HomeMy Public PortalAboutTemple city 2008-2014 Housing Element - CC PC DRAFT 9 18 12
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2008-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
CCCIIITTTYYY CCCOOOUUUNNNCCCIIILLL///PPPLLLAAANNNNNNIIINNNGGG CCCOOOMMMMMMIIISSSSSSIIIOOONNN DDDRRRAAAFFFTTT
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
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 .................................................................... 2-38
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
1-1
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.
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
1-2
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-1
A. INTRODUCTION
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 Prog ram 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:
“A program 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 development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and
incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and
subsidy programs when available and the utilization of moneys in a Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund of an agency if the locality has established a
redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law.”
(emphasis added)
1. 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-2
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.
a. Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing 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 (CDBG) 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 8½ 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.
c. 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 f or 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-3
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 Housing 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 Housing 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-4
f. Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Housing Program
Jointly administered by the California Department of Mental Health and the California Housing
Finance Agency (CalHFA) 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 CalHFA, 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 Programs
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 CalHFA bond-funded housing programs are the result of Proposition 46 (2002) and
Proposition 1C (2006).
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-5
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 consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and
community goals. The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve
public participation 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-6
Joe Castillo (Co-Chair) Peggy Miller Bob DuFresne
Loraine Lefler (Co-Chair) Manuel Valenzuela III Lee DuFresne
Vincent Yu (Planning Commission) Bob Welemin Clifford Gordan
Mary Burke Gilbert Yeh Mike O’Malley
Jim Clift Eve Burnaday Silenus Ong
Janice Helmer Joey Castillo Cecelia Rudar
Mary Kokayko Phil Chessir Joan Vizcarra
Aileen Lam Joe Donofrio Joe Lambert (Staff)
T. Arthur Boing
b. Effectiveness of the Participation Efforts
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
2-7
c. Incorporation of Recommendations into the Housing 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 will have an opportunity to review the updated Housing Element at a
public study session on September 27th to be conducted 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-8
D. 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-9
Section 65583(b)(2) states:
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-10
Table 2-1
Definitions of Income Groups as a
Percentage of Area Median Income
Income Group % of Median Income
Extremely Low 0-30%
Very Low 30-50%
Low 50-80%
Moderate 80-120%
Above Moderate 120%+
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 LA County Income Limits by Household Size
Household Size
(# of persons)
Extremely
Low Income
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
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 Objectives: 2006-2014
Category
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above
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:
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-11
Table 2-4
City of Temple City Rehabilitation Objectives by Activity
Rehabilitation
Activities
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Total
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-12
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-13
Table 2-5
Housing Element Programs by Category
Program Category Implementing Program
Category 1
Adequate Housing Sites
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
Category 2
Assist in the Development of Low and
Moderate Income Housing
6. Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
7. Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
8. Second Units
9. Revise Density Bonus Procedures
10. Prepare Inclusionary Housing Policy
Category 3
Removal of Governmental Constraints
11. Multi-family Residential Review Process
12. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Program
13. Housing for the Disabled Zoning Code
Amendments Program
Category 4
Conserving Existing Affordable Housing
14. Housing Code Enforcement Program
15. Handyworker Assistance Program
16. Home Improvement Deferred
Loan Program
Category 5
Fair Housing
17. Fair Housing Services
18. Fair Housing Information
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-14
Table 2-6
Housing Program Summary
Housing Program Responsible
Agency
2006-2014 Objective Time
Schedule Funding Source
ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
1. Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP)
Community
Development
Department
Promote opportunity
sites and lot
consolidation incentives
to the development
community and on the
City’s website. Amend
residential development
standards in DSP to
better facilitate
development.
Within six
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
2. Multi-family
Sites Inventory and
Development
Incentives
Community
Development
Department
Maintain inventory of
vacant /underutilized
multi-family residential
sites; place on City’s
website; disseminate to
developers. Adopt
zoning text amendments
for non-R-1 adjacent R-3
parcels to facilitate
redevelopment at higher
densities.
Within six
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
3. Lot Consolidation
Incentives
Community
Development
Department
Adopt R-3 lot
consolidation incentives
modeled after DSP
program, including
increased density and
height, reduced parking,
reduced processing
time, vacation of alleys,
and fee reductions.
Within six
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
4. Zoning for
Special Needs
Community
Development
Department
Amend zoning ordinance
to: add emergency
shelters as a permitted
use and SROs as a
conditionally permitted
use in the C-3 zone
along Rosemead Blvd;
make explicit provisions
to regulate transitional
and supportive housing
as a residential use.
Within six
months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
5. Energy
Conservation
Program
Community
Development
Department
Adopt Energy Efficiency
Plan and provide
educational information
on City website.
Incorporate energy
utilization and
conservation policies
within the General Plan.
Adopt Energy
Plan by end of
2012. Include
in General
Plan Update
scheduled for
2013.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-15
Housing Program Responsible
Agency 2006-2014 Objective Time
Schedule Funding Source
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
6. Section 8 Rental
Assistance
Program
Housing Authority
of the County of
Los Angeles
Maintain existing level of
housing vouchers to
serve 59 lower income
households
Ongoing County Section 8
contract with HUD
7. Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
Community
Development
Department
Provide financial and
regulatory incentives to
private developers for
development of quality
affordable housing for
families and seniors.
Seek additional funding
sources to meet City
housing goals.
Ongoing General Fund;
other public and
private resources
8.Second Units Community
Development
Department
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.
Seek to achieve 34
second units for very low
and low Income
households.
Expanded
second unit
outreach in
2013.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
9. Revise Density
Bonus Procedures
Community
Development
Department
Update density bonus
provisions consistent
with State requirements.
Advertise on City’s
website and disseminate
to developers.
Update zoning
code
provisions for
density bonus
in 2013.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
10. Prepare
Inclusionary
Housing Policy
Community
Development
Department
Conduct inclusionary
housing nexus study to
document the
relationship between
residential development
and demand for
affordable housing, and
to determine in-lieu fee
amount. Based on study
results, consider
adoption of an
inclusionary housing
policy/ordinance.
Conduct nexus
study (in 2013)
to assess basis
for adoption of
an inclusionary
ordinance.
General Fund for
professional
consulting
assistance with
nexus study, and
for Dept. staff
coordination and
follow-up work
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-16
Housing Program Responsible
Agency 2006-2014 Objective Time
Schedule Funding Source
REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
11. Multi-family
Residential Review
Process
Community
Development
Department
Eliminate CUP
requirement for multi-
family within the
Downtown Specific Plan,
and for mutli-family in
R-2 and R-3 zones.
