HomeMy Public PortalAbout18) 9B Adoption of Resolution No. 13-4960 Updating The Housing Element of the General Plan.2014-2021 Housing Element
City of Temple City
2014-2021 Housing Element
City of Temple City
DRAFT
December 2013
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2014-2021 HOUSING ELEMENT
DRAFT
DECEMBER 2013
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
Table of Contents
toc-i Temple City Housing Element
Table of Contents
Page
Section 1: Introduction
Scope and Content ............................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2
Background and Authorization ........................................................................................................................................ 1-2
Organization of the Housing Element ........................................................................................................................... 1-3
Section 2: Housing Program
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1
Program Administration and Utilization of Financing Programs ......................................................................... 2-1
Responsible Agencies, General Plan Consistency and Public Participation ..................................................... 2-4
Housing Program ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-7
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Definitions of Income Groups as a Percentage of Area Median Income...................................... 2-8
Table 2-2: 2012 LA County Income Limits by Household Size ............................................................................. 2-8
Table 2-3: City of Temple City Quantified Objectives: 2014-2021 ....................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-4: City of Temple City Rehabilitation Objectives by Activity ................................................................. 2-9
Table 2-5: Housing Element Programs by Category ............................................................................................. 2-10
Table 2-6: Temple City Regional Housing Needs (January 2014 - October 2021) ...................................... 2-11
Table 2-7: 2012 LA County Section 8 Fair Market Rents ...................................................................................... 2-17
Technical Appendices
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix C: Non-Governmental Constraints
Appendix D: Sites Inventory and Analysis
- Attachment A: Parcel Specific Site Inventories
Appendix E: Review and Revision – Progress Report
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Introduction and Summary ............................................................................................................................................... A-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ A-1
Housing Needs Summary .................................................................................................................................. A-2
Housing Characteristics and Existing Housing Needs ............................................................................................. A-4
Housing and Household Characteristics ...................................................................................................... A-4
Overpaying ............................................................................................................................................................ A-10
Overcrowding ...................................................................................................................................................... A-13
Condition of the Existing Housing Stock .................................................................................................... A-15
Table of Contents
Temple City Housing Element toc-ii
Page
At-Risk Housing Assessment ........................................................................................................................... A-16
Special Housing Needs ..................................................................................................................................... A-17
Projected Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................................ A-31
Population Trends and Projections .............................................................................................................. A-31
Employment Trends and Projections .......................................................................................................... A-31
Labor Force --Workers-Employed Residents ............................................................................................. A-32
Share of Regional Housing Needs ................................................................................................................ A-32
Analysis of Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............................................................................................... A-33
List of Tables - Appendix A
Table A-1: Temple City Summary of Housing Needs .............................................................................................. A-3
Table A-2: Temple City Housing Stock by Type of Unit – 2013 .......................................................................... A-5
Table A-3: Temple City Tenure by Units in Structure – 2011 ............................................................................... A-6
Table A-4: Temple City Vacancy Status – 2011 ......................................................................................................... A-6
Table A-5: Temple City Tenure by Year Householder Moved into Unit – ........................................................ A-7
Table A-6: Temple City Household Income by Tenure – 2011 ............................................................................ A-8
Table A-7: Income Groups as a Percentage of Area Median Income ................................................................ A-8
Table A-8: Los Angeles County 2013 Annual Income Limits Adjusted by Household Size ...................... A-8
Table A-9: Los Angeles County Income Limits for a 3-Person Household ...................................................... A-9
Table A-10: Temple City Annual Household Income Distribution by Tenure – 2009 ................................. A-9
Table A-11: Temple City Number of Households by Household Type, Income and Tenure, 2009 ...... A-10
Table A-12: Temple City Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income in the Past 12 Months (2011) ............ A-11
Table A-13: Temple City Cost Burdened Renter Households By Income Group and Household Type -
2009 ................................................................................................................................................................................... A-12
Table A-14: Temple City Severely Cost Burdened Renter Households By Income Group - 2009 ......... A-13
Table A-15: Temple City Cost Burdened Owner Households By Income Group – 2009 .......................... A-13
Table A-16: Temple City Severely Cost Burdened Owner Households By Income Group – 2009 ........ A-13
Table A-17: Temple City Tenure by Occupants per Room, 2011 ...................................................................... A-14
Table A-18: Temple City Age of Housing Stock by Year Built – 2011 .............................................................. A-15
Table A-19: Demolition Records Submitted to State Department of Finance ............................................ A-16
Table A-20: Temple City Senior Population by Age Group and Gender – 2010 .......................................... A-19
Table A-21: Temple City Senior Householders (65+) by Tenure and Household Type – 2011 .............. A-20
Table A-22: Temple City Disability Prevalence Rates by Age Group (5+ Years) .......................................... A-22
Table A-23: Temple City Total Disabilities Reported by Type – 2011 .............................................................. A-23
Table A-24: Temple City Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age ......................................................... A-23
Table A-25: Temple City Developmentally Disabled Residents by Residence Type .................................. A-24
Table A-26: Temple City Households By Household Size and Tenure – 2011 ............................................. A-25
Table A-27: Temple City Large Family Renters and Owners with Housing Needs By Income Group . A-26
Table A-28: Temple City Female Householders by Tenure – 2010 .................................................................. A-28
Table A-29: Temple City Population Trends ............................................................................................................. A-31
Table A-30: Temple City Housing Stock (Historical) .............................................................................................. A-31
Table A-31: Temple City Share of Regional Housing Needs January 1, 2014 - October 1, 2021 ........... A-32
List of Figures – Appendix A
Figure A-1: Housing Needs Assessment Components ........................................................................................... A-2
Table of Contents
toc-iii Temple City Housing Element
Page
Appendix B: Governmental Constraints Analysis
Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................................................................ B-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. B-1
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... B-2
Land Use Controls ................................................................................................................................................................. B-4
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................................. B-4
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... B-4
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-21
Building Codes and Enforcement ................................................................................................................................. B-21
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-21
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-22
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-23
On-Site and Off-Site Improvement Requirements ................................................................................................. B-23
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-23
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-23
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-24
Fees and Exactions ............................................................................................................................................................. B-24
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-24
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-25
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-26
Processing and Permit Procedures .............................................................................................................................. B-26
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-26
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-27
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-31
Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons .......................................................................................................... B-31
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-31
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-32
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-38
Constraints on Meeting the City’s Share of the Regional Housing Need ....................................................... B-38
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. B-38
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... B-39
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ B-39
List of Tables - Appendix B
Table B-1: Temple City Housing Density Ranges ....................................................................................................... B-5
Table B-2: Temple City Residential Zones and Development Standards ......................................................... B-7
Table B-3: Temple City Approved Developments R-2 Zone .................................................................................. B-8
Table B-4: Temple City Lot Area and Dimensions ..................................................................................................... B-9
Table B-5: Temple City Setback Requirements for Residential Zones ............................................................ B-11
Table B-6: Downtown Specific Plan – Land Use Matrix ........................................................................................ B-14
Table B-7: Downtown Specific Plan Zoning ............................................................................................................. B-15
Table B-8: Fees for Multi-Family and Single-Family Housing ............................................................................. B-25
Table B-9: Temple City Housing Types by Residential Zone and Permits Required .................................. B-27
Table of Contents
Temple City Housing Element toc-iv
Page
Appendix C: Non-Governmental Constraints
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. C-1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. C-1
Availability of Financing ...................................................................................................................................................... C-1
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................................. C-1
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... C-2
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................... C-4
Land Costs ................................................................................................................................................................................ C-4
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................................. C-4
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... C-4
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................... C-5
Construction Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ C-5
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................................. C-5
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... C-5
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................... C-6
Housing Costs and Affordability ...................................................................................................................................... C-6
Sales Prices ............................................................................................................................................................... C-6
Rental Housing........................................................................................................................................................ C-7
Affordability ............................................................................................................................................................. C-8
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................... C-9
List of Tables - Appendix C
Table C-1: Temple City Conventional Purchase and Home Improvement Loan Applications - 2011 .... C-3
Table C-2: Temple City 2011 and 2012 Median Sales Prices ................................................................................. C-6
Table C-3: Temple City Apartment Rental Rates ........................................................................................................ C-7
Table C-4: 2012 Los Angeles County Fair Market Rents .......................................................................................... C-7
Table C-5: Housing Affordability ..................................................................................................................................... C-8
List of Figures – Appendix C
Figure C-1: Los Angeles County Notices of Default 2006-2012 ........................................................................... C-4
Appendix D: Sites Inventory and Analysis
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ D-1
Guidelines ................................................................................................................................................................................ D-1
Sites to Accommodate City’s Share of the Regional Housing Need ................................................... D-1
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types .......................................................................................................... D-2
Sites to Accommodate the 2014-2021 RHNA ............................................................................................................. D-2
Site Capacity Based on Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................ D-2
Downtown Specific Plan Sites .......................................................................................................................... D-5
Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites (R-2 and R-3) .................................................................... D-13
Second Residential Units .................................................................................................................................. D-14
Table of Contents
toc-v Temple City Housing Element
Environmental Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. D-15
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. D-15
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... D-15
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ D-15
Public Facilities and Services .......................................................................................................................................... D-15
Guidelines .............................................................................................................................................................. D-15
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... D-16
Conclusions and Findings ................................................................................................................................ D-17
Zoning for A Variety of Housing Types ....................................................................................................................... D-17
Emergency Shelters ........................................................................................................................................... D-18
Transitional Housing .......................................................................................................................................... D-20
Supportive Housing ........................................................................................................................................... D-20
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing .................................................................................................... D-20
Mobilehomes........................................................................................................................................................ D-20
Housing for Agricultural Workers ................................................................................................................. D-21
Multi-family Rental Housing ........................................................................................................................... D-21
Factory-Built Housing ........................................................................................................................................ D-22
List of Tables - Appendix D
Table D-1: Potential Housing Units during the 2014 – 2021 Planning Period ............................................... D-3
Table D-2: Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - Underutilized Sites Inventory .................................................... D-6
List of Figures – Appendix D
Figure D-1: Residential Development Opportunity Sites ...................................................................................... D-4
Appendix E: Review and Revision – Progress Report
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. E-1
Effectiveness of the Housing Element ........................................................................................................................... E-1
Progress in Implementation .............................................................................................................................................. E-2
List of Tables - Appendix E
Table E-1: Temple City Summary of 2008-2014 Quantified Objectives and Progress ................................. E-2
Table E-2: Temple City Housing Program Accomplishments of the 2008-2014 Housing Element ........ E-3
Table of Contents
Temple City Housing Element toc-vi
This page intentionally left blank.
1-1 Temple City Housing Element
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
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, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate
provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
Housing Element law requires Temple City to prepare and adopt a Housing Element as part of the
General Plan. Temple City’s Housing Element must include four major components:
1. An assessment of the City’s housing needs.
2. An inventory of resources to meet needs and of the constraints that impede public and private
sector efforts to meet the needs.
3. A statement of the City’s goals, quantified objectives and policies relative to the construction,
rehabilitation, conservation and preservation of housing.
4. 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.
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan, and it specifies
ways in which the housing needs of existing and future resident populations can be met. It must be
updated every eight years, consistent with State Housing Element laws (every four years if the Element
is not adopted by the State-mandated deadline); this Housing Element covers a period extending
from adoption to October 1, 2021.
Introduction Section 1
Temple City Housing Element 1-2
Acronyms
This element includes use of many acronyms to identify agencies, housing programs, funding sources,
and planning terms. The most commonly used acronyms are:
ACS American Community Survey
AMI Area Median Income
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
DOF State of California Department of Finance
DU/AC dwelling units per acre
FAR Floor to area ratio
HCD State of California Department of Housing and Community Development
HUD Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
LIHTC Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI Median Family Income
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF square feet
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.
The California Legislature states that a primary housing goal for the State is ensuring every resident
has a decent home and suitable living environment. In response to changing State law pertinent to
housing elements, this updated Housing Element addresses recent changes to the State Housing
Element law that are intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing:
Senate Bill 812 (Chapter 507, Statutes of 2010), amended Government Code Section 65583 to
require housing elements to include analysis of the special housing needs of persons with
developmental disabilities.
Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) extends the housing element planning period from five years
to eight years in order to link the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) process with the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and housing element process. Once a jurisdiction receives
its RHNA objectives, it has 18 months to prepare its housing element and submit it to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The deadline for jurisdictions
within the region of Southern California Associated Governments (SCAG), which includes the
City of Azusa, is within 120 days of October 15, 2013. Jurisdictions that do not meet this
Section 1 Introduction
1-3 Temple City Housing Element
housing element schedule are penalized and must prepare housing elements every four years
instead (Government Code Section 65588).
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 also described in Section 2.
Section 2 also describes the goals, policies and quantified objectives of the Draft Housing Element. Of
particular importance are the quantified objectives, which represent numeric targets for the
construction, rehabilitation, conservation and preservation of housing.
The Housing Strategy also describes specific housing programs that will be implemented during the
planning period. The programs are organized according 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
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, as well as
describing how existing zoning can accommodate a variety of housing types.
Technical Appendix E is the Housing Element Progress Report. This Technical Appendix
assesses the progress made toward implementation of the prior Housing Element.
Introduction Section 1
Temple City Housing Element 1-4
This page intentionally left blank.
