house plans and construction plans. This factor
may also include landscape plans.
Site Improvement
Costs: These are the costs associated with taking raw, entitled
land, and completing the grading, installations of curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, streets and the utilities.
City Fees: These include City fees for reviewing engineering and
architectural plans and the issuance of building permits.
Development
Impact Fees: These include the City's development impact fees, school
impact fees and may include sewer connection fees
Financing Costs: These are the costs associated expenses incurred from a
construction loan.
Sales & Marketing: Once a home is completed, these are the costs associated
with the actual sale of the home and include marketing
costs (advertising), sales commissions, escrow and title
costs, and warranty expenses.
b. Construction Cost Estimates
Marshall -Swift Valuation Services provides building valuation guides ($/sq. ft) for different
building types and types of construction. The building valuation guides, which are utilized by the
City of Temple City and County of Los Angeles, also provide guidelines for construction costs.
The single family dwelling building valuations are:
Wood Frame $134.40/SF
Masonry $135.27/SF
The garage building valuations are:
Wood Frame $46.02/SF
Masonry $50.08/SF
(Wood frame apartments have construction costs in the range of $80-$106/SF.)
C-15
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
C. Construction Cost Estimate for a Sinale-Familv Home
Utilizing the per square foot construction costs above for a standard wood frame dwelling unit a
1,600 square foot, three bedroom home with an attached two car garage would cost $233,448
to build. The amount is calculated as follows:
1,600 Square Feet X $134.40 = $215,040
400 Square Foot Two Car Garage X $46.02 $18,408
Total $233,448
This amount, however, does not include costs for off-site construction (grading, storm drains,
sewers, curbs and gutters and utilities). Nor does it include any city or county developer impact
fees (school fees, road fees, connection fees, building fees). In addition, it does not include any
allowance for developer expenses such as sales and marketing, overhead or profit.
d. Construction Cost Impacts of State Laws - Prevailina Waqes and Fish & Game Fees
The Housing Element Law focuses the constraints analysis on "local" factors with scant mention
of State laws that cause an increase in housing costs, especially on the cost to produce
affordable housing. The cost impacts of State law requirements — such as prevailing wages —
probably equal or exceed whatever the City can accomplish through a reduction of development
standards and/or increased density.
The prevailing wage legislation passed in October 2001 — SB 975 — broadened the existing law
to cover construction work paid for in whole or in part by public funds. Construction projects
supported by public funds include affordable housing. Few projects can escape the
requirements — housing assisted exclusively by a redevelopment agency's affordable housing
fund is exempt. But frequently affordable housing includes several sources of public funds and,
therefore, falls within the purview of prevailing wages.
When required, prevailing wages significantly increase the cost of construction. Estimates of
the additional construction costs on 205 residential projects subsidized by the California Low
Income Housing Tax Credit program range from 9% to 37%. That same study estimated that
the effect of uniform application of the prevailing wage law decreased by 3,100 the number of
new dwellings for low-income households.
[`Sarah Dunn, John M. Quigley, and Larry A. Rosenthal, The Effects of Prevailing Wage Requirements on
the Cost of Low Income Housing, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, October 2005,
pg. 141.1
The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) provides yet another
measure of construction cost impacts. The CDC suggests to
Industry Housing Fund applicants to add 20% more than non -prevailing wage to their
construction cost estimates if they think that the funding sources will trigger a prevailing wage
requirement.
C-16
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The California Department of Fish and Game fee is another example of how State laws impact
the cost of housing. Fish and Game fees have increased to $1,800 for Negative Declarations
and $2,500 for EIRs. County Clerks are not able to accept a Notice of Determination until a
Fish and Game fee is paid. This fee may be waived only for projects with "no impact' on
wildlife. However, Fish and Game will consider practically any construction project to have an
impact — high-rise buildings may cause birds to collide with windows and removal of a palm tree
may remove habitat for birds.'
[*Goldfarb and Lipman, Law Alert: Increased Fish & Game Fees Must Be Paid to File Notices of
Determination; De Minimis Finding Removed, January 31, 2007.]
3. Conclusions and Findings
The cost of construction alone exceeds the cost affordable to lower income households. Several
factors contribute to the cost of construction including dwelling unit size, height (elevator may be
required), terrain, slopes, quality, State laws, profit motivations, and several other
considerations.
Construction costs, however, are but one component of housing production costs. New
affordable homes and apartments cannot be constructed without some public funding sources
that subsidize the entire development and reduce the loan amount to that which can be
supported by the affordable rents and ownership costs. These affordable rents and ownership
costs are listed in Tables C-1 and C-2.
E. HOUSING COSTS — SALES PRICES AND APARTMENT RENTS
Sales Prices
a. Calendar Years 2006 and 2007 Sales Prices
Table C-9 shows the median price of single-family homes and condominiums sold in 2006 and
2007. The volume of sales and median prices decreased slightly between 2006 and 2007. The
median prices of single-family homes and condominiums exceed the sales prices affordable by
low and moderate income households.
Table C-9
City of Temple City
2006 and 2007 Median Sales Prices
Number of Sales
Median Price (000)
Change
Single Family
20061 2007
2711 240
$588 $582
6.8% -0.9%
Condominiums
2006
2007
46
34
$450
$4401
-5.0%
-2.2% 1
Source. DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times
Sunday Charts, Data for Calendar Years 2006 and 2007.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C-17
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
b. 2007 Sales Prices
Table C-10 shows the median sales prices for single family homes and condominiums on a
monthly basis. Beginning in September 2007, the sales volume started to decline. In August
2007, the single-family sales price peaked at $649,000 and then decreased for two consecutive
months. However, the single family median sales price in December 2007 ($580K) was nearly
identical to the January 2007 median sales price ($578K). The number of condominium sales is
too few to conduct a trends analysis.
Table C-10
City of Temple City
2007 Home Sales
Single Family
Condominiums
Source: DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times Sunday Charts, Data for
January through December 2007
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-11 shows the 2007 sales price distribution of single-family homes and condominiums.
None of the single-family homes sold for less than $400,000. In fact three of every four single
family homes sold for more than $550,000. By comparison, nine of the 37 condominiums sold
for $300,000 to $399,999. About seven of 10 condominiums had sales price in the range of
$400,000 to $700,000.
C-18
Price
Change
Price
from
Monthly
Year
Chanqe
--- 1
A/r7�o
7.1 "/a
-9.7%
Change
17.0%
3.6% 1
-9.4%
3.8%
Median
-18.3%
from
Median
9.0%
Number
Price
Monthly
Year
Number
Price
Month
of Sales
(000)
Chanqe
Aqo
of Sales
(000)
January
20
$578
---
-0.6 A
4
$423
February
16
$583
0.9%
6.0%
5
$382
March
19
$5501
-5'.7%
-9.8%
3
$447
25
$567
3.1%
-1.9%
3
$405
1ril
v
24
$596
5.1%
1.1%
2
$407
June
20
$585
-1.8%
-0.3%
N/A
N/A
July
30
$595
1.7%
-6.2%
4
$440
August
29
$649
9.1%1
11.8%
5
$495
September
I 20
$560
-13.7%1
2.8%
2
$453
October
1 14
$550
-1.8%
-8.0%
1
$405
November
18
$563
2.4%
-11.1%
1
$365
December
5 I
$580
3.0%1
2.7%
2
$525
Source: DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times Sunday Charts, Data for
January through December 2007
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-11 shows the 2007 sales price distribution of single-family homes and condominiums.
None of the single-family homes sold for less than $400,000. In fact three of every four single
family homes sold for more than $550,000. By comparison, nine of the 37 condominiums sold
for $300,000 to $399,999. About seven of 10 condominiums had sales price in the range of
$400,000 to $700,000.
C-18
Price
Change
from
Monthly
Year
Chanqe
--- 1
A/r7�o
7.1 "/a
-9.7%
7.3%
17.0%
3.6% 1
-9.4%
3.8%
0.5%
-18.3%
N/AHN/A
9.0%
12.5% 1
9.4% 1
-8.5%
21.6%1
-10.6%
-16.8% 1
-9.9%
-7.0% 1
43.8% 1
27.7%1
Source: DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times Sunday Charts, Data for
January through December 2007
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
Table C-11 shows the 2007 sales price distribution of single-family homes and condominiums.
None of the single-family homes sold for less than $400,000. In fact three of every four single
family homes sold for more than $550,000. By comparison, nine of the 37 condominiums sold
for $300,000 to $399,999. About seven of 10 condominiums had sales price in the range of
$400,000 to $700,000.
C-18
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-11
City of Temple City
Summary of Existing and New Home Sales - 2008
Source: MLS Alliance
Price Range
$300,000-$349,999
$350,000-$399,999
$400,000-$449,999
$450,000-$499,999
$500,000-$549,999
$550,000-$599,999
$600,000-$649,999
$650,000-$699,999
$700,000-$749,999
$750,000-$799,999
$800,000-$849,999
$850,000-$899,999
$900,000-$999,999
$1,000,000+
Total
Single Family Percent Condominiums Percent Total Percent I
0
0.0%
3
8.1%
3
1.2% 1
0
0.0%
6
16.2%
6
2.5%
3
1.5%
6
16.2%
9
3.7%
16
7.8%
4
10.8%
20
8.2%
30
14.6%
1
2.7%
31
12.8%
47
22.7%
4
10.8%
51
21.1%
30
14.6%
7
19.0%
37
15.2%
31
14.9%
4
10.8%
35
14.4%
9
4.4%
0
0.0%
9
3.7%
9
4.4%
2
5.4%
11
4.5%
10
4.9%
0
0.0%
10
4.1%
6
2.9%
0
0.0%
6
2.5%
3
1.5
0
0.0%
3
1.2%
12
5.8%
0
0.0%
12
4.9%
206
100.0%
37
100.0%
243
100.0%
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C. 2008 Sales Prices
Table C-12 shows the 2008 sales on a monthly basis from January through May. During this
period, 84 single family homes were sold with May having a significant increase in sales volume
compared to the preceding four months. The median price all single-family homes sold so far
2008 is in the about $550,000. The number of condominium sales is too few to conduct a trends
analysis.
d. Conclusions and Findinos
The sales price of single-family homes and condominiums are beyond the means of low and
moderate income households. Extraordinary downpayments would have to made to make the
lowest priced homes and condominiums affordable to low and moderate income households.
The City's housing market is stable and sales volume should reach about 200 homes based on
the year-to-date average of 17 sales per month. The median sales price - which seems to be
slightly increasing - could be about the same as in 2007 - about $580,000.
C-19
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-12
City of Temple City
2008 Home Sales
May 32 $550 7.8% -7.7% NA NA NA NA
Source: DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times Sunday Charts, Data for
January through May 2008
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
2. Monthly Rents and Vacancy Rates
In March 2008, an apartment rent survey of larger complexes was completed. Altogether, eight
complexes were surveyed having a total of 267 housing units.
Table C-13 shows that most of the apartments are one- and two-bedroom units. A summary of
the apartment survey is given below:
The studio units have monthly rents in the range of $670 to $899.
The 1 -bedroom units have monthly rents predominately in the range of $851 to
$950.
The 2 -bedroom units have monthly rents predominately in the range of $1,051 to
$1,150.
The 3 -bedroom units rent for $1,400 per month.
As of March 7, 2008, 59 very low and low income residents are provided monthly rental by the
Section 8 rental assistance program. That program is administered by the County of Los
Angeles Housing Authority. The monthly rent of the very low and low income households is 30%
of their income. The Housing Authority pays the difference between the market rent and the
amount that very low and low income households pay. However, the market rents cannot
exceed the following shown in Table C-14.
C-20
Single Family
Condominiums
Price
Price
Change
Change
Median
from
Median
from
Number
Price
Monthly
Year
Number
Price
Monthly
Year
Month
of Sales
(000)
Chanoe
Ago
of Sales
(000)
Change
Ago
January
15
$534
-7.9%
-7.5%
2
$420
-20.0%
-0.76%
February
9
$590
10.5%
1.2%
2
$550
31.0%
44.0%
March
13
$658
11.5%
19.6%
3
$385
-30.0%
-14.5%
April
15
$510
-22.5%
-10.1%
4
$519
34.8%
14.8%
May 32 $550 7.8% -7.7% NA NA NA NA
Source: DataQuick, Southern California Home Resale Activity, L.A. Times Sunday Charts, Data for
January through May 2008
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
2. Monthly Rents and Vacancy Rates
In March 2008, an apartment rent survey of larger complexes was completed. Altogether, eight
complexes were surveyed having a total of 267 housing units.
Table C-13 shows that most of the apartments are one- and two-bedroom units. A summary of
the apartment survey is given below:
The studio units have monthly rents in the range of $670 to $899.
The 1 -bedroom units have monthly rents predominately in the range of $851 to
$950.
The 2 -bedroom units have monthly rents predominately in the range of $1,051 to
$1,150.
The 3 -bedroom units rent for $1,400 per month.
As of March 7, 2008, 59 very low and low income residents are provided monthly rental by the
Section 8 rental assistance program. That program is administered by the County of Los
Angeles Housing Authority. The monthly rent of the very low and low income households is 30%
of their income. The Housing Authority pays the difference between the market rent and the
amount that very low and low income households pay. However, the market rents cannot
exceed the following shown in Table C-14.
C-20
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-13
City of Temple City
Monthly Rental Costs -2007
Source: March 2008 Apartment Rental Survey.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
Table C-14
2008 Los Angeles County
Section 8 Fair Market Rents
Unit Type
Fair Market Rent
Studio
qumber of 3edrooms
1 Bedroom
$1,041
Monthly
$1,300
3 Bedrooms
$1,746
4 Bedrooms
$2,101
Rent
Studio
1
2
3
Total
Percent
$670
2
0
01
0
2
0.7%
$715-750
11
0
0
0
11
4.1%
$775
23
0
0
0
23
8.6%
$800-850
0
8
0
0
8
3.0%
$851-899
18
27
0
0
45
16.9%
$900-950
0
46
0
0
46
17.2%
$951-1000
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
$1001-1050
0
6
14
0
20
7.5%
$1051-1100
0
9
36
0
45
16.9%
$1101-1150
0
0
35
0
35
13.1%
$1151-1200
0
0
3
1
4
1.5%
$1201-1250
0
0
19
0
19
7.1%
$1400
0
0
0
9
9
3.4%
Total
54
96
107
10
267
100.0%
Percent
20.2%
36.0%
40.1%
3.7%
100.0%
Source: March 2008 Apartment Rental Survey.
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates.
Table C-14
2008 Los Angeles County
Section 8 Fair Market Rents
Unit Type
Fair Market Rent
Studio
$863
1 Bedroom
$1,041
2 Bedrooms
$1,300
3 Bedrooms
$1,746
4 Bedrooms
$2,101
The apartment survey shows that apartment units are available at rents below the fair market
rent ceilings. Consequently, the Section 8 program is workable in Temple City.
C-21
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Table C-15 shows the apartment vacancy rates by bedroom size. Eleven of the 267 apartment
units surveyed were vacant as of March 2008. None of the 3 -bedroom apartment units were
vacant.
Source: March 2008 Apartment Survey
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C-22
Table C-15
City of Temple
city
Apartment
Vacancy Rates - March 2008
Unit Size
Vacant Units
Total
Vacancy Rates
Studio
3
54
5.6%
1 Bedroom
4
96
4.2%
2 Bedrooms
4
107
3.7%
3 Bedrooms
0
10
0.0%
Total
11
267
4.1%
Source: March 2008 Apartment Survey
Table construction by Castaneda & Associates
C-22
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Attachment A
2007 Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Cost Worksheet
Attachment A provides definitions and calculations of Affordable Housing Cost and Affordable
Rent for the different income groups and unit sizes. Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth
prepared these calculations. The law firm annually updates the calculations. The costs and
rents are gross amounts; expenses such as maintenance and repairs and utilities are not
deducted.
1. Affordable Housing Costs for Owner -Occupied Housing Units
Based on the Health and Safety Code, the affordable housing costs for owner -occupied homes
are defined below:
Affordable Housing Cost for Extremely Low Income Households is the product of
30 percent times 30 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size
appropriate to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(b)(1).
Affordable Housing Cost for Very Low Income Households is the product of 30
percent times 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size
appropriate to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(b)(2).
Affordable Housing Cost for Lower Income Households is the product of 30
percent times 70 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size
appropriate to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(b)(3).
Affordable Housing Cost for Moderate Income Households is not less than 28
percent of the gross income of the household, and not more than the product of
35 percent times 110 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size
appropriate to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(b)(4).
The Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for owner -occupied housing units, include the following
costs for the upcoming 12 months*:
Principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan.
Mortgage loan insurance fees.
Property taxes and assessments.
Fire and casualty insurance.
Property maintenance and repairs.
Homeowner association fees.
*25 California Code of Regulations Section 6920.
C-23
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A reasonable allowance for utilities (garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity,
gas and other fuels, but not telephone service). The allowance shall take into
consideration the cost of an adequate level of service.
Space rent, if the housing unit is on rented land.
2. Affordable Housing Costs for Renter -Occupied Housing Units
Based on the Health and Safety Code, the affordable housing costs for renter -occupied homes
are defined below:
Affordable Rent for Extremely Low Income Households is the product of 30
percent times 30 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size
appropriate to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50053(b)(1).
Affordable Rent for Very Low Income Households is the product of 30 percent
times 50 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate
to the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50053 (b)(2).
Affordable Rent for Lower Income Households is the product of 30 percent times
60 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate to the
unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50053(b)(3).
Affordable Rent for Moderate Income Households is product of 30 percent times
the 110 percent of the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate to
the unit. Health and Safety Code Section 50053(b)(4).
Affordable `Rent' is an average of estimated housing costs for the next 12 months. Rent
includes the total of monthly payments for all of the following`:
Use and occupancy of a housing unit and land and facilities associated therewith
Any separately charged fees or service charges assessed by the lessor which
are required of all tenants, other than security deposits.
A reasonable allowance for utilities not included in the above costs, including
garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and
refrigeration fuels. Utilities do not include telephone service. Such an allowance
shall take into consideration the cost of an adequate level of service.
Possessory interest taxes or other fees or charges assessed for the use of the
land and facilities associated therewith by a public or private entity other than the
lessor.
*25 California Code of Regulations Section 6918. 15-26
C-24
Technical Appendix D
Sites Inventory and Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Appendix D
Sites Inventory and Analysis
A— Introduction.............................................................................................................
D-1
B— Guidelines...............................................................................................................
D-1
1. Sites to Accommodate City's Share of the Regional Housing Need .....................
D-1
2. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types...................................................................
D-2
C — Sites to Accommodate the 1998-2005 RHNA......................................................
D-3
1. Housing Constructed in Prior Planning Period ......................................................
D-4
2. Site Capacity within Existing Zoning.....................................................................
D-4
3. Rezoned sites — Downtown Specific Plan.............................................................
D-5
D — Sites to Accommodate the 2006-2014 RHNA......................................................
D-8
1. Units Built or Approved in the Planning Period ......................................................
D-9
2. Downtown Specific Plan.........................................................................................
D-9
3. Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites...........................................................
D-16
4. Second Residential Units.......................................................................................
D-17
E — Environmental Conditions ................................................
1. Guidelines.........................................................................
2. Analysis.............................................................................
3. Conclusions and Findings .................................................
F — Public Facilities and Services ..........................................
1. Guidelines.........................................................................
2. Analysis.............................................................................
3. Conclusions and Findings .................................................
G — Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types .............................
1. Emergency Shelters............................................................
2. Transitional Housing...........................................................
3. Supportive Housing.............................................................
4. Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing ...........................
5. Mobilehomes.......................................................................
6. Housing for Agricultural Workers .......................................
7. Multifamily Rental Housing ..................................................
8. Factory Built Housing..........................................................
............................ D-19
............................ D-19
............................ D-19
............................ D-19
D-19
D-19
D-20
D-21
...I ......................... D-22
............................. D-22
............................. D-26
............................. D-27
............................. D-28
............................. D-30
I.- ............. I........... D-30
............................. D-31
............................. D-32
List of Tables
D-1
Unaccommodated Housing Need Analysis .....................................................
D-3
D-2
Downtown Specific Plan — EC District Underutilized Sites ..............................
D-6
D-3
Potential Housing Units during 2006-2014 Planning Period ...........................
D-8
D-4
Downtown Specific Plan Underutilized Sites — TC, GC, WC Districts .............