Replace with a non-
discretionary review
process conducted by
staff utilizing the existing
design guidelines.
Zoning code
revisions within
six months of
Housing
Element
adoption.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
12. Adopt a
Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedure
Community
Development
Department
Implement a reasonable
accommodation
procedure through
adoption of a code
amendment. Advertise
the procedure through
City brochure/flyers and
the City’s website,
Implementation
by the end of
2013.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
13. Housing for the
Disabled Zoning
Code Amendments
Program
Community
Development
Department
Revise the zoning code
definition of “family.”
Allow small residential
care facilities “by right” in
all residential zones.
Streamline application
process for residential
care facilities housing
seven or more disabled
persons.
Implementation
by the end of
2013.
General Fund for
Dept. staff work
CONSERVING EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
14. Housing Code
Enforcement
Program
Community
Development
Department
125 housing cases per
year
2006-2014 General Fund for
Dept. staff work
15.Handyworker
Assistance
Program
Community
Development
Department
51 rehabilitated
housing units
2006-2011 CDBG Funds
RDA Funds
16. Home
Improvement
Deferred Loan
Program
Community
Development
Department
38 rehabilitated
housing units
2006-2014 CDBG Funds
FAIR HOUSING
17. Fair Housing
Services
Community
Development
Department;
Housing Rights
Center
Refer fair housing
complaints to Housing
Rights Center
2006-2014 County CDBG
Funds
18.Fair Housing
Information
Program
Community
Development
Department
Disseminate fair housing
information in flyers at
key community locations
and on City’s website.
2010-2014 General Fund for
Dept. staff work
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-17
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
Category
2006-2014
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-18
b. Policies
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 Objectives
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 937 units identified by the
RHNA, broken down by income category as shown in Table 2-7.
3. Housing Programs
Program 1. Temple City 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
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-19
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 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)
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-20
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 to meet the 10,000
minimum lot size requirement. 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. 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 –
“… 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
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-21
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
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-22
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. Energy Conservation Program
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, and
continue to provide information 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-23
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.
1. 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-24
c. Objectives
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 Existing 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).
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-25
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-26
Program 8. Second Units
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 Density 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%.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-27
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 Policy
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-28
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.”
1. 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 Objectives
Accomplish the housing programs by the end of 2013.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-29
3. Housing Programs
Program 11. Multi-family 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-30
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. Housing for the Disabled Zoning 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-31
PROGRAM CATEGORY #4: CONSERVE AND 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.
Rehabilitation of 38 housing units through the Home Improvement Deferred Loan
Program.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-32
3. Housing Programs
Program 14. Housing Code Enforcement Program
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. Handyworker Assistance Program
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 Program
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
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-33
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:
Extremely Low Income 9 households/units
Very Low Income 9 households/units
Low Income 20 households/units
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-34
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.”
1. Housing Need Summary
In California, housing discrimination is against the law. The California Fair Employment and
Housing Act -
Provides protection from harassment or discrimination in housing because of:
o Race
o Color
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
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-35
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 (AI). The County’s 2006 AI 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 AI 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 AI
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-36
3. Housing Programs
Program 17. Fair Housing Services
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 fair housing practices, and refer fair housing
and tenant/landlord complaints to the Housing Rights Center.
Program 18. Fair Housing 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
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-37
Reasonable Accommodations
State Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s (DFEH) video on reasonable
accommodations for tenants http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/fairHousingVideo.aspx
Fair Housing Information for New Developments
Accessibility Requirements for Buildings -
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/accessibilityR.cfm
HUD Fair Housing Act Design Manual -
http://www.huduser.org/publications/destech/fairhousing.html
"Fair Housing Accessibility First Website" –
http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/index.asp
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 Housing and Equal Opportunity
HUD information on Fair Housing as it relates to Senior Housing
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:
2006-2014 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-38
ATTACHMENT A
SB 1818 Density Bonus Provisions
For the very low-income density bonus, SB
1818 gives a 20% bonus for developments with
5% low-income units and increases that by
2.5% for every percentage of low-income units
above 5%, up to a cap of 35%
% Very Low-Income
Units
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
% Density Bonus
20
22.5
25
27.5
30
32.5
35
For the moderate income condo/PUD density
bonus, SB 1818 gives a 5% bonus for
condo/PUD developments with 10% moderate
income units and increases that by 1% for every
percentage of low-income units above 10%, up to
a cap of 35%.
% Moderate Income Units
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
% Density Bonus
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
For the low-income density bonus, SB 1818
gives 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%
% Low-Income Units
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
% Density Bonus
20
21.5
23
24.5
26
27.5
29
30.5
32
33.5
35
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-39
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 four Fair Housing Impediments. Actions the
Community Development Commission (CDC) can consider in overcoming these impediments
are separately enumerated below.
FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
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 test ing, 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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-40
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.
SECTION 2 HOUSING PROGRAM
2-41
• 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.
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 ..................................................................................... D-19
1. Guidelines .............................................................................................................. D-19
2. Analysis .................................................................................................................. D-19
3. Conclusions and Findings ...................................................................................... D-19
F – Public Facilities and Services ............................................................................... D-19
1. Guidelines .............................................................................................................. D-19
2. Analysis .................................................................................................................. D-20
3. Conclusions and Findings ...................................................................................... D-21
G – Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types ................................................................ D-22
1. Emergency Shelters ............................................................................................... D-22
2. Transitional Housing .............................................................................................. D-26
3. Supportive Housing ................................................................................................ D-27
4. Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing .............................................................. D-28
5. Mobilehomes .......................................................................................................... D-30
6. Housing for Agricultural Workers ........................................................................... D-30
7. Multifamily Rental Housing ..................................................................................... D-31
8. Factory Built Housing ............................................................................................. 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 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-1
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
1. 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 planning period. These
characteristics include physical 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).