2-1 Temple City Housing Element
SECTION 2
HOUSING PROGRAM
Introduction
This section presents the City’s Housing Program. The Housing Program describes the efforts the City
will undertake during the program period to address the community’s housing needs.
With respect to program administration, Section 2 describes: 1) land use and development controls
that encourage and facilitate affordable housing; 2) regulatory concessions and incentives; and 3) the
funding resources that will most likely be utilized to meet housing needs.
In addition, the Housing Program explains: 1) the agencies responsible for program implementation;
2) the consistency of the Housing Element with the General Plan; and 3) the public participation
efforts undertaken during 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 17 specific housing programs that will be implemented during
the planning period. The programs are organized according the five categories that are required by
Housing Element law.
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.)
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-2
Land Use and Development Controls
With respect to affordable housing land use controls, the City recently established a density bonus
ordinance consistent with the statewide requirements of Government Code Section 65915 et seq. The
City also amended the zoning standards to increase maximum allowable densities on R-3 parcels that
do not abut R-1 zones and removed the requirement for a conditional use permit, which was
previously required for multi-family development. The City will continue to encourage the
development of affordable housing through the density bonus ordinance. Revisions were made to
the Zoning Code in 2013 in compliance with State laws to facilitate housing options for special needs
households. The City will continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special needs groups. The
City will also consider implementation of an inclusionary housing policy to encourage the
development of housing affordable to low and moderate income households.
Regulatory Concessions and Incentives
The City has one specific plan: the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan. The specific plan encourages
and facilitates the development of high density housing and affordable senior 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.
In 2013, the City amended the R-3 zone development standards to provide density incentives for
consolidation of small lots into a larger development site so as to promote higher residential densities
in new residential development. Also in 2013, the City adopted density bonus provisions with both
concessions and incentives for inclusion of affordable housing in multifamily residential and mixed-
use development projects, as described in Program #9 (Density Bonus Procedures).
Financing Programs
The following section discusses the major sources of funding available to carry out housing and
community development activities in Temple City.
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 Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program.
For the 2013-2014 Program Year, the City will receive nearly $180,000 in CDBG funds.
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.
Section 2 Housing Program
2-3 Temple City Housing Element
HOME funds are allocated to the County by the federal government on an annual basis.
Approximately $5.5 million dollars are made available annually for housing development, with 15% of
these funds reserved exclusively for use by non-profit Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs).
HOME funds are awarded to proposed developments, based on proposals that are submitted by
developers and evaluated on a competitive basis. The funds are allocated only to developments in the
unincorporated county areas and in 46 cities that participate in the Commission’s Urban County
Program. Participating cities are those with less than 50,000 in population. Temple City is a
participating city.
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).
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
This federal program provides for a significant share of funding for affordable housing projects. It
provides each State with a tax credit based on the State’s population; the State can then allocate those
credits towards funding housing that meets program guidelines. These tax credits are used to
leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing.
According to the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee, only 10 of every 32 project applications
receive funding, meaning that keen competition exists for available funding.
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.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-4
HUD Section 811
Section 811 provides funding to nonprofit organizations to develop rental housing with the
availability of supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities, and provides rent
subsidies for projects to help make them affordable to residents.
HUD Section 202
Through the Section 202 program, HUD provides capital advances to finance the construction,
rehabilitation, or acquisition with or without rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive
housing for very low-income elderly persons—including the frail elderly—and provides rent subsidies
for projects to help make them affordable. This program helps expand the supply of affordable
housing with supportive services for the elderly. It provides very low-income elderly with options that
allow them to live independently but in an environment that provides support activities such as
cleaning, cooking, and transportation.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance as a voucher to very
low-income persons in need of affordable housing. Typically, the voucher funds the difference
between the fair-market rent for the unit and 30 percent of the voucher recipient’s household income.
As of September 2013, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles provided Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers to 89 households in Temple City.
Other Programs
The State of California provides funding for a variety of housing programs. Most affordable housing
developments utilize one of these programs as a funding source. 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).
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.]
Section 2 Housing Program
2-5 Temple City Housing Element
Responsible Agencies
Temple City has established a Housing Plan to 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)
General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element has been developed to reflect adopted land use policy set forth in the Land Use
Element, and is consistent with all other General Plan Elements.
Public Participation Effort
The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the residents; therefore, citizen
participation is an important component of the development of this Element. Section 65583(c)(8) of
the Government Code states that 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.” This process includes not only community residents but also participation from local
agencies and housing groups, community organizations, and housing sponsors.
All segments of the Temple City community were encouraged to participate in preparation of the
Housing Element through a combination of general public notices and direct contacts with
organizations serving low-income and special needs groups. They were invited to participate in a
public workshop with the Planning Commission on September 23, 2013. To ensure that the housing
concerns of low- and moderate-income and special needs residents were addressed, individual
invitation letters were distributed to agencies and organizations that serve the low- and moderate-
income and special needs communities in Temple City. These agencies were invited to review and
comment on the 2014-2021 Housing Element and to attend the study session. Included in the
invitations were:
California Family Counseling Network
The San Gabriel/Pomona Parents Place
Housing Rights Center
East Valley Community Health Center
East San Gabriel Valley Coalition for the Homeless
Enki – La Puente Valley Mental Health Center
Los Angeles County Public Social Services
New Hope Christian Counseling Centers
Project Sister
ABILITY FIRST/ Lawrence L. Frank Center
Richard D. Davis Foundation/Developmentally Disabled, Inc.
ESPERANZA CHARITIES, INC.
Center for Aging Resources/Heritage Clinic – Pasadena
Catholic Charities – San Gabriel Valley Region
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-6
SPIRITT Family Services
Santa Anita Family Services and Senior Services
Serenity Infant Care Homes, Inc.
San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center
YWCA San Gabriel Valley
Services Center for Independent Living
The Family Center - Main Office
Asian Youth Center
At the study session, staff from MIG |Hogle-Ireland, the City’s consultant team, provided an overview
of the Housing Element and the reasons for the update. The Planning Commission opened the study
session for public comment and also provided input on the draft Housing Element.
Comments from members of the public addressed a variety of housing topics but not the specific
element content. Some persons supported efforts to increase affordable housing in the City; others
expressed concerns about increasing heights and densities. Specific issues discussed included a
concern about high housing prices in Temple City, resulting in exclusion of moderate-income home
buyers such as teachers and police from the local market. Linked to this issue, members of the public
noted their concern about international investment driving up prices. Those commenting wished to
see the City provide funding and other incentives to encourage affordable housing development.
Some members of the public also encouraged the City to do more to assist developers, with financial
and administrative resources, looking to build low- and moderate-income housing.
A specific concern was repeatedly voiced regarding the second unit ordinance; a recommendation
was made to revise it to be less restrictive to further encourage its use. One person recommended re-
establishing the R-4 zone to allow higher densities in multi-family areas. On the other hand, concern
was also expressed about higher densities and associated negative social consequences. A focus of
this concern was the allowance for new four-story buildings on Las Tunas Drive. A related comment
was made regarding existing infrastructure in Temple City and the fact that due to age, water mains
may not be able to handle increased capacity due to increased density.
One person recommended making specific provisions in the Housing Element to encourage single-
story housing to address the needs of senior residents. Some public members noted their concern
about mansionization, although the Planning Commission noted that the City has development
controls in place to limit the size of single-family homes generally to 3,500 square feet.
The Planning Commission and City staff discussed recent changes to the Zoning Code which will help
facilitate new development—including affordable housing—and thus meet some of the public
concerns. Staff also noted the upcoming General Plan and Zoning Code update, and encouraged the
public to remain involved and contribute to that process.
The revised Draft Element will be available on the City’s website for additional public review and
comment during the 60-day State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
review period. Once HCD has reviewed the draft Element, the public will also be invited to attend and
comment on the Housing Element at hearings held before the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
Section 2 Housing Program
2-7 Temple City Housing Element
Housing Program
Programs Categories, Goals, Policies and Objectives
The goals and polices contained in the Housing Program address Temple City’s identified housing
needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs. Housing programs define the
actions the City will undertake to achieve specific goals and policies. 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.
(Category 1: Adequate Housing Sites)
Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-
income households. (Category 2: Assist in the Development of Low and Moderate Income
Housing)
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. (Category 3: Removal of
Governmental Constraints)
Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. (Category 4:
Conserving Existing Affordable Housing)
Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, or color. (Category 5: Fair Housing)
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 , t h i s l a s t p r o g r a m
category does not apply to the City.)
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.”
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-8
Quantified Objectives by Income Group
As required by Section 65583(b), quantified objectives by income group for the 2014-2021 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.
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: 2014-2021
Category
Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Construction 159 93 99 252 603
Rehabilitation: Brush with Kindness
Rehabilitation: Deferred Loan
48 0 0 72 88 80 0
Conservation 600 600
Preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Section 2 Housing Program
2-9 Temple City Housing Element
Construction: The Sites Inventory and Analysis (Technical Appendix D) shows that sufficient sites are
available 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 603 units identified by
the RHNA, broken down by income category as shown in Table 2-3 above.
Rehabilitation: The quantified objectives include the Brush with Kindness Program and the Home
Improvement Deferred Loan Program. The objectives for these two programs are:
Table 2-4
City of Temple City Rehabilitation Objectives by Activity
Rehabilitation
Activities
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Total
Brush With Kindness 48 48
Deferred Loan 8 8 8 24
Total 72 72
Conservation: This objective includes a housing code enforcement effort to conserve and improve the
condition of the affordable housing stock in the City. The objective is a housing code enforcement
level of 75 new cases per year for all income levels. Over the eight-year planning period covered by
the Housing Element, this will amount to conservation of 600 dwelling units.
Preservation: The City has no rent-restricted multifamily rental housing at risk of conversion to market
rate housing.
Objectives and Programs for Extremely Low Income Households
Through implementation of Housing Element programs, Temple City’s goal will be to assist 324
extremely low- , very low- and low-income households through actions to achieve affordable
construction and rehabilitation (refer to Table 2-3). Programs to achieve the construction objective
include second units (30 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 Brush with Kindness Program and the Home Improvement
Deferred Loan Program.
Housing Programs - Overpaying and Overcrowding
Reducing the cost burdens experienced by the City’s extremely low- and very low-income households
is the objective for participation in the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. Other programs including
density bonus, consideration of an inclusionary housing ordinance, and second unit ordinance; each
of these can contribute to reducing costs burdens.
The Planning Commission did consider the possibility of a local rental assistance program. However,
this option was determined to be 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.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-10
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.
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 will also be alleviated as future units are constructed.
Housing Programs Overview
Table 2-5 shows how the specific programs are categorized into the five statutory program categories
(defined earlier on page 2-7).
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
descriptions of each implementing program.
Table 2-5
Housing Element Programs by Category
Program Category Implementing Program
Category 1
Adequate Housing Sites
1. Temple City Downtown Specific Plan
2. Multi-family Sites Inventory and Development
Incentives
3. Zoning for Special Needs
4. Energy Conservation Program
Category 2
Assist in the Development of Low- and Moderate-
Income Housing
5. Rental Assistance (for Existing Cost Burdened
Households)
6. Home Ownership Program for Lower-Income
Households
7. Affordable Housing Development Assistance
8. Second Unit Ordinance
9. Density Bonus Procedures
10. Prepare Inclusionary Housing Policy
Category 3
Removal of Governmental Constraints
11. Multi-family Residential Review Process
12. Reasonable Accommodation
13. Water and Sewer Service Providers
Category 4
Conserving Existing Affordable Housing
14. Housing Code Enforcement Program
15. Brush with Kindness Program
16. Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program
Category 5
Fair Housing 17. Fair Housing Program
Section 2 Housing Program
2-11 Temple City Housing Element
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.]
Housing Need Summary
Through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG has allocated a new housing construction
need to the City of 603 housing units. Table 2-6 shows the City’s share of the regional housing need
by five income groups.
Table 2-6
Temple City Regional Housing Needs
(January 2014 - October 2021)
Income Category 2014-2021
Number Percent
Very Low 159 26.2%
Low 93 15.8%
Moderate 99 16.5%
Above Moderate 252 41.5%
Total: 603 100.0%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 5th Cycle Regional
Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014 – 10/1/2021.
Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
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.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-12
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.
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 603 units identified by the RHNA, broken down by income
category as shown in Table 2-6.
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 13 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 2013, to better facilitate the integration of housing on these sites, the City adopted 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 requirement for residential development
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
Section 2 Housing Program
2-13 Temple City Housing Element
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 fees, and
utility connection fees.
2014-2021 Objective: Promote identified opportunity sites and lot consolidation incentives within
the Downtown Specific Plan to the residential development community and on the City’s website.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
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 2014-2021 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 resulted in identification of 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 allows 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 serves as a strong economic incentive for development, and by limiting these
supplemental densities to non-R-1 adjacent parcels, the City preserves existing transitions of densities
from multi-family zoned areas to abutting single-family neighborhoods.
2014-2021 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.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-14
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Program 3. Special Needs Housing
The Special Needs Housing 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
As part of targeted revisions to the Zoning Code in 2013, the C-3 Zone located along Rosemead
Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway was modified to permit emergency housing by
right within this zone. Specific siting standards and conditions for approval were developed to better
facilitate the provision of emergency housing, consistent with State law.