D-10
List of Figures
D-1
Downtown Specific Plan — Residential Opportunity Sites ................................
D-12
D-2
Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites ....................................................
D-18
Attachments
Attachment A Parcel -Specific Residential Site Inventories
Second Units Permitted during Planning Period ................ 1
Underutilized R-3 Sites (30 du/acre).................................. 2
Underutilized R-3 Sites (18 du/acre).................................. 5
Underutilized R-2 Sites (12 du/acre).................................. 8
Attachment B Staff Reports on R-2 and R-3 Projects
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
Local housing elements must identify sites that can accommodate the city's share of the regional
housing need as well as quantify the housing unit capacity of those sites. Moreover, the sites must
be suitable, appropriate and available within the planning period to accommodate the housing
needs of all income groups. The Sites Inventory and Analysis for Temple City spans two periods of
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment — 1998 to 2005 and 2006 to 2014.
The City's share of the regional housing need (RHNA) for the 1998-2005 was 161 housing units.
Section C which follows explains that housing units constructed and re -zoning actions have
accommodated Temple City's 1998-2005 RHNA, and thus there is no RHNA carry-over into the
current planning period. Table D-1 summarizes the constructed units and the City's re -zoning
actions.
Temple City's 2006-2014 RHNA allocation is for 987 housing units. Section D presents the City's
residential development potential on sites identified as suitable for development within the 2006-
2014 planning period, and demonstrates the provision of adequate sites to address the City's
RHNA by income category.
B. GUIDELINES
Sites to Accommodate City's Share of the Regional Housing Need
Section 65583(a) (3) states that a housing element must include:
An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and
sites having potential for redevelopment and an analysis of the relationship of zoning
and public facilities and services to these sites.
Section 65583.2(a) states that the inventory of land suitable for residential development —
...shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the
planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction's share of the
regional housing need for all income levels...."
HCD guidance includes the following:
The purpose of the land inventory is to identify specific sites suitable for residential
development in order to compare the locality's new construction need by affordability
category with its residential development (total supply) capacity. A thorough land
inventory will help the locality determine if additional governmental actions are
needed to provide enough sites with appropriate zoning, development
standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate its new construction need
as required by Section 65583(c)(1). [emphasis added]
Land `suitable for residential development' has characteristics that make the sites
appropriate and available for residential use in the nlanninq period. These
characteristics include nhvsical features (flooding, seismic hazards, chemical
contamination, other environmental constraints, and slope instability or erosion) and
location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public and community services).
D-1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Sites not currently planned and zoned for residential use may be included in the
inventory if they are otherwise suitable for residential development and the element
includes program actions to change the land use within the current planning period.
[emphasis added]
The evaluation of sites to accommodate Temple City's Regional Housing Needs are presented in
the following sections of this Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D:
Section C — Sites to Accommodate the 1998-2005 RHNA
Section D — Sites to Accommodate the 2006-2014 RHNA
Section E — Environmental Site Conditions
Section F — Availability of Public Services and Facilties
2. Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) states:
Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of
housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory -built
housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing
single -room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
A housing element analysis must:
Identify zoning districts where these housing types are permitted.
Analyze how development standards and processing requirements facilitate
development.
Section G of this Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D discusses zoning for a variety
of housing types.
D-2
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
C. SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE 1998-2005 RHNA
For housing elements due on or after January 1, 2006, if a city or county in the prior
planning period failed to identify or make available adequate sites to accommodate
the regional housing need allocated, then the city or county shall, within the first year
of the planning period of the new housing element, zone or rezone adequate sites to
accommodate the unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need allocation
from the prior planning period.
According to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review letter
(November 21, 2001) on Temple City's 1998-2005 Housing Element, the City's Housing Element
did not "demonstrate that its inventory will provide adequate sites and infrastructure to facilitate the
residential development for all income groups." Hence, the City must carry over any
unaccommodated RHNA need to the new housing element. HCD recommends the following steps
to determine the "unaccommodated" RHNA need:
Step 1: Subtract the number of units from the RHNA approved or constructed (by
income category) since the start of the prior planning period.
Step 2: Subtract the number of units from the RHNA that could be accommodated
on any appropriately zoned sites specifically identified in the element
adopted for the previous planning period.
Step 3: Subtract the number of units from the RHNA accommodated on sites
rezoned for residential development pursuant to the site identification
programs in the element adopted for the prior planning period.
Step 4: Subtract the number of units from the RHNA accommodated on sites
rezoned for residential development independent of the sites rezoned in
conjunction with the element's site identification program.
As illustrated in Table D-1, Temple City has fully addressed its 161 unit RHNA need for the 1998-
2005 planning period through:
a) Units approved or built during the prior planning period (Step 1)
b) Available sites under existing residential zoning (Step 2)
c) Sites rezoned for residential development (Step 4)
Because the City does not have an unaccommodated housing need, its 1998-2005 RHNA does not
carry over into the future planning period.
Table D-1: Unaccommorlated Housing Need Analysis — 1998-2005 RHNA
Income Levels
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Mod
Total
RHNA Targets
34
31
35
61
161
Units Approved/Built
3
0
9
175
187
Underutilized Residential Sites
R-3 (18 du/acre)
91
91
R-2 (12 du/acre)
188
188
Downtown Specific Plan
E -C District (45 du/acre)
42
41
83
Total
45
41
100
363
549
Remaining Need
0
0
I 0
0
0
D-3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Housing Constructed in Prior Planning Period
As presented in Table D-1, a total of 187 net new units were provided in Temple City during the
prior 1998-2005 planning period, including 3 units affordable to very low and 9 units affordable to
moderate income households. Further explanation on the methodology used to determine the
number and affordability of units produced is presented below.
The State Department of Finance records indicate a net increase in 184 single-family units in
Temple City during the period from the Census 2000 (04/01/00) through December 31, 2005. The
vast majority of these units are condominiums.
To determine the affordability of the housing constructed, the sale prices of homes built and sold
between 2000 and 2005 was determined. During this period, five percent of the homes built
between 2000 and 2005 had sales prices affordable to moderate -income households. The 5%
figure was applied to the 184 housing units to establish an estimate of nine housing units affordable
to moderate income households. (Source for the sales price and year built is the Southern
California MLS Alliance). Thus, 1,75 constructed housing units can be credited against Temple
City's above moderate income RHNA housing need, with nine units credited towards moderate -
income housing needs.
In addition, three second units were added to Temple City's housing stock (date finaled was 2005)
at the following addresses:
5429 Pal Mal Avenue
6210 Oak Avenue
4918 Temple City Boulevard
The City's ordinance requires second units to:
✓ Include sanitary facilities and a kitchen
✓ Be renter -occupied
✓ Be affordable to very low income households (<50% AMI)
✓ Have rents at 30% of household income.
Thus, the three second unit are credited towards Temple City's very low income RHNA need
2. Site Capacity within Existing Zoning
As detailed in the Sites Inventory section which follows, Temple City has developed a thorough and
realistic approach to identifying sites suitable for development during the planning period. Through
this more refined site inventory analysis, the City is able to demonstrate sufficient site capacity
zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate its RHNA for both the prior and current planning
periods.
The majority of residential development in Temple City occurs through intensification on
underutilized R-2 and R-3 sites, either by adding to existing units, or more commonly, through the
demolition of existing units and replacement with a greater number of units as permitted under
zoning. For purposes of identifying properties suitable for intensification during the 2006-2014
Housing Element, City staff conducted a land use survey in April 2012 of all parcels located in the
medium (R-2) and high density (R-3) residential zones. In order to narrow the sites inventory to
those underutilized properties that truly have realistic development potential, based on recent
D-4
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
development trends (refer to Attachment B for staff reports on recent R-2 and R-3 projects in
Temple City), the following filters were applied:
• Ratio of existing building floor area to parcel size (FAR) of 0.30 or less in the R-2 zone (0.50
FAR permitted), and 0.50 or less in the R-3 zone (up to 0.70 permitted)
• Low building structure value, measured by a minimum 60% ratio of assessed land value to
total assessed property value
• Age of improvements on site minimum of 30 years old
• Visual checks were made using Google Earth and Google Streetview, and site visits were
made to ascertain the actual buildout and visual conditions of buildings
As summarized in Table D-1 (and provided in greater detail in Attachment A), 16 R-3 sites meet the
City's underutilized site criteria, yielding a potential net increase in 91 units. Typical R-3 parcel
sizes can support 3 to 4 units, and are frequently combined to achieve larger projects. Within the
R-2 zone, a total of 153 underutilized parcels were identified, yielding a net increase of 188 units.
The City continues to experience significant infill development in its R-2 and R-3 neighborhoods by
investors/builders of condominium subdivisions.
3. Rezoned Sites — Downtown Specific Plan
On December 17, 2002, the City Council adopted the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan
(Ordinance 02-880), substantially expanding site opportunities for multi -family residential and mixed
use development. Similar to the analysis conducted of underutilized residential sites and utilizing
the same filtering criteria, staff conducted a detailed sites survey of the entire specific plan area to
identify parcels with near term recycling potential for residential use. For purposes of evaluating
feasible development sites for the prior 1998-2005 planning period, specific plan sites are limited to
the Las Tunas East Commercial (EC) district which permits high density senior housing without a
requirement for ground floor commercial; sites within the entire specific plan are evaluated for the
future 2006-2014 planning period based on proposed adjustments to the Plan's development
standards to better facilitate a range of residential development.
Table D-2 on the following page presents key characteristics of the nine underutilized parcels
identified in the EC District, grouped into four larger development opportunity sites. The narrative
which follows describes the suitability of each site for residential redevelopment.
DSP Site 1 is comprised of two adjacent parcels totaling
20,000 square feet. 9901 Las Tunas is a prime 11,500
square foot corner parcel underdeveloped with an auto
repair use whose building dates back to 1948 and a
collection of salvaged vehicles in the rear detract from
the Specific Plan's vision for the EC district. Auto repair
and service is no longer a permitted use in the EC
district, making this parcel ripe for redevelopment. The
adjacent 8,700 square foot parcel at 9909 Las Tunas is
developed with an older (1956) single-family residence
converted into an orthodontist office. At 1,700 square feet, the
building comprises just 19% of the parcel, with the balance of
the site paved for parking. These two adjacent underutilized
parcels could be combined to create a site with significant
development potential.
ME
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Table D-2
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - EC District Underutilized Sites Inventory
Lot Floor Ratio Net DU
Buildin Year Land/ Pot°I
Address
Existing Use
Existing
Sq Ftg
Built
Size
Area
Total
(45
DUs
A Ft)
Ratio
Value
du/acre)
DSP Site #1
990nas1 Las
Auto Repair
0
2,046
1948
11,478 .18 .71 11
Tu
9909 Las
SFR -
0
1,724
1956
8,752 .20 .43 9
Tunas Dr
Orthodontist
Totals Site #1 20,230 20
DSP Site #2
9810 Las
Tunas Dr
medical office
9802 Las
Dentist office
0
2,004
1997 8,348 .24 .53 8
Tunas Dr
Totals Site #2 27,597 27
DSP Site #3
9823 Las
SFR 1 1,226 1928 8,808
.14 .83 8
Tunas Dr
9819 Las
SFR- 0 1,796 1941 8,773
.20 .75 9
Tunas Dr
Acupuncture
9815 Las
SFR—
0 1,779 1930 8,800
.20 .77 9
Tunas Dr
Medical Use
Totals Site #3 26,381 26
DSP Site #4
9738 Las
Laundromat
0
2,613
1966 8,174 .32 .63 8
Tunas Dr
9730 Las
Retail/ Photo
0
875
1961 2,723 .32 .49 2
Tunas Dr
Framing
Totals Site #4 10,897 10
DSP Site 2 represents another corner development opportunity, and at 27,500 square feet, is the
largest of the underutilized sites identified in the EC district.
9810 Las Tunas Drive is a 19,000 square foot parcel improved
with a 1966 single -story stucco building used as medical offices;
the building encompasses less than 30% of the site and is
-- valued at just 35% of the property's total assessed value. The
1_v adjacent site at 9802 Las Tunas Drive is improved with a modest
MU
2,000 square foot medical office use with a similarly low site
coverage (24%) and low building -to -total -property valuation
(45%) similar to the adjacent site. The structures themselves are
non-descript and
do not enhance the appearance of
Las Tunas Drive.
DSP Site 3 consists of three adjacent parcels, 9823,
9813, and 9815
Las Tunas Drive, each containing a _
small single-family house. Two of the structures have
been converted
to small office uses, such as
D-6
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
acupuncture, whereas one of the units remains residential. The structures range in age from 1928
to 1941, comprise just 20% of the parcel, and constitute just 15% - 25% of the property's total
assessed valuation. The residential parcel is under common ownership with the adjacent office
parcel, facilitating lot consolidation for development.
DSP Site 4 is located at the corner of Las Tunas
Drive and Golden West Avenue. It is comprised of
two parcels, 9738 and 9730 Las Tunas Drive. Both
commercial properties contain structures that date to
the early -mid 1960's and clearly show their age. 9738
is currently being used as a laundromat with a large
parking lot fronting on Las Tunas, and 9730 is a small
875 square foot building currently being used as an
art and photo framing business. Coin operated
laundromats are no longer a permitted use in the EC
district, making this parcel ripe for redevelopment.
- Vim:
In summary, each of these four candidate sites is significantly underutilized from both a physical
and economic perspective, and present viable opportunities for redevelopment as envisioned under
the Downtown Specific Plan. As illustrated in Table D-2, a total of 83 high density senior housing
units can be developed on these EC sites under existing zoning.
EC District Development Standards and Incentives
The Las Tunas East Commercial (EC) district is anchored by government and public uses (Civic
Center, library and park) and medical uses, although the mix of old and converted uses, large and
small users, and several drive-thru food and automotive uses disrupt the district's cohesion and
pedestrian orientation. The larger lot sizes in the EC district, combined with the lot consolidation
incentives in the specific plan, support the development of larger four story buildings, including
senior housing which is specifically encouraged. The specific plan establishes the following
standards to facilitate development of senior housing:
DensitV: The Specific Plan does not establish a maximum density for senior housing.
Heiaht Limits: The Specific Plan allows senior housing to be up to four stories or a maximum
height of 55 feet.
Housina Unit Size: The senior housing development standards allow reduced unit sizes of
650 square feet for a 1 -bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a 2 -bedroom unit.
The Specific Plan also provides for lot consolidation incentives. For instance, for multifamily
residential projects — including senior housing - the consolidation of four to six lots will result in a
15% increase in the number of allowable units and a one story increase to the maximum height. In
addition, within the EC, GC, WC and TC zones, no front yard setbacks are required. The
combination of generous development standards (no density limit, 4 story height limits, reduced unit
sizes) and lot consolidation incentives facilitate senior housing at a density of 45 dwelling units per
acre. Additional incentives for lot consolidation include reductions in processing time, vacation of
alleys, and fee reductions including processing fees, in -lieu fess and utility connection fees.
D-7
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
D. SITES TO ACCOMMODATE THE 2006-2014 RHNA
This section documents the availability of sites for future development and the adequacy of these
sites to address Temple City's regional housing needs for the 2006-2014 planning period. The City
plans to fulfill its regional housing needs using a combination of the following methods:
• Housing units built or issued permits during the planning period;
• Residential development within the Downtown Specific Plan;
• Underutilized sites zoned for residential use; and
• Residential second units.
Table D-3 summarizes the residential unit potential from the above methods and provides a
comparison with Temple City's 2006-2014 RHNA.
Table D-3: Potential Housing Units during 2006 — 2014 Planning Period
Income Levels Very Low Low ModerateAbove Total
Moderate
RHNA Targets 249 156 165 417 987
UNITS BUILT OR APPROVED
Issued Building Permits
Second Units 24 24
Apartments 14 3 17
Condominiums 103 103
Single -Family 165 165
309
Planning Entitlements 43 43
Projects Pending Entitlement 50 50
FUTURE UNIT CAPACITY
Downtown Specific Plan
E -C District (45 du/acre)
42
41
83
T -C District (30 du/acre)
28
28
56
W -C District (30 du/acre)
81
80
161
G -C District (30 du/acre)
22
23
45
Underutilized R-2 (12 du/acre)
188 188
Underutilized R-3 (18 du/acre)
91 91
Underutilized R-3* (30 du/acre)
101
101
202
Residential Second Units
10
10
Total Units under Existing Zoning 308 273 105 552 1,238
Unmet RHNA Need +59 +117 -60 +135 +251
* Per Housing Element Program #2 (Multi-familJy, Sites Inventory and Incentives), increased lensitles will be permitted on
R-3 sites which do not border R-1 neighborhoods.
ME
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Units Built or Approved in the Planning Period
As presented in Table D-3, a total of 308 net new units have been issued building permits in
Temple City since the start of the current planning period (Jan 2006 -Feb 2012), including:
24 second units. The City's ordinance restricts rents to 50% AMI (very low income).
Three apartment projects totaling 17 units. Rent in two of these projects (14 units) were
within levels affordable to moderate income households ($1,750 for 2 bdrms, $1,940 for 3
bdrms), with rents in the third project at above -moderate income levels.
103 condominiums and 165 single-family units, with sales prices targeted to the above -
moderate income market.
In addition to projects issued building permits, eleven single-family and condominium projects have
received planning entitlements (tentative map approvals), providing for 43 additional units.
The City is entering into a development agreement for creation of a mixed use plaza and public
park at Temple City Boulevard and Woodruff Avenue located within the TC district of the Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP). Development on the consolidated 1.3 acre site will include four stories of
residential condominiums; 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail/restaurant space; conversion of
an existing municipal parking lot into a public park; and development of a public parking structure.
A total of 50 market -rate condominiums are proposed, translating to a density of 38 units/acre. The
proposed mixed use project is consistent with the zoning parameters under the DSP.
2. Downtown Specific Plan
In addition to the four development opportunity sites within the EC district previously identified in
Table D-2, nine additional sites within the TC, WC and GC districts of the Specific Plan have been
identified as substantially underdeveloped based on the Housing Element underutilized sites
criteria, and suitable for recycling within the planning period. These sites are identified as DSP
Sites #5 - #13 in Table D-4 which follows, and are illustrated in Figure D-1. The analysis focuses on
those sites most suitable for residential use, and given the strong housing market in Temple City,
there is a high likelihood for their development with housing, as further supported by the following
adjustments to be adopted to the DSP development standards:
Allowance for horizontal (side-by-side) commercial/residential mixed use with ground floor
residential in all districts, with the exception of parcels fronting on Las Tunas Drive in the
City Center (CC) Commercial District
Establishment of 30 unit/acre residential densities for non -senior housing, with no
established density cap for senior housing
Elimination of one acre minimum lot size requirement for mixed use
The presence of small, underutilized parcels and irregularly shaped lots has been identified as one
of the constraints affecting future development in portions of the downtown. The Specific Plan
provides various density, height and parking incentives for the consolidation of smaller lots into
larger development sites as a means of achieving the scale and quality of development envisioned
for the area. Consolidation of individual parcels within the larger development sites presented in
Table D-4 is consistent with the Plan's vision for downtown, and will be facilitated by the Plan's
incentives, as detailed in Housing Element Program #1. The narrative which follows describes the
suitability of each of the identified nine sites for residential redevelopment.