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-2
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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-3
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: Unaccommodated 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)
R-2 (12 du/acre)
91
188
91
188
Downtown Specific Plan
E-C District (45 du/acre)
42
41
83
Total 45 41 100 363 549
Remaining Need 0 0 0 0 0
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-4
1. 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, 175 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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-5
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 150 underutilized parcels were identified, yielding a net increase of 190 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 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-6
Table D-2
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - EC District Underutilized Sites Inventory
Address Existing Use
Existing
DUs
Building
Sq Ft
Year
Built
Lot
Size
(Sq Ft)
Floor
Area
Ratio
Ratio
Land/
Total
Value
Net DU
Pot’l
(45
du/acre)
DSP Site #1
9901 Las
Tunas Auto Repair 0 2,046 1948 11,478 .18 .71 11
9909 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR -
Orthodontist 0 1,724 1956 8,752 .20 .43 9
Totals Site #1 20,230 20
DSP Site #2
9810 Las
Tunas Dr
1 story
medical office 0 5,322 1966 19,249 .28 .64 19
9802 Las
Tunas Dr Dentist office 0 2,004 1997 8,348 .24 .53 8
Totals Site #2 27,597 27
DSP Site #3
9823 Las
Tunas Dr SFR 1 1,226 1928 8,808 .14 .83 8
9819 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR -
Acupuncture 0 1,796 1941 8,773 .20 .75 9
9815 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR –
Medical Use 0 1,779 1930 8,800 .20 .77 9
Totals Site #3 26,381
26
DSP Site #4
9738 Las
Tunas Dr Laundromat 0 2,613 1966 8,174 .32 .63 8
9730 Las
Tunas Dr
Retail/ Photo
Framing 0 875 1961 2,723 .32 .49 2
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
adjacent site at 9802 Las Tunas Drive is improved with a modest
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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-7
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.
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:
Density: The Specific Plan does not establish a maximum density for senior housing.
Height Limits: The Specific Plan allows senior housing to be up to four stories or a maximum
height of 55 feet.
Housing 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-8
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 Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
RHNA Targets 249 156 165 417 987
UNITS BUILT OR APPROVED
Issued Building Permits
Second Units
Apartments
Condominiums
Single-Family
Planning Entitlements
Projects Pending Entitlement
24
14
3
103
165
43
50
24
17
103
165
309
43
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-family Sites Inventory and Incentives), increased densities will be permitted on
R-3 sites which do not border R-1 neighborhoods.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-9
1. 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 which have been 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. Development on the consolidated 1.3 acre site will include four stories of residential
condominiums over 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 38.5 units/acre. The
proposed mixed use project is consistent with the zoning parameters under the Downtown Specific
Plan.
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. 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 Downtown 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 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 # (TBD). The narrative which follows describes
the suitability of each of the identified nine sites for redevelopment.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-10
Table D-4
Downtown Specific Plan Underutilized Sites Inventory – TC, GC, WC Districts
Address Existing Use
Existing
DUs
Building
Sq Ft
Year
Built
Lot
Size
(Sq Ft)
Floor
Area
Ratio
Ratio
Land/
Total
Value
Net DU
Pot’l
(30
du/acre)
DSP Site #5 – TC District
5954 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
and residential 0 3,005 1956 8,193 0.37 0.60 5
5952 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
building 0 1,080 1948 3,152 0.34 0.69 2
5948 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
building 0 960 1948 2,730 0.35 0.74 1
5950 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
building 0 960 1948 2,631 0.36 0.65 1
Totals Site #5 16,706 9
DSP Site #6 – TC District
5828 Temple
City Blvd
medical
building 0 2,496 1938 8,522 0.29 0.81 5
5834 Temple
City Blvd
Public parking
lot 0 0 - 21,343 0.00 1.00 14
5800 Temple
City Blvd
vacant funeral
home 0 4,734 1939 12,791 0.37 0.75 8
no address
available
Private
parking lot 0 1,945 - 4,591 0.42 0.96 3
5810 Temple
City Blvd 1 story office 0 1,112 1952 3,930 0.50 0.43 2
5812 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
building 0 1,482 1954 4,592 0.43 0.67 3
5816 Temple
City Blvd
1 story office
building 0 1,344 1953 3,925 0.50 0.58 2
5818 Temple
City Blvd 1 story store 0 2,844 1948 4,593 0.42 0.69 3
5820 Temple
City Blvd
1 story store
building 0 1,500 1948 3,924 0.50 0.57 2
5822 Temple
City Blvd
1 story auto
repair 0 2,290 1946 4,591 0.42 0.57 3
5824 Temple
City Blvd
1st floor store/
2nd story unit 1 3,000 1948 3,923 0.50 0.35 1
Totals Site #6 76,726 46
DSP Site #7 – WC District
9475 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story
restaurant 0 1,333 1976 11,803 0.11 0.82 8
9465 Las Tunas
Dr
2 story office
building 0 22,689 1987 50,447 0.45 0.58 34
9441 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story store
building 0 12,998 1989 42,901 0.30 0.55 29
Totals Site #7 105,151
71
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-11
Address Existing Use
Existing
DUs
Building
Sq Ft
Year
Built
Lot
Size
(Sq Ft)
Floor
Area
Ratio
Land/
Total
Value
Net DU
Pot’l
(30 du/ac)
DSP Site #8 – WC District
9228 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story office
building 0 5,565 1943 17,896 0.31 0.68 12
9226 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story store
building 0 7,000 1948 17,714 0.40 0.68 12
9216 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story
medical bldg 0 2,718 1961 9,087 0.30 0.60 6
Totals Site #8 44,696 30
DSP Site #9 – WC District
9200 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story
restaurant 0 2,612 1964 12,659 0.20 0.69 8
5898 Encinita
Ave
1 story medical
bldg 0 1,050 1940 5,605 0.19 0.76 3
Totals Site #9 18,264 11
DSP Site #10 – WC District
9425 Las Tunas
Dr 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
5929 Oak Ave
1 story auto
repair shop 0 2,112 1942 9,230 0.23 0.91 6
5941 Oak Ave
1 story auto
repair shop 0 2,882 1959 9,228 0.31 0.73 6
5919 Oak Ave
1 story office
building 0 7,208 1991 18,458 0.39 0.55 12
Totals Site #10 74,476 49
DSP Site #11 – GC District
9176 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story single
family residence 0 608 1933 3,940 0.15 0.80 2
9178 Las Tunas
Dr 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
Dr
1 story stores
and residential 4 2,474 1931 8,500 0.29 0.69 1
9201 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story store
building 0 648 1962 6,575 0.10 0.62 4
5912 Encinita
Ave
1 story store
building 0 796 1947 2,545 0.31 0.63 1
Totals Site #12 17,621 6
DSP Site #13 – GC District
9116 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story store
building 0 464 1957 4,329 0.11 0.81 2
9112 Las Tunas
Dr
1 story store,
unit behind 1 734 1947 2,399 0.31 0.73 0
9094 Las Tunas
Dr Warehouse 0 15,455 1964 40,827 0.38 0.55 28
Totals Site #13 47,556 30
L a s T u n a s D r
W o o d r u f f A v e
W o o d r u f f A v e
W o o d r u f f A v e
L a s T u n a s D r
La s Tu n a s D rOak AveW o o d r u f f A v e
W o o d r u f f A v eEncinita AveHermosa Dr Agnes AveLoma AveRowland AveCloverly AvePrimrose AveCamellia AveKauffman AveAlessandro AveTemple City BlvdGolden West AveHart AveSultana AveSultana AveRosemead BlvdNoel DrMyda AveBidwell St
Figur e D-1: City of Temple City
Downtown Specific Plan ParcelsSites with Development Potential
Residential Development Oppor tunity Sites
13
11
12
9 8
10 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-13
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 improvements (25% - 40% of total
property value). The properties are maintained but weathered.