The Zoning Code revisions also included new definitions and standards pertaining to transitional and
supportive housing consistent with State law. Transitional and supportive housing in single-family
dwellings are permitted in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zones. Transitional and supportive housing in multi-
family structures are permitted in the R-2 and R-3 Zones. The City also established parameters for
single-room occupancy uses within the C-3 Zone, consistent with State law.
Supportive housing and SRO units can be beneficial housing arrangements for a variety of special
needs persons, including those with developmental disabilities. Other appropriate housing types are
rent-subsidized housing, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, and residential care facilities.
2014-2021 Objective: Continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special needs persons by
allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use (without a conditional use permit) in the C-3 Zone.
Subject emergency shelters to the same development standards as other similar uses within the C-3
Zone, except for those provisions permitted by State law and included in the Zoning Code for
emergency shelters.
Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing development and
single-room occupancy developments (SRO). Consistent with State law, transitional housing and
supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to
those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
Work with the San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center to implement an outreach program informing
families within the City of housing and services available to persons with developmental
disabilities. Make such information available on the City’s website and as printed information at
appropriate locations in the City.
Timeframe: Ongoing; make Regional Center information available by 2015.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Section 2 Housing Program
2-15 Temple City Housing Element
Program 4. Energy Conservation Program
T e m p l e C i t y i s o n e o f 2 7 S a n G a b r i e l V a l l e y c i t i e s 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 allows the Energy Efficiency Plan developed for each city to function as a stand-alone
document tailored to individual communities. The Energy Efficiency Plan project was funded by
California utility ratepayers and administered by Southern California Edison (SCE).
In 2012, Temple City developed an Energy Action Plan to assist in meeting State and regional goals of
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and long-term energy efficiency. The Energy Action Plan identifies
energy efficiency goals and targets, and includes a strategy to meet the City’s energy reduction goals.
2014-2021 Objective: Support and promote energy efficiency goals and regulations through
implementation of the Energy Action Plan, 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.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
PROGRAM CATEGORY #2:
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
EXTREMELY LOW-, VERY LOW-, LOW-, AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Government Code Section 65583(c)(2) states that a housing program shall:
“Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very
low-, low- and moderate-income households.”
The term “development” includes providing for affordability covenants in existing housing and
construction of new affordable housing units.
The City’s housing improvement programs, which are described in another section, also contributes to
“adequate housing” by helping to improve housing quality and maintain affordability.
Housing Need Summary
Overpaying occurs when households 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 2009,
overpaying—also known as cost burden—was adversely affecting an estimated 1,570 lower-income
renter households and 1,370 lower-income owners.
The City was allocated 249 housing units as its share of the regional housing need for lower-income
households.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-16
Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
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.
Policies
Continue to participate in State and federally sponsored programs designed to maintain
housing affordability, including the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance
program, administered by the County of Los Angeles Housing Authority.
Assist in the provision of home ownership options for lower-income households.
Continue to implement the second unit ordinance to facilitate and encourage the
development of new housing for extremely low and very low income households.
Continue to promote the density bonus ordinance.
Consider implementation of an inclusionary housing policy to encourage and facilitate the
development of new housing for low- and moderate-income households.
Objectives
Participate in efforts to maintain, and possibly to increase, the current number of
Housing Choice Vouchers available to Temple City residents.
Continue to participate in the regional Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, and
provide information to interested residents on the Los Angeles County
Homeownership Program, and on the Access and NHF Gold programs administered
jointly by the Independent Cities Lease Financing Authority and the National
Homebuyers Fund.
Permit an additional 30 second units to contribute to the affordable housing stock for
very low-income households in Temple City.
Housing Programs
Program 5. 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.
Section 2 Housing Program
2-17 Temple City Housing Element
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 and
choose their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses, and apartments.
In general, to qualify for a Housing Choice Voucher, 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 2-7 shows the FY 2012 rent ceilings.
Table 2-7
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
As of September 2013, 89 households received Housing Choice Vouchers in Temple City.
2014-2021 Objective: Support the County’s efforts to maintain, and possibly to increase, the
current number of Housing Choice Vouchers; direct eligible households to the program. Provide
information on the Housing Choice Voucher Program to interested multi-family property owners
and managers.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: HUD
Program 6. Home Ownership Program for Lower-Income Households
The City participates with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) in
implementation of a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC). An MCC is a certificate awarded by
the CDC authorizing the holder to take a federal income tax credit. A qualified applicant awarded an
MCC may take an annual credit against federal income taxes of up to 20% of the annual interest paid
on the applicant’s mortgage. This allows more available income to qualify for a mortgage loan and to
make the monthly mortgage payments. The value of the MCC must be taken into consideration by the
mortgage lender in underwriting the loan and may be used to adjust the borrower’s federal income
tax withholding. Temple City also facilitates access to information regarding provision of silent second
down payment assistance from Los Angeles County under the Homeownership Program (HOP), and
provision of financing under the Access and NHF Gold Programs, administered jointly by the
Independent Cities Lease Financing Authority (ICLFA), and National Homebuyers Fund (NHF). These
programs fund second home loans for down payment and closing cost assistance to homebuyers.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-18
2014-2021 Objective: Continue to participate in the regional MCC program, and provide
information to interested residents at City Hall and on the City’s website.
Provide information on the Los Angeles County HOP program, ICLFA Access, and NHF Gold
programs to interested residents.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: HOME and Federal Income Tax Credit
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, including extremely low-
income households. 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 in 2011, Temple City’s primary local
funding source for affordable housing is no longer available. The City has been successful in securing
non-redevelopment sources of funds to implement public projects, as evidenced by the 14 different
federal, state, county, and other sources of funds utilized for implementation of the Rosemead
Boulevard Safety Enhancement and Beautification project. In an effort to meet its housing goals, the
City must 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).
2014-2021 Objectives: Provide development assistance through regulatory incentives as a means to
reduce overall development costs and facilitate the development of quality affordable housing for
families and seniors. Assist affordable housing developers to seek additional funding sources—
including State, federal, and private funding sources—as a means of leveraging local funds and
maximizing assistance to meet City housing goals. Meet with developers of supportive housing as
requested to help them understand how housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental
disabilities, can best be constructed in Temple City.
Timeframe: Ongoing; meet with affordable housing and special needs
housing developers as requested, striving for a meeting at
least every other year.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: HOME, CDBG, General Fund for Department staff work
Section 2 Housing Program
2-19 Temple City Housing Element
Program 8. Second Unit Ordinance
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. During the 2008-2014 planning period, 34 second units were constructed in Temple City.
To further facilitate the development of second units and ensure compliance with applicable State
laws, the City will re-evaluate and consider revising development standards, including parking
requirements, for second units. This assessment will occur as part of the upcoming comprehensive
General Plan and Zoning Code Update.
2014-2021 Objective: Through implementation of the City’s second unit ordinance, provide
additional sites for the provision of rental housing. Continue to educate residents on the potential
for second unit construction through availability of informational materials for distribution at the
public counter and through advertisement on the City’s website. Seek to achieve a total of 30
second units during the 2014-2021 planning period.
As part of the upcoming General Plan/Zoning Code Update, re-evaluate the Second Unit Ordinance
for potential revisions to development standards and compliance with all applicable laws.
Timeframe: Ongoing; re-evaluate ordinance by 2015
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Program 9. 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.
Temple City encourages the development of affordable and senior housing through a density bonus
ordinance consistent with the provisions of State law. Accordingly, 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
density bonus allowances included in the City’s Density Bonus ordinance:
A 20% bonus is permitted 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%.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-20
A 20% bonus is permitted 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 is permitted 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%.
A 20% density is permitted 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 one to three 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.
2014-2021 Objective: Continue to comply with State law for density bonuses as a means to
facilitate affordable housing development. 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.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
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
Section 2 Housing Program
2-21 Temple City Housing Element
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).
2014-2021 Objective: Conduct an Inclusionary Housing Nexus and In-Lieu Fee Study to establish
the basis for considering adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
PROGRAM CATEGORY #3:
ADDRESS AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE AND LEGALLY POSSIBLE, REMOVE GOVERNMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS TO THE MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING
More specifically, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) states that a housing program must:
“Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels
and housing for persons with disabilities.
“The program shall remove constraints to, or provide reasonable accommodations for housing
designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.”
Housing Need Summary
Market and governmental factors pose constraints to the provision of adequate and affordable
housing. These factors tend to disproportionately impact lower- and moderate-income households
due to their limited resources for absorbing the costs.
Temple City is committed to removing governmental constraints that might hinder the production of
housing. In 2013, the City made several revisions to the Zoning Code to encourage housing
opportunities for special needs persons, consistent with State law. The revisions included adoption of
reasonable accommodation procedures, modification of the definition of “family,” and including
residential care facilities among the uses permitted in zones that allow single-family dwellings.
Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
Goals
Remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-22
Policies
Ensure that Zoning Code provisions do not adversely impact the housing needs of residents
with special needs, including the elderly and disabled persons.
Continue to utilize the site plan review process to streamline the processing of multi-family
developments.
Quantified Objectives
Provide information to residents on reasonable accommodation procedures on the City’s website
and at the public counters at City Hall.
Continue to offer review of multi-family developments based on compliance with existing
development standards and design guidelines.
Housing Programs
Program 11. Multi-family Residential Review Process
In 2013, Temple City revised the review procedures for multi-family developments by introducing a
new administrative site plan review process focused on site and design review, rather than requiring a
conditional use permit application. By removing the conditional use permit review process, the City
removed a degree of uncertainty and a cost and time associated constraint, thereby streamlining the
process for multi-family developments.
2014-2021 Objective: Continue to offer review of multi-family developments based on
compliance with existing development standards and design guidelines.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Program 12. Reasonable Accommodation
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 in order to eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a
disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice.
Cities and counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for
people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable”
based on fair housing laws and case law interpreting the statutes. Temple City has established a
Reasonable Accommodation procedure regulating the siting, funding, development, and use of
housing for people with disabilities.
Section 2 Housing Program
2-23 Temple City Housing Element
2014-2021 Objective: Continue to advertise the procedure and application requirements for
reasonable accommodation on the City’s website and at the Community Development
Department counter at City Hall.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Program 13. Water and Sewer Service Providers
In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.7, immediately following City Council adoption,
the City must deliver to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to
properties within Temple City a copy of the 2014-2021 Housing Element.
2014-2021 Objective: Immediately following adoption, deliver the 2014-2021 Temple City
Housing Element to all providers of sewer and water service within Temple City.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
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.”
Housing Need Summary
Continued maintenance and preservation of the existing housing stock in Temple City is vital to
conserving the overall quality of housing in the community. Housing activities that help achieve this
goal include neighborhood preservation through code enforcement and housing rehabilitation
programs aimed at improving neighborhood stability and pride.
Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
Goals
Achieve a housing stock free of substandard conditions.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-24
Policies
Continue to implement the City’s Housing Code Enforcement Program.
Continue to implement the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program and Brush with Kindness
Program.
Quantified Objectives
Housing code enforcement at an average level of 75 new cases per year for all income
levels.
Rehabilitation of 48 housing units through the Brush with Kindness Program.
Rehabilitation of 24 housing units through the Home Improvement Deferred Loan
Program.
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.
2014-2021 Objective: Implement housing code enforcement at an average level of 75 new cases
per year for all income levels average.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: General Fund for Department staff work
Section 2 Housing Program
2-25 Temple City Housing Element
Program 15. Brush with Kindness Program
Temple City partners with the San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity to provide no interest loans for
housing rehabilitation through the Brush with Kindness Program. The program is available to lower-
income households (those who earn no more than 80 percent of the Area Median Income) for exterior
home repair. This typically includes painting, minor exterior repairs, landscaping, weatherization, and
exterior clean-up. The San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity (SGVHH) manages the loan
applications and coordinates volunteers to assist in the restoration efforts. In addition to the funds
allocated by the City for the Brush with Kindness Program, SGVHH is also able to use funds acquired
through grant programs and corporate donations to supplement the City’s program efforts.
The City’s objective under the program for the 2014-2021 period is to assist 6 lower-Income
households/units per year.
2014-2021 Objective: Provide assistance through the Brush with Kindness Program to 48
households. Seek additional funding sources, as needed, to maintain this program.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department; San Gabriel Valley
Habitat for Humanity
Funding Sources: General Fund, grants and donations
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
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
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-26
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
The City’s objectives under the program for the 2014-2021 period are as follows:
Extremely Low Income 8 households/units
Very Low Income 8 households/units
Low Income 8 households/units
2014-2021 Objective: Provide assistance through the Home Improvement Deferred Loan
Program to 24 households.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: CDBG
PROGRAM CATEGORY #5
PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PERSONS
Section 65583(c)(5) requires that the housing program:
“Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.”
Housing Need Summary
To fully meet the community’s housing needs, the City must ensure that housing is accessible to all
residents regardless of race, religion, family status, age, or physical disability. The City, through a
partnership with Los Angeles County Community Development Commission, refers residents with fair
housing concerns to the Housing Rights Center.
Section 2 Housing Program
2-27 Temple City Housing Element
Goals, Policies and Quantified Objectives
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.
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.
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.
Housing Programs
Program 17. Fair Housing Program
Through the City’s participation in the County’s CDBG Program, the Housing Rights Center provides
fair housing services to Temple City’s residents. The Center offers the following services to city
residents:
Housing Discrimination Complaints: HRC investigates housing discrimination complaints brought
under both State and Federal fair housing laws. A housing discrimination complaint can be
investigated through testing, the gathering of witness statements, or through research surveys. HRC
resolves cases in a number of ways including conciliation, litigation, or referrals.