D-9
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Table D-4
Downtown Specific Plan Underutilized Sites Inventory - TC, GC, WC Districts
Ratio Net DU
Existing Building Year Lot Floor Land/ PON
Address Existing Use DUs Sq Ft Built Size Area Total (30
(Sq Ft) Ratio Value du/acre)
DSP Site #5 - TC District
5954 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
and residential
5952 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
building
5948 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
building
5950 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
building
1
Totals Site #5
DSP Site #6 - TC District
5828 Temple
medical 0
City Blvd
building
5834 Temple
Public parking 0
City Blvd
lot
5800 Temple
vacant funeral 0
City Blvd
home
no address
Private 0
available
parking lot
5810 Temple
0
City Blvd
1 story office
5812 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
building
5816 Temple
1 story office 0
City Blvd
building
5818 Temple
0
City Blvd
1 story store
5820 Temple
1 story store 0
City Blvd
building
5822 Temple
1 story auto 0
City Blvd
repair
5824 Temple
1"floor store/
1
City Blvd
2nd storV unit
0.67
Totals Site 46
DSP Site #7 - WC District
9475 Las Tunas
1 story 0
Dr
restaurant
9465 Las Tunas
2 story office 0
Dr
building
9441 Las Tunas
1 story store 0
Dr
building
1948
Totals Site #7
3,005
1956
8,193
0.37
0.60
5
1,080
1948
3,152
0.34
0.69
2
960
1948
2,730
0.35
0.74
1
960
1948
2,631
0.36
0.65
1
16,706
9
2,496
1938
8,522
0.29
0.81
5
0
-
21,343
0.00
1.00
14
4,734
1939
12,791
0.37
0.75
8
1,945
-
4,591
0.42
0.96
3
1,112
1952
3,930
0.50
0.43
2
1,482
1954
4,592
0.43
0.67
3
1,344
1953
3,925
0.50
0.58
2
2,844
1948
4,593
0.42
0.69
3
1,500
1948
3,924
0.50
0.57
2
2,290
1946
4,591
0.42
0.57
3
3,000
1948
3,923
0.50
0.35
1
76,726
46
1,333
1976
11,803
0.11
0.82
8
22,689
1987
50,447
0.45
0.58
34
12,998
1989
42,901
0.30
0.55
29
105,151
71
D-10
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Building Year Lot Floor Land/ Net DU
Address Existing Use Existing Size Area Total Pot'I
DUs Sq Ft Built (Sq Ft) I Ratio I Value (30 du/ac)
I DSP Site #8 - WC District
9228 Las Tunas 1 story office
0
5,565
1943
17,896
0.31
0.68
12
Dr building
9226 Las Tunas 1 story store
Dr building 0
7,000
1948
17,714
0.40
0.68
12
9216 Las Tunas 1 story 0
2,718
1961
9,087
0.30
0.60
6
Dr medical bldg
Totals Site #8
44,696
30
DSP Site #9 - WC District
9200 Las Tunas 1 story
0 2,612
1964
12,659
0.20
0.69
8
Dr restaurant
5898Encinita 1 story
0 1,050
1940
5,605
0.19
0.76
3
Aveldg dical
Totals Site #9
18,264
11
DSP Site #10 - WC District
9425 Labs Tunas service station
0 2,322
1973
28,327
0.08
0.70
19
5937 Oak Ave auto repair shop
0 2,445
1939
9,233
0.26
0.62
6
1 story auto
0 2,112
1942
9,230
0.23
0.91
5929 Oak Ave repair shop
6
1 story auto
0 2,882
1959
9,228
0.31
0. 73
5941 Oak Ave repair shop
6
1 story office
0 7,208
1991
18,458
0.39
0.55
5919 Oak Ave building
12
Totals Site #10
74,476
49
DSP Site #11 - GC District
9176 Las Tunas 1 story single
Dr family residence
0 608
1933
3,940
0.15
0.80
2
9178 Labs Tunas auto repair shop
0 3,288
1958
11,335
0.29
0.52
7
Totals Site #11
15,276
9
DSP Site #12 - GC District
9209 Las Tunas 1 story stores
4 2,474
1931
8,500
0.29
0.69
1
Dr and residential
9201 Las Tunas 1 story store
0 648
1962
6,575
0.10
0.62
4
Dr building
5912 Encinita 1 story store
0 796
1947
2,545
0.31
0.63
1
Ave building
Totals Site #12
17,621
6
DSP Site #13 - GC District
9116 Las Tunas 1 story store
0 464
1957
4,329
0.11
0.81
2
Dr building
9112 Las Tunas 1 story store,
1 734
1947
2,399
0.31
0.73
0
Dr unit behind
9094 Las Tunas
0 15,455
1964
40,827
0.38
0.55
28
Dr Warehouse
Totals Site #13
47,556
30
D-11
IFigure D_); Cit
YofTe Y
Residf* lV et�wn Specific p�orfunif
ain Cit
elo meat p
�tesnfown SPecifi Sites
with c Plan Parcels
�evelopment potential
1111=1 �� nmum moon mmm �ii■iii� `�i�
-- ---- --- ---
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
DSP Site 5 is an approximate 17,000 square
foot site located along Temple City Boulevard
north of Las Tunas at Woodruff Avenue. The
four parcels that make up the site contain
modest 50+ year single -story structures
representative of typical commercial/retail
buildings in Temple City. The tenants on these
sites are primarily small-business owners,
including a realtor, locksmith, tailor, and
vacuum cleaner repair shop. Sites are
physically underutilized (35% floor area ratio), with low value
property value). The properties are maintained but weathered.
SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
improvements (25% - 40% of total
DSP Site 6, at over 75,000 square feet, is one
of the larger site underutilized sites within the
Downtown Specific Plan. It is comprised of 11
contiguous parcels in the 5800 block of
Temple City Boulevard, extending from
Workman Avenue north to the alley located
directly behind the businesses fronting on Las
Tunas Drive. The blockis anchored by - �- —
square foot city -owned parking lot on
the no
the northern end, and a 17,000 square foot
private parking lot and adjacent prior funeral -
home (under common ownership) on the southern end. The vacant funeral home building is in a
dilapidated condition (with broken windows) and represents blight to the community. The 8 parcels
located on the block between these two parking lots are occupied by modest, single -story
commercial buildings dating from 1938 to 1954 and showing signs of deferred maintenance. Each
of these commercial buildings is both physically and economically underutilized, with low floor area
ratios (< 50%) and building -to -total -property valuations (20-65%). Commercial occupants are
characterized by small, independent retail and service users and include acupuncturists, mail box
rentals, jewelry store, law office, small restaurant, beauty salon, tax services and dry cleaners. 5824
Temple City Boulevard includes a second story apartment unit above ground floor retail.
DSP Site 7 is the largest residential development -'
opportunity site identified within Downtown Specific
Plan, totaling 105,000 square feet and consisting of
three parcels: 9475, 9465, and 9441 Las Tunas Drive.F7,
Two of these addresses represent single -story strip
malls with large surface parking lots whose auto- 4.
oriented design and layout (which lack any uses
fronting on Las Tunas) is inconsistent with the more A
desirable pedestrian -oriented development pattern of
other commercial properties in the downtown area.
The third, small corner parcel houses a 1,300 square
foot building used as a bakery. Because of these factors, along with a low floor area ratio (35%) and
low building -to -total property valuation (40%), this site has been selected as having strong
development potential.
D-13
TECHNICAL APPENDIX SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
DSP Site 8 is an approximate one acre site comprised
of three adjacent parcels on the comer of Allesandro
Avenue and Las Tunas Drive. Each of these parcels
contains a single -story commercial/retail structure that
comprises just 30-40% of the parcel area.
Commercial occupants include a Chinese dentist, a
wedding photographer, and a real estate office.
Existing structures are all 50+ years in age, with
building valuations comprising well under 46% of each
property's total assessed value. Taken as a whole,
Site 8 is underutilized and would be a good candidate for more intensive residential development.
DSP Site 9 is an 18,000 square foot site located
at the southeast corner of Encinita Ave and Las
Tunas Drive comprised of two parcels. The larger
(12,600 sq.ft.) comer parcel is significantly
underdeveloped with a 2,600 sq.ft. prior fast food
restaurant building currently operating as a
Noodle House. The existing structure was built in
1964 and represents just 30% of the total
assessed value of the property. The smaller 5,600 69W
square foot parcel which fronts on Encinita „"��
Avenue is a converted single-family home
currently functioning as a medical office. The modest, 1,000 square foot structure was built in 1940,
and contributes less than 25% top the property's total valuation. In addition to the site's low FAR
and building valuation, this site was chosen because of the layout design of 9200 Las Tunas, which
does not contribute to the desired pedestrian oriented development pattern in the downtown district.
DSP Site 10 is an approximate 75,000 square
foot site located at the northwest corner of Las
Tunas and Oak Avenue. It is comprised of five
parcels: 9425 Las Tunas, a gas station; 5937,
5929, and 5941 Oak, auto repair and
plumbing/heating repair and installation; and
5919 Oak, a small independent strip mall. The
gas station structures were built in 1973, are
valued at just 30% of the total property, and
according to staff, have a limited customer base.
The auto repair and plumbing/heating repair
shops are in marginal condition and uninviting
from the street view; utilize very little of the site
area; and have low assessed building values.
Site 10 would make an excellent site for
residential or mixed use development because of
its proximity to amenities, including a grocery
store, drug store, and Temple City's branch of
the U.S. Postal Service.
D-14
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
DSP Site 11, located at the southwest corner of Las Tunas and Encinita Avenue, is comprised of
}� two parcels, 9176 and 9178 Las Tunas Drive. The
structure on 9176 currently houses the office of a
small construction company. The 600 square foot
building, constructed in 1933, comprisesjust 15% of
Ai
the site and is valued at less than 20% of the
property's total assessed value. 9178 is an auto
repair shop built in 1959 that does not appear to
have undergone any improvements since it was
erected and is clearly aged and weathered.
facade and a small triplex to the rear. An 8
developed on the adjoining property on Encinita.
DSP Site 12 is located at the northeast corner of
Las Tunas and Encinita Avenue and contains three
parcels: 9209 and 9201 Las Tunas Drive and 5912
Encinita Ave. The two parcels on Las Tunas
contain aged, 60+ year old structures with low
economic values and floor area ratios. A 1962 Alta
Dena Dairy drive-through appears worn-out and
does not have a design layout that lends itself to
the desired pedestrian oriented development of the
downtown district. The 9209 Las Tunas address is
a 1931 stucco residence with non-descript street
00 square foot real estate office built in 1947 is
DSP Site 13 is just over one acre is size and has significant development potential. It is made up of
three parcels: 9116, 9112, and 9094 Las Tunas Drive
under common ownership (Las Tunas Enterprises Inc).
The largest (40,000+ sq ft) parcel is largely vacant, with
ra commercial warehouse on the
east side of the parcel. Although
removed from the street, this
- parcel is accessible from Las
Tunas by a narrow driveway that
leads to the rear. The other two
- parcels, also owned by Las
Tunas Enterprises, contain a 500
square foot retail structure and
700 square foot residential structure, both with low assessed valuations and floor area ratios. The
structure at 9112 Las Tunas in particular clearly shows its age by its wood siding and windows,
peeling paint, and small building square footage.
The residential development capacity on each of these sites is based on a density of 30 units/acre,
with the unit potential calculated based on the same methodology utilized for the R-2 and R-3 sites,
described in detail on page D-17.
D-15
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
3. Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites
As evidenced by the over 350 units built or approved in Temple City's multi -family districts over the
past six years, the demand for residential development is quite strong. Projects typically involve the
combining of one or more parcels by investors, removal of the existing units, and development of
for -sale condominum projects ranging from 5 to 10 units in size. Purchasers are predominately
Asian seeking units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate extended family members. The
City's R-2 and R-3 zoning standards, combined with the widespread availability of physically and
economically underutilized parcels, has facilitated this type of development.
As described in the earlier section "Site Capacity Under Existing Zoning", the City has conducted a
detailed land use survey to identify those underutilized R-2 and R-3 properties suitable for
redevelopment during the 2006-2014 Housing Element, applying the following criteria based on
review of past projects:
• Ratio of existing building floor area to parcel size (FAR) of 0.30 or less in the R-2 zone
(0.50 FAR permitted), and 0.50 or less in the R-3 zone (up to 0.70 permitted)
• Low building structure value, measured by a minimum 60% ratio of assessed land value to
total assessed property value
• Age of improvements on site minimum of 30 years old
• Visual checks were made using Google Earth and Google Streetview, and site visits were
made to ascertain the actual buildout and visual conditions of buildings
This systematic analysis of the City's multi -family zoned properties identifies 153 sites in the R-2
zone and 31 sites in the R-3 zone that are underutilized per this criteria, illustrated in Figure D-2
which follows. Particularly along Rosemead and Temple City boulevards, groupings of underutilized
R-3 parcels developed with only a single, older unit provide significant opportunities for lot
consolidation, illustrated by a recent R-3 apartment project on 5008 and 5012 Rosemead Boulevard
that combined adjacent sites to achieve a total of 8 units. Attachment B includes staff reports on
four R-3 projects (including the afore -mentioned) and five R-2 projects which illustrate the
residential recycling occurring in these zones and the achievement of maximum permitted densities
on both individual and consolidated lots.
As a means of further facilitating recycling and providing for a broader range of housing types, the
City is supportive of allowing increased multi -family densities on parcels which do not directly
impact single-family residential neighborhoods. A ministerial, by -right density allowance of 30
units/acre in the R-3 zone would serve as a strong economic incentive for development, and by
limiting these supplemental densities to non -R-1 adjacent parcels, would preserve Temple City's
existing transition of densities from multi -family zoned areas to abutting single-family
neighborhoods. To this end, Housing Element Program #2 (Multi -family Sites Inventory and
Development Incentives) provides for the following on R-3 parcels that do not border R-1 zoned
properties: a) increased 30 unit/acre densities and 3 story height limits; b) minimum 20 unit/acre
densities to ensure multi -family development; and c) a ministerial review process consistent with
Govn Code Section 65583.2(i).
The sites inventory identifies a total of 31 underutilized sites within the R-3 zone; 15 of these sites
are not located adjacent to R-1 zoned properties and thus would be eligible for a supplemental, by -
right density allowance of 30 units/acre under the new Housing Element program. As summarized
in Table D-3 at the beginning of this section, a net increase of 202 multi -family units could be
developed on these 30 unit/acre R-3 sites, with potential for 91 additional units on the remaining
underutilized R-3 sites at 18 unit/acre densities. In the R-2 zone, 153 underutilized sites yield a net
D-16
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
increase of 188 units. Detailed parcel -specific spreadsheets of the underutilized sites inventory are
included in Appendix A. As a means of illustrating the significant opportunity for lot consolidation,
the R-3 site inventory groups adjacent underutilized parcels into larger development sites, and
specifically identifies adjacent parcels under common ownership.
In order to assess the realistic development capacity on each parcel, the following methodology
was utilized. Review of development projects within the R-2 and R-3 zones demonstrate the ability
to achieve the maximum permitted density of 12 and 18 units per acre, respectively, under the
City's development standards on both individual and consolidated lots. While not all projects are
built to the maximum density, the majority of developments maximize the floor area through the
provision of larger three and four bedroom unit sizes. Given the height, reduced parking and lot
consolidation incentives provided for under Housing Element Program #2 (Multi -family Sites
Inventory and Development Incentives) and Program #3 (Lot Consolidation Incentives), the unit
capacity calculation is based on 12 units/acre for R-2 parcels, 18 units/acre for R-3 parcels, and 30
units/acre for non -R-1 adjacent R-3 parcels. In determining the net unit potential on each parcel,
fractional units are rounded down to the nearest whole, and the existing number of units on the site
is subtracted.
As illustrated in Figure D-2, a significant number of underutilized residential sites are located along
Rosemead Boulevard. Recycling of these underutilized uses is consistent with the City's vision to
transform the two mile stretch of this regional highway that runs through Temple City into a multi-
modal, pedestrian friendly corridor. The City has secured $18 million in project funding from 14
different federal, state, county and other sources for implementation of the Rosemead Boulevard
Safety Enhancement and Beautification Project, with construction scheduled to begin this fall.
Major components of the project include:
• Sidewalk replacement, installation of accessible ramps and crosswalks
• Creation of separated bike lanes
• Construction of transit stop improvements and seating nodes
• Added traffic signalization and street reconfiguration to calm traffic flow
• Beautification through new landscaping, pedestrian and vehicular lighting, street
furnishings, decorative planters, entry monuments, signage and public art
One of the project's goals is to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment along Rosemead Boulevard
4. Second Residential Units
Temple City permits second residential units "by right" in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning districts,
providing significant additional capacity for second units throughout the community. The City has
structured its second unit regulations to ensure their affordability, requiring rents to be maintained at
levels affordable to very low income (<50% AMI) households.
With 24 second units receiving final building permits during the planning period (2006 -April 2012 —
refer to Attachment A for addresses), the market for second units in Temple City is robust.
Projecting a similar rate of second unit construction during the remaining 2012-2013 period, the City
anticipates an additional ten units to be developed.
D-17
aF iEMp�f Figure D-2: Vacant/Underutilized
Multi-Family Residential Sites
i
pyo R-2 Underutilized Parcels (12 du/ acre)
�4arrazN�� 0 R-3 Underutilized Clusters (I8 du/ acre)
R-3 Underutilized Clusters (30 du/ acre)
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Guidelines
SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Section 65583.2 (b)(4) states that the inventory of sites shall include:
A general description of any environmental constraints to the development of
housing within the jurisdiction, the documentation of which has been made available
to the jurisdiction. This information need not be identified on a site-specific basis.
HCD indicates that:
The element should include a general description of any constraints to the
development of residential projects. Examples of such environmental constraints
may include hillside development, flood zones, wetlands, fault lines, contamination,
and contracts such as Williamson Act land or easements.
2. Analysis
All housing sites identified as suitable for development in Temple City's Housing Element are infill
sites in areas designated as R-2 and R-3, or within the Downtown Specific Plan. As a result, all
sites/lots have existing dwelling units or structures. New developments in the R-2 and R-3 Zones
are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or at most, may be
subject to preparation of a negative declaration. Baseline environmental review has already been
completed for the Downtown in conjunction with adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. The City
is not aware of environmental conditions that would constrain or impede continued residential infill
development on R-2 and R-3 zoned sites, or within the Downtown area.
3. Conclusions and Findings
Environmental conditions do not constrain or impede the development of infill sites. As development
is proposed, project -level environmental analysis will be conducted. In addition,
F. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Guidelines
The Housing Element must include "...an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities
and services to these sites." Section 65583.2 (b)(5) states the inventory shall include:
A general description of existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities
supply, including the availability and access to distribution facilities. This information
need not be identified on a site-specific basis.
HCD provides the following guidance:
"The analysis is a means of determining the current or proposed timing of availability
of essential public facilities and services (e.g., sewer and water system trunk lines
and treatment facilities, roads, and storm drainage facilities) for sites identified for
residential development. The element must include a general description of existing
D-19
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including the availability and
access to distribution facilities, and indicate whether public or private. A site-specific
analysis is not required. The element must include sufficient detail to determine
whether water delivery systems and sewer treatment capacity is or will be (i.e., within
the planning period) available to the identified sites. However, if parcel specific detail
is available, this information could be included in the element.
"Any phasing plans of a relevant specific plan, development agreement or Capital
Facilities Financing Plan should be described."
State Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Element
Questions and Answers, October 2006, page 25.
2. Analysis
a. Water Delivery Service
Water service to the City is provided by the three main providers that are not governed the City of
Temple City.
The California American Water Company covers about 1/4 to 1/3 of Temple City, and they consider
the City to be part of the "San Marino" Service System. According to Jay Burnett, the existing lines
would have to be upgraded for anymore than approximately 150 new net water meters in their
service area. Mr. Burnett said that a large development, meaning hundreds of units, would require
the developer to upgrade existing lines. Mr. Burnett said the costs to upgrade could be passed on
to the developer, but that would make most large projects economically infeasible.
The East Pasadena Water Company is a second water service provider to the City. This water
company serves the NE portion of Temple City. Mr. Wayne Goehring of the Water Company stated
that their existing systems could probably handle another 200 meters for their service area.
The Sunnyslope Water Co, is a third water service provider. The Sunnyslope Water Co. serves at
least 1/3 of the City, from the NW end of the City all the way down toward City Hall and east to
Baldwin. According to this Water Co., most of their service area in Temple City is served by 6"
lines, which cannot support much, if any growth.
Most of Sunnyslope's service area is 6" lines from the 1920s and they exclusively use local
groundwater. However, a few streets in Temple City do have 20" lines, but only in a limited area.
For instance, if a large new tract near City Hall were approved for development, it would not be
possible to meet fire flow or water service requirements.
The above three water service providers serve almost the entire area of Temple City. The
providers can serve 350 new net water meters for all consumers residential, commercial and
industrial. Water demand beyond this number of net water meters would require developers to
upgrade existing lines.
b. Sewer Treatment Capacity
A network of sanitary sewers is essentially complete, although on-site main line sewers may be
required at the time of subdivision. In mid -year 2008, the City completed a sewer capacity study.
The methodology utilized in assessing the hydraulic characteristic of the City's sewer collection
D-20
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
system were based on the current and ultimate demographics derived from the City's zoning and
general plans, and establishing a realistic average and peak flow coefficients for various land use
within the study area. The primary source of information regarding existing and future land use and
character of development is the City Zoning and General Plans.