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 block is anchored by a
21,000 square foot city-owned parking lot on
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.
Two of these addresses represent single-story strip
malls with large surface parking lots whose auto-
oriented design and layout (which lack any uses
fronting on Las Tunas) is inconsistent with the more
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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-14
DSP Site 8 is an approximate one acre site comprised
of three adjacent parcels on the corner 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 40% 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.) corner 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
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.
DSP Site 11, located at the southwest corner of Las
Tunas and Encinita Avenue, is comprised of two
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-15
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, comprises just 15%
of 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.
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 façade and a small triplex to the rear. An 800 square foot real
estate office built in 1947 is developed on the adjoining property on Encinita.
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
a 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-16
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 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 increased densities and height limits on R-3 parcels that do not border R-1 zoned
properties.
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
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
increase of 188 units. Detailed parcel-specific spreadsheets of the underutilized sites inventory are
included in Appendix A.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-17
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.
Ol i v e S tEncinita AveOak AveD a i n e s D r
Fr e e r S tState Rte 19la R o s a D r Hal
i
fax RdRosemead BlvdL a s T u n a s D rLoma AveGaribaldi Ave
Longden Ave
Pal
Mal
AveCloverl
y AveBal
dwi
n AveSultana AveHart Aveel
Mont
e AveWo r k m a n A v e
Templ
e Ci
t
y Bl
vdReno AveIvar AveWo o d r u f f A v e
B r o a d w a y
Agnes AveSereno DrL i v e O a k A v e
Ar
den DrKauffman AveHermosa Dr
E L iv e O a k A v e
P e n t l a n d S t
W L i v e O a k A v e
Noel DrSanta Ani
t
a AveAl
essandr
o AveCamel
l
i
a AveG r e e n S t
L o w e r A z u s a R dN Burton AveDor
een AveFr
at
us Dr Pri
mrose AveN Muscatel AveRowland AveFi
est
a AveB o g u e S t Wel
l
and AveG r a n d A v e
Gidley St
K e y W e s t S t McCul
l
och AveMcCl
i
nt
ock AveGolden West
AveAvon AveHel
eo AveE L e m o n A v eEmperor A v e
Persimmon AveL
i
vi
a AveK e n n e r l y S t
M i l o a n n S t
V a l S t
L e m o n A v e
Ryland AveEllis LnBarela AveHo w la n d D r Mc Cl
i
nt
ock AveW o o lle y S tN a d i n e S t
Gl
i
ckman AveO l e m a S t
Bl a c k l e y S t Farago AveRi
o Hondo AveBi
rchl
and PlD u f f y S t
Ly n r o s e S t
S p a r k l e tt S t Hal
l
owell AveParmert
on AveFl a h e r t y S t
E Hermosa Dr
Dalevi
ew AveMuscatel AveElm Ave
Wi
l
l
mont
e AveArdsl
ey DrGracewood AveRancho Real Rd
C raiglee StN Bartlett AveW e n d o n S t
F a i r h a ll S t
B i s b y S tAcaso Dr N Sant
a Ani
t
a Ave
Robi
nhood AveE C a m i n o R e a l A v e
L o r a S tTrelawney AveDegas AveHi
l
t
on AveHarker AveRo s e g l e n S tZadel
l
DrW e d g e w o o d S t
J a y le e D rH a l l w o o d D rAlleyE Las Tunas Dr Salter AveMyda AveE W e n d o n S tF o r ts o n D r
Cambur
y AveLyledale St
Bidw ell St
L a n d s e e r S t
Ra n d w i c k Dr
D a n b u r y S t
War
man LnBurghardt Rd
W i n d s o r L n
E C a llita S tE Garibaldi Ave
A r r o w o o d S t
E s t r e l l a A v e
Ardenel DrMi
l
l
er
DrW i l d f l o w e r R d
But
t
ons AveArdenel
AveLeslie Dr
Roccus Ln
C a llita S tOl
i
ve CtSara Mar LnG r e e n T r e e L n
Haldeman St
Bal
dvi
n AveVillage Ci
rcl
e Dr
E W o o d r u f f A v e
He c l a S t
Wedgewood Ln St
James Dr
Roseval
e DrWorthington Dr
R i c h m o n d W a y
F a i r v i e w A v e
C a m R e a lla R o s a D r
Key West St
Fl a h e r t y S t
Gl
i
ckman AveL i v e O a k A v e D a n b u r y S t
K e y W e s t S t
Elm Ave
Gl
i
ckman AveB o g u e S t
Lyledale St Rowl
and AveWendon St
G a r i b a l d i A v e
L
emon Avela Rosa DrF r e e r S t
Fr
at
us DrS p a r k l e t t S tAv
o
n Av
e
L o w e r A z u s a R dWillmonte AveKauff
man AveGolden West
AveCamel
l
i
a AveAl
essandr
o AveLas Tunas D rDa n b u r y S t
B l a c k l e y S t
Da nb u r y S t
Al
essandr
o AveSultana AveOlema St
Loma AveD a i n e s D r
G a r i b a l d i A v e
N a d i n e S tTemple Ci
t
y Bl
vdEm p e r o r A v e
Agnes AveWi
l
l
mont
e AveGolden West
AveHi
l
t
on AveB l a c k l e y S t
Robi
nhood AveBroadway
W o o l l e y S t
M i l o a n n S t
L o n g d e n A v e
Broadway
F
ar
ago Ave
D a in e s D r
B o g u e S t
Ryl
and AveFl a h e r t y S t Cloverl
y Avela R o s a D r
L y n r o s e S tTemple Ci
t
y BlvdJ a y le e D rGl
i
ckman AveN Muscatel AveRosemead BlvdL y n r o s e S t
Randwick DrBlackley St
Olive St
Broadway Bar
el
a AveH a l l w o o d D rRowland AveLoma AveState Rte 19Persimmon AvePersimmon AveHal
l
owel
l AveV a l S t
Bal
dwi
n Avela Rosa Dr
N a d in e S t
Da in e s D r
Robinhood AveBarel
a AveNoel DrPrimrose AveN a d i n e S t
A rro w oo d S tCambury AveD a i n e s D r
M il o a n n S tSara Mar LnV a l S t
Duffy St W e d g e w o o d S tPrimrose AveCloverl
y AveB l a c k l e y S tRosemead BlvdAl
essandro AveE Las Tunas Dr
L o r a S tArden Dr
Roseglen St
W e d g e w o o d S t
Pentland St
B o g u e S t
B l a c k l e y S t
Sultana AveCloverly AveG r a n d A v eGolden West
AveLyn r o s e S tRowland AveK e y W e s t S t
C r a i g le e S t
Las Tunas Dr
Loma AvePrimrose AveK e n n e r l y S t Hel
eo AveHal
l
owel
l
AveB r o a d w a y Agnes AveRyland AveCamel
l
i
a AveB o g u e S t
Ri
o Hondo AveLoma AveS p a r k l e tt S t
H a l l w o o d D r
Figur e D-2: Vacant/Underutilized M ulti-Fam ily Residential Sites
R-2 Underutilized Parcels (12 du/ acre)
R-3 Underutilized Clusters (18 du/ acre)
R-3 Underutilized Clusters (30 du/ acre)
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-19
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
1. Guidelines
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
1. 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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-20
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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-21
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.