Outreach and Education: HRC has established an effective and comprehensive outreach and
education program. The Center continuously develops and distributes written materials that describe
the applicable laws that protect against housing discrimination and ways to prevent housing
injustices.
Additionally, HRC presents fair housing law workshops and programs to target audiences to teach
communities how to stop housing inequity. The Center’s materials and programs are offered to a
variety of audiences such as property personnel (e.g. landlords, property managers, and realtors),
tenants, prospective homebuyers, code enforcement personnel, police officers, city employees, and
other non-profit organizations. Depending on the audience, the written materials and presentations
can be translated by HRC staff into Armenian, Korean, Mandarin, Spanish, or Russian.
Housing Program Section 2
Temple City Housing Element 2-28
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 and safety departments, legal assistance agencies, and other social service providers.
2006-2014 Objective: Continue to promote fair housing practices, and refer fair housing and
tenant/landlord complaints to the Housing Rights Center.
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.
Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Sources: CDBG
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
2014-2021 HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
Appendix B: Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix C: Non-Governmental Constraints Analysis
Appendix D: Sites Inventory and Analysis
Appendix E: Progress Report
DRAFT
DECEMBER 2013
CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
9701 LAS TUNAS DRIVE
TEMPLE CITY, CA 91780
A-1 Temple City Housing Element
APPENDIX A:
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Introduction and Summary
Introduction
According to State law, Temple City’s Housing Element must contain:
1. An analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment
compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing
stock condition.
2. An analysis of existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from low-
income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts,
mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use.
3. An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities,
large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and
persons in need of emergency shelter.
4. An analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a
quantification of the locality’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels.
These existing and projected needs shall include the locality’s share of the regional housing
need in accordance with Section 65584.
This Technical Appendix A provides estimates and projections related to the City’s housing needs, as
those needs are defined by the State Housing Element Law. In addition to serving as a starting point
for looking at the community’s housing needs, Technical Appendix A also serves the following
functions:
Benchmarks data to track trends later in this decade
Establishes a community “housing” profile
Meets the requirements of the Housing Element Law
Quantifies the “need” among different population groups
Provides a shared understanding of the nature and scope of housing needs
Provides information helpful to setting priorities
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-2
Housing Needs Summary
Figure A-1 shows the three housing need categories and the specific needs included in each category.
Table A-1 summarizes housing needs, based on the information presented in this Appendix.
Figure A-1
Housing Needs Assessment Components
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-3 Temple City Housing Element
Table A-1
Summary of Housing Needs
Existing Housing Needs
General Household Characteristics
As of 2010, the City had 12,117 housing units and
11,606 households. Census 2010 reports that the
City had 7,453 owner- and 4,153 renter-occupied
housing units. The majority of renters (just over
3,000) occupy single-family homes, not apartment
units.
Overpaying
In 2011, an estimated 54.5% of all renter
households paid 30% or more of their income in
rent.
Overcrowding 274 owners and 311 renters live in overcrowded
conditions.
Rehabilitation Need 350 housing units
Replacement Need 61 housing units
“At Risk” Housing None
Special Housing Needs
Elderly
28.7% of the population are seniors; 21.2% of all
households are elderly (headed by an elderly
person). A total of 335 lower-income senior renters
(55% of all seniors renting) are overpaying; 330
lower-income senior owners (18% of all seniors
who own their homes) are overpaying.
Disabled
ACS 2009-2011 data indicate that 3,037 persons 5
years and over reported a disability. A total of
5,949 unique disabilities were reported.
Large Families
Between 2000-2011, the number of large
households increased slightly from 1,667 to 1,680.
In 2009, 185 lower-income large-family renters
and 335 lower-income large-family owners were
overpaying.
Farmworkers
No farmworker jobs are located in the City, and no
residents reported jobs within the agricultural
sector.
Female Householders
1,714 of householders are female householders
with no husband present (14.8%). 3,303 of the
householders are female householders (28.5%).
About 10% of all households are non-family
households where the female householder lives
alone.
Homeless
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
estimates that 3 homeless persons live in Temple
City.
Projected Housing Needs
Population Trends
Census 2010 enumerated the City’s total
population at 35,558 persons. Since 2000, the
population has increased by about 2,200 persons.
2013 estimates indicate the population has
continued to increase, to 35,952, in 2013.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-4
Table A-1
Summary of Housing Needs
Employment Trends
In 2012, total jobs in the City numbered 6,552, a
decrease of 5.2% from 2007. Total job count does
not include unpaid volunteers or family workers or
private household workers.
Share of Regional Need
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocates
603 housing units to Temple City for the January 1,
2014-October 1, 2021 planning period. Of the total
housing units allocated, 41.8% are in the very low-
and low-income groups
Housing Characteristics and Existing Housing
Needs
This section includes data and analysis on:
Housing and household characteristics – for example, the existing housing stock and
household incomes
Overpaying – for example, lower-income households that are cost burdened because housing
costs exceed 30% of household income
Overcrowding – too many people living in a home
Condition of the housing stock – for instance, the need to rehabilitate or replace existing
dwellings
Housing and Household Characteristics
This section provides a profile of key housing and household characteristics, including:
Existing Housing Stock
Housing Types Occupied by Owners and Renters
Vacancy Rates
Year Householders Moved into Unit
Household Income by Tenure
Household Income Groups
Income, Household Type, and Tenure
Existing Housing Stock
As of 2013, 12,147 dwellings comprise the housing stock. Table A-2 shows that more than eight out of
ten housing units are single-family detached structures. Fewer than 7.5% of the dwellings are attached
single-family homes, and fewer than 1% of the housing stock is mobile homes. Approximately 11% of
homes are located in multi-family structures with two or more units.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-5 Temple City Housing Element
Table A-2
Temple City Housing Stock by Type of Unit — 2013
Type of Unit Number of Units Percent
1 unit, detached 9,796 81%
1 unit, attached 890 7%
2 to 4 units 345 3%
5+ units 1,009 8%
Mobile homes 107 1%
Total Housing Units 12,147 100%
Source: California Department of Finance, 2013.
Housing Types Occupied by Owners/Renters
Tenure in the housing industry typically refers to the occupancy of a housing unit—whether the unit is
owner occupied or renter occupied. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income,
composition, and age of the householder; housing cost burden is generally more prevalent among
renters than among owners. The extremely high costs of ownership housing in Southern California,
however, also create high levels of housing cost burden among owners. The tenure distribution
(owner versus renter) of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing
market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a much lower
turnover rate than rental housing.
American Community Survey (ACS) 2007-2011 estimates1 indicate there are 11,207 occupied housing
units in Temple City, of which 7,006 (62.5%) are owner occupied and 4,201 (37.5%) are renter
occupied. The percentage figures in Table A-3 represent the percentage of housing units of that type
that are occupied by owners or renters. For example, 70.1% of the occupied single-family detached
structures are owner occupied while 29.9% are renter occupied.
In 2011, the majority of owners lived in single-family detached (6,474) and attached (420) housing
units. Renters live in all housing types; however, the largest number of residents reside in single-family
detached and attached units, as well as apartment projects with five to nine units.
1 The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey completed by the Census Bureau. The ACS collects more
comprehensive data than the decennial census, including information such as age, race, income, commute time to work,
home value, veteran status, and other data. Information is gathered each year and compiled into multi-year estimates for
jurisdictions of Temple City’s size; 3-year and 5-year estimates are available.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-6
Table A-3
Tenure by Units in Structure – 2011
Units in Structure
Owner
Occupied
Percent of
Occupied
Renter
Occupied
Percent of
Occupied
Total
Occupied
1, detached 6,474 70.1 % 2,766 29.9 % 9240
1, attached 420 59.3 % 288 40.7 % 708
2 12 9.7 % 112 90.3 % 124
3 or 4 31 16.8 % 154 83.2 % 185
5 to 9 0 0.0 % 237 100 % 237
10 to 19 11 12.5 % 434 97.5 % 445
20-49 8 4.8 % 159 95.2 % 167
50 or more 32 38.6 % 51 61.4 % 83
Mobile Home 18 100 % 0 0.0 % 18
RV, Van 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0
Total 7,006 62.5 % 4,201 37.5 % 11,207
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Vacant Housing Units
As of 2011, there were an estimated 498 vacant housing units in Temple City (4%). Of the vacant units,
29.5% were for rent while 19.2% for sale. The homeowner vacancy rate is 1.4%, while the rental
vacancy rate is 3.4%. Vacancy rates have increased slightly since 2000, but still remain relatively low.
Vacancy rates county-wide are estimated at approximately 6.3%.
Table A-4
Vacancy Status – 2011
Vacancy Status
Vacant
Units
Percent
Vacant
For rent 147 1.3%
For sale only 96 0.8%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 17 0.1%
Other vacant 238 2.0%
Total 498 4.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Year Householder Moved to Unit
Another characteristic of interest is how recently householders have moved to their Temple City
housing unit, which can reflect the stability of neighborhoods. Table A-5 shows that as of 2011, 59% of
all owners lived in their current unit since 2000. By comparison, 21% of all renters had moved to their
unit prior to 2000. The data indicate that owner-occupied housing in Temple City tends to be very
stable, with long-term residents. Renter turn-over tends to be higher. In Temple City, 20% of renters
are long-term tenants who moved into their units prior to 2000.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-7 Temple City Housing Element
Table A-5
Tenure by Year Householder Moved into Unit –
Year
Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
2005 or later 1,244 17.8% 2,260 53.8% 3,504 31.3%
2000-2004 1,617 23.1% 1,048 24.9% 2,665 23.8%
1990-1999 1,753 25.0% 651 15.5% 2,404 21.4%
1980-1989 1,059 15.1% 192 4.6% 1,251 11.2%
1970-1979 732 10.4% 21 .5% 753 6.7%
1969 or earlier 601 8.6% 29 .7% 630 5.6%
Total 7,006 100.0% 4,201 100.0% 11,207 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Household Income – 2011
Lower-income renter households, to a higher degree than owners, experience many of the housing
needs addressed by Housing Element law, such as overpaying, overcrowding, and living in
substandard housing. Therefore, communities that have a majority of renter households also, as a
general rule, will have more housing needs than communities where owners predominate.
State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual
income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Severe overpaying occurs when households
pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing. When a household is overpaying for
housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities, including health care, food, and
clothing. In the event of unexpected circumstances, such as loss of employment and health problems,
lower-income households with a burdensome housing cost are more likely to become homeless or be
forced to double-up with other households. Homeowners with a housing cost burden have the option
of selling their homes and becoming renters. Renters, on the other hand, are vulnerable and subject to
constant changes in the housing market.
In Temple City, owners occupy 62.5% and renters occupy 37.5% of all housing units. Table A-6
presents data on household income by tenure. In 2011, about one out of every 10 households had an
annual income of less than $20,000. Households in this income category can afford to spend a
maximum of $500 per month on housing costs, based on the 30% of income standard.
In the income groups between $20,000 and $50,000, the number of owners (1,343) trails the number
of renters (1,746). However, in the income group of $50,000 or more, owners outnumber renters by
about 3:1; there are 5,083 owners and 1,831 renters in this income category. One way to measure basic
i n c o m e c h a n g e s is t o lo o k a t c h a n g es i n t h e m e d i a n h o us e h o l d i n c o m e in t h e C i t y . T h e m e d i an
household income increased by nearly 26% during the period between the 1990 Census and 2000
Census. From the 2000 Census to 2012, the median household income increased another 30% from
$48,722 to $63,429. However, the income percentage gains are far less than the increases in the cost
of existing homes and condominiums experienced in the same period.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-8
Table A-6
Household Income by Tenure – 2011
Household Income
Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent Total Percent
<$20,000 580 8.3% 624 14.9% 1,204 10.7%
$20,000-$24,999 192 2.7% 344 8.2% 536 4.8%
$25,000-$34,999 419 6.0% 531 12.6% 950 8.5%
$35,000-$49,999 732 10.4% 871 20.7% 1,603 14.3%
$50,000-$74,999 1,254 17.9% 766 18.2% 2,020 18.0%
$75,000-$99,999 1,062 15.2% 534 12.7% 1,596 14.2%
$100,000-$149,999 1,479 21.1% 445 10.6% 1,924 17.2%
$150,000 or more 1,288 18.4% 86 2.1% 1,374 12.3%
Total 7,006 100.0% 4,201 100.0% 11,207 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Household Income Groups –2013
State Housing Element law defines five income groups based on increasing percentages of the
median income for each county. Table A-7 defines each income group.
Table A-7
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%+
Table A-8 shows the 2013 household income limits for the four lower-income groups in Los Angeles
County, adjusted by household size. The above moderate-income group encompasses households
with incomes more than the upper limits of the moderate-income category.