The study categorized sewer capacity as described below.
1) Currently Substantially Deficient (CSD): The sewer pipes under this category have a depth
ratio greater than 90 percent under the existing peak flow condition. A high priority ("Priority 1")
relief project needs to be implemented immediately to address the hydraulic constraints.
2) Ultimately Substantially Deficient (USD): The sewer pipes under this category have a depth
ratio greater than 90 percent under the ultimate peak flow condition. A "Priority 2" relief project
might be needed within the next 5 years to address the hydraulic constraints.
3) Currently Marginally Deficient (CMD): The sewer pipes under this category have a depth
ratio greater than 50 percent and less than 90% under the ultimate peak flow and not under the
existing condition. A "Priority 4" relief project might be needed within the next 10 years to address
the hydraulic constraints. The action plan includes visual inspection after major development and
periodic flow monitoring, to re-examine the projects under this category.
C. Storm Drainage Facilities
A network of storm drain facilities is in place, although storm drains may be required at the time of
subdivision.
d. Roads
The City's street system is in place, with occasional need for street widening or extensions, or new
cul-de-sacs.
1 Conclusions and Findings
Water and sewer capacity is adequate to accommodate the construction of housing units equal to
or greater than the City's share of the regional housing need. Certain infrastructure improvements
(i.e., storm drains, street widening) may be needed at the time of subdivision. Sewer improvements
also may be needed in areas where Priority 1 improvements overlap areas to be re -zoned.
D-21
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
G. ZONING FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
The housing element must describe the zoning policies that facilitate and encourage the
development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental
housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive
housing, single -room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
The focus of Part G is on those housing types listed in Government Code Section 65588(c)(1) and
listed in the first paragraph above. In effect, these housing types represent a continuum of housing
from emergency shelter to transitional housing to supportive housing to more independent housing
such as SROs and multifamily rental housing.
The other housing types represent housing for a unique special needs population (farmworkers)
and construction types (factory built and mobilehomes).
1. Emergency Shelters
The Temple City Zoning Code currently provides for emergency shelters as a conditionally
permitted use in the M-2 (Manufacturing) Zone. The Zoning Code, however, does not define
'.emergency shelters" or establish development standards for this use.
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the City to identify —
.. a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use
without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. The identified zone or
zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency
shelter.... except that each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can
accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.
"If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the
local government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the
requirements of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing
element." [emphasis added]
Program 4 (Zoning for Special Needs) in the City's updated Housing Element includes an action
program to amend the Zoning Code to satisfy the Government Code emergency shelter
requirements within six months of adoption of the Housing Element. HCD offers the following
guidance:
"When identifying a zone or analyzing an existing zone for emergency shelters, the
element should address the compatibility and suitability of the zone. The element
should consider what other uses are permitted in the zone and whether the zone is
suitable for residential or emergency shelters. For example, an industrial zone with
heavy manufacturing may have environmental conditions rendering it unsuitable for
residential or shelter uses. In some localities, manufacturing or industrial zones may
be in transition, where older industrial uses are redeveloping to residential, office or
commercial."
The C-3 Zone located along Rosemead Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway is the
zone where emergency shelters will be permitted by right. City staff have conducted a land use
survey of this 16.1 acre area, and have identified numerous existing buildings that could be
D-22
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
renovated, rehabilitated, or converted to an emergency shelter. By way of example, the following
describes the general characteristics of three sites meet which meet the Housing Element
underutilized sites criteria', and would be suitable for reuse as an emergency shelter:
Site 1 is a vacant lot approximately 11,000 square feet in size and currently used for parking
for an adjacent restaurant use. Replacement restaurant parking is available within the
surrounding commercial parking lot, which a parking study identifies as having excess
spaces.
Site 2 is a 10,500 square foot parcel, with one-quarter of the site developed with an older
auto -related retail use, and three-quarters of the site used for parking and an RV storage
area.
Site 3 totals 30,000 square feet and is partially developed with an older commercial building
whose tenant occupies only half of the space. The building's assessed valuation is just
seven percent of the total assessed value of the site.
The C-3 Zone permits uses such as gymnasiums and medical buildings and comparable uses that
are housed in large, open buildings. The C-3 Zone is located along the City's major corridor,
making the sites accessible via walking, bicycle, automobile, and public bus transportation.
Convenience and neighborhood shopping establishments are located along Rosemead Boulevard
between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway. Medical services are available along Rosemead
Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway.
Sites and buildings within this area can accommodate the City's homeless need of 28 persons. The
2007 homeless count of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority estimated 36 homeless
persons. A more recent study (October 2008) establishes an estimate of 20 homeless persons.
According to the San Gabriel Valley Regional Homeless Services Strategy Phase 1 Report:
"The 2007 homeless estimates published by LAHSA are the result of a thorough
county -wide census process limited by the fact that San Gabriel Valley cities were
not counted census tract -by -census tract and therefore cannot be accurately
assessed at the jurisdictional level. The numbers derived through this study reflect a
combination of two things — 1) the local perception of the magnitude of
homelessness among policy makers and emergency responders such as law
enforcement and 2) the limited numbers of homeless individuals and families that
existing providers in the San Gabriel Valley are able to serve due to funding and
capacity constraints.
The lower population estimate is informative to the extent that it establishes a
minimum baseline of need about which local stakeholders can agree and begin
planning to reduce homelessness across the San Gabriel Valley. The local estimate
is not meant to substitute for an actual homeless count or census and should be
utilized with this limitation in mind. The two assessments therefore provide a high
and a low range estimated number of homeless persons in the San Gabriel Valley."
[emphasis added]
' Similar to the filtering criteria used to identify underutilized sites within the Downtown Specific Plan, R-3 and R-2 zones,
the following criteria were used to identify underutdrzed sites within the C-3 zone along Rosemead Boulevard 1) Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) of existing building of 0.40 or less; 2) Low building structure value, measured by a minimum 60% ratio of
assessed land value to total property value; 3) Age of site improvements minimum 30 years old; and 4) Visual checks to
ascertain actual site conditions.
D-23
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
The capacity (space) requirement for a building providing emergency shelter for 28 homeless
persons is not large. Space, of course, is needed for beds/cots, restrooms, showers, public
telephone, drinking fountains, eating areas and staff. The space requirements for cots/beds can be
estimated at about 2,800 square feet or 100 square feet per person. HUD's space, building and
habitability guidelines provide insights on what the specific standards the City could adopt:
Structure and Materials. The shelter building should be structurally sound to protect residents
from the elements and not pose any threat to health and safety of the residents.
Access. The shelter must be accessible, and there should be a second means of exiting the facility
in the case of emergency or fire.
Space and Security. Each resident should have adequate space and security for themselves and
their belongings. Each resident must have an acceptable place to sleep.
Interior Air Quality. Each room or space within the shelter/facility must have a natural or
mechanical means of ventilation. The interior air should be free of pollutants at a level that might
threaten or harm the health of residents.
Water Supply. The shelter's water supply should be free of contamination.
Sanitary Facilities. Each resident should have access to sanitary facilities that are in proper
operating condition. These facilities should be able to be used in privacy, and be adequate for
personal cleanliness and the disposal of human waste.
Thermal Environment. The shelter/facility must have any necessary heating/cooling facilities in
proper operating condition.
Illumination and Electricity. The shelter/facility should have adequate natural or artificial
illumination to permit normal indoor activities and support health and safety. There should be
sufficient electrical sources to permit the safe use of electrical appliances in the shelter.
Food Preparation. Food preparation areas, if any, should contain suitable space and equipment to
store, prepare and serve food in a safe and sanitary manner.
Sanitary Conditions. The shelter should be maintained in a sanitary condition.
Fire Safety -Sleeping Areas. There should be at least one working smoke detector in each
occupied unit of the shelter facility. In addition, smoke detectors should be located near sleeping
areas where possible. The fire alarm system should be designed for a hearing-impaired resident.
Fire Safety -Common Areas. All public areas of the shelter must have at least one working smoke
detector.
All uses permitted in the C-3 Zone require a site plan review. The Zoning Code states:
"A site plan shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, or a certificate
of occupancy, if no building permit is required, for the development of any C-3 zoned
properties..."
D-24
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
A site plan must include the following information:
Contact information for the applicant, and of the person which prepared the plan.
The street address and a brief legal description of the property involved, and the
names of the nearest streets which intersect the street or streets on which the
subject property is located.
The number of lots involved, if more than one, and the lot dimensions and lot area.
The approximate size and location of all buildings and structures, including off street
parking facilities.
Open areas and landscaped areas.
The proposed use or uses.
Building elevations, front, side and rear.
Such other information the director deems necessary to meet the purpose of this
article.
This site plan information is typical of that required by California cities prior to the issuance of a
building permit for new construction, or certificate of occupancy prior to completion of a renovation.
The site plan review is conducted by the Community Development Department and does not
require a public hearing before either the Planning Commission or City Council. The site plan
review process does not hinder the development of uses permitted in the C-3 Zone, which will
include emergency shelters.
For emergency shelters, the City — pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) - will
establish and apply written, objective standards pertaining to:
The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the
facility.
Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do
not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or
commercial uses within the same zone.
The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas.
The provision of onsite management.
The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not
required to be more than 300 feet apart.
The length of stay.
Lighting.
Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
D-25
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
The C-3 Zone requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Setbacks requirements include 15
feet for a front yard setback and no minimum standard for the side or rear yard setback. For
commercial buildings having a height of 45 feet or less there is no requirement for a site
development plan review. No building can be less than 750 square feet. These development
standards facilitate the development or conversion of a building to an emergency shelter by
providing a small minimum lot size, a small minimum building size, no minimum standard for side or
rear setbacks, and a height limit up to 45 feet.
The City has not established parking standards for emergency shelters for homeless persons. The
City will complete a parking needs study prior to establishing the parking standards for emergency
shelters for homeless persons.
Emergency shelters will be processed in a manner identical to all other land uses permitted in the
C-3 Zone.
2. Transitional Housing
The City's Zoning Code currently does not make specific provisions for transitional housing. As a
housing type, transitional housing does not infer a unique or distinct structure. The distinguishing
characteristics of transitional housing are:
Housing is provided in a rental housing development.
Housing is not permanent in that occupants are allowed to stay for a maximum
period.
Services are provided to occupants to enable them to move to permanent housing.
Program 4 (Zoning for Special Needs) in the City's updated Housing Element includes an action
program to amend the Zoning Code to make specific provisions for transitional housing. The Zoning
Code amendments will be guided by the following Government Code sections.
Government Code Section 65582(g) states:
"Transitional housing' has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (h) of Section
50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code."
Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2(h) states:
"'Transitional housing' and `transitional housing development' means buildings
configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program
requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the
assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point
in time, which shall be no less than six months."
HCD states that:
"Transitional housing may be designated for a homeless individual or family
transitioning to permanent housing."
D-26
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Health and Safety Code Section 50801(1) states:
"'Transitional housing' means housing with supportive services for up to 24 months
that is exclusively designated and targeted for recently homeless persons.
Transitional housing includes self-sufficiency development services, with the ultimate
goal of moving recently homeless persons to permanent housing as quickly as
possible, and limits rents and service fees to an ability -to -pay formula reasonably
consistent with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's
requirements for subsidized housing for low-income persons. Rents and service
fees paid for transitional housing may be reserved, in whole or in part, to assist
residents to move to permanent housing."
These Government Code sections refer to "recently homeless persons" as a target population.
However, transitional housing can serve other populations — for instance, emancipated foster youth.
About 1,500 foster youth age out of the Los Angeles County child welfare system each year. Most
have nowhere to turn for jobs, housing, higher education, or support. Transitional housing
programs help former foster youth by providing housing and support services. Supportive services
offer job training, computer training, educational assistance and other social services. Youth are
allowed to stay in transitional housing for up to two years.
The Zoning Code amendment to facilitate and encourage transitional housing will address all
special needs populations that need transitional housing. In addition, the amendment will have
zoning treat transitional housing as a residential use subject only to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
1 Supportive Housing
The City's Zoning Code does not currently make specific provisions for supportive housing. As a
housing type, supportive housing does not infer a unique or distinct structure. The distinguishing
characteristics of supportive housing are:
It is a place for permanent residence unlike emergency shelters and transitional
housing.
Services are provided to the residents either at the residence or off-site. The types of
support services that may be provided include, but are not limited to, medical and
mental health care, vocational and employment services, substance abuse
treatment, child care, and independent living skills training.
The residents of supportive housing are disabled or include populations such as
families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care
system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people.
An example of supportive housing is permanent housing for developmentally disabled persons.
The term developmental disability refers to a severe and chronic disability that is attributable to a
mental or physical impairment that begins before a person reaches adulthood. These disabilities
include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and disabling conditions closely related
to mental retardation or requiring similar treatment. Examples of supportive services include day
program services (socialization, recreation), supported employment (to help the developmentally
disabled learn and perform work) and transportation.
D-27
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D
SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
The City's Housing Element update includes an action program (Program #4 — Zoning for Special
Needs) to amend the Zoning Code to make specific provisions for supportive housing. In addition,
the amendment will have zoning treat supportive housing as a residential use subject only to those
restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. The Zoning
Code amendments will be guided by the following Government Code sections.
Government Code Section 65582(f) states:
"'Supportive housing' has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code."
Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14(b) states:
"For purposes of this section, `supportive housing' means housing with no limit on
length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in subdivision (d)
of Section 53260, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the
supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health
status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the
community."
Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d) states:
"'Target population' means adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities,
including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health
conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the
Welfare and Institutions Code) and may, among other populations, include families
with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system,
individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people."
4. Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
Housing Element Law requires cities to facilitate and encourage SRO housing. The City's Zoning
Code does not currently define or specify development standards for SROs, although it does
provide for a comparable use in terms of efficiency dwelling units, which are defined as:
`Efficiency dwelling unit' means a single dwelling unit which does not contain a
bedroom and which is located within a building containing more than one dwelling
unit...."
According to HUD's HOME Program:
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing means housing consisting of single room
dwelling units that is the primary residence of its occupant or occupants. An SRO
unit must contain either food preparation or sanitary facilities (it may contain both) if
the project consists of new construction, conversion of non-residential space, or
reconstruction. For acquisition or rehabilitation of an existing residential structure,
neither food preparation nor sanitary facilities are required to be in the unit. If the
units do not contain sanitary facilities, the building must contain sanitary facilities that
are shared by the tenants.
D-28
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Another SRO definition describes this use as follows:
Single room (SRO) occupancy is defined as a dwelling unit intended to be occupied
by a single person. SRO units have been used as emergency shelter, transitional
housing, and permanent housing. The units are typically small (between 160 SF and
500 SF) and they generally do not contain either private bathrooms or kitchens.
Bathrooms are usually developed at a ratio of about 1:8 units and each development
includes a common kitchen. Efficiency (bachelor) units that include both a private
bath and kitchenette may also be considered single room occupancy.
[emphasis added]
Program 4 (Zoning for Special Needs) in the City's updated Housing Element includes an action
program to amend the Zoning Code to facilitate and encourage the development of SRO housing
units, and to conditionally permit within the C-3 zone. In summary, the City's program will
accomplish the following within six months after adoption of the Housing Element:
Include a definition of Single Room Occupancy housing units in Section 9109 —
Definitions - of the Zoning Code.
Identify SRO housing units as among the residential uses subject only to the same
restrictions as other residential uses.
Establish development and management standards for Single Room Occupancy
housing units.
Following adoption of the zoning code amendments, the City will prepare and
distribute a pamphlet that describes the SRO program and processing procedures.
The City's Website also will describe the SRO program.
The City's action program will include a review of other city SRO ordinances such as one adopted
by the City of Santa Rosa. According to the Santa Rosa ordinance, SROs "... are intended to
provide opportunities for the development of permanent, affordable housing for small households
and for people with special needs in proximity to transit and services, and to establish standards for
these small units." Among the development standards are the following:
Location. Single Room Occupancy facilities will be permitted within the C-3 zoning
district subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
Project review and approval. A proposed SRO shall require Design Review in
compliance with Section 20-52.030 and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in
compliance with Section 20-52.050.
Density. A Single Room Occupancy Facility is not required to meet density
standards of the General Plan.
Unit size. An SRO unit shall have a minimum size of 150 square feet and a
maximum of 400 square feet.
Occupancy. An SRO unit shall accommodate a maximum of two persons
D-29
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES /NVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Bathroom. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full bathroom
facilities. A partial bathroom facility shall have at least a toilet and sink; a full facility
shall have a toilet, sink and bathtub, shower or bathtub/shower combination. If a full
bathroom facility is not provided, common bathroom facilities shall be provided in
accordance with the California Building Code for congregate residences with at least
one full bathroom per floor.
Kitchen. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full kitchen
facilities. A full kitchen includes a sink, a refrigerator and a stove, range top or oven.
A partial kitchen is missing at least one of these appliances. If a full kitchen is not
provided, common kitchen facilities shall be provided with at least one full kitchen per
floor.
Closet. Each SRO unit shall have a separate closet.
Code compliance. SRO units shall comply with all requirements of the California
Building Code.
Accessibility. All SRO units shall comply with all applicable accessibility and
adaptability requirements. All common areas shall be fully accessible.
Facility Management. An SRO Facility with 10 or more units shall provide on-site
management. An SRO Facility with less than 10 units shall provide a management
office on-site.
Tenancy. Tenancy of SRO units shall be limited to 30 or more days.
5. Mobilehomes
The Zoning Code does not specifically reference mobilehomes as either a permitted or conditionally
permitted use in the residential zones. The R-1 Zone does reference "modular homes" as a
permitted use in the R-1, single-family zone. The Zoning Code does define modular home as
encompassing mobile home construction. Modular homes are expressly prohibited in the R-2 Zone.
The processing of mobile homes is consistent with Government Code Section 65852.3(a) which
requires, with the exception of architectural standards, that mobilehomes shall be subject to the
same development standards to which a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same
lot would be subject. Stick -built and modular homes are permitted in the R-1 Zone and have
identical development standards.
The City's Housing Program includes an action program to amend the Zoning Code to include a
mobile home definition and a specific reference of mobilehomes as a permitted use in the R-1 zone.
6. Housing for Agricultural Workers
According to HCD guidance:
"The element must quantify farmworker populations and define specific
characteristics (e.g., seasonal, single males/females, families). Once the community
has an understanding of the farmworker population and their housing needs, it must
ensure that appropriate housing types can be made available."
D-30
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
Housing for farmworkers is not a need in Temple City. A farm worker is --
A person who performs manual and/or hand tool labor to plant, cultivate,
harvest, pack and/or load field crops and other plant life.
A person who attends to live farm, ranch or aquacultural animals including
those produced for animal products."
[Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor
Market Information Division Occupational Definition]
The City has no land devoted to the production of field crops and/or other plant life. Likewise, there
is no land used for animals. As a result, there are no farmworkers employed in Temple City. There
may be persons "housed" in the City who are farmworkers at locations outside the municipal
boundaries.
Multifamily Rental Housing
The Housing Element Law requires cities to facilitate and encourage the development of multifamily
rental housing. The R-2 and R-3 Zones permit multifamily rental housing with two or fewer units by
right, with larger projects currently requiring a conditional use permit. The list below provides a
summary of the key processing requirements:
Projects that comply with the development standards are approved administratively
by the Community Development Department.
Existing lots zoned R-2 and R-3 are exempt from the minimum lot size requirements
of 7,200 square feet (R-2) and 10,000 square feet (R-3).
The Zoning Code establishes design guidelines for development in the R-2 and R-3
Zones. The guidelines are advisory and negotiated between the City and property
owner, builder or developer. However, if the project does not comply with a
substantial portion of the design guidelines, then permits may be denied by the
Community Development Department.
Multifamily rental housing also is permitted in the Mixed Use and Senior Housing Overlay Zones
and the Downtown Specific Plan.
The Mixed -Use Zone (MUZ) provides for a combined mix of medium (12 dus/ac) and high density
(18 dus/ac) residential development with retail, office and service uses, with the non -retail uses
located primarily at the street level to create a pedestrian oriented environment. In addition to high
density residential uses, which would be allowed in conjunction with any mixed use development,
special consideration and/or a density bonus can be awarded when housing is specifically
designated and reserved for low moderate income households. The MUZ can be applied to sites
where the General Plan designation is commercial and where the minimum site size is one acre.
Application for an MUZ requires a zone change, precise plan of development and development
agreement.