3. 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-22
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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-23
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 1, 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]
1 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 underutilized 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-24
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…”
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-25
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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-26
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.”
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-27
Health and Safety Code Section 50801(i) 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.
3. 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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-28
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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-29
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.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-30
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.”
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-31
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.
7. 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
TECHNICAL APPENDIX D SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
D-32
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.
Technical Appendix D: Attachment A
Parcel Specific Site Inventories
[1]
Second Units Issued Final Building Permits During Planning Period
(Jan 2006 – April 2012)
Date Building
Permit Issued
Site Address Date Building Permit
Finaled
1 08/05/05 4948 Cloverly Ave. 05/18/06
2 03/22/06 9127 Hermosa Dr. 02/27/07
3 05/05/06 5813 Kauffman Ave. 09/12/06
4 07/18/06 5209 Kauffman Ave. 12/12/07
5 09/08/06 5303 Temple City Blvd. 05/16/07
6 09/11/06 5205 Doreen Ave. 03/14/07
7 03/16/07 6164 Hart Ave 01/03/08
8 04/25/07 5103 Doreen Ave. 12/26/07
9 06/11/07 5119 Baldwin Ave. 05/13/08
10 02/13/08 5807 Kauffman Ave. 06/20/08
11 06/19/08-04/07/11 9674 Live Oak Ave. 10/26/11
12 06/30/08 10647 Olive St. 02/22/11
13 02/17/09 9233 Pentland St. 12/09/09
14 04/16/09 6448 Oak Ave. 06/03/10
15 04/27/09 5318 Arden Dr. 12/30/09
16 08/11/09 6219 Oak Ave. 02/09/10
17 05/10/10 4835 Camellia Ave. 02/17/11
18 05/10/10 5210 Willmonte Ave. Under Construction
19 07/12/10 9926 Miloann St. 02/01/11
20 09/02/10 6332 Sultana Ave. 03/21/11
21 09/07/10 5827 Kauffman Ave. 04/26/11
22 10/18/10 9117 Olive St. 07/25/11
23 09/21/11 4503 Fiesta Ave. 05/31/12
24 09/29/11 5818 Camellia Ave. 04/24/12
[2]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (30 DU/ACRE*) GENERAL PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
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 $ 746,774
5549 SULTANA AVE 1 1,394 1935 21,344 0.0653 14 13 0.3901 $ 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 4,576 43,285 0.1057 27 23 0.8274 $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
[3]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (30 DU/ACRE*) - Continued
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
Value
6123 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 3 2,365 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 0.6970 $ 510,487 $ 732,435
6053 CAMELLIA AVE 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
5719 CAMELLIA AVE 1 3,033 1941 13,884 0.2185 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 0.8000 $ 343,661 $ 429,573
4430 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 2,250 1952 8,670 0.2595 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
[4]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (30 DU/ACRE*) - Continued
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
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
5920 1/2 ENCINITA AVE 1 1,075 1950 5,195 0.2069 3 2 0.7863 $ 166,887 $ 212,249
5922 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
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
5826 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 62 264 202
* 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 permitted on R-3 sites which do not border R-1 neighborhoods.
Denotes adjacent parcels under common ownership.
[5]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (18 DU/ ACRE) GENERAL PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
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
6243 ROSEMEAD BLVD 2 2,171 1923 13,663 0.158896 5 3 0.6812 $ 502,571 $ 737,773
6251 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,008 1936 7,055 0.142877 2 1 0.399975 $ 51,800 $ 129,508
6257 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,048 1941 6,860 0.15277 2 1 0.583966 $ 69,315 $ 118,697
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 5 3 0.900688 $ 382,861 $ 425,076
8919 GARIBALDI AVE 1 1,396 1951 6,777 0.205991 0.348056 $ 39,985 $ 114,881
6113 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 2,485 1951 6,884 0.360982 2 1 0.542448 $ 315,168 $ 581,011
3 4,745 20,349 0.233181 7 4 0.658372 $ 738,014 $1,120,968
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 5 3 0.694803 $ 119,707 $ 172,289
6153 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,017 1940 6,863 0.148186 0.866328 $ 212,829 $ 245,668
3 3,369 20,600 0.163544 7 4 0.797417 $ 564,054 $ 707,351
6224 ROSEMEAD BLVD 2 1,309 1933 8,520 0.153638 3 1 0.999778 $ 449,900 $ 450,000
6220 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 794 1937 7,927 0.100164 3 2 0.527622 $ 21,986 $ 41,670
6210 ROSEMEAD BLVD 3 2,592 1945 16,489 0.157196 6 3 0.731708 $ 615,146 $ 840,699
6 4,695 32,936 0.142549 12 6 0.815864 $ 1,087,032 $1,332,369
6202 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,054 1941 8,250 0.127758 3 2 0.634928 $ 155,596 $ 245,061
6166 ROSEMEAD BLVD 2 2,294 1979 8,232 0.278669 3 1 0.576926 $ 179,946 $ 311,905
3 3,348 16,482 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
5942 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 998 1953 8,151 0.122439 3 2 0.782152 $ 147,883 $ 189,072