Table A-8
Los Angeles County 2013 Annual Income Limits Adjusted by Household Size
Household Size (#
of persons)
Extremely Low
Income
Very Low
Income
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
1 person $17,950 $29,900 $47,850 $54,450
2 persons $20,500 $34,200 $54,650 $62,200
3 persons $23,050 $38,450 $61,500 $70,000
4 persons $25,600 $42,700 $68,300 $77,750
5 persons $27,650 $46,150 $73,800 $83,950
6 persons $29,700 $49,550 $79,250 $90,200
7 persons $31,750 $52,950 $84,700 $96,400
8 persons $33,800 $56,400 $90,200 $102,650
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development, Year 2013 Income Limits,
February 25, 2013
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-9 Temple City Housing Element
In 2012, the average household size in Temple City was 3.0, the same as the County average of 3.0,
according to Census ACS estimates. For illustration purposes, Table A-9 shows the low to high ranges
of the income limits for a three-person household.
Table A-9
Los Angeles County Income Limits for a 3-Person Household
Income Group Income Limits Monthly Income
Extremely Low less than $23,500 less than $1,958
Very Low $23,501-$38,450 $1,959-$3,204
Low $38,451-$61,500 $3,205-$5,125
Moderate $61,501-$70,000 $5,126-$5,833
Above Moderate $70,001+ $5,834+
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development, Year 2013 Income Limits,
February 25, 2013
Temple City’s Income Groups
Table A-10 reveals that about 38% of the households in Temple City have annual incomes at or less
than the lower-income level. This information is drawn from the 2005-2009 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS), which is based on special tabulations from sample Census data for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In CHAS data, the number of households
in each category often deviates slightly from 100 percent due to extrapolations to the total household
level. Because of this, interpretations of CHAS data should focus on proportions and percentages,
rather than on precise numbers.
Table A-10
Annual Household Income Distribution by Tenure – 2009
Income Group
Renter
Households
Owner
Households
Total
Households
Percent
Distribution
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI) 535 525 1,060 9.0%
Very Low (30-50% AMI) 675 585 1,260 10.7%
Lower (50-80% AMI) 980 1,200 2,180 18.5%
Above Lower (>80% AMI) 2,040 5,245 7,285 61.8%
Total 4,230 7,555 11,785 100.0%
Percentage 35.9% 64.1% 100.0%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Households by Income, Household Type, and Tenure
The CHAS data provide information for the following four household types:
Elderly: A one or two person household in which the head of the household or spouse is at
least 62 years of age
Small Related: A household of two to four persons that includes at least one person related to
the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption
Large Related: A household of five or more persons that includes at least one person related
to the householder by blood, marriage, or adoption
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-10
Other: A household of one or more persons that does not meet the definition of a small
related, large related, elderly, or special population household. This category includes all
households with only unrelated individuals present, except those qualifying as elderly or
special population households.
Table A-11 provides estimates of the number of households by type and income broken down into
the above categories. There are an estimated 4,500 households (38%) in the extremely low-, very low-
and low-income groups. Among household types of all incomes, the general distribution is:
Small Families 51.4 %
Elderly 20.9 %
Other Households 13.8 %
Large Families 13.9 %
Table A-11
Number of Households by Household Type, Income, and Tenure - 2009
Elderly Small Family Large Family All Other
Total
Households
Income
Category Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
Extremely
Low 270 160 200 260 20 15 35 100 525 535
Very Low 235 220 215 365 90 10 45 80 585 675
Lower 360 120 475 390 250 215 115 255 1,200 980
Above Lower 995 105 3,145 1,005 800 240 305 690 5,245 2,040
Total
Households 1,860 605 4,035 2,020 1,160 480 500 1,125 7,555 4,230
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Overpaying
Guidelines
In comparing level of payment with ability to pay, the number of lower-income households (those at or
below 80 percent of the median income) who are overpaying for housing should be quantified by tenure
(owner/renter).
Overpaying is defined in terms of a percentage of the gross household income a household spends for
housing including utilities. Overpaying for housing is also known as the housing cost burden. Thirty percent
of gross household income is the standard affordability level. Severe overpaying occurs when households
pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing. The element should estimate the number of
lower-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing and the number of
households who pay 50 percent or more of their gross income for housing.
(The italicized text is guidance provided by the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development in Housing Element Questions and Answers, October 2006.)
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-11 Temple City Housing Element
Analysis
When housing costs exceed the ability of a household to pay, other family needs are sacrificed —
health care, childcare, food, insurance, and transportation, for example. Therefore, the most serious
problem often confronting lower-income households often is paying more than they really can afford
for housing.
1) Renter Households: Table A-12 shows ACS 2007-2011 data on gross rent as a
percentage of income for the City’s 4,201 renter households. An estimated 2,289
households, or 55%, of all renter households paid 30% or more of their income on rent. An
estimated 30% (1,267 households) of all renters paid 50% or more of their income on rent.
Over the past ten years, the proportions of renters experiencing overpayment has
remained relatively stable; however, the proportion of renters severely overpaying has
increased. Severe overpaying (50%+) affected 21.6% of renters in 1999, compared to
30.2% in 2011.
Table A-12
Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income in the Past 12 Months
(2011)
Rent as % of Income Number Percent
<30% 1,740 41.4%
30.0-34.9% 387 9.2%
35.0-39.9% 235 5.6%
40.0-49.9% 400 9.5%
50% or more 1,267 30.2%
Not computed 172 4.1%
Total 4,201 100.0%
Note: Gross rent as a percent of income not computed for 172 renter households. Units for which no
cash rent is paid and units occupied by households that reported no income or a net loss comprise
the category “not computed.”
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year
To assess overpayment based on income levels, we must look at the CHAS data. In 2009,
overpaying was adversely affecting 1,570 lower-income renter households, as indicated in
Table A-13. “Small related” renter households comprise about 50% of the “cost burdened”
lower-income renter households.
Table A-14 shows that 865 of the 1,570 total cost burdened lower-income renters are
severely overpaying for housing. These households are spending more than one-half of
their income on housing costs. Extremely low-income small families comprise almost one-
fourth of all the lower-income renters that are severely cost burdened.
The City’s participation in the Section 8 rental housing assistance programs helps some of
the cost-burdened renters. As of September 2013, 85 Temple City households were being
assisted by the Section 8 program, which is administered by the Housing Authority of the
County of Los Angeles. The Section 8 waitlist has 44,210 applicants from around the
county waiting to be assisted with a voucher.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-12
2) Owner Households: Housing costs as a percentage of income are summarized for
owner-occupied housing units in the CHAS data. According to the U.S. Census Bureau:
“Owner costs are the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to
purchase, or similar debts on the property; real estate taxes; fire, hazard, and flood
insurance; utilities; and fuels and, where appropriate, the monthly condominium fee.”
Table A-15 shows that 1,370 lower-income owners are overpaying in Temple City. Lower-income small
families comprise almost one-half (625 out of 1,370 households) of the cost-burdened owners. Table
A-16 shows that 1,005 of the 1,370 lower-income owners who are overpaying are severely cost
burdened. All of the extremely low-income small families (160 households) are severely cost
burdened.
Conclusions and Findings
Although the causes of overpaying for housing are varied, they are generally due to higher housing
costs than wages, and could be exacerbated by added debt from equity lines of credit, higher energy
costs, loan approvals with housing debt-to-income ratios exceeding 30%, and unemployment.
In summary, overpaying is often cited as one of the major problems confronting lower-income
households. In Temple City, more lower-income renters than owners are cost burdened (1,570 versus
1,370 households). Ongoing housing assistance programs, such as Section 8, are available to help
lower-income renters; however, not all renters are able to receive assistance, and waitlists for such
assistance can be long. Providing monthly cost assistance to owners is exceedingly difficult, with
funding sources limited. There are some options to forebear foreclosure that are available due to the
recent housing and related economic crisis, such as the “Keep Your Home California” program, which
provides mortgage payment assistance to eligible homeowners who have experienced an involuntary
job loss and are receiving California unemployment benefits. However, these sources, where available,
are also temporary.
Table A-13
Cost Burdened Renter Households By Income Group and Household Type
- 2009
Income Group Elderly
Small
Related
Large
Related
All Other
Households
Total
Households
Extremely Low 0-30% MFI 95 235 15 100 445
Very Low 31-50% MFI 175 275 10 50 510
Low 51-80% MFI 65 280 160 110 615
Above Low >80% MFI 15 180 10 100 305
Total 350 970 195 360 1,875
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-13 Temple City Housing Element
Table A-14
Severely Cost Burdened Renter Households By Income Group - 2009
Income Group Elderly
Small
Related
Large
Related
All Other
Households
Total
Households
Extremely Low 0-30% MFI 95 225 15 100 435
Very Low 31-50% MFI 95 175 10 20 300
Low 51-80% MFI 40 60 0 30 130
Above Low >80% MFI 0 0 0 25 25
Total 230 460 25 175 890
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Table A-15
Cost Burdened Owner Households By Income Group – 2009
Income Group Elderly
Small
Related
Large
Related
All Other
Households
Total
Households
Extremely Low 0-30% MFI 190 175 20 35 420
Very Low 31-50% MFI 65 155 90 20 330
Low 51-80% MFI 75 295 225 25 620
Above Low >80% MFI 215 935 280 40 1,470
Total 545 1,560 615 120 2,840
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Table A-16
Severely Cost Burdened Owner Households By Income Group – 2009
Income Group Elderly
Small
Related
Large
Related
All Other
Households
Total
Households
Extremely Low 0-30% MFI 105 160 10 20 295
Very Low 31-50% MFI 25 140 75 15 255
Low 51-80% MFI 40 230 170 15 455
Above Low >80% MFI 15 180 50 25 270
Total 185 710 305 75 1,275
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Overcrowding
Guidelines
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room
(excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered
severely overcrowded. In Housing Elements, localities are to estimate the number of households that
live in overcrowded and severely overcrowded units. The incidence of overcrowding and large
households is frequently parallel.
An example of overcrowding is an eight-room home: three bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a
kitchen and two bathrooms. If six persons live in the home, it would be considered overcrowded (six
persons divided by five habitable rooms = 1.2 persons per room).
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-14
Analysis
Overcrowding is one result of the shortage of interior living space. Overcrowding reflects the financial
inability of households to buy or rent housing units having enough space for their needs.
Consequently, overcrowding is considered a household characteristic (instead of a housing structural
condition). An "overcrowded" housing unit does not necessarily imply one of inadequate physical
condition; rather, with fewer persons it becomes "uncrowded." Overcrowding also may be a
temporary situation since some households will move to larger housing units to meet space
requirements.
Overcrowding can emerge when households initially move into a unit. Alternatively, changes in
household size and composition can lead to overcrowded conditions over time. If overcrowded
conditions are serious enough, households may want to move to housing units with enough space to
accommodate family changes. However, financial constraints may prevent them from moving to
larger housing.
For owners, who are more likely to have longer and perhaps stronger ties to neighborhoods, schools,
and local churches, moving to another home may not be considered a practical choice. Instead, they
can adjust their lifestyle or, if incomes allow, make physical additions to their home. For renters,
making physical changes to their apartment or rental homes to increase living area is not possible.
Although renters have a higher mobility rate than owners, financial constraints, as well as a shortage
of large available housing for rent, can limit their ability to move to housing with enough space to
meet their needs.
Table A-17 shows that in 2011, overcrowding affected more than 5% of households. Overcrowding, in
terms of numbers, is more of a problem for renters than owners, with 311 renter households
overcrowded versus 274 owner households. In addition, on a percentage basis, a larger proportion of
renters than owners are overcrowded (7.4% versus 3.9%). Severe overcrowding affects 1.1% of all
owners and 3.0% of all renters.
Table A-17
Tenure by Occupants per Room, 2011
Persons Per Room Owner
Occupied Percent
Renter
Occupied Percent
Total
Households Percent
Less than 1.00 6,732 96.1% 3,890 92.6% 10,622 94.8%
1.01 to 1.50 196 2.8% 185 4.4% 381 3.4%
1.51 to 2.00 78 1.1% 126 3.0% 204 1.8%
Total 7,006 100.0% 4,201 100.0% 11,207 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Conclusions and Findings
Between 2000 and 2011, overcrowding, as estimated by the Census, declined noticeably. Only 5.2% of
Temple City households lived in overcrowded conditions as of 2011, whereas 15.3% of households
were overcrowded in 2000. Overcrowding continued to have a disproportionate impact on renters.
7% of renter-households lived in overcrowded units compared to less than 4% of owner households.
Furthermore, the Census documentation of overcrowding may under-represent the actual condition,
with persons living in unauthorized rooms/units, such as garages, sheds, and room conversions.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-15 Temple City Housing Element
Condition of the Existing Housing Stock
There are differences between housing stock condition and housing improvement needs. The term
"condition" refers to the physical quality of the housing stock; for instance, “fair” or “poor” condition.
Housing improvements, on the other hand, refer to the nature of the remedial actions necessary to
correct defects in housing conditions such as demolition, minor repairs, major repairs, and
rehabilitation.
1) Rehabilitation Needs: HCD indicates that a general indicator of housing adequacy is the age
of housing. Generally speaking, for owners, the dilemma often is one of maintenance. For
these households, low incomes mean a lack of money for maintenance and repairs. For
rental properties, the rents collected may not result in a cash flow sufficient to catch up to
needed maintenance and replacement.
In general, there is a relationship between the age of the housing stock and the
prevalence of poor housing conditions. For instance, the older a home, the greater is the
need for maintenance, repair, and/or replacement of key mechanical systems. Housing
condition problems frequently are concentrated in the interior deficiencies. Generally, two
to three times as many units have interior problems as units with exterior problems.