The purpose of the Senior Housing Overlay Zone is to provide optional standards and incentives
for the development of senior housing which is restricted to residents 62+ years of age. Whenever
D-31
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORYAND ANALYSIS
the senior citizen housing has been added to an underlying zone in accordance with the procedures
for a zone change, the property may be developed in accordance with the Senior Housing Overlay
Zone or the underlying zone. The Senior Housing Overlay Zone facilitates rental housing by
establishing a maximum density through the zone change/CUP process, density bonus for
affordable low income housing, reasonable minimum housing unit sizes, and establishing parking
requirements based on in consideration of the age of the occupants, project location and other
pertinent variables. Senior citizen housing is conditionally permitted in all zones, except R-1; senior
citizen housing within the Downtown Specific Plan area is governed by the provisions of that
Specific Plan.
The Downtown Specific Plan encourages and facilitates the development of high density housing,
affordable senior housing and residential/commercial mixed use. The Housing Element update
establishes a program to further facilitate residential development within the Specific Plan, including
allowance for non -age restricted housing throughout the Plan area.
The Zoning Code provides administrative relief and fast track processing of CUP and variance
applications. The Zoning Code establishes a "fast track modification committee" consisting of the
City Manager, City Attorney and Chairman of the Planning Commission. The Committee may
decide to refer CUP and variance applications directly to the Planning Commission — and thereby
reduce processing time -- when the Committee makes certain findings involving public health,
safety and welfare and the absence of environmental impacts.
The City's Zoning Code encourages and facilitates multifamily rental housing in several zones, by
providing development incentives, and fast track processing of projects that require a Conditional
Use Permit. As a means of further facilitating housing consistent with the City's regional housing
needs, the Housing Element update establishes a program to implement a new administrative
review process for multi -family housing focused on site and architectural review.
Technical Appendix B provides more details on the following:
Mixed Use and Senior Housing Overlay Zones
Downtown Specific Plan
Timelines for Development Review and Fast Track Processing
Development Incentives
8. Factory -Built Housing
Modular homes are permitted in the R-1 Zone
D-32
Technical Appendix D: Attachment A
Parcel Specific Site Inventories
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Second Units Issued Final Building Permits During Planning Period
Ill
(Jan 2006 — April 2012)
Date Building
Site Address
Date Building Permit
Permit Issued
Finaled
08/05/05
4948 Cloverly Ave.
05/18/06
03/22/06
9127 Hermosa Dr.
02/27/07
05/05/06
( 5813 Kauffman Ave.
09/12/06
07/18/06
5209 Kauffman Ave.
12/12/07
09/08/06
5303 Temple City Blvd.
05/16/07
09/11/06
5205 Doreen Ave.
03/14/07
03/16/07
I6164Hart Ave
01/03/08
04/25/07
5103 Doreen Ave.
12/26/07
06/11/07
5119 Baldwin Ave.
05/13/08
02/13/08
5807 Kauffman Ave.
06/20/08
06/19/08-04/07/11
9674 Live Oak Ave.
10/26/11
06/30/08
10647 Olive St.
02/22/11
02/17/09
9233 Pentland St.
12/09/09
04/16/09
6448 Oak Ave.
06/03/10
04/27/09
5318 Arden Dr.
12/30/09
08/11/09
6219 Oak Ave.
02/09/10
05/10/10
4835 Camellia Ave.
02/17/11
05/10/10
5210 Willmonte Ave.
Under Construction
07/12/10
9926 Miloann St.
02/01/11
09/02/10
6332 Sultana Ave.
03/21/11
09/07/10
5827 Kauffman Ave.
04/26/11
10/18/10
9117 Olive St.
07/25/11
09/21/11
( 4503 Fiesta Ave.
05/31/12
09/29/11
5818 Camellia Ave.
04/24/12
Ill
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (30 DU/ACRE*) GENERAL PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
[21
Ratio Land
Total
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
5910 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
944
1940
5,134
0.1839
- 3
2
0.8000
$
130,193
$
162,737
APN # 5384016020
0
0
VACANT
3,270
0.0000
2
- 2
1.0000
$
11,025
$
11,025
5916 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,318
1940
5,124
0.2572
3
2
0,3875
$
22,342
$
57,663
2
2,262
13,528
0.1672
8
6
0.7068
$
63,560
$
231,425
5919 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
850
1940
3,950
0.2152
2
1
0.7846
$
265,996
$
339,021
1
850
1940
3,950
0.2152
2
1
0.7846
$
265,996
$
339;021
8837 ELM AVE
1
1,240
1939
8,339
0.1487
5
4
0.7097
$
134,596
$
189,658
8835 ELM AVE
1
1,298
1937
6,205
0.2092
4
3
0.7689
$
177,188
$
230,447
8833 ELM AVE
1
878
1951
4,826
0.1819
3
2
0.8000
$
261,336
$
326,669
3
3,416
19,370
0.1764
12
9
0.7675
$
573,120
1
746,774
5549 SULTANA AVE
1.
1,394
1935
21,344
0.0653
14
13
03901
$
80,850
$
207,229'
APN # 5387027033
0
0
VACANT
10,528
0.0000
7
7
1.0000
$
40,418
$
40,418
1
1,394
31,872
0.0437
21
20
0.4897
$
121,268
$
247,647
5134 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,324
1959
5,985
0.2212
4
3
0.7500
$
143,956
$
191,938
5136 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,324
1959
6,171
0.2146
4
3
0.7727
$
124,808
$
161,514
5138 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,684
1959
5,677
0.2966
3
2
0.2228
$
11,457
$
51,428
3
4,332
17,833
0.2429
11
8
0.6921
$
280,221
$
404,880
5036 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,634
1950.
9,326
0.1752
6
5
0.6497
$
198,275
$
305,190
5032 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
966
1946
12,118
0.0797
8
7
0.8000
$352,400
$
440,500
APN # 5388020010
0
0
VACANT
2,765
0.0000
1
1
1.0000
$
59,957
$
59,957
5026 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
0
VACANT
13,560
0.0000
9
8
1.0000
$
724,263
$
724,263
9002 PENTLAND ST
1
1,976
1949
5,516
0.3582
3
2
0.5859
$
167,540
$
285,958
4
4,57643,285
0.1057
27
23
D.8274
$1,502,435
$
1;815,868
4930 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
2,579
1952
10,711
0.2408
7
6
0.6831
$
267,767
$
391,984
1
2,579
10,711
0.2408
7,
6
0.6831
$
267,767
$
391,984
[21
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (30 DU/ACRE*) - Continued
Ratio Land
Total
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
6123 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
3
2,365 1
1921
9,199
0.2571
6
3
0.6469
$ 49,736
$ 76,885
6127 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,242
1963
7,765
0.1599
5
4
0.7707
$ 416,400
$ 540,300
6111 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
3
2,492
1956
7,413
0.3362
5
2
0.3041
$ 24,663
$ 81,096
6105 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
2
1,972
1913
6,692
0.2947
4
2
0.6521
$ 157,323
$ 241,271
6119 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
2
2,987
1949
14,715
0.2030
10
8
0.3294
$ 35,954
$ 109,153
11
11,058
45,784
0.2415
30
19
0.6523
$ 684,076
$1,048,705
9620 GARIBALDI AVE
1
949
1941
6,469
0.1467
4
3
0.4582
$ 24,093
$ 52,581
6052 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
2
2,622
1923
9,018
0.2908
6
4
06970
$ 510,487
$ 732,435
6053CAMELLIAAVE
1
1,400
1947
5,835
0.2399
4
3
0.8000
$ 492,116
$615,144
6058 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,359
1941
6,471
0.2100
4
3
0.6227
$ 167,636
$ 269,196
9616 GARIBALDI AVE
1
942
1947
2,655
0.3548
1
0
0.8581
$ 214,536
$ 250,006
6059 CAMELLIA AVE
1
1,516
1924
5,865
0.2585
4
3
0.6467
$ 361,850
$ 559,512
7
8,788
36,313
0.2420
23
16
0.7143
$1,770,718
$ 2,478,874
5719CAMELLIAAVE
1
3,033
1941
13,884
02185
9
8
0.6540
$ 527,133
$ 806,017
1
3,033
13,884
0.2185
9
8
0.6540
$ 527,133
$ 806,017
5524 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,314
1960
6,279
0.2093
4
3
0.6918
$ 173,768
$ 251,191
5516 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
800
1928
9,211
0.0869
6
5
0.8000
$360,000
$450,000
5522 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,314
1960
6,312
0.2082
4
3
0.7395
$343,023
$ 463,873
5526 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
4
6,737
1947
15,449
0.4361
10
6
0.5385
$ 732,023
$ 1,359,472
7
10,165
37,251
0.2729
24
17
0.6373
$ 1,608,814
$ 2,524,536
4420 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,297
1948
7,632
0.1699
5
4
0.7279
$ 223,829
$307,479
4439 ELLIS LN
2
1,378
1948
10,486
0.1314
7
5
08000
$ 343,661
$ 429,573
4430 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
2,250
1952
8,670
D.2595
5
4
0.4000
$ 91,118
$ 227,802
4423 ELLIS LN
1
1,048
1949
8,105
0.1293
5
4
0.7794
$ 175,264
$ 224,877
4431 ELLIS LN
1
1,024
1947
9,059
0.1130
6
5
0.8000
$ 221,570
$ 276,959
4410 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
4
4,963
1978
13,587
0.3653
9
5
0.6324
$ 554,878
$ 877,407
4436 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,086
1952
10,224
0.1062
7
6
0.6652
$ 128,493
$ 193,169
131
UNDERUTILIZED R-3
SITES INVENTORY
(30 DU/ACRE*)
- Continued
Ratio Land
Total
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
4447 ELLIS LN
1
936
1948
10,346
0.0905
7
6
0.8127
$ 208,216
$ 256,201
12
13,982
78,109
0.1790
51
39
0.6970
$ 1,947,029
$ 2,793,467
5926 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,896
1941
6,630
0.2860
4
3
0.6958
$ 450,000
$ 646,700
59201/2 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,075
1950
5,195
0.2069
3
2
0.7863
$ 165,887
$ 212,249
15922 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,024
1946
7,032
0.1456
4
3
0.3974
$ 73,889
$ 185,947
3
3,995
18,857
0.2119
11
8
0.6611
$ 690,776
$ 1,044,896
j 5803 OAK AVE
1
1,386
1929
6,997
0.1981
4
3
0.8000
$ 424,100
$ 530,100
5815 OAK AVE
1
1,872
1920
9,176
0.2040
6
5
0.7498
$ 220,376
$ 293,910
9421 WORKMAN AVE
1
1,280
1952
5,203
0.2460
3
2
0.2449
$ 15,859
$ 64,770
5807 OAK AVE
1
1,945
1952
5,874
0.3311
4
3
0.1784
$ 19,880
$ 111,408
4
6,483
27,250
0.2379
17
13
0.6801
$ 680,215
$ 1,000,188
5822 CLOVERLY AVE
1
1,299
1939
8,840
0.1469
6
5
0.8000
$ 312,913
$ 391,138
15826 CLOVERLY AVE
1
1,213
1940
8,585
0.1413
5
4
0.7251
$ 415,424
$ 572,929
2
2,512
17,425
0.1442
11
9
0.7555
$ 728,337
$ 964,067
(TOTALS
62
1
1 264.
202
* None of the parcels in this inventory abut R-1 properties. Per Housing Element Program #2 (Multi -family Sites Inventory and Incentives), densities of 30 units/acre
will be perm'nfed on R-3 sites which do not border R-1 neighborhoods.
Denotes adjacent parcels under common ownership.
101
UNDERUTILIZED R-3
SITES INVENTORY
(18 DU/ ACRE)
GENERAL
PLAN:
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Ratio Land
Total
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
6233
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,037
1941
6,782
0.152905
2
1
0.797718
$
198,761
$ 249,162
6239
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,911
1941
6,851
0.278937
2
1
0.589373
$
322,826
$ 547,745 1
1G243
ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
2,171
1923
13,663
0.158896
5
3
0.6812
$
502,571
$737,773 1
6251
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,008
1936
7,055
0.142877
2
1
0.399975
$
51,800
$129,508
1 6257
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,048
1941
6,860
0.15277
2
1
0.583966
$
69,315
$ 118,697 1
1
6
7,175
41,211
0.174104
13
7
0.642371
$
1,145,273
1,782,885
8927
GARIBALDI AVE
1
864
1951
6,688
0.129187
0.900688
$
382,861
$ 425,076
5
3
8919
GARIBALDI AVE
1
1,395
1951
6,777
0.205941
0.348056
$
39,985
$114,881
6113
ROSEM EAD BLVD
1
2,485
1951
6,884
0.360982
2
1
0.542448
$
315,168
$ 581,011
3
4,745
20,3491
0.233181
7
4
0.658372
$
738,014
$1,120,9681
6143
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,104
1937
6,873
0.160629
2
1
0.80001
$
231,518
$ 289,394
6149
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,248
1924
6,864
0.181818
0.694803
$
119;707
$ 172,289
1 6153
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,017
1940
6,863
0.148186
5
3
0.866328
$
212,829
$ 245,668 1
1
3
3,369
20,600
0.163544
7
4
0.797417
$
564,054
$ 707,351 1
1 6224
ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
1,309
1933
8,520
0.153638
3
1
0.999778
$
449,900
$ 450,000 1
6220
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
794
1937
7,927
0.100164
3
2
0.527622
$
21,986
$ 41,670 1
6210
ROSEMEAD BLVD
3
2,592
1945
16,489
0.157196
6
3
0,731708
$
615,146
$ 840,699 1
6
4,695
32,936
0.142549
12
6
0.815864
$
1,087,032
$1,332,369 1
1 6202
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,054
1941
8,250
0.127758
3
2
0.634928
$
155,596
$ 245,061 1
6166
ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
2,294
1979
8,232
0.278669
3
1
0.576926
$
179,946
$311,905 1
3
3,348
16,482 I
0.203131
6
3
0.602446
$
335,542
$ 556,966
5946
ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
2,180
1938
8,003
0.272398
3
1
0.599327
$
395,713
$ 660,262
1 5942
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
998
1953
8,151
0.122439
3
2
0.782152
$
147,883
$ 189,072
1 5938
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,044
1941
8,013
0.130288
3
2
0.512877
$
22,942
$ 44,732 1
1 5932
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,608
1941
8,130
0.197786
3
2
0.419507
$
22,942
$ 54,688 1
1 5928
ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,050
1940
8,043
0.130548
3
2
0.533411
$
22,942
$ 43,010 1
[5]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (18 DU/ACRE) - Continued
Existing
I Site Address
Units
5922 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
7
5923 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
5927 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
15933 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
15939 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
5943 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
I
5
6023 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
6029 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
6033 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
1,006
3
6129 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
6131TEMPLECFFY BLVD
1
6133 TEMPLE CIN BLVD
1
6135 TEMPLE CIN BLVD
1
0.162712
4
6114 TEMPLE CIN BLVD
1
I
1
9010 HERMOSA DR
1
19000 HERMOSA DR
1
5834 ROSEMEAD BLVD
1
$ 125,937
3!
4924 ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
4914 ROSEMEAD BLVD
2
[6)
Ratla Land
Total
Building
Year Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Sq. Ft.
Built Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
1,006
1940 8,126
0.1238
3
2
0.800002
$ 321,644
$402,054
7,886
48,466
0.162712
18
11
0.670149
$ 934,066
$1,393,818
1,084
1939 6,922
0.156602
0.53019
$ 125,937
$ 237532
1,356
1937 6,934
0.195558
0.93583486
$ 255,319184
$ 272,825
11
7I
851
1938 6,915
0.123066
0.9344
$ 227,
$248,428
953
1938 6,949
0.137142D.826852
$ 334,922
$405,057
1,080
1929 6,886
0.15684
2
1
0.886222
$ 312,334
$352,433
5,324
34,606
0.153846
13
8
0.828145
$ 1,255,696
$1,516,275
2,342
1931 6,890
0.339913
2
1
0.731455
$ 405,329
$ 554,141
1,074
1930 6,912
0.155382
2
1
0.715725
$ 250,873
$ 350,516
1,288
1930 6,846
0.188139
2
1
0.691698
$ 240,069
$ 347,072
4,704
20,648
0.227819
6
3
0.716026$
896,271
$1,251,729
1,242
1963 6,269
0.198118
2
1
0.530291
$ 117,967
$ 222,457
1,288
1963 5,033
0.255911
2
1
0.667495
$ 243,727
$ 365,137
1,288
1963 5,463
0.235768
2
1
0.586393
$ 175,359
$ 299,047
1,288
1963 6,111
0.210767
2
1
0.787649
$ 437,046
$ 554,874
5,106
22,876
0.223203
8
4
0.675747
$ 974,099
$1,441,515
1,538
1948 11,357
0.135423
4
3
0.760594
$ 169,198
$ 222,455
1,538
I 11,357
0.135423
4
3
0.760594
$ 169,198
$ 222A55
1,009
1940 6,676
0.151138
2
1
0.799959
$ 389,900
$ 487,400
1,150
19411 5,024
0.228901
2
1
0.699578
$ 331,600
$474,000 I
835
1941 5,239
0.159382
2
1
0.532669
$ 20,259
$ 38,033
2,994
16,939
0.176752
6
3
0.74218
$ 741,759
$999,433
1,826
1952 10,656
0.171359
4
2
0.760002
$ 389,592
$512,620
1,270
1947 9,549
0.132998
3
1
0.8408631
$ 176,419
$209,807
[6)
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (18 DU/ACRE) - Continued
Site Address
4912 ROSEMEAD BLVD
5657 MCCULLOCH AVE
r 5749 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
5753 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
9566 LIVE OAK AVE
5511 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
5619 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
TOTALS
Denotes adjacent parcels under common ownership.
17]
Ratio Land
Total
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
Gross DU
Net DU
Value to
Assessed Land
Assessed
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Total Value
Value
Value
1
1,487
1947
7,816
0.190251
3
2
0.655029
$ 202,972
$309,867
5
4,583
28,021
0.163556
10
5
0.744926
$ 768,983
$1,032,2941
1
1,878
1907
53,745
0.034943
22
21
0.731743
$ 206,658
$ 282,419 1
1
1,878
53,745
0.034943
22
21
0.731743
$ 206,658
$282419
1
1,549
1933
9,175
b.168828
3
2
41039
$ 1 75,976
$274,517
11
2,602
1942
9,177
0.283535
3
2
0.10 64708
$ 29,618
$179,821 I
2
4,1511
18,3521
0.226188
6
4
0.4525131
$ 205,594
$454,338
1
1,731
1951
8,064
0.214658
3
2
0.785911
$ 513,200
$ 653,000
1
1,731
8,0364
0214658
3
2
0.785911
$ 513,200
$ 653,000
1
1,635
1921
9,035
0.180963
3
2
0.762812
$ 306,469
$401,762
4
3,478
1948
12,991
0.267724
5
1
0.498321
$ 56,243
$112,865
5
5,113
22,026
0.232135
8
3
0.704806
$ 362,712
$514,627
58
149
91
Denotes adjacent parcels under common ownership.