5938 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,044 1941 8,013 0.130288 3 2 0.512877 $ 22,942 $ 44,732
5932 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,608 1941 8,130 0.197786 3 2 0.419507 $ 22,942 $ 54,688
5928 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,050 1940 8,043 0.130548 3 2 0.533411 $ 22,942 $ 43,010
[6]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (18 DU/ACRE) - Continued
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
Value
5922 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,006 1940 8,126 0.1238 3 2 0.800002 $ 321,644 $402,054
7 7,886 48,466 0.162712 18 11 0.670149 $ 934,066 $1,393,818
5923 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,084 1939 6,922 0.156602
11 7
0.53019 $ 125,937 $ 237,532
5927 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,356 1937 6,934 0.195558 0.935834 $ 255,319 $ 272,825
5933 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 851 1938 6,915 0.123066 0.914486 $ 227,184 $ 248,428
5939 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 953 1938 6,949 0.137142 0.826852 $ 334,922 $ 405,057
5943 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,080 1929 6,886 0.15684 2 1 0.886222 $ 312,334 $352,433
5 5,324 34,606 0.153846 13 8 0.828145 $ 1,255,696 $1,516,275
6023 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 2,342 1931 6,890 0.339913 2 1 0.731455 $ 405,329 $ 554,141
6029 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,074 1930 6,912 0.155382 2 1 0.715725 $ 250,873 $ 350,516
6033 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 1,288 1930 6,846 0.188139 2 1 0.691698 $ 240,069 $ 347,072
3 4,704 20,648 0.227819 6 3 0.716026 $ 896,271 $1,251,729
6129 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,242 1963 6,269 0.198118 2 1 0.530291 $ 117,967 $ 222,457
6131 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,288 1963 5,033 0.255911 2 1 0.667495 $ 243,727 $ 365,137
6133 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,288 1963 5,463 0.235768 2 1 0.586393 $ 175,359 $ 299,047
6135 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,288 1963 6,111 0.210767 2 1 0.787649 $ 437,046 $ 554,874
4 5,106 22,876 0.223203 8 4 0.675747 $ 974,099 $1,441,515
6114 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,538 1948 11,357 0.135423 4 3 0.760594 $ 169,198 $ 222,455
1 1,538 11,357 0.135423 4 3 0.760594 $ 169,198 $ 222,455
9010 HERMOSA DR 1 1,009 1940 6,676 0.151138 2 1 0.799959 $ 389,900 $ 487,400
9000 HERMOSA DR 1 1,150 1941 5,024 0.228901 2 1 0.699578 $ 331,600 $ 474,000
5834 ROSEMEAD BLVD 1 835 1941 5,239 0.159382 2 1 0.532669 $ 20,259 $ 38,033
3 2,994 16,939 0.176752 6 3 0.74218 $ 741,759 $999,433
4924 ROSEMEAD BLVD 2 1,826 1952 10,656 0.171359 4 2 0.760002 $ 389,592 $512,620
4914 ROSEMEAD BLVD 2 1,270 1947 9,549 0.132998 3 1 0.840863 $ 176,419 $209,807
[7]
UNDERUTILIZED R-3 SITES INVENTORY (18 DU/ACRE) - Continued
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
Value to
Total Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total
Assessed
Value
4912 ROSEMEAD BLVD 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 $1,032,294
5657 MCCULLOCH AVE 1 1,878 1907 53,745 0.034943 22 21 0.731743 $ 206,658 $ 282,419
1 1,878 53,745 0.034943 22 21 0.731743 $ 206,658 $ 282,419
5749 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,549 1933 9,175 0.168828 3 2 0.641039 $ 175,976 $274,517
5753 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 2,602 1942 9,177 0.283535 3 2 0.164708 $ 29,618 $179,821
2 4,151 18,352 0.226188 6 4 0.452513 $ 205,594 $454,338
9566 LIVE OAK AVE 1 1,731 1951 8,064 0.214658 3 2 0.785911 $ 513,200 $ 653,000
1 1,731 8,064 0.214658 3 2 0.785911 $ 513,200 $ 653,000
5611 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,635 1921 9,035 0.180963 3 2 0.762812 $ 306,469 $401,762
5619 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 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
TOTALS 58 149 91
Denotes adjacent parcels under common ownership.
[8]
UNDERUTILIZED R-2 SITES INVENTORY (12 UNITS/ACRE) General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
Value
5072 SERENO DR 2 1,762 1957 22,875 0.0770 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 ST 1 1,231 1946 15,202 0.0810 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 BLACKLEY ST 3 2,333 1947 21,805 0.1070 6 3 0.7500 $ 959,997 $ 1,279,995
4951 SERENO DR 1 980 1948 12,251 0.0800 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 0.0677 3 2 0.8000 $ 345,768 $ 432,210
4917 SERENO DR 1 708 1946 11,450 0.0618 3 2 0.9143 $ 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 0.1098 3 2 0.7498 $ 215,603 $ 287,549
5120 DALEVIEW AVE 1 1,468 1950 13,368 0.1098 3 2 0.8000 $ 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 0.1074 3 2 0.7647 $ 379,300 $ 496,000
5019 FARAGO AVE 1 2,124 1952 14,049 0.1512 3 2 0.7042 $ 199,658 $ 283,530
6341 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 2 3,504 1919 16,769 0.2090 4 2 0.6452 $ 281,568 $ 436,425
5303 SANTA ANITA AVE 3 2,684 1954 19,455 0.1380 5 2 0.6573 $ 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
[9]
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
Value
5602 WELLAND AVE 4 3,331 1956 24,437 0.1363 6 2 0.6061 $ 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 0.7434 $ 186,515 $ 250,885
6415 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,082 1939 8,188 0.1321 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 0.0981 2 1 0.8000 $ 333,600 $ 417,000
5249 SERENO DR 1 978 1952 10,506 0.0931 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 1,296 1947 10,357 0.1251 2 1 0.8589 $ 174,480 $ 203,140
9064 ACASO DR 1 823 1948 8,705 0.0945 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 0.6613 $ 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 0.2000 2 1 0.8059 $ 500,000 $ 620,400
9078 ACASO DR 1 1,298 1948 9,639 0.1347 2 1 0.8000 $ 390,806 $ 488,505
6317 TEMPLE CITY BLVD 1 1,328 1925 7,360 0.1804 2 1 0.7137 $ 221,376 $ 310,200
9024 PENTLAND ST 1 766 1949 7,417 0.1033 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 WEST AVE 1 1,452 1961 9,141 0.1588 2 1 0.7235 $ 382,900 $ 529,200
[10]