Housing that is 40+ years old is indicator of the maximum rehabilitation need, as indicated
by the HCD guidelines. An estimated 3,105 housing units in Temple City are at least 62+
years old, which represents 26.5% of the entire housing stock (Table A-18). Another 5,578
dwellings (47.7%) are 42 to 61 years old. Cumulatively, almost one-quarter of the City’s
housing units are over 42 years in age. Housing this old may exhibit rehabilitation needs
due to age and deferred maintenance.
Table A-18
Age of Housing Stock by Year Built – 2011
Year Structure Built Age Number of
Units Percent
1939 or earlier 72 years+ 1,084 9.3%
1940-1949 62 to 71 years 2,021 17.3%
1950-1959 52-61 years 3,751 32.0%
1960-1969 42-51 years 1,827 15.6%
1970-1979 32-41 years 918 7.8%
1980-1989 22-31 years 632 5.4%
1990-1999 12-21 years 705 6.0%
2000-2004 7-11 years 373 3.2%
2005 and later Less than 7 years 394 3.4%
Total* 11,705 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007-2011 5-Year Estimates
Between 2008 and 2013, City code enforcement officers reported that two units were red-
tagged. Red-tagged properties are deemed uninhabitable and typically result from
zoning or building code violations that the property owner failed to remedy or from
severe damages to the property. One red-tagged unit was rehabilitated, while the other
resulted in demolition. This limited number of red-tagged properties suggests that the
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-16
majority of owners have been able to maintain their homes. However, as more of the
housing stock ages, an increasing number of property owners may have difficulty
undertaking the maintenance needed to keep their units in good shape.
The 2008-2014 Housing Element estimated that 500 housing units were substandard and
suitable for rehabilitation. Since then, homeowners have made improvements to the
housing stock, and some substandard housing units have been demolished. Table A-19
estimates that 141 housing units were demolished between 2008 and 2013. In addition,
code enforcement actions have resulted in repairs and improvements to existing housing.
Table A-19
Demolition Records Submitted to State Department of Finance
Year
Number of
Demolitions Cumulative Total
2008 24 units 48 units
2009 16 units 40 units
2010 27 units 67 units
2011 24 units 91 units
2012 24 units 115 units
2013* 26 units 141 units
Source: City of Temple City, Community Development Department
*January – July 2013
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 350
housing units are in need of rehabilitation.
2) Replacement Needs: Housing that is beyond reasonable repair or in a dilapidated condition
usually requires replacement, not rehabilitation. As part of the RHNA established by SCAG
for each jurisdiction, Temple City had a total replacement need of 61 units, based on
anticipated demolition to occur during the planning period.
Conclusions and Findings
The City implements a housing rehabilitation program through the Community Development Block
Grant program, where a 3% interest loan up a maximum amount of $25,000 is available for home
repairs. In addition, private demolitions being replaced with new housing will contribute to meeting a
portion of the replacement housing need.
At-Risk Housing Assessment
The City has no rental complexes assisted by the following:
Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
Federal Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds
Temple City is not eligible to compete for United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
funds
State housing financial assistance programs
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-17 Temple City Housing Element
Local mortgage revenue bond programs
Redevelopment Agency rental housing units assisted with the Low-and Moderate-Housing
Income Fund
Local in-lieu fees and inclusionary housing programs
Local density bonus and directly assisted units The analysis is based on the following sources:
City of Temple City housing inventory
California Housing Partnership Corporation database
California Department of Housing and Community Development, List of Affordable Rental
Housing Developments
California Debt Allocation Committee database
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Project History 1987-2007
Conclusions and Findings
Temple City has no multifamily rental complexes at risk of conversion to market rate housing during
the 2014-2021 planning period.
Special Housing Needs
The Housing Element must include:
An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities,
large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of household, and families and persons
in need of emergency shelter.
HCD guidance on special housing needs is cited below.
Special needs are those associated with relatively unusual occupation or demographic groups
which call for very specific program responses, such as preservation of residential motels or
the development of four bedroom apartments. The statute specifically requires analysis of the
special housing needs of the elderly, the disabled, female headed households, large families,
farmworkers and homeless persons and families.
A thorough analysis of the special needs groups helps a locality identify groups with the most
serious housing needs in order to develop and prioritize responsive programs. A special needs
assessment starts with general knowledge of the community’s demographics. The housing
element should analyze the needs of each group specifically mentioned in the statute as well
as any other group the locality deems appropriate. The analysis should include a discussion of
the nature of the special housing need of each group as well as quantification of the need.
A housing element should include:
A quantification and qualitative description of the need. For example, of the 600 elderly
households, census data reveals that 400 are homeowners and 200 are renters and that 250 of
all elderly households have incomes below the poverty level. A qualitative description of the
need would include a description of the potential housing problems faced by the group. For
example, the analysis of elderly need might show that an estimated 30 percent of elderly
households below the poverty level live in substandard housing, indicating a housing
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-18
rehabilitation need. Most local governments consult information available for service
providers, housing or service waiting lists, and data on income and housing costs to identify
special housing needs.
In summary, the focus of the analysis is on the nature of the need, potential housing problems, and a
quantification of the persons and/or households in each group.
Elderly
Definitions
For purposes of the Housing Element, elderly persons and seniors are considered synonymous. There
are four age groups frequently referred to as “seniors: 55+, 60+, 62+, and 65+. This part includes data
on persons who are 60 years of age or older, as well as those who are 65 years of age and older.
Special Housing Needs of the Elderly
Some key housing needs that seniors could potentially experience include, but are not limited, to:
Affordable housing
Units with accessibility modifications
Units with special accommodations for live-in caretakers
Housing developments that provide on-site supportive services
Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
Housing located near transportation, shopping and medical services
The special housing needs of seniors are unique because of the aging process. The housing needs of
seniors are often the result of the age, gender, health, and economic status of elderly couples and
individuals. Attachment A provides an overview — based on an Area Agency on Aging report — of
the senior population in Los Angeles County.
As younger seniors become old, the types of housing needed to meet their needs changes. To
accommodate the needs of seniors, several special housing types have evolved over the years,
including:
Senior Apartment: Age-restricted multiunit housing with self-contained living units for older
adults who are able to care for themselves.
Independent Living: Multi-unit senior housing developments that may provide supportive
services such as meals, housekeeping, social activities, and transportation. Independent Living
typically encourages socialization by provision of meals in a central dining area and scheduled
social programs.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-19 Temple City Housing Element
Assisted Living: A residential community with services that include meals, laundry,
housekeeping, medication reminders, and assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs). 2
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC): Housing planned and operated to provide a
continuum of accommodations and services for seniors including, but not limited to,
independent living, congregate housing, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. A CCRC
resident contract often involves either an entry fee or buy-in fee in addition to the monthly
service charges, which may change according to the medical services required.
Nursing Home: Facility licensed by the State that provides 24-hour nursing care, room and
board, and activities for convalescent residents and those with chronic and/or long-term care
illnesses.
Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF): A Medicare-certified nursing home, with increased emphasis on
rehabilitative therapies.
Development of these housing types usually involves large project sizes and land area. Sites for major
new developments of this kind are generally not anticipated in the City because of limited land
availability. Existing senior housing in Temple City includes three skilled nursing facilities (Baldwin
Gardens Nursing Center, Temple City Healthcare, Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital) and three adult
residential care facilities for the elderly, including Santa Anita Retirement Center and two small (six
bed) facilities.
Older Persons
Seniors comprise about 21.2% of the City’s total population, according to Census 2010. Table A-20
shows the 2010 senior population by age group and gender. In 2010, females comprised 56.7%
percent of the 7,506 persons 60 years of age and older.
Table A-20
Senior Population by Age Group and Gender – 2010
Age Group Male Female Total Percentage
60-64 997 1,146 2,143 21.0%
65-69 714 875 1,589 15.5%
70-74 534 682 1,218 11.9%
75-79 395 490 885 8.7%
80-84 305 472 777 7.6%
85+ 304 590 894 8.8%
Total 3,249 4,255 7,506 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
Table A-21 reports on the general characteristics of senior householders. Some key characteristics are
as follows:
2 Activities of Daily Living (ADLs): Everyday activities such as bathing, grooming, eating, toileting, and dressing. Instrumental
Activities of Daily Living (IADLs): Day-to-day tasks such as preparing meals, shopping, managing money, taking medication,
and housekeeping.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-20
78% of all senior householders are homeowners (N = 1,689)
32% of all senior householders live alone (N = 694)
Table A-21
Senior Householders (65+) by Tenure and Household Type – 2011
Type of Household Owner Renter Total
Family households
Married couple family 893 159 1,052
Male householder, no wife 63 12 75
Female householder, no husband 210 35 245
Subtotal 1,166 206 1,372
Nonfamily households
Householder living alone 473 221 694
Householder not living alone 50 48 98
Subtotal 523 269 792
Total 1,689 475 2,164
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Many Older Persons Have Low Income and Are Cost Burdened
Seniors experience a variety of housing needs because of their fixed and often low incomes and rising
housing-related costs (i.e., home repairs, utilities, etc.).
Elderly households comprise slightly more than one of every five of the City’s households.
1,365 elderly households have lower incomes (<80% AMI), including 865 owners and 500
renters.
335 lower-income elderly renter households are cost burdened.
330 lower-income elderly owner households are cost burdened.
Housing for the Elderly
ACS estimates indicate that the majority of seniors (68%) do not live alone. However, an estimated 509
seniors live in nursing homes/skilled nursing facilities. Nursing home facilities in Temple City include:
Baldwin Gardens Nursing Center (59 beds)
Temple City Healthcare (59 beds)
Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital (391 beds)
In addition, three residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE), with a capacity of 162 beds, are
located in Temple City: A+ Sincere Care Manor (six beds), Garibaldi Guest Home (six beds), and Santa
Anita Retirement Center (150 beds). The California Department of Social Services defines these
facilities as follows:
RCFEs provide care and supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, such as
bathing and grooming. They may also provide incidental medical services under special care
plans. The facilities provide services to persons 60 years of age and over and persons under 60
with compatible needs. RCFEs may also be known as assisted living facilities, retirement
homes and board and care homes. The facilities can range in size from six beds or less to over
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-21 Temple City Housing Element
100 beds. The residents of these facilities require varying levels of personal care and protective
supervision.
Conclusions and Findings
An estimated 335 lower-income elderly renter households are cost-burdened. The Section 8 rental
assistance program can assist some of these elderly, cost-burdened households. Future affordable
housing developments should include one-bedroom units to meet the needs of senior couple and
individuals.
There are no ongoing financial assistance programs available to address the estimated 330 lower-
income owners that are cost burdened. Some owners have or may seek reverse mortgages to help
them reduce their monthly housing costs or meet other needs. The City’s housing rehabilitation
program helps lower-income homeowners address the need to repair their homes.
Persons with Disabilities
Definitions
The Census defines disability status as:
People 5 years and over are considered to have a disability if they have one or more of the
following: (a) blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment; (b) a substantial
limitation in the ability to perform basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing stairs,
reaching, lifting, or carrying; (c) difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating; or (d)
difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home. In addition to the above
criteria, people 16 years and over are considered to have a disability if they have difficulty
going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s office, and people 16-64 years old are
considered to have a disability if they have difficulty working at a job or business.
The 1973 Rehabilitation Act defines “disability” as referring to any person who:
Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of such person’s
major life activities,
Has a record of such impairment, or
Is regarded as having such impairment.
Disability under Social Security is based on a person’s inability to work. A person is considered
disabled if he/she is unable to do any kind of work for which he/she is suited and the disability has
lasted or is expected to last for at least a year or to result in death.
The ACS gives the following definitions for various types of disabilities:
Hearing Difficulty: deaf or having serious difficulty hearing (DEAR)
Vision Difficulty: blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses (DEYE)
Cognitive Difficulty: because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty
remembering, concentrating, or making decisions
Ambulatory Difficulty: having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs (DPHY).
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-22
Self-Care Difficulty: having difficulty bathing or dressing (DDRS)
Independent Living Difficulty: because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having
difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping (DOUT)
The disabilities having the highest frequency are those that prevent people from working and go-
outside-home disabilities.
Special Housing Needs for Persons with Disabilities
Key special housing needs may include:
Affordable housing
Units with accessibility modifications
Units with special accommodations for live-in caretakers
Housing developments that provide supportive services
Units accessible to public transportation
Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
Housing with design features that facilitate mobility and independence
The majority of housing units in most communities lack features such as ramps, extra-wide doors,
raised toilets, hand rails, lowered counters, or slip-resistant floors that would make them suitable for,
or readily adaptable to, people with mobility limitations and people using assistive technology. The
majority of existing dwellings are inaccessible to people with a mobility impairment.
Persons with Disabilities
ACS 2009-2011 data indicate that 3,037 persons five years and over reported a disability. Disability
prevalence rates progressively increase as the population ages. For instance, 2.3% of the population
5-17 years of age reports one or more disabilities. By contrast, 49.8% of the population 75+ years
reports one or more disabilities. A closer look at Table A-22 indicates that more than three out of every
10 seniors over 65 (34%) live with one or more disability.