17]
UNDERUTILIZED R-.^,
SITES -NVENT01Y (12 UNITS/ACRE) General P
an: Mee ium Dens`ty
Residential
Gross
Ratio Land
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
5072 SERENO DR
2
1,762
1957
22.875
00770
6
4
0.7558
$
653,341
$ 864,420
9511 LONGDEN AVE
1
1,430
1948
15,432
0.0927
4
3
0.8000
$
480,000
$ 600,000
10904 FREER 57
1
1,231
1946
15,202
00810
4
3
0.8000
$
256,965
$ 321,198
4906 ENCINITA AVE
1
910
1937
15,322
0.0594
4
3
0.6993
$
364,500
$ 521,200
4910 ENCINITA AVE
1
920
1937
15,744
0.0584
4
3
0.8889
$
483,614
$ 544,065
5355 SANTA ANITA AVE
1
1,851
1952
15,860
0.1167
4
3
0.8000
$
285,961
$ 357,449
9114 SLACKLEY ST
3
2,333
1947
21,805
0.1070
6
3
07500
$
959,997
$ 1,279,995
4951 SERENO DR
1
980
1948
12,251
00800
3
2
0.8000
$
226,002
$ 282,500
4963 SERENO DR
1
1,710
1946
11,176
0.1530
3
2
0.8333
$
395,000
$ 474,000
4941 SERENO DR
1
1,116
1946
11,417
0.0977
3
2
0.7693
$
267,804
$ 348,131
4927 SERENO DR
1
761
1946
11,237
00677
3
2
0.8000
$
345,768
$ 432,210
4917 SERENO DR
1
708
1946
11,450
00618
3
2
09143
$
322,409
$ 352,634
9090 ACASO DR
1
968
1949
12,921
0.0749
3
2
0.9306
$
167,002
$ 179,459
4923 SERENO DR
1
3,517
1946
12,495
0.2815
3
2
0.7326
$
600,105
$ 819,196
9703 GARIBALDI AVE
1
2,300
1921
11,594
0.1984
3
2
0.6820
$
249,339
$ 365,605
6037 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,244
1941
11,327
01098
3
2
0.7498
$
215,603
$ 287,549
5120 DALEVI EW AVE
1
1,468
1950
13,368
0.1098
3
2
08000
$
387,600
$ 484,500
5026 DALEVIEW AVE
1
1,087
1948
13,781
0.0789
3
2
0.7791
$
246,921
$ 316,922
5062 SULTANA AVE
1
1,590
1955
12,141
0.1310
3
2
0.8000
$
430,500
$ 538,100
5451 SULTANA AVE
1
1,222
1937
11,373
01074
3
2
0.7647
$
379,300
$ 496,000
5019 FARAGO AVE
1
2,124
1952
14,049
0.1512
3
2
07042
$
199,658
$ 283,530
6341 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
2
3,504
1919
16,769
02090
4
2
0.6452
$
281,568
$ 436,425
5303 SANTA ANITA AVE
3
2,684
1954
19,455
0.1380
5
2
06573
$
193,416
$ 294,241
5409 WELLAND AVE
3
3,332
1941
18,998
0.1754
5
2
0.6667
$
443,901
$ 665,849
5134 SERENO DR
4
2,894
1947
22,829
0.1268
6
2
0.8000
$
722,428
$ 903,034
[8]
[9]
Gross
Ratio Land
_
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
5602 WELLAN D AVE
4
3,331
1956
24,437
0.1363
6
2
06061
$
262,209
$
432,642
5416 WELLAND AVE
4
3,360
1938
24,130
0.1392
6
2
0.7442
$
806,024
$
1,083,094
5826 N MUSCATEL AVE
1
1,150
1939
8,226
0.1398
2
1
0.6570
$
88,182
$
134,218
8908 HERMOSA DR
1
876
1941
7,567
0.1158
2
1
07434
$
186,515
$
250,885
6415 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,032
1939
8,188
01321
2
1
0.7606
$
146,949
$
193,214
6334 TRELAWNEY AVE
1
1,756
1962
7,386
0.2377
2
1
0.7213
$
423,400
$
587,000
9025 OLIVE ST
1
750
1948
7,649
00981
2
1
0.8000
$
333,600
$
417,000
5249 SERENO DR
1
978
1952
10,506
00931
2
1
0.7351
$
91,327
$
124,241
9035 OLIVE ST
1
904
1946
8,259
0.1095
2
1
0.8870
$
161,498
$
182,072
4947 SERENO DR
1
1,2961
1947
10,357
0.1251
2
1
0.8589
$
174,480
$
203,140
9064 ACASO DR
1
823
1948
8,705
00945
2
1
0.7101
$
171,667
$
241,750
9034 BROADWAY
1
1,676
1940
10,415
0.1609
2
1
0.7056
$
185,625
$
263,077
4937 SERENO DR
1
1,461
1946
10,581
0.1381
2
1
0.7459
$
173,585
$
232,722
9020 PENTLAND ST
1
1,054
1949
7,465
0.1412
2
1
0.8131
$
349,656
$
430,036
5022 SULTANA AVE
1
1,674
1950
8,874
0.1886
2
1
0.6948
$
211,689
$
304,682
5127 SULTANA AVE
1
784
1957
7,691
0.1019
2
1
0.9742
$
105,556
$
108,346
5016 SULTANA AVE
1
1,482
1950
7,636
0.1941
2
1
0.6714
$
154,947
$
230,794
9068 ACASO DR
1
1,552
1948
9,343
0.1661
2
1
06613
$
195,990
$
296,392
5069 SULTANA AVE
1
1,334
1951
8,123
0.1642
2
1
0.7345
$
325,300
$
442,900
5017 SULTANA AVE
1
1,557
1949
9,169
0.1698
2
1
0.6925
$
281,824
$
406,964
9641 LONGDEN AVE
1
1,941
1951
7,538
0.2575
2
1
0.6186
$
386,992
$
625,630
9072 ACASO DR
1
1,646
1948
8,231
02000
2
1
0.8059
$
500,000
$
620,400
9078 ACASO DR
1
1,298
1943
9,639
01347
2
1
0.8000
$
390,806
$
488,505
6317 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,328
1925
7,360
0.1804
2
1
07137
$
221,376
$
310,200
9024 PENTLAND ST
1
766
1949
7,417
01033
2
1
0.7096
$
229,113
$
322,854
9015 HERMOSA DR
1
1,908
1937
9,935
0.1920
2
1
0.7179
$
276,737
$
385,501
6239 GOLDEN WESTAVE
1
1,452
1961
9,141
0.1588
2
1
0.7235
$
382,900
$
529,200
[9]
[10]
Gross
Ratio Land
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
9722 LONGDEN AVE
1
765
1947
7,625
0.1003
2
1
0.7409
$
152,742
$
206,159
9616 LONGDEN AVE
1
1,316
1946
8,249
0.1595
2
1
0.6330
$
144,028
$
227,545
6042 GOLDEN WEST AVE
1
984
1937
9,222
0.1067
2
1
06186
$
26,961
$
43,5851
6012 PRIM ROSE AVE
1
1,309
1953
9,193
01424
2
1
0.6971
$
302,211
$
433,554
6202 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,560
1938
7,687
0.2029
2
1
0.6759
$
214,643
$
317,552
6126 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,552
1952
7,489
02072
2
1
0.7000
$
246,988
$
352,837
6036 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,407
1929
9,937
0.1416
2
1
0.7026
$
214,384
$
305,122
6038 PRIMROSE AVE
1
1,288
1924
9,235
0.1395
2
1
0.7574
$
252,707
$
333,652
6032 PRIMROSE AVE
1
1,640
1939
9,157
01791
2
1
07178
$
483,110
$
673,029
6022 PRIMROSE AVE
1
1,592
1940
9,161
01738
2
1
0.6512
$
199,524
$
306,382
6036 CAMELLIAAVE
1
1,240
1924
7,484
0.1657
2
1
0.8000
$
376,000
$
470,000
6013 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,586
1937
9,169
0.1730
2
1
07355
$
452,313
$
614,944
6137 GOLDEN WESTAVE
1
1,930
1959
10,040
0.1922
2
1
0.7520
$
453,519
$
603,083
6042 PRIMROSE AVE
1
884
1933
9,241
0.0957
2
1
0.8000
$
186,195
$
232,736
6012 CAMELLIA AVE
1
1,617
1940
9,091
0.1779
2
1
0.7339
$
402,056
$
547,801
6217 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
811
1933
8,550
0.0949
2
1
0.8000
$
203,770
$
254,706
6049 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,324
1924
9,196
0.1440
2
1
0.7652
$
208,378
$
272,316
5215 SANTA ANITA AVE
1
964
1946
8,747
01102
2
1
0.8000
$
128,137
$
160,166
10868 FREER ST
1
1,397
1950
9,984
0.1399
2
1
0.6265
$
145,061
$
231,555
10872 FREER ST
1
1,185
1950
9,886
0.1199
2
1
0.6446
$
86,236
$
133,787
5219 FARAGO AVE
1
1,565
1944
8,307
0.1884
2
1
08000
$
380,800
$
476,000
5123 SANTA ANITA AVE
1
1,948
1948
9,041
0.2155
2
1
0.7060
$
177,251
$
251,055
5233 SANTA ANITA AVE
1
1,392
1947
9,462
0.1471
2
1
0.8000
$
187,144
$
233,926
51155ANTAANITAAVE
1
1,643
1949
9,039
0.1818
2
1
0.7843
$
418,299
$
533,330
10841 GRAND AVE
1
1,199
1950
7,649
0.1568
2
1
0.7895
$
254,353
$
322,178
5221 FARAGO AVE
1
2,034
1960
7,871
0.2584
2
1
0.8000
$
416,048
$
520,059
5322 WELLAND AVE
1
2,811
1973
10,220
0.2750
2
1
0.6135
$
262,209
$
427,397
[10]
Gross
Ratio Land
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total
Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
5124 FARAGO AVE
1
1,296
1944
7,447
0.1740
2
1
0.6753
IS
97,525
$
144,412
10823 GRAND AVE
1
768
1948
7,418
0.1035
2
1
0.8933
$
340,000
$
380,600
10936 FREER ST
1
1,326
1941
8,232
0.1611
2
1
07494
$
305,000
$
407,000
5227 SANTA ANITA AVE
1
1,434
1948
9,095
0.1577
2
1
0.8000
$
374,269
$
467,835
10831 GRAND AVE
1
1,264
1948
7,605
01662
2
1
0.8000
$
177,764
$
222,197
5005 FARAGO AVE
1
1,718
1938
8,768
0.1959
2
1
0.6643
$
206,101
$
310,261
5616 MCCULLOCH AVE
1
1,128
1961
7,786
0.1449
2
1
0.8000
$
186,766
$
233,453
5510 MCCULLOCH AVE
1
1,882
1945
8,327
0.2260
2
1
0.7106
$
140,717
$
198,035
5512 MCCULLOCH AVE
1
961
1942
7,467
0.1287
2
1
07889
1$
332,926
$
421,997
4812 AGNES AVE
1
838
1952
9,544
0.0878
2
1
0.8565
$
232,714
$
271,703
4821 HALLOWELL AVE
1
1,036
1949
10,690
0.0969
2
1
0.8000
$
351,200
$
439,000
4846 GLICKMAN AVE
1
1,407
1964
8,475
0.1660
2
1
07485
IS
354,513
IS
473,622
5931 AGNES AVE
1
1,677
1939
7,482
0.2241
2
1
0.6167
$
159,918
$
259,324
5931 ROWLAND AVE
1
1,928
1942
9,335
0.2065
2
1
0.8000
$
470,400
IS
588,000
5920 AGN ES AVE
1
991
1940
9,422
01052
2
1
08000
$
214,913
$
268,633
9222 WOODEN FF AVE
1
1,501
1939
7,265
0.2066
2
1
0.8001
$
212,291
IS
265,331
5928 ROWLAND AVE
1
1,750
1948
9,851
01776
2
1
0.7082
$
146,464
$
206,800
5930 ALESSANDRO AVE
1
1,264
1940
9,178
0.1377
2
1
0.6921
$
224,761
$
324,755
5947 AGNES AVE
1
1,152
1924
9,502
0.1212
2
1
0.7556
$
229,498
$
303,730
5925 AGNES AVE
1
1,442
1940
9,463
0.1524
2
1
0.6454
$
267,014
$
413,713
5942 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,455
1940
8,048
0.1808
2
1
07445
$
226,654
$
304,454
5946AGNESAVE
1
1,146
1940
9,481
0.1209
2
1
0.7921
IS
425,700
$
537,400
5932 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,743
1941
8,839
01972
2
1
0.6979
$
474,600
$
680,000
5816 ALESSANDRO AVE
1
1,031
1940
9,142
0.1128
2
1
07859
IS
326,929
$
416,006
5815 PRIMROSE AVE
1
1,326
1951
7,489
0.1771
2
1
0.6612
$
228,066
IS
344,911
5822 ALESSANDRO AVE
1
1,337
1939
9,189
01455
2
1
0.7973
$
237,328
IS
297,670
5628 MCCULLOCH AVE
1
1,154
1960
9,366
0.1232
2
1
0.7901
$
320,000
$
405,000
[12]
Gross
Ratio Land
Existing
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total Assessed
Site Address
Units
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
5322 MCCULLOCH AVE
1
1,707
1953
9,563
01785
2
1
0.6500
$
175,910
$
270,627
10847 FREER ST
1
1,806
1977
9,725
0.1857
2
1
0.8074
$
256,310
$
317,445
5437 WELLAND AVE
1
1,585
1936
8,408
0.1885
2
1
0.7010
$
326,600
$
465,900
5425 WELLAND AVE
1
925
1949
7,584
0.1220
2
1
0.7333
$
137,090
$
186,937
10816 DAINES DR
1
1,013
1939
9,391
0.1079
2
1
0.8001
$
326,600
$
408,200
5105 SERENO DR
1
1,312
1948
8,825
0.1487
2
1
08000
$
400,000
$
500,000
5833 ALESSANDRO AVE
1
1,696
1940
9,955
01704
2
1
0.6457
$
262,139
$
405,946
10879 GRAND AVE
1
1,108
1956
7,830
0.1415
2
1
0.7894
$
338,530
$
428,829
5111 SANTAANITA AVE
1
1,796
1947
9,136
0.1966
2
1
06570
$
271,085
$
412,615
5019 SANTAANITA AVE
1
1,460
1951
9,230
0.1582
2
1
08000
$
357,773
$
447,241
5005 SANTAANITA AVE
1
1,159
1954
9,182
01262
2
1
0.8000
$
167,810
$
209,758
6335 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,823
1960
9,411
0.1937
2
1
0.8000
$
484,800
$
606,000
6345 TEMPLE CITY BLVD
1
1,628
1948
7,628
0.2134
2
1
0.6211
$
150,002
$
241,527
9033 RANCHO REAL RD
1
1,391
1939
9,032
0.1540
2
1
0.7337
$
232,990
$
317,550
9047 OLIVE ST
1
1,938
1948
8,414
0.2303
2
1
0.7582
$
228,287
$
301,088
6022 CAMELLIA AVE
1
1,764
1940
8,986
01963
2
1
0.6224
$
176,848
$
284,149
6003 KAUFFMAN AVE
1
1,406
1940
10,086
0.1394
2
1
0.6969
$
178,169
$
255,647
9711 GARIBALDI AVE
1
900
1954
7,589
0.1186
2
1
0.7441
$
346,000
$
465,000
6019 GOLDEN WEST AVE
1
1,699
1947
9,695
0.1752
2
1
0.6940
$
232,639
$
335,194
10827 GRAND AVE
1
1,466
1950
7,714
0.1900
2
1
07383
$
203,181
$
275,213
10912 FREER ST
1
1,400
1964
8,170
01714
2
1
0.6966
$
369,500
$
530,400
5310 WELLAND AVE
1
1,577
1965
7,894
0.1998
2
1
0.7440
$
383,700
$
515,700
5209 SANTAANITA AVE
1
1,490
1950
8,619
0.1729
2
1
08236
$
271,411
$
329,549
5936 ENCINITA AVE
1
1,690
1932
8,591
0.1967
2
1
0.6787
$
338,916
$
499,383
10843 FREER ST
1
2,279
1949
9,996
0.2280
2
1
0.6635
$
296,293
$
446,528
5433 WELLAND AVE
1
1,470
1958
8,992
0.1635
2
1
0.6568
$
146,464
$
222,999
8820 HERMOSA DR
2
1,348
1948
11,275
01196
3
1
0.6500
$
513,064
$
789,328
[12]
Existing
Site Address
Units
8832 HERMOSA DR
2
9040 BROADWAY
2
9016 RANCHO REAL RD
2
9084ACA50 DR
2
9660 LONGOEN AVE
2
5324 WELLAND AVE
2
5020 DALEVIEW AVE
2
5208 DALEVIEW AVE
2
5116 DALEVI EW AVE
2
9225 WORKMAN AVE
2
9713 LONGDEN AVE
3
5021 GUCKMAN AVE
3
4828 GLICKMAN AVE
3
63120AKAVE
3
5137 SERENO DR
4
5011GLICKMANAVE
4
5406 MCCULLOCH AVE
4
5102 SERENO DR
5
5948 OAK AVE
0
5335 WELLAND AVE
1
TOTALS.
201
[13]
Gross
Ratio Land
-
Building
Year
Lot Sq.
DU
Net DU
to Total
Assessed Land
Total Assessed
Sq. Ft.
Built
Ft.
FAR
Potential
Potential
Value
Value
Value
1,770
1947
11,275
0,1570
3
1
0.7826
$
453,388
$
579,329
2,165
1959
14,358
0.1508
3
1
0.6667
$
244,727
$
367,089
2,450
1941
11,951
0.2050
3
1
0.7211
$
195,007
$
270,420
1,352
1950
13,049
0.1036
3
1
0.6667
$
221,948
$
332,921
1,688
1955
10,960
0.1540
3
1
_0.8000
$
443,901
$
554,874
1,676
1936
13,649
0.1228
3
1
0.7377
$
452,313
$
613,134
1,602
1956
13,328
0.1202
3
1
0.8488
$
181,844
$
214,249
2,572
1948
13,624
0.1888
3
1
0.8297
$
186,578
$
224,881
2,450
1957
13,426
0.1825
3
1
0.6566
$
263,585
$
401,466
2,845
1940
11,895
0.2392
3
1
0.6397
$
639,997
$
1,000,528
3,154
1950
18,104
0.1742
4
1
0.6323
$
387,722
$
613,168
2,250
1953
14,913
0.1509
4
1
0.7463
$
717,670
$
961,677
2,616
1964
16,869
0.1551
4
1
0.6321
$
264,947
$
419,178
3,188
1954
15,939
0.2000
4
1
0.6314
$
603,085
$
955,104
2,960
1948
19,993
0.1481
5
1
0,7014
$
249,894
$
356,262
3,259
1946
21,254
0.1533
5
1
0.7732
$
254,892
$
329,547
3,730
1943
21,411
0.1742
5
1
1.0000
$
1,176,468
$
1,176,468
5,526
1946
22,598
0.2445
6
1
0.5129
$
527,133
$
860,059
1,228
1974
6,778
0.1812
1
1
0.7000
$
289,850
$
414,067
960
1937
8,081
0,1188
2
1
1.0000
$
239,658
$
239,658
389
1B8
[13]
Technical Appendix D: Attachment B
Staff Reports on R-2 and R-3 Projects
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 12, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF
FOUR (4) DETACHED CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. THE
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 4825 ARDEN DRIVE IN THE
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. (GILBERT
ENGINEERING/DEARTH)
PROJECT SITE: 4825 ARDEN DRIVE
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1681
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 60102
OWNER/APPLICANT: RONALD & RICHARD DEARTH
150 NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE, #300
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
ENGINEER: GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
2028 EAST ROUTE 66, #203
GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA 91740
ARCHITECT: GRAHAM BRIGGS DESIGN ASSOCIATES
909 SOUTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE, SUITE I
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
General Plan:
Area
Lot. Sq. Ft. Width
16,128 72'
R-2, Multiple Family Residential
Medium Density Residential
Depth Shape and Characteristics
224' Rectangular and level
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006
Conditional Use Permit 06-1681
Tentative Parcel Map 60102
Public Improvements: Existing curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Action: None
Pendina Actions: Final Map processing, approval and recordation
Backaround
2
The property is zoned R-2, medium density residential, and is surrounded by R-2
property to the north, east and west. Property to the south is zoned C-2, General
Commercial. The subject property is currently improved with several dwellings and a
six -car garage. The existing structures were constructed in 1939 and contain
approximately 3,100 square feet.
On August 26, 2003, the Planning Commission approved TPM 60102 and CUP 03-
1530 for a four -unit condominium project at this same site. That Tentative Parcel Map
approval was valid for 24 months. The applicant did not record the Final Map or apply
for a time extension within that 24 -month period and therefore, the Tentative Parcel
Map expired.
The new proposal before the Planning Commission is generally quite similar to the
previous approval, but has been designed to comply with the amended R-2 regulations
that were adopted in 2005. Additionally, Staff believes that the current proposal is of a
superior architectural design when compared to the previous approval.
Proposed Development
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials:
Density:
Proposed
V
0
8,056 sq. ft.
including garages
Max. permitted or
min. reauired by Code
4 max.
8,190 sq. ft.
Stucco, cultured stone veneer, decorative metal
railings, and concrete tile roof
10.8 du/ac
12 du/ac max.
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_ 2012_ 07_ 27 zip\PC RPT, TPM 60102, CUP 06-1681, 4825 Arden Drive
(Gilbert Engeineering-Dearth).doc
Public Hearing December 12, 2006
Conditional Use Permit 06-1681
Tentative Parcel Map 60102
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Spaces:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
3,136 sq. ft. (approx.) 1,500 sq. ft.