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
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 0.6186 $ 26,961 $ 43,585
6012 PRIMROSE AVE 1 1,309 1953 9,193 0.1424 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 0.2072 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 0.1791 2 1 0.7178 $ 483,110 $ 673,029
6022 PRIMROSE AVE 1 1,592 1940 9,161 0.1738 2 1 0.6512 $ 199,524 $ 306,382
6036 CAMELLIA AVE 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 0.7355 $ 452,313 $ 614,944
6137 GOLDEN WEST AVE 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 0.1102 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 0.8000 $ 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
5115 SANTA ANITA AVE 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
[11]
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
Value
5124 FARAGO AVE 1 1,296 1944 7,447 0.1740 2 1 0.6753 $ 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 0.7494 $ 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 0.1662 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 0.7889 $ 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 0.7485 $ 354,513 $ 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 $ 588,000
5920 AGNES AVE 1 991 1940 9,422 0.1052 2 1 0.8000 $ 214,913 $ 268,633
9222 WOODRUFF AVE 1 1,501 1939 7,265 0.2066 2 1 0.8001 $ 212,291 $ 265,331
5928 ROWLAND AVE 1 1,750 1948 9,851 0.1776 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 0.7445 $ 226,654 $ 304,454
5946 AGNES AVE 1 1,146 1940 9,481 0.1209 2 1 0.7921 $ 425,700 $ 537,400
5932 ENCINITA AVE 1 1,743 1941 8,839 0.1972 2 1 0.6979 $ 474,600 $ 680,000
5816 ALESSANDRO AVE 1 1,031 1940 9,142 0.1128 2 1 0.7859 $ 326,929 $ 416,006
5815 PRIMROSE AVE 1 1,326 1951 7,489 0.1771 2 1 0.6612 $ 228,066 $ 344,911
5822 ALESSANDRO AVE 1 1,337 1939 9,189 0.1455 2 1 0.7973 $ 237,328 $ 297,670
5628 MCCULLOCH AVE 1 1,154 1960 9,366 0.1232 2 1 0.7901 $ 320,000 $ 405,000
[12]
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
Value
5322 MCCULLOCH AVE 1 1,707 1953 9,563 0.1785 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 0.8000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000
5833 ALESSANDRO AVE 1 1,696 1940 9,955 0.1704 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 SANTA ANITA AVE 1 1,796 1947 9,136 0.1966 2 1 0.6570 $ 271,085 $ 412,615
5019 SANTA ANITA AVE 1 1,460 1951 9,230 0.1582 2 1 0.8000 $ 357,773 $ 447,241
5005 SANTA ANITA AVE 1 1,159 1954 9,182 0.1262 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 0.1963 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 0.7383 $ 203,181 $ 275,213
10912 FREER ST 1 1,400 1964 8,170 0.1714 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 SANTA ANITA AVE 1 1,490 1950 8,619 0.1729 2 1 0.8236 $ 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 0.1196 3 1 0.6500 $ 513,064 $ 789,328
[13]
Site Address
Existing
Units
Building
Sq. Ft.
Year
Built
Lot Sq.
Ft. FAR
Gross
DU
Potential
Net DU
Potential
Ratio Land
to Total
Value
Assessed Land
Value
Total Assessed
Value
8832 HERMOSA DR 2 1,770 1947 11,275 0.1570 3 1 0.7826 $ 453,388 $ 579,329
9040 BROADWAY 2 2,165 1959 14,358 0.1508 3 1 0.6667 $ 244,727 $ 367,089
9016 RANCHO REAL RD 2 2,450 1941 11,951 0.2050 3 1 0.7211 $ 195,007 $ 270,420
9084 ACASO DR 2 1,352 1950 13,049 0.1036 3 1 0.6667 $ 221,948 $ 332,921
9660 LONGDEN AVE 2 1,688 1955 10,960 0.1540 3 1 0.8000 $ 443,901 $ 554,874
5324 WELLAND AVE 2 1,676 1936 13,649 0.1228 3 1 0.7377 $ 452,313 $ 613,134
5020 DALEVIEW AVE 2 1,602 1956 13,328 0.1202 3 1 0.8488 $ 181,844 $ 214,249
5208 DALEVIEW AVE 2 2,572 1948 13,624 0.1888 3 1 0.8297 $ 186,578 $ 224,881
5116 DALEVIEW AVE 2 2,450 1957 13,426 0.1825 3 1 0.6566 $ 263,585 $ 401,466
9225 WORKMAN AVE 2 2,845 1940 11,895 0.2392 3 1 0.6397 $ 639,997 $ 1,000,528
9713 LONGDEN AVE 3 3,154 1950 18,104 0.1742 4 1 0.6323 $ 387,722 $ 613,168
5021 GLICKMAN AVE 3 2,250 1953 14,913 0.1509 4 1 0.7463 $ 717,670 $ 961,677
4828 GLICKMAN AVE 3 2,616 1964 16,869 0.1551 4 1 0.6321 $ 264,947 $ 419,178
6312 OAK AVE 3 3,188 1954 15,939 0.2000 4 1 0.6314 $ 603,085 $ 955,104
5137 SERENO DR 4 2,960 1948 19,993 0.1481 5 1 0.7014 $ 249,894 $ 356,262
5011 GLICKMAN AVE 4 3,259 1946 21,254 0.1533 5 1 0.7732 $ 254,892 $ 329,647
5406 MCCULLOCH AVE 4 3,730 1943 21,411 0.1742 5 1 1.0000 $ 1,176,468 $ 1,176,468
5102 SERENO DR 5 5,526 1946 22,598 0.2445 6 1 0.6129 $ 527,133 $ 860,059
5948 OAK AVE 0 1,228 1974 6,778 0.1812 1 1 0.7000 $ 289,850 $ 414,067
5336 WELLAND AVE 1 960 1937 8,081 0.1188 2 1 1.0000 $ 239,658 $ 239,658
TOTALS 201 389 188
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: R-2, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Area
Lot: Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
16,128 72 ’ 224 ’ Rectangular and level
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006 2
Conditional Use Permit 06-1681
Tentative Parcel Map 60102
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 Improvements: Existing curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Action: None
Pending Actions: Final Map processing, approval and recordation
Background
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 sout h 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
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 4 4 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 4 --
Total Floor Area: 8,056 sq. ft. 8,190 sq. ft.
including garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, cultured stone veneer, decorative metal
railings, and concrete tile roof
Density: 10.8 du/ac 12 du/ac max.
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006 3
Conditional Use Permit 06-1681
Tentative Parcel Map 60102
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
Open Space: 3,136 sq. ft. (approx.) 1,500 sq. ft.
(784 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .49 .50
Lot Coverage: 31% 50%
Height: 25'-4" 30'-0"
No. of Parking Spaces: 12 12 min.
Garage Parking: 8 8 min.
Guest Parking: 4 4 min.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing 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 B, 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.