Table A-22
Disability Prevalence Rates by Age Group (5+ Years)
Age Group
With a
Disability No Disability
Total
Population
Prevalence
Rate
Under 5 0 2031 2031 0.0%
5 to 17 129 5,523 5,652 2.3%
18 to 34 252 6,584 6,836 3.7%
35 to 64 948 14,767 15,715 6.0%
65 to 74 654 2,210 2,864 22.8%
75+ years 1,054 1,1061 2,115 49.8%
Total 3,037 32,176 35,213 8.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
A total of 5,949 disabilities were reported by the populations five years and older (Table A-23), while
only 3,037 persons reported a disability (Table A-22), meaning that many disabled persons reported
having more than one disability.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-23 Temple City Housing Element
Table A-23
Total Disabilities Reported by Type – 2011
Type of Disability
Number of
Persons Percent
Hearing 957 16.1%
Vision 401 6.7%
Cognitive 877 14.7%
Self-care 715 12.1%
Ambulatory 1,458 24.5%
Independent living 1,541 25.9%
Total 5,949 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year
Estimates
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, a "developmental disability"
means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues or can be
expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual, which
includes mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling
conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that
required for individuals with mental retardation, but does not include other handicapping conditions
that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional
housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where
supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional
environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental
disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally
disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of
independence as an adult.
The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based
services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through
a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based
facilities. The San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers in the State of
California that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The
center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide
range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.
Table A-24 provides information from the San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center on the number of
developmentally disabled residents of Temple City receiving Regional Center services.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-24
Table A-24
Developmentally Disabled Residents by Age
Age Group
Number of
Individuals Percent of Total
0-14 Years 84 30.7%
15-22 Years 49 17.9%
23-54 Years 106 38.7%
55-64 Years 22 8.0%
65+ Years 13 4.7%
Total with Disability 274 100%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, 2013
According to The Arc (a national community-based organization advocating for and serving people
with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families) the nationally accepted percentage
of the population that can be categorized as developmentally disabled is estimated to be one to three
percent.
Several housing types are appropriate for people living with a developmental disability: rent-
subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, Section 8 vouchers, special programs
for home purchase, HUD housing, and residential care facilities. The design of housing-accessibility
modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities
represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this need group. A
majority of the affordable housing units in Temple City are reserved for seniors and disabled persons.
Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and federal
Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled
residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with
disabilities may be living on a fixed income. Table A-25 provides information on residence type for
developmentally disabled residents in Temple City, as collected by the local Regional Center. Most
persons with developmental disabilities are able to live in their own home (71%).
Table A-25
Developmentally Disabled Residents by Residence Type
Residence Type
Number of
Individuals Percent of Total
Community Care Facility 33 12.04%
Foster/Family Home 3 1.09%
Independent Living/
Supported Living 14 5.11%
Other 29 10.58%
Own Home 195 71.17%
Total 274 100%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, 2013
Housing for the Disabled
There are no rental housing complexes developed exclusively for disabled persons in the City.
However, two of the eight apartment complexes surveyed in March 2008 reported that 31 units were
accessible to disabled persons.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-25 Temple City Housing Element
In addition, seven Adult Residential Facilities (ARFs) in Temple City have a capacity of 35 beds. ARFs
are facilities of any capacity that provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18 through 59, who
are unable to provide for their own daily needs. Adults may be physically handicapped,
developmentally disabled, and/or mentally disabled. Temple City also has one Adult Residential
Facility for Persons with Special Health Care Needs (ARFPSHN) with a capacity of 5 beds. ARFPSHNs are
facilities that provide 24-hour services for up to five adults with developmental disabilities, who are
being released from Agnews Developmental Center, and who have special health care and intensive
support needs.
Conclusions and Findings
The lack of affordable housing and financial resources to make modifications to their housing units are
likely to be serious problems affecting lower income disabled renters. Owners also may need physical
modifications to their home. The City’s housing rehabilitation program may provide loans to owners
to help them retrofit or modify their homes.
Large Families
Definitions
HCD defines large families as consisting of five or more persons. Census data provide estimates of
households with five, six, seven, or more persons.
Special Housing Needs
Lower-income, large families need three-, four-, or five-bedroom housing units at affordable costs.
Since housing with these numbers of bedrooms usually command higher costs than smaller units,
affordability is another key need of large families/households.
Large Families/Households
Table A-26 shows an estimated 1,680 large households in the City with five, six, and seven or more
persons, representing 15% of all households.
Table A-26
Households By Household Size and Tenure – 2011
Number of
Persons Owner Percent Renter Percent Total Percent
1 person 811 11.6 % 1,092 26.0 % 1,903 17.0 %
2 persons 2,174 31.0 % 1,156 27.5 % 3,330 29.7 %
3 persons 1,430 20.4 % 826 19.7 % 2,256 20.1 %
4 persons 1,394 19.9 % 644 15.3 % 2,038 18.2 %
5 persons 722 10.3 % 291 6.9 % 1,013 9.0 %
6 persons 271 3.9 % 109 2.6 % 380 3.4 %
7 persons+ 204 2.9 % 83 2.0 % 287 2.6 %
Total 7,006 100.0 % 4,201 100.0 % 11,207 100.0 %
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-26
The number of large owner households (1,197) is more than twice the number of renter households
(483). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of large households residing in Temple City increased by
less than 1%.
In 2009, lower-income, large households had multiple housing problems, including overpaying,
overcrowding, and substandard housing. CHAS data outlined in Table A-27 reveal that all extremely
low- and very low-income large family homeowners and renters experience one or more housing
problems. Also, essentially all low-income large family owners and renters experience one or more
housing problems.
Table A-27
Large Family Renters and Owners with Housing Needs By Income Group
Income Group Renters
% with any
Housing
Problems* Owners
% with any
Housing
Problems*
Extremely Low 0-30% MFI 15 100.0% 20 100.0%
Very Low 31-50% MFI 10 100.0% 90 100.0%
Low 51-80% MFI 215 100.0% 250 100.0%
Above Low >80% MFI 240 31.3% 420 52.5%
Total 480 65.6% 1,160 67.2%
*Note: Any housing problems means cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without
complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2005-2009
Housing for Large Families/Households
An estimated 6,897 occupied housing units with 3, 4, or 5+ bedrooms are available in Temple City. A
comparison is given below of housing availability for large owner and renter households:
An estimated 5,455 owner-occupied housing units with 3, 4, or 5+ bedrooms were reported as
occupied, according to the ACS. There were a total of 1,197 large owner households, yielding a
ratio of over 4.5 large housing units to every large owner household.
An estimated 1,436 renter-occupied housing units with 3, 4, or 5+ bedrooms were occupied,
according to the ACS. There were a total for 483 large renter households, yielding a ratio of
over 2.9 large housing units to every large renter household.
Based on these indicators, housing availability for large renter householders is significantly less than
for owners; however, Temple City has ample large units for the existing number of large households. It
would appear that most large housing units are occupied by smaller households.
Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is another key need for large families. Overpaying is a problem affecting large
renter and owner households alike; the CHAS data indicate the following:
185 lower-income, large renter households were overpaying in 2009, representing 12% of all
the lower-income renters that were overpaying.
335 lower-income large, owner households were overpaying in 2009, representing 24% of all
the lower-income owners that were cost burdened.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-27 Temple City Housing Element
Conclusions and Findings
Overcrowding and overpaying are significant problems for large renter households. These two
problems affect most of the 185 lower-income large family renters. In the future, the needs of large
families could be effectively addressed by including Three-bedroom housing units in affordable
multifamily housing developments.
Farmworkers
According to the State, A farmworker 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 agricultural animals including those produced for
animal products.
(Source: State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information
Division Occupational Definition)
Because of their predominantly low incomes, housing affordability is an acute need for farmworkers.
Farmworkers in Temple City
The City has no land devoted to the production of field crops and/or other plant life. Also, there is no
land used for animals. As a result, there are no farmworkers employed in Temple City. There may be
persons residing or “housed” in the City who are farmworkers at locations outside the municipal
boundaries; however, ACS estimates indicate that agriculture accounted for 0.0% of the jobs by sector
in Temple City in 2012.
Conclusions and Findings
Because there are no agricultural operations in Temple City, the zoning code does not provide a
residential zone exclusively for farmworker housing. Housing for farmworkers could be developed in
the multifamily residential zones; however, based on the above information, there is no need for
farmworker housing in Temple City.
Female Householders
Definitions
Householders are classified by type according to the sex of the householder and the presence
of relatives. Two types of householders are distinguished: family householders and non-family
householders. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related
to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all of the people in the
household related to him or her are family members. A nonfamily householder is a
householder living alone or with nonrelatives only. (U.S. Census Bureau)
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-28
In most cases, the householder is the person, or one of the people, in whose name the home is owned,
being bought, or rented and who is listed as Person 1 on the Census questionnaire. A female
householder, then, is one who is maintaining a household. A female householder, with no husband
present, means a family with a female householder and no spouse of the householder present.
Special Housing Needs of Female Householders
Key housing needs of female-headed households include:
Affordable housing
Housing developments with supportive services
Assistance in locating housing or in securing shared housing
Access to housing which accommodates children
Access to housing which is designed for security and convenience
Access to housing near parks and open space to serve the needs of households with
children
Estimate of Female Householders
Over one-quarter (28.4%, or 3,303 total households) have female heads of house. Table A-28 shows
the owner/renter status of female householders, as well as household type. As indicated, 54% are
owners and 46% are renters, and over half (54 percent) live in a family of two or more persons with no
spouse present.
Table A-28
Female Householders by Tenure – 2010
Type of Household Owner Renter Total Percent
Family, No Husband 933 853 1,786 54.1 %
Not Living Alone 114 188 302 9.1 %
Living Alone 728 487 1,215 36.8 %
Total 1,775 1,528 3,303 100.0%
Percent 53.7 % 46.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for
day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend
to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other
supportive services. The relatively low incomes earned by female-headed households, combined with
the increased need for supportive services limit the housing options available to them.
Conclusions and Findings
Because so many female householders live alone, overcrowding is not expected to be the problem it
is for small and large families. Female householders, especially those that are renting an apartment or
home, do have housing affordability concerns. As such, the key indicator of housing need is the
overpaying situation of female householders living in rental housing. An estimated 832 renter female
householders are cost burdened (54.5% of 1,528 female householder renters).
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-29 Temple City Housing Element
Families and Persons in Need of Emergency Shelter
Definitions
The following definitions are those adopted by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority:
Homeless Persons: People who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, and
have a primary nighttime residence that is either a public or private shelter, an institution that
provides temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or a public or
private location that is not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings.
Emergency Shelter: Housing that is a safe alternative to the streets, either in a shelter facility or
through the use of motel vouchers. Emergency shelter is short term, usually for 30 days or
fewer. Domestic violence shelters are considered emergency shelter, as they provide safe,
immediate housing for victims and their children.
Transitional Housing: Facilitates the movement of homeless individuals and families to
permanent housing. It is housing in which homeless persons may live up to 24 months and
receive supportive services that enable them to live more independently. Supportive services
— which help promote residential stability, increased skill level or income, and greater self-
determination — may be provided by the organization managing the housing, or coordinated
by that organization and provided by other public or private agencies. Transitional housing
can be provided in one structure or several structures at one site, or in multiple structures at
scattered sites.
Unsheltered Persons: Homeless persons who are living on the streets, in abandoned buildings,
storage structures, vehicles, encampments, or any other place unfit for human habitation.
Generally, those not utilizing Los Angeles County operated emergency or transitional housing
shelters are considered unsheltered.
(Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2011 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count.)
Special Homeless Housing Needs
HUD's model approach to helping meet the needs of the homeless is referred to as a Continuum of
Care. A Continuum of Care begins with a point of entry in which the needs of a homeless individual or
family are assessed. The intake and assessment component is performed by an emergency shelter or
through a separate assessment center. To reach and engage homeless persons living on the street, the
homeless service system also includes a strong outreach component.
Once a needs assessment is completed, the person/family may be referred to permanent housing or
to transitional housing where supportive services are provided to prepare them for independent
living. For example, a homeless person with a substance abuse problem may be referred to a
transitional rehabilitation program before being assisted with permanent housing. Some individuals,
particularly persons with chronic disabilities, may require ongoing supportive services once they move
into permanent housing. The goal of the comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-30
homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, housing and
independent living.
Estimates of Homelessness
As noted in a recent report –
“…the transience of America’s unhoused makes it difficult to quantify the homeless
population and determine who is at risk of becoming homeless. In addition to having no fixed
address, individuals may experience bouts of homelessness lasting a few days or several years,
and a significant number return to homelessness after leaving the streets, resulting in constant
population fluctuation.”
(Helping America’s Homeless: Emergency Shelter or Affordable Housing?)
This same report found that the –
“Essential elements of homelessness as a social problem are so extreme that homeless people
cannot remove their homeless condition themselves.”
Whatever the causes of homelessness, the “count” in many communities, including Temple City, varies
within the year, and year to year, and over extended periods of time. There are an estimated 3
homeless persons in Temple City, according to the 2011 street count (actual enumeration) conducted
by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.
Homeless Shelters and Services
There are no emergency shelters or shelters for domestic violence victims located in Temple City.
Conclusions and Findings
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) requires the City to establish a zone or zones where
emergency shelters are a permitted use and with sufficient capacity to accommodate the City’s need
for emergency shelter. This same Government Code Section further states:
“If the local government cannot identify a zone or zones with sufficient capacity, the local
government shall include a program to amend its zoning ordinance to meet the requirements
of this paragraph within one year of the adoption of the housing element.”