(784 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
.49 .50
31% 50%
25-4" 30'-0"
12
12 min.
8
8 min.
4
4 min.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an gxisting lot of 16,128 square feet to allow the
construction of four (4) detached condominium dwelling units.
Unit A will be located closest to Arden Drive, and the front door will face Arden Drive.
The other three units (Units 8, C&D) will be situated so that the front entry doors face
the private, 25 -foot wide driveway. All four floor plans will consist of a living room,
dining room, 3/4 bath, kitchen, and garage with a laundry area on the first floor. The
second floor will consist of two bathrooms and three bedrooms. All four units will feature
a private yard with a small covered patio area.
Analysis
Staff has distributed the Tentative Parcel Map to the appropriate City, County and District
Agencies for review and feedback. A subdivision meeting was held with the applicant and
engineer to discuss the recommended conditions that would be imposed upon granting
this Tentative Parcel Map. The conditions in the attached draft resolution are based on
comments received by various departments and agencies, which are typical.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-2 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed four dwelling units, and the project provides adequate off-street vehicle
parking in the four garages and four guest parking spaces. It should be noted that this
project does comply with the amended R-2 regulations that were adopted in 2005.
Recommendation
Approve Negative Declaration and adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
06-1681 and Tentative Parcel Map 60102 based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions stipulated in the attached draft resolution.
C:\Users\KWAWppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_ 2012_07_ 27 zip\PC RPT, TPM 60102, CUP 06-1681, 4825 Arden Drive
(Gilbert Engeineering-Dearth) doc
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 12, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF
THREE (3) DETACHED CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. THE
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 5062 SULTANA AVENUE IN THE
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. (CAL LAND
ENGINEERING/CHU)
PROJECT SITE:
CASE NO:
OWNERIAPPLICANT:
5062 SULTANA AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1682
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 65976
DENISE LILY CHU
5922 BURTON AVENUE
SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA 91775
ENGINEER: JACK LEE, CAL LAND ENGINEERING, INC.
576 EAST LAMBERT ROAD
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92821
ARCHITECT: JUMBODOLLAR ENTERPRISE, INC.
18800 EAST AMAR ROAD, UNIT C-14
WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: R-2, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Area
Lot. Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
12,017 57' 210.83' Rectangular and level
Public Hearing: June 12, 2007 2
Conditional Use Permit 06-1682
Tentative Parcel Map 65976
Public Improvements: Existing curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt [15315]
Previous Action: None
Pendina Actions: Final Map processing, approval and recordation
Backaround
The property is zoned R-2, medium density residential, and is surrounded by R-2
property to the north, south, east and west. The subject property is currently improved
with one, 1,590 square foot single-family dwelling constructed in 1955.
Proposed Development
Ce\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Tempt_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC RPT, TPM 65976, CUP 06-1682, 5062 Sultana
Avenue (Cal Land Engeineering-Chu).doc
Proposed
min. required by Code
No. of Units:
3
3 max.
No. of Bedrooms:
4
Total Floor Area:
5,979 sq. ft.
6,008 sq. ft.
including garages
Exterior materials:
Stucco, cultured stone veneer, shutters, and concrete
tile roof
Density:
10.9 du/ac
12 du/ac max.
Open Space:
2,576 sq. ft. (approx.)
1,500 sq. ft.
(859 avg.sf/unit)
(500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio:
.49
.50
Lot Coverage:
37%
50%
Height:
23'-10"
30'-0"
No. of Parking Spaces:
9
9 min.
Garage Parking:
6
6 min.
Guest Parking:
3
3 min.
Ce\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Tempt_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC RPT, TPM 65976, CUP 06-1682, 5062 Sultana
Avenue (Cal Land Engeineering-Chu).doc
Public Hearing: June 12, 2007
Conditional Use Permit 06-1682
Tentative Parcel Map 65976
The applicant is proposing a condominium subdivision, constructing three detached units
on the existing 12,071 square foot lot.
Unit A will be the unit located closest to Sultana Avenue, and the front door will face
Sultana Avenue. The other two units will be situated so that the front entry doors will
face the private, 20 -foot wide driveway. All three plans will consist of a living room,
dining room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and garage on the first floor. The second floor
of all three layouts will consist of three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Analysis
Staff has distributed the Tentative Parcel Map to the appropriate City, County and District
Agencies for review and feedback. A subdivision meeting was held with the applicant and
engineer to discuss the recommended conditions that would be imposed upon granting
this Tentative Parcel Map. The conditions in the attached draft resolution are based on
comments received by various departments and agencies, which are typical.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-2 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed three dwelling units, and the project provides adequate off-street vehicle
parking in the three garages and three guest parking spaces. It should be noted that this
project does comply with the amended R-2 regulations and design standards that were
adopted in 2005.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 06-1682 and Tentative Parcel Map
65976 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions stipulated in the attached
draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Draft Resolution
2.
8'/�' x 11" Tentative Parcel Map
3.
Application
4.
Pictures
5.
Vicinity Map
6.
Zoning Map
7.
Aerial Photograph
C.\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments _ 2012_ 07_27.zip\PC RPT, TPM 65976, CUP 06-1682, 5062 Sultana
Avenue (Cal Land Engeineering-Chu) doc
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: DECEMBER 12, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH SEVEN (7)_ DETACHED UNITS
AT 5063 & 5067 SERENO DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. (CAL LAND ENGINEERING/KOTAI
SERENO GARDEN)
PROJECT SITE: 5063 & 5067 SERENO DRIVE
CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 65942
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1677
OWNERS: KOTAI SERENO GARDEN
6154 OAK AVENUE
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA 91780
ENGINEER: JACK C. LEE (CAL LAND ENGINEERING)
576 E. LAMBERT RD.
BREA, CALIFORNIA
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
General Plan:
Lot: Area
Sq -
27,569
R-2, Multiple Family Residential
Medium Density Residential (Up to 12 du/ac)
Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
114' 233'-251' rectangular and level
Public Improvements
Environmental Review:
Previous Actions:
Curb and gutter
Negative Declaration
None
Pending Actions: City Council approval, Final map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check, issuance of building permits
and building construction.
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006
Tentative Tract Map 65942
Conditional Use Permit 06-1677
Backaround:
Page- 2 -
The combined area of the two properties is approximately 27,569 square feet.
The site is currently improved with a total of three dwelling units, one on the
southerly parcel and two on the northerly parcel. In order to develop the site, the
applicant will demolish all three dwellings on the site. The subject property is
surrounded by multiple family (R-2) residential properties to the north, south, east
and west.
Proposed Development:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials:
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
Proposed
7
Fl
13,778 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. required by Code
7.65 max.
13,784 sq. ft. max.
Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, shutters, and concrete roof tile
11.05du/ac 12 du/ac max.
7,100 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. ft. min.
(1,014 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
.498 .50
34% 50%
24'-4"± 30'-0"
23 21 min.
14 14 min.
9 7 min.
The applicant's proposal is to demolish the three existing residences and construct seven
detached condominium units. The unit sizes vary from 1,492 to 1,512 square feet of living
area, each featuring four bedrooms, three bathrooms and a two -car garage. The total
building area is 13,778 square feet and the proposed FAR is 49.8%, slightly under the
50% maximum allowed by the Zoning Code.
C.\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments _ 2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 65942,5063 & 5067 Sereno
Avenuet7-units).doc
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006 Page- 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 65942
Conditional Use Permit 06-1677
Vehicular access is provided via a 26 -foot wide driveway bisecting the site, which leads to
all garages and guest parking spaces. Sunken landscape planters are provided along the
driveway, adjacent to some of the dwelling units. A total of nine guest parking spaces are
provided, which is two spaces over the minimum (seven spaces) required by Code.
Analysis:
The subject proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments
and the pertinent utility companies. The conditions of approval have been included in the
attached draft resolution; these were created based upon comments and concerns
provided by the various departments and agencies.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-2 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed seven dwelling units, and the project provides more than adequate off-
street vehicle parking. It should be noted that this project does comply with the amended
R-2 regulations that were adopted in 2005.
Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
65942, Conditional Use Permit 06-1677, and the related Negative Declaration, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Staff Draft Resolution
2.
Draft Negative Declaration
3.
Environmental Checklist
5.
Application & pictures
B.
Vicinity Map
7.
Zoning Map
8.
Aerial Photograph
C \Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Tempt_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 65942,5063 & 5067 Sereno
Avenue(7-units).doc
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: MARCH 22, 2005
REPORT ON: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH TEN (10) DETACHED UNITS AT
5615-5627 WELLAND AVENUE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. (CHAN/KWOK/EGL)
PROJECT SITE: 5615-5627 WELLAND AVENUE
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1610
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 61594
PROPERTY
OWNER: SUNNY S. CHAN AND GRACE S. KWOK
6047 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
APPLICANT/
ENGINEER: HANK JONG
EGL ASSOCIATES, INC.
1819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT A
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
General Plan
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width
38,006 142'
Public Improvements:
Environmental Review:
Previous Actions
Pendinq Actions
R-2, Multiple Family Residential
Medium Density Residential (Up to 12 du/ac)
Depth
267.65'
Curb, gutter and sidewalk
Negative Declaration
None
Shape and Characteristics
Rectangular and level
Final map processing and approval, Building Department plan
check, issuance of building permits and construction
Public Hearing: March 22, 2005
Tentative Tract Map 61594
Conditional Use Permit 06-1610
Background:
Page- 2 -
The subject property contains two separate lots, with a total of eight (8) dwelling
units, consisting of 5,672 square feet of living area. In order to develop the
subject properties, the applicant will demolish the existing dwellings on the lot(s).
The subject property is surrounded by multiple family (R-2) residential properties
to the south and west; the properties to the east are zoned multiple family (R-3)
residential; and the north property line of the subject site is the Temple City -
Arcadia border.
Proposed Development:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
Proposed
10
3
18,800 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. required by Code
10 max.
19,003 sq. ft. max.
Stucco, wood window shutters, stone veneer, and
concrete roof tile
11.5 du/ac
13,395 sq. ft.
(1,361 avg.sf/unit)
.498
24.6%
25'-0"±
30
20
10
12 du/ac may.
5,000 sq, ft. min.
(500 sf/unit)
.50
50%
30'-0"
30 min.
As indicated in the Zoning Code, the proposed subdivision requires the approval of a
Tentative Tract Map and a Conditional Use Permit for the creation of ten (10) new
dwelling units. The applicant is proposing to construct ten (10) two-story detached
condominium dwelling units, with ten (10) guest parking spaces located between the
dwelling units. The ten units will be accessible by a driveway that would have a minimum
width of 20 feet, as well as a 3 foot landscaped areas along both sides of the driveway.
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Tempt_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 6159.4, 5615-5627 Welland Avenue
(10-units).doc
Public Hearing: March 22, 2005 Page- 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 61594
Conditional Use Permit 06-1610
All ten (10) dwellings will consist of a ground floor containing a kitchen, living room, dining
room, bedroom and bathroom. The second floor will consist of two bedrooms and two
bathrooms. In addition, all ten units will contain an attached two -car garage on the
ground floor with a laundry area. It should be noted that the two units facing Welland
Avenue will have the front doors situated towards the street and the interior dwellings will
have their front doors situated towards the driveway.
AnalVsis:
The subject proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments
and the pertinent utility companies. The conditions of approval have been included in the
attached draft resolution; these were created based upon comments and concerns
provided by the various departments and agencies.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-2 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed ten (10) dwelling units, as well as providing adequate off-street vehicle
parking. There is a discrepancy between the Subdivision map and the site plan regarding
the location of the trash enclosures; this situation was addressed by recommended
condition number one (1), which requires that the trash bins be located between units 8
and 9, as shown on the Site Plan.
Recommendation:
Approve Negative Declaration and adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map
61594 and Conditional Use Permit 05-1610, based upon the findings and subject to the
conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Staff Draft Resolution
2.
Negative Declaration
3.
Environmental Checklist
4.
8%" x 11" Development Plans
5.
Application & pictures
6.
Land Use/Zoning Map
7.
Vicinity Map
8.
Aerial Photograph
C:\Users\KWAWppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_ 2012_ 07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 61594, 5615-5627 Welland Avenue
(10-units).doc
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JANUARY 9, 2007
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH FIVE (5) DETACHED UNITS IN
THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AT 4431-4441
ELLIS LANE. (CAL LAND ENGINEERING/PAMELA PHAN)
PROJECT SITE: 4431-4441 ELLIS LANE
CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 66417
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1667
OWNERS: PAMELA PHAN
1045 E. VALLEY BLVD., SUITE A-216
SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA 91776
ENGINEER: JACK C. LEE (CAL LAND ENGINEERING)
576 E. LAMBERT RD.
BREA, CALIFORNIA
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
General Plan
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width
19,234 145'
Public Improvements:
Environmental Review:
Previous Actions
R-3, Multiple Family Residential
High Density Residential (Up to 18 du/ac)
Depth
105'-160'
Curb and gutter
Negative Declaration
None
Shape and Characteristics
irregular wedge shape and level
Pending Actions: City Council approval, Final map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check, issuance of building permits
and building construction.
Public Hearing: January 9, 2007
Tentative Tract Map 66417
Conditional Use Permit 06-1667
Backaround:
Page- 2 -
The combined area of the two properties is approximately 19,234 square feet.
The site is currently improved with a total of three dwelling units, one on the
southerly parcel and two on the northerly parcel. In order to develop the site, the
applicant will demolish all three dwellings on the site. The subject property is
surrounded by multiple family (R-3) residential properties to the north, south and
west. Directly to the east is a Home Depot located within the City of EI Monte.
Proposed Development:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials:
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
Proposed
I
4 (Unit 3 has 3 bedrooms)
11,946 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. required by Code
8 max.
13,464 sq. ft. max.
Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, shutters, and concrete roof tile
11.36du/ac
3,636 sq. ft.
(727 avg.sf/unit)
.621
36%
24'-8"+
15
10
5
18 du/ac max.
2,500 sq. ft. min.
(500 sf/unit)
.70
50%
30'-0"
15 min.
10 min.
5 min.
The applicant's proposal is to demolish the three existing residences and construct five
detached condominium units. The unit sizes vary from 1,670 to 2,294 square feet of living
area. Four of the units feature four bedrooms, Unit three features three bedrooms, and
all units feature three bathrooms and a two -car garage. The total building area is 11,946
square feet and the proposed FAR is 62.1%, significantly lower than the 70% maximum
allowed by the Zoning Code.
C:\Users\KWA\Documents\KWA Fdes\Temple Qty\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 66417 & CUP 06-1667,4431-4441 Ellis Ln(5-units).docx
Public Hearing: January 9, 2007
Tentative Tract Map 66417
Conditional Use Permit 06-1667
A 20 -foot wide driveway taking access from Ellis Lane
property line will serve the site. This driveway provides
parking spaces. A total of five guest parking spaces are
minimum number of spaces required by Code.
Analysis:
Page- 3 -
near the midpoint of the eastern
access to all garages and guest
provided, in compliance with the
The subject proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments
and the pertinent utility companies. The conditions of approval have been included in the
attached draft resolution; these were created based upon comments and concerns
provided by the various departments and agencies.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-3 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed five dwelling units, and the project provides adequate off-street vehicle
parking. It should be noted that this project does comply with the amended R-3
regulations that were adopted in 2005.
Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
66417, Conditional Use Permit 06-1667, and the related Negative Declaration, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Staff Draft Resolution
2.
Draft Negative Declaration
3.
Environmental Checklist
5.
Application & pictures
6.
Vicinity Map
7.
Zoning Map
8.
Aerial Photograph
C:\Users\KWA\Documents\KWA Files\Temple City1PC Staff Rpt,TTM 66417 & CUP 06-1667,4431-4441 Ellis 1-n(5-units).docx
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 147 2005
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT
OF EIGHT (8) APARTMENT UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES
ARE LOCATED AT 5008-5014 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD,
SITUATED IN THE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE
(CHANG/LIU).
PROJECT SITE: 5008-5014 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05-1618
PROPERTY
OWNERS: PEI -WEN CHANG AND XIAO-CHUN ZOU
2216 S. SECOND AVENUE
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
ARCHITECT: EDDY LIU
1441 HUNTINGTON DR., #3080
SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91030
ENGINEER: HANK JONG
EGL ASSOCIATES, INC.
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT A
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning:
R-3, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan:
High Density Residential (Up to 18
du/ac)
Lot Area:
Lot 1: Sq. Ft.
Width Depth
Shape and Characteristics
10,243
57' 179.71'
Rectangular and level
Lot 2: Sq. Ft.
Width Depth
Shape and Characteristics
10,149
57.6' 176.2'
Rectangular and level
Public Hearing: June 14, 2005 Page 2
Conditional Use Permit 05-1618
Public Improvements: Curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Actions: None
Pendina Actions: Building Department plan check, issuance of building permits
and construction.
Backaround:
The subject properties are currently improved with a total of four dwellings, totaling 3,211
square feet. In order to develop the subject property, the existing 3,211 square feet of
living area will be demolished. The subject properties are situated in the high-density
residential (R-3) zone. The properties are surrounded by high-density residential (R-3)
properties to the north and south, medium -density residential (R-2) properties to the east,
and unincorporated Los Angeles County to the west.
Proposed Development:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Proposed
E3
3
13,080 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. reauired by Code
F-10011
14,274 sq. ft. max.
Exterior materials: Stucco, stone veneer, and concrete roof tile
Density: 17.1 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Open Space: 4,350 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. min.
(543.75 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Public Hearing: June 14, 2005 Page 3
Conditional Use Permit 05-1618
Proposed Development:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
Floor Area Ratio: .65 .70
Lot Coverage: 37% 50%
Height: 24'-8"± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 20 20 min.
Garage Parking: 16
Guest Parking: 4
The proposed development requires the approval of a conditional use permit for the
creation of eight (8) new apartment units. The project site consists of two separate
parcels that are approximately 10,000 square feet each and each parcel would
accommodate four (4) units. Although the parcels will not be legally combined, the two
parcels will essentially function as one development.
The project will also include four guest parking spaces, which will be located between the
dwelling units and at the rear of the site. The eight units, garages and guest parking will
be accessible by a 26'-0" wide driveway located between the parcels, bisecting the project
site. A reciprocal access agreement shall be recorded as a condition of approval to
ensure adequate ingress and egress for both parcels.
Each unit features a two-story floorplan and attached two -car garage. The ground floor of
each unit will feature living room, dining room, and kitchen. The second floor will consist
of three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Analysis:
The subject proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments
and the pertinent utility companies. The conditions of approval, which were provided by
the various departments and agencies, have been incorporated in the attached draft
Resolution.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards.
The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate the eight
proposed dwelling units.
Public Hearing: June 14, 2005
Conditional Use Permit 05-1618
Recommendation:
Page 4
Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 05-1618, based upon the findings
and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1. Staff Draft Resolution
2. Negative Declaration
3. Environmental Checklist
4. 8'/i' x 11" Development Plans
5. Application
6. Land Use/Zoning Map
7. Vicinity Map
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: MARCH 13, 2012
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STEVEN M. MASURA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: HESTY LIU
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
REPORT ON: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT CONSISTING OF TEN (10)
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN THE HEAVY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
ZONE AND IS DESIGNATED AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
PROJECT SITE: 5549 SULTANA AVENUE
CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 71721
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-1796
OWNERS: DEXTER CORPORATION
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT C
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
ENGINEER: EGL ASSOCIATES, INC
11819 GOLDRING ROAD, UNIT A
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: R-3, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: High Density Residential (Up to 18 du/ac)
Lot: Area
(Sq. Ft.
Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
31,764
120' 264.7' rectangular and level
Public Improvements:
existing curb and gutter and sidewalk
Environmental Review:
Negative Declaration
Previous Actions:
None
Public Hearing: March 13, 2012
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Page - 2 -
Pendina Actions: City Council approval, Final Map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check, issuance of Building Permits
and building construction.
Backaround:
The subject property is zoned R-3 (Heavy Multiple Residential) and is designated
as High Density Residential by the General Plan. The site has a total land area of
approximately 31,764 square feet and is currently improved with a single-family
dwelling of 1,394 square feet and a 966 square foot detached garage. The
proposal is to remove the house and the garage to construct ten (10) detached
condominium dwelling units. The subject property is surrounded by R-3 zoned
properties to north, south, and east, and is directly abutting C-3 (Heavy
Commercial) Zone to the west. The project data is provided as the following:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
Proposed
10
4 bedrooms
22,216 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. required by Code
Max. 13
N/A
22,235 sq. ft. max.