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: 5062 SULTANA AVENUE
CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-1682
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 65976
OWNER/APPLICANT: 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
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
Public Improvements: Existing curb and gutter
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt [15315]
Previous Action: None
Pending Actions: Final Map processing, approval and recordation
Background
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
Max. permitted or
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.
Public Hearing: June 12, 2007 3
Conditional Use Permit 06-1682
Tentative Parcel Map 65976
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
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. 8½" x 11" Tentative Parcel Map
3. Application
4. Pictures
5. Vicinity Map
6. Zoning Map
7. Aerial Photograph
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: R-2, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: Medium Density Residential (Up to 12 du/ac)
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
27,569 114’ 233’-251’ rectangular and level
Public Improvements: Curb and gutter
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: December 12, 2006 Page- 2 -
Tentative Tract Map 65942
Conditional Use Permit 06-1677
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 65942,5063 & 5067 Sereno
Avenue(7-units).doc
Background:
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:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 7 7.65 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 4 --
Total Floor Area: 13,778 sq. ft. including 13,784 sq. ft. max.
garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, shutters, and concrete roof tile
Density: 11.05du/ac 12 du/ac max.
Open Space: 7,100 sq. ft. 3,500 sq. ft. min.
(1,014 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .498 .50
Lot Coverage: 34% 50%
Height: 24’-4”± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 23 21 min.
Garage Parking: 14 14 min.
Guest Parking: 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.
Public Hearing: December 12, 2006 Page- 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 65942
Conditional Use Permit 06-1677
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 65942,5063 & 5067 Sereno
Avenue(7-units).doc
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
6. Vicinity Map
7. Zoning Map
8. Aerial Photograph
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: R-2, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: Medium Density Residential (Up to 12 du/ac)
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
38,006 142' 267.65’ Rectangular and level
Public Improvements: Curb, gutter and sidewalk
Environmental Review: Negative Declaration
Previous Actions: None
Pending Actions: Final map processing and approval, Building Department plan
check, issuance of building permits and construction
Public Hearing: March 22, 2005 Page- 2 -
Tentative Tract Map 61594
Conditional Use Permit 06-1610
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 61594, 5615-5627 Welland Avenue
(10-units).doc
Background:
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:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 10 10 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 3 --
Total Floor Area: 18,800 sq. ft. including 19,003 sq. ft. max.
garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, wood window shutters, stone veneer, and
concrete roof tile
Density: 11.5 du/ac 12 du/ac max.
Open Space: 13,395 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. min.
(1,361 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .498 .50
Lot Coverage: 24.6% 50%
Height: 25’-0”± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 30 30 min.
Garage Parking: 20
Guest Parking: 10
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.
Public Hearing: March 22, 2005 Page- 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 61594
Conditional Use Permit 06-1610
C:\Users\KWA\AppData\Local\Temp\Temp1_Attachments_2012_07_27.zip\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 61594, 5615-5627 Welland Avenue
(10-units).doc
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.
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 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. 8½" x 11" Development Plans
5. Application & pictures
6. Land Use/Zoning Map
7. Vicinity Map
8. Aerial Photograph
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JANUARY 9, 2007
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 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: R-3, Multiple Family Residential
General Plan: High Density Residential (Up to 18 du/ac)
Lot: Area
Sq. Ft. Width Depth Shape and Characteristics
19,234 145’ 105’-160’ irregular wedge shape and level
Public Improvements: Curb and gutter
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: January 9, 2007 Page- 2 -
Tentative Tract Map 66417
Conditional Use Permit 06-1667
C:\Users\KWA\Documents\KWA Files\Temple City\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 66417 & CUP 06-1667,4431-4441 Ellis Ln(5-units).docx
Background:
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 El Monte.
Proposed Development:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 5 8 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 4 (Unit 3 has 3 bedrooms) --
Total Floor Area: 11,946 sq. ft. including 13,464 sq. ft. max.
garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, shutters, and concrete roof tile
Density: 11.36du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Open Space: 3,636 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. min.
(727 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .621 .70
Lot Coverage: 36% 50%
Height: 24’-8”± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 15 15 min.
Garage Parking: 10 10 min.
Guest Parking: 5 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.
Public Hearing: January 9, 2007 Page- 3 -
Tentative Tract Map 66417
Conditional Use Permit 06-1667
C:\Users\KWA\Documents\KWA Files\Temple City\PC Staff Rpt,TTM 66417 & CUP 06-1667,4431-4441 Ellis Ln(5-units).docx
A 20-foot wide driveway taking access from Ellis Lane near the midpoint of the eastern
property line will serve the site. This driveway provides access to all garages and guest
parking spaces. A total of five guest parking spaces are provided, in compliance with the
minimum number of 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-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
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE OF MEETING: JUNE 14, 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
Pending Actions: Building Department plan check, issuance of building permits
and construction.
Background:
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:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 8 8 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 3 --
Total Floor Area: 13,080 sq. ft. including 14,274 sq. ft. max.
garages
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 Page 4
Conditional Use Permit 05-1618
Recommendation:
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. 8½" 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 Page - 2 -
Tentative Tract Map 71721
Conditional Use Permit 11-1796
Pending Actions: City Council approval, Final Map processing and approval,
Building Department plan check, issuance of Building Permits
and building construction.
Background:
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:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 10 Max. 13
No. of Bedrooms: 4 bedrooms N/A
Total Floor Area: 22,216 sq. ft. including 22,235 sq. ft. max.
garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, precast and foam moldings around window
and door openings, wood shutters, and concrete roof
tile
Density: 13.7 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Open Space: 5,700sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. min.
(570 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .699 .70
Lot Coverage: 40% 50%
Height: 26”± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 30 30 min.
Garage Parking: 20 20 min.
Guest Parking: 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 Page - 2 -
Tentative Tract Map 69905
Conditional Use Permit 08-1717
Background:
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:
Max. permitted or
Proposed min. required by Code
No. of Units: 6 7 max.
No. of Bedrooms: 2 to 4 bedrooms N/A
Total Floor Area: 13,106 sq. ft. including 13,300 sq. ft. max.
garages
Exterior materials: Stucco, field stone veneer, raised molding at window
openings, wood shutters, exposed wood beams, and
concrete roof tile
Density: 13.75 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Open Space: 4,738 sq. ft. 2,500 sq. ft. min.
(790 avg.sf/unit) (500 sf/unit)
Floor Area Ratio: .689 .70
Lot Coverage: 39% 50%
Height: 27’-8”± 30'-0"
No. of Parking Space: 17 15 min.
Garage Parking: 12 10 min.
Guest Parking: 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 ½ 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