Stucco, precast and foam moldings around window
and door openings, wood shutters, and concrete roof
tile
13.7 du/ac
5,700sq.ft.
(570 avg.sf/unit)
.699
40%
26"±
18 du/ac max.
2,500 sq. ft. min.
(500 sf/unit)
.70
50%
30'-0"
30 30 min.
20 20 min.
10 10 min. (based on 1 per
unit with three or more
bedrooms)
Public Hearing: March 13, 2012 Page - 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
The submitted development plan features ten detached, two-story dwellings situated
symmetrically along an east/west central driveway. The turning radius in front of the
garages is provided at 26 feet and the guest parking is provided in between the
separations of the buildings. Three different floor plans provide a living area from 1,759
square feet to 1,811 square feet. All units consist of four -bedrooms and four -and -half
bathrooms. The total building area is 22,216 square feet with the proposed FAR at
69.9%.
Analysis:
Pursuant to the zoning regulation, the subject site could be developed with a maximum of
thirteen units and a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 70%. The proposed project
features ten units with a Floor Area Ratio of 69.9%, both of which meet or exceed the
zoning standards. Parking is considered adequate with a two -car garage and one guest
parking space provided for each dwelling unit. The architectural design of the building has
been reviewed and is found to satisfy the criteria of the Design Guidelines of the Zoning
Code.
The building and engineering aspects of the project (including drainage and sewer
capacity plans) have been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments and
the pertinent utility companies. Comments have been incorporated as conditions of
approval in the Draft Resolution as attached. The County's relevant departments
recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map.
Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
71721, Conditional Use Permit 11-1796, and the related Negative Declaration, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Staff Draft Resolution
2.
Draft Negative Declaration
3.
Environmental Checklist
5.
Application & Pictures
6.
Reduced Tentative Map and Site Plan
7.
Vicinity Map
8.
Zoning Map
9.
Aerial Photograph
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOSEPH M. LAMBERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
REPORT ON: A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH SIX (6) UNITS IN THE
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AT 5949
CLOVERLY AVENUE. (CLOVERLY VILLA, LLC/ CAL LAND
ENGINEERING)
PROJECT SITE: 5949 CLOVERLY AVENUE
CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 69905
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-1717
OWNERS: CLOVERLY VILLA, LLC
9619 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
ENGINEER: JACK C. LEE (CAL LAND ENGINEERING)
576 E. LAMBERT RD.
BREA, CALIFORNIA
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Zoning: R-3, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: High Density Residential (Up to 18 du/ac)
Lot: Area
(Sq. Ft.) Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
19,000 100, 190, rectangular and level
Public Improvements: Curb, gutter and sidewalk on Woodruff Avenue, curb and
gutter on Cloverly Avenue
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Actions: None
Pending Actions: City Council approval, Final Map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check, issuance of Building Permits
and building construction.
Public Hearing: September 22, 2009
Tentative Tract Map 69905
Conditional Use Permit 08-1717
Background:
Page - 2 -
The R-3 zoned property is 19,000 square feet in area. The site is currently
improved with a total of seven total dwelling units in four buildings. To develop
the site, the applicant will demolish all of the existing structures on the site. The
subject property is surrounded by R-3 zoned properties to the east and south.
The properties to the west are zoned R-2, and properties to the north across
Woodruff Avenue are zoned R-1.
Proposed Development:
No. of Units:
No. of Bedrooms:
Total Floor Area:
Exterior materials:
Density:
Open Space:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Height:
No. of Parking Space:
Garage Parking:
Guest Parking:
Proposed
M
2 to 4 bedrooms
13,106 sq. ft. including
garages
Max. permitted or
min. reauired by Code
7 max.
N/A
13,300 sq. ft. max.
Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, wood shutters, exposed wood beams, and
concrete roof tile
13.75 du/ac
4,738 sq. ft.
(790 avg.sf/unit)
.689
39%
27'-8"±
18 du/ac max.
2,500 sq. ft. min.
(500 sf/unit)
.70
50%
30'-0"
17 15 min.
12 10 min.
5 5 min. (based on 2 units
with only 2 bedrooms)
The applicant's proposal is to demolish the seven existing units to construct six
condominium units within a total of four buildings. Building "Two" and Building "Three' will
feature two units apiece. Building "One" and Building "Four" will feature one freestanding,
detached unit in each respective building. The unit sizes vary from 1,449 to 1,978 square
feet of living area. Two of the units feature two bedrooms, two feature three bedrooms,
Public Hearing: September 22, 2009 Page - 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 69905
Conditional Use Permit 08-1717
and the largest two units feature four bedrooms. All six of the units will have a two -car
garage. The total building area is 13,106 square feet and the proposed FAR is 68.9%,
slightly lower than the 70% maximum allowed by the Zoning Code.
An 18 -foot wide driveway taking access from Woodruff Avenue near the midpoint of the
northern property line will serve the four units in Buildings "Two" and "Three". This
driveway provides access to all four garages for those buildings and their three guest
parking spaces. Buildings "One" and "Four" will have their own driveways providing
access to their private two -car garages.
In accordance with the Zoning Code, the driveways for the two detached units also serve
to satisfy the guest parking requirement for those two units. Three additional guest
parking spaces are provided for a total of five guest parking spaces, in compliance with
the minimum number of spaces required by Code. Since two units feature only two
bedrooms, they are only required to have a'/ guest parking space apiece.
Analysis:
The subject proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate City and County departments
and the pertinent utility companies. The conditions of approval have been included in the
attached draft resolution; these were created based upon comments and concerns
provided by the various departments and agencies.
The proposed project meets or exceeds all Temple City Code development standards for
the R-3 zone. The subject site is sufficient in size and shape to adequately accommodate
the proposed six dwelling units, and the project provides adequate off-street vehicle
parking. It should be noted that this project does comply with the amended R-3
regulations that were adopted in 2005.
Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map
69905, Conditional Use Permit 08-1717, and the related Negative Declaration, based
upon the findings and subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.
Attachments: 1.
Staff Draft Resolution
2.
Draft Negative Declaration
3.
Environmental Checklist
5.
Application & Pictures
6.
Reduced Tentative Map and Site Plan
7.
Vicinity Map
8.
Zoning Map
9.
Aerial Photograph
Technical Appendix E
Progress Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Technical Appendix E
Review and Revision — Progress Report
A— Introduction...............................................................................................E-1
B — Effectiveness of the Housing Element .............................................. ...... E-1
C — Progress in Implementation ........ .................. ........................................... E-2
1. Senior Housing Overlay Zone ............................................ ......... --...... ............................. E-2
2. Density Bonuses ........................................... —.... ................ .,............................................ E-2
3. Allow Emergency Shelters in the M-2 Zane ......................................... --- ...................... E-3
4. Construction of Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens .................................................... E-3
5.
Housing Rehabilitation.......................................................................................................
E-3
6.
Subsidized Units at Risk of Conversion. .... ................................................
E-3
7.
Fair Housing Congress......................................................................................................
E-3
8.
Zoning Code......................................................................................................................
E-3
9.
Section 8 Rental Assistance... ..... —..............................................................................--
E-3
10.
Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing ......................... --... ..................................................
E-4
D— Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives and Policies................................E-6
1.
Housing Opportunities ...... .............. ............. —......... ..........................................................
E-6
2.
Maintenance and Preservation.............................................................. -- ...... ..................
E-7
3.
Fair Housing ...... ................ -............ ................. ..................................................................
E-7
List of Charts
E-1
Housing Program Summary of Prior Housing Element ............................
E-5
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION— PROGRESS REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that the City review the current Housing
Element to evaluate:
"Effectiveness of the element" (Section 65588[a][2]): A comparison of the
actual results of the earlier element with its goals, objectives, policies and
programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g.,
rehabilitation results), but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g.,
mitigation of government constraints).
"Progress in implementation" (Section 65583[a][3]): An analysis of the
significant differences between what was projected or planned in the
earlier element and what was achieved.
"Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies" (Section 65588[a][1]):
A description of how the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the
updated element incorporate what has been learned from the results of
the prior element.
The information presented in this Technical Appendix provides a progress report on the prior
Housing Element and contributes to establishing the policies and programs that should be
retained and carried forward in the updated Housing Element.
S. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
According to the State Department of Finance (DOF), 184 single-family detached dwelling units
were constructed during the period from Census 2000 (04/01/00) through December 31, 2005.
To determine the affordability of the housing constructed, the sale prices of homes built and sold
between 2000 and 2005 was determined. During this period, five percent of the homes built
between 2000 and 2005 had sales prices affordable to moderate -income households. The 5%
figure was applied to the 184 housing units to establish an estimate of nine housing units
affordable to moderate income households. (Source for the sales price and year built is the
Southern California MLS Alliance.)
The number of housing units constructed exceeded the RHNA allocation for above moderate
income households. However, no housing units were constructed for lower income households.
During the past five-year planning period, the shortage of Redevelopment Agency Housing Set -
Aside Funds necessitated a greater reliance upon Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds to support the ongoing Housing Rehabilitation Program. In the past five years,
nearly $1 million ($990,791) of CDBG funds were expended for housing rehabilitation. Ninety
eight housing units were improved, which exceeded the quantified objective of 40-50
rehabilitated housing units.
The conservation quantified objective was 50 which represented the number of very low and low
income households that were Section 8 certificate holders. As of March 7, 2008 there are 59
households receiving Section 8 rental assistance which exceeded the quantified objective.
E-1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION – PROGRESS REPORT
C. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
The progress report also involves an analysis of the significant differences between what was
projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. Chart E-1 describes the 10
specific programs included in the prior Housing Element. The progress in implementation is
presented on pages E-2 through E-4.
1. Senior Housing Overlay Zone
The City has adopted a Senior Housing Overlay Zone. In addition, the City on December 17,
2002 adopted the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan (Ordinance 02-880). The Specific Plan
makes provision for the following residential land uses:
Senior Citizen Housing is encouraged throughout the Specific Plan area with
exception of the EC District (Las Tunas East Commercial District).
The key senior housing development standards include
Density: The Specific Plan establishes no minimum or maximum density. The
density is determined through a CUP process, a process which allows a
developer to request a density bonus and additional regulatory incentives.
Lower Income Group Set -Asides: In order to obtain a density bonus, the
development must set- aside a portion of the housing units for low income
households.
Heioht Limits: The Specific Plan allows senior housing to be up to four stories or
a maximum height of 55 feet.
Housino Unit Size: The senior housing development standards require a
minimum of 650 square feet for a 1 -bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a 2 -
bedroom unit.
The senior housing incentives include density bonuses, regulatory incentives, and approval of
mixed use development. The Specific Plan also provides for lot consolidation incentives. For
instance, for multifamily — including senior housing — residential projects, the consolidation of
four to six lots will result in a 15% increase in the number of allowable units and adding one
story to the maximum height.
2. Density Bonuses
The senior housing incentives include density bonuses, regulatory incentives, and approval of
mixed use development. In addition to high density residential uses, which would be allowed in
conjunction with any mixed use development, special consideration and/or a density bonus can
be awarded when housing is specifically designated and reserved for low and moderate income
households. If the development agreement specifies a low income or moderate income housing
component, specific rent and/or sale price parameters are to be incorporated into the
development agreement to assure that affordable housing is continuously maintained as such.
E-2
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION — PROGRESS REPORT
3. Allow Emergency Shelters in the M-2 Zone
The City's Zoning Code allows emergency shelters in the M-2 Zone. No applications were
submitted to the Community Development Department.
4. Construction of Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens
The City facilitates and encourages senior housing through the Downtown Specific Plan and
Senior Housing Overlay Zone. No senior housing units were constructed, however, during the
planning period of the prior Housing Element.
5. Housing Rehabilitation
During the past five-year planning period, the shortage of Redevelopment Agency Housing Set -
Aside Funds necessitated a greater reliance upon Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds to support the ongoing Housing Rehabilitation Program. In the past five years,
nearly $1 million ($990,791) of CDBG funds were expended for housing rehabilitation. Ninety
eight housing units were improved, which exceeded the quantified objective of 40-50
rehabilitated housing units.
6. Subsidized Units at Risk of Conversion
The City has no rent restricted housing units at risk of conversion to market rate housing. In
addition, no affordable housing developments were constructed during the planning period of
the prior Housing Element.
7. Fair Housing Congress
The main goal was to provide housing counseling through the Los Angeles County Fair Housing
Program. The Housing Rights Center continues to provide fair housing services to the City's
residents.
8. Zoning Code
The program objective was to ensure City standards are not excessive and do not
unnecessarily constrain affordable housing and housing accessible to the handicapped.
The program objective was met through the housing incentives provided through the Mixed Use
Zone and the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan. To encourage lot consolidation and
housing, incentives are provided in the form of density bonuses, added heights, and fee
waivers.
9. Section 8 Rental Assistance
The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles administers the Section 8 rental assistance
program in Temple City. The quantified objective for this program was 50 assisted households.
As of March 7, 2008, the Housing Authority assists 59 households.
E-3
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION — PROGRESS REPORT
10. Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing
The main goal was to consider waiving fees for affordable housing and/or nonprofit housing
development. No affordable housing units were constructed during the planning period of the
prior Housing Element.
The analysis of effectiveness contributes to understanding how programs should be revised or
new ones adopted. However, the revisions to Housing Element Law establish some of the
major parameters for City housing programs. These include, but are not limited, to:
Creating an Adequate Housing Sites Program
Addressing the housing needs of extremely low-income households
Amending the Zoning Code to address the housing needs of disabled persons
Addressing SB 1818 - State density bonus law
E-4
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E
Housing Program
1. Senior Housing
Overlay Zone
2. Adhere to State
Guidelines for Density
Bonus
3. Allow Emergency
Shelters in M-2 Zone
with Conditional Use
Permit
4. Encourage
construction of
affordable housing for
senior citizens
5. Housing
Rehabilitation
REVIEW AND REVISION— PROGRESS REPORT
Allow for emergency
shelters and
Chart E-1
General Fund
transitional housing
City of Temple City
housing and housing
Housing Program
Summary of Prior Housing Element
Program Objective
5 Year Goal to Be Funding
Responsible
housing
Assisted Source
Agency
Encourage affordable
ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT
Community
housing for senior
Cannot be estimated General Fund
Development
citizens
income homeowners
Department
Housing
Cannot be estimated but
Community
Encourage production
may be used in
General Fund
Development
of affordable housing
conjunction with Senior
Department
Citizen Overlay
Allow for emergency
shelters and
Cannot be estimated
General Fund
transitional housing
Projects, City will enter
housing and housing
Encourage affordable
Cannot be estimated but
CDBG; 20%
housing for senior
may be used in
housing
citizens
conjunction with Senior
See -aside
ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT
Citizen Overlay
Consider waiving fees
Provide loans to low
Continue to providerehabilitation
CDBG 20
income homeowners
program;
Housing
For repair
75 dwelling to be
set-aside
rehabilitation
Ensure City standards
are not excessive and
For future subsidized
8. Zoning Code
6. Subsidized Units at
Projects, City will enter
housing and housing
Risk for conversion
into agreement with
Not applicable
handicapped
developer to ensure
Provides housing
Lower Income Rent
long-term affordability
Assistance
ASSIST IN DEVELOPMENT
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Consider waiving fees
10. Fee waivers for
Continue to provide fair
7. Fair Housing
Fair housing
housing counseling
Congress
counseling
through the L.A. County
TOTAL UNITS TO BE REHABILITATED 40-50
Fair Housing Program
Ensure City standards
are not excessive and
TOTAL UNITS TO BE CONSERVED: 50
Amend zoning Code to
consolidate and simplify
development
requirements
Continue
Cannot be estimated
Not applicable
CDBG
Department
budgetas
necessary
L.A. County
Community
Development
Commission
Department
budget as
necessary
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
L.A. County
Community
Development
Department
L.A. County
Community
Development
Department
Time Frame
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
(regional housing need less per net new units constructed between 1998 and 1999)
(rehabbed as result of City Code Enforcement activities, Housing Rehabilitation
Program and poverty turnover)
(Section 8 certificate households)
E-5
do not unnecessarily
8. Zoning Code
constrain affordable
housing and housing
accessible to
handicapped
9. Section 8
Provides housing
Lower Income Rent
assistance payments
Assistance
for eligible tenants
Consider waiving fees
10. Fee waivers for
for affordable and/or
affordable housing
non-profit housing
development
FIVE YEAR GOAL SUMMARY
TOTAL UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 9
TOTAL UNITS TO BE REHABILITATED 40-50
TOTAL UNITS TO BE CONSERVED: 50
Amend zoning Code to
consolidate and simplify
development
requirements
Continue
Cannot be estimated
Not applicable
CDBG
Department
budgetas
necessary
L.A. County
Community
Development
Commission
Department
budget as
necessary
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department
L.A. County
Community
Development
Department
L.A. County
Community
Development
Department
Time Frame
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
(regional housing need less per net new units constructed between 1998 and 1999)
(rehabbed as result of City Code Enforcement activities, Housing Rehabilitation
Program and poverty turnover)
(Section 8 certificate households)
E-5
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION — PROGRESS REPORT
D. APPROPRIATENESS OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Three major goals were adopted in the prior Housing Element. The goals remain appropriate for
inclusion in the new Housing Element. However, goals should be stated for each of the five
program categories that are required by the Housing Element Law.
Fifteen housing policies were adopted in the prior Housing Element. The majority of the policies
were carried out in some form during the planning period. The policies, with some slight
revisions, would remain appropriate for inclusion in the Housing Element Update. However, the
policies should be stated in the context of the five program categories required by the Housing
Element Law
Housing Opportunities
The City wants to encourage the construction of new housing units that offer a wide range of
housing types to ensure that an adequate supply is available to meet existing and future needs.
The provision of a balanced inventory of housing in terms of unit type (e.g. single-family, etc.),
cost, and style will allow the city to fulfill a variety of housing needs.
GOAL 1: Provide a wide range of housing types to meet the existing and future
needs of planning area residents.
Policy 1.1: Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in Temple
City, ranging from very low density to high density development in accordance
with the RHNA.
Policy 1.2: Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in
the production of high quality housing.
Policy 1.3: Promote the development of low and moderate income housing for
senior citizens.
Policy 1.4: Permit the development of emergency shelters and transitional
housing in the M-2 zone, subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
Policy 1.5: Locate higher density residential development in close proximity to the
public transportation and services.
Policy 1.6: Permit the development of child care facilities consistent with new
housing development.
Policy 1.7: Monitor all regulations, ordinances, department processing
procedures and fees related to the rehabilitation and/or construction of dwelling
units to assess their impact on housing costs.
Policy 1.8: Continue to require and encourage the
devices and passive design concepts which make
increase efficiency and reduce housing costs.
E-6
use of energy conservation
use of the natural climate to
TECHNICAL APPENDIX E REVIEW AND REVISION — PROGRESS REPORT
Policy 1.9: Continue to implement the Home Improvement Program to assist low
income households in improving their dwelling units so as to continue to provide
existing affordable housing.
2. Maintenance and Preservation
The goal of housing preservation is to protect the existing and future investment in housing and
to avoid a degree of physical decline that will require a larger rehabilitation effort to restore
quality and value. The housing conditions survey identified areas of deferred housing
maintenance in Temple City. Over 80% of the units categorized as "suitable for rehabilitation"
were single-family units.
Goal 2: Enhance the quality of existing residential neighborhoods in Temple City.
Policy 2.1: Continue to correct housing deficiencies through the City's residential
rehabilitation program.
Policy 2.2: Continue to utilize the City's code enforcement program to bring
substandard units into compliance with City codes and to improve overall
housing conditions in Temple City.
Policy 2.3: Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents
of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.
3. Fair Housing
In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community, the City must ensure equal and fair housing opportunities area available to all
residents.
Goal 3: Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of
their choice.
Policy 3.1: Ensure that equal access to housing is available to the community.
Policy 3.2: Prohibit practices which restrict housing choice by arbitrarily directing
prospective buyers and renter to certain neighborhoods or types of housing.
Policy 3.3: Continue support and participation in Los Angeles County Fair
Housing Program to further fair housing practices.
E-7