The City permits emergency shelters by right in the C-3 zone, subject to only those requirements as
permitted by State law.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-31 Temple City Housing Element
Projected Housing Needs
Population Trends and Projections
As of 2010, the City’s population was 35,558 persons, according to the U.S. Census. Census 2010
estimated that of this population, 422 persons resided in group quarters and 35,136 in households.
Of the population in group quarters, 393 lived in institutionalized settings and 29 lived in
noninstitutionalized housing. The majority of the group quarters’ population (388) lived in nursing
facilities/skilled-nursing facilities.
Table A-29 shows that in both the 1990s and 2000s, the Temple City population grew by more than
2,000 persons each decade. Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the City’s population increased by
about 2,181 persons.
Table A-29
Population Trends
Census Year Population Change from Previous Census
1980 28,972 -701
1990 31,100 +2,128
2000 33,377 +2,277
2010 35,558 +2,181
Source: U.S. Census for Years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010
At the same time, the housing stock experienced modest gains compared to the population growth.
Between 2000 and 2010, the housing stock grew by 443 dwelling units. This indicates that some
vacant units likely became occupied during this time period. Table A-30 shows housing stock trends.
Table A-30
Housing Stock (Historical)
Census Year Total Housing Units Change from Previous Census
1980 11,037 ---
1990 11,548 +511
2000 11,674 +126
2010 12,117 +443
Source: U.S. Census, 2000 Census
Employment Trends and Projections
Jobs Located in the City
SCAG estimates that in 2012, there were 6,552 jobs in Temple City. According to these same estimates,
from 2011-2012 Temple City added an estimated 86 jobs. SCAG also prepares projections for future
economic conditions. For Temple City, SCAG projects an increase of almost 450 local jobs to a total of
7,000 jobs by 2020.
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-32
Labor Force: Workers and Employed Residents
As of 2011, approximately 17,900 available workers and approximately 16,750 employed residents
lived in Temple City according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates . The unemployment rate was estimated at 6.4%.
Of the available 17,892 workers 16 years of age or over, 9,353 were male and 8,539 were female. More
than 3,000 residents commuted to work in the City of Los Angeles while just over 5% worked in
Temple City. Commute times for Temple City residents were generally fairly long: more than 50% of
workers commuted for 30+ minutes, 32% commuted 15-30 minutes, and only 17% commuted less
than 15 minutes.
Share of Regional Housing Needs
According to the Housing Element Law:
“ . . . a locality’s share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing needs
of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction’s general
plan.” (Section 65584 [a])
SCAG is responsible for allocating to each city in its region its share of the regional housing need.
Temple City has a RHNA of 603 housing units for the January 1, 2014 to October 1, 2021 period.
In 2006, AB 2634 amended housing element law to require that the needs assessment specifically
analyze the extremely low-income level. The law was amended to indicate that “local agencies shall
calculate the subset of very low-income households allotted under Section 65584 that qualify as
extremely low income households.” State law allows local jurisdictions to identify 50 percent of the
very low-income category to represent households of extremely low income (less than 30 percent of
the MFI). Table A-31 shows the Final RHNA for all five income groups.
Table A-31
Share of Regional Housing Needs
January 1, 2014 - October 1, 2021
Income
Category
2014-2021
Number Percent
Extremely Low 40 6.6%
Very Low 40 6.6%
Low 93 15.4%
Moderate 99 16.4%
Above Moderate 252 41.8%
Total: 603 100.0%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 5th Cycle Regional
Housing Needs Assessment Final Allocation Plan, Planning Period October
2013 to October 2021 for Jurisdictions within the Six County SCAG Region,
October 4, 2012. *Per Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), Very Low
Income household totals are split in half and allocated to Extremely Low
Income. The jurisdiction’s total allocation does not change.
Technical Appendix A Housing Needs Assessment
A-33 Temple City Housing Element
Analysis of Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Cities across the country and State and local governments and nations around the world are adopting
programs and policies that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills,
air quality improvements, open space conservation, reduced traffic congestion, improved
transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy conservation
and the development of new energy technologies.
To implement existing opportunities for energy conservation, the City has initiated the following
efforts:
1. In January 2013, the City adopted an Energy Action Plan, which was funded by Southern
California Edison as part of the Local Government Strategic Plan Program. Implementation
programs relating to energy utilization conservation are ongoing and in effect.
2. The City is aiming to begin an update of the General Plan before the end of 2013. The new
General Plan will incorporate energy utilization and conservation policies and resource
sustainability.
3. The City strives to meet or exceed conservation goals by taking actions in to be good stewards
of the environment.
4. The City works to educate residents, businesses, visitors, and governments to reduce energy
use and conserve energy by sharing information and promoting programs to encourage
behavior changes that lead to lower energy bills. The City also encourages lower energy use
and off-peak use during hot summer months.
5. The City will provide incentives, tools, and energy conservation programs that help individuals
and businesses to decrease their peak and annual power use.
6. The City will promote awareness and education about sustainability3 and energy conservation
through websites, newsletters, and other community and regional outreach opportunities.
7. In addition, the City’s website will inform residents of the Southern California Edison “Energy
Management Assistance Program (EMA), which provides services designed to help income-
qualified households to conserve energy and reduce their electricity costs. Through this
program, SCE pays all the costs of purchasing and installing energy efficient appliances and
equipment free to homeowners and renters. The City’s website also will inform residents of
The Southern California Gas Company’s energy efficiency rebate program. That program offers
rebates to the owners of single-family homes, apartments, and mobile homes who buy energy
efficient appliances.
3 Sustainability refers to the physical development and institutional operating practices that meet the needs of present users
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, particularly with regard to use and waste of
natural resources. Sustainable practices support ecological, human, and economic health and vitality. Sustainability
presumes that resources are finite, and should be used conservatively and wisely with a view to long-term priorities and
consequences of the ways in which resources are used. (as defined by the University of California, 2003)
Housing Needs Assessment Technical Appendix A
Temple City Housing Element A-34
This page intentionally left blank.
B-1 Temple City Housing Element
APPENDIX B:
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Introduction and Summary
Introduction
Technical Appendix B provides:
”An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement,
or development of housing for all income levels….”
The analysis of governmental constraints includes –
Land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate
local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the
regional housing need…and for meeting the need for housing for the disabled.
Therefore, the required analysis includes seven subjects:
Land use controls
Building codes and their enforcement
On- and off-site improvements
Fees and exactions
Processing and permit procedures
Constraints on housing for persons with disabilities
Constraints on meeting regional share housing needs
The purpose of the analysis is to find out if a standard or practice -
“…constitute a barrier to the maintenance, improvement or development of housing.”
And whether certain policies –
“…have a disproportionate or negative impact on the development of particular housing types (e.g.,
multifamily) or on housing developed for low- or moderate-income households.”
A determination should be made for each potential constraint whether it poses an actual constraint.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-2
Summary
A summary of the governmental constraints analysis is presented below, with the complete analysis in
the sections which follow.
Land Use Controls
The analysis of land use controls includes the following:
General Plan Land Use Categories
Residential Zones
Residential Zone Development Standards
Mixed Use Overly Zone
Downtown Specific Plan
Senior Housing Overlay Zone
Affordable Second Unit Housing
Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamily Housing
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
State Housing Law and the California Building Code
Temple City has adopted the Los Angeles County Building Code 2011 edition as amended, which is
based on the 2010 California Uniform Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Codes. The City
has also adopted the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, recommended by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Uniform Fire Code, 2012.
The Los Angeles County Building Code 2011 was adopted by reference with only minor variations that
do not adversely impact the cost of housing. The City's codes are considered to be the minimum
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Codes, which are based on the State
Housing Law and uniform codes, are adopted by many cities throughout southern California and do
not pose a constraint to residential development.
On- and Off-Site Improvements
The City’s improvement requirements have been applied to existing housing as well as all residential
developments under construction and approved for development. All new development in the City
occurs as infill development on existing (often consolidated) lots that have existing dwellings.
Consequently, streets have already been constructed to the maximum widths and there are existing
curbs, gutter, sidewalks and other infrastructure such as street lights.
Fees and Exactions
The City believes that the fees for planning services, user charges, and plan check are both necessary
and appropriate for residential development. The City has established each fee after careful study and
consideration.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-3 Temple City Housing Element
The fees charges for typical single-family and multi-family housing represent a small percentage of the
total development costs or sales prices.
The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan encourages and facilitates housing development by
allowing reductions in processing fees and utility connection fees. These incentives are granted
through a development agreement process.
Processing and Permit Procedures
The City’s processing and permit procedures are not a constraint on the development of housing. The
City implements a “fast track” processing system. In addition, to better facilitate housing, the City
offers an administrative review process for multi-family and mixed-use development focused on site
and architectural design.
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities
In 2013, the City amended the Zoning Code to ensure that its rules, policies, and standards were
consistent with fair housing laws. These amendments included the establishment of a reasonable
accommodations process related to both zoning and building standards for regulating the siting,
funding, development, and use of housing for people with disabilities. The City provides notice to the
public regarding the reasonable accommodation process at the Community Development
Department counter and on the City’s website.
The Zoning Code was also amended to ensure that residential care facilities for six or fewer persons
are permitted in all zones that permit single-family homes. Facilities housing seven or more disabled
persons may seek an exception or waiver from the Zoning Code standards through the reasonable
accommodation process.
The “family” definition and all Zoning Code definitions that include the term “family” were also revised
to be consistent with fair housing laws.
Constraints on Meeting Regional Share Housing Needs
Local governmental constraints that could potentially prevent the City from meeting its share of the
regional housing need were ameliorated in 2013 by the implementation of amendments to the
Downtown Specific Plan, allowance for higher densities on R-3 sites not adjacent to R-1 parcels,
elimination of conditional use permit requirements for multi-family housing, and adoption of a local
density bonus ordinance that is consistent with State law.
In summary, the City accomplished the following actions and programs to address actual or potential
governmental constraints in 2013:
Downtown Specific Plan – revised residential standards
Multi-family Development Incentives
Lot Consolidation Incentives
Non-Discretionary Multi-Family Review Procedures
Density Bonus Ordinance
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-4
Revise Family Definition
Include Residential Care Facilities in Zones that Permit Single Family Homes
Zoning Provisions for Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons
Zoning for Special Needs (described in Technical Appendix D)
Land Use Controls
Land use controls are policies, regulations, plans, and other methods of regulations that control the
possible uses and development of property, including such things as zoning, subdivision regulations,
and floodplain regulation. The two primary regulatory documents in Temple City are the General Plan
and the Zoning Code (Title 9, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code).
Guidelines
HCD suggests that the analysis of land use controls -
Identify and analyze zoning, density, parking requirements, lot coverage, height limits, lot sizes, unit
sizes, design criteria, floor area ratios, setbacks, moratoria and prohibitions against multifamily
housing developments, growth controls, urban growth boundaries, open space requirements, etc.
(The italicized text is guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development in Housing Element Questions and Answers, October 2006, pg. 31.)
The focus of analysis in the Housing Element, then, is on whether the City’s land use controls facilitate
the development of a variety of housing types that can meet a wide spectrum of needs, including
special housing needs.
Analysis
The analysis of land use controls includes the following:
General Plan Land Use Categories
Residential Zones
Residential Zone Development Standards
Mixed Use Overly Zone
Downtown Specific Plan
Senior Housing Overlay Zone
Affordable Second Unit Housing
Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamily Housing
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
General Plan Residential Land Use Categories
The City’s General Plan provides three residential land use categories, described below.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-5 Temple City Housing Element
Low Density Residential: Residential dwelling unit densities in this category range from one to six
units per acre. This particular land use designation is characterized by single-family detached units
and is found throughout the City. The population intensity with maximum development is
approximately 17 persons per acre (based on an average household size of 2.75 persons).
Medium Density Residential: This land use designation applies to those areas of the City in which
the allowable densities for residential development range between seven and 12 units per acre.
Housing units within this density range typically include a mix of single-family detached and attached
units and duplexes. Medium Density Residential is concentrated in the far eastern, southwestern, and
northeastern sections of the City. The population per acre ranges from 19 to 33 persons, assuming a
2.75 average household size.
High Density Residential: This land use designation refers to those areas of the City where the
allowable residential densities are between 13 and 24 units per acre. This designation identifies those
neighborhoods where triplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings are located. The potential
population intensity per acre ranges from approximately 36 to 66 persons per acre.
Residential Zones
The Temple City Zoning Code provides for housing in three residential zones.
The R-1 Zone permits single-family homes up to a density of six dwelling units per acre.
The R-2 Zone permits single-family homes, duplexes and multifamily housing up a density of 12
dwelling units per acre.
The R-3 zone permits single-family homes, duplexes and multifamily housing up to a density of 18
dwelling units per acre. R-3 parcels not adjoining R-1 parcels are permitted to achieve a density of up
to 30 units per acre, with a minimum-allowed density of 20 units per acre.
Residential Zone Development Standards
Table B-1 on the next page describes seven development standards for each of the three residential
zones. The analysis of development standards is discussed below in subjects (1) through (7).
1) Density and Lot Area: As illustrated below, housing density ranges from 6 to 30 dwelling units
per acre (Table B-1).
Table B-1
Temple City Housing Density Ranges
Residential Zone
Minimum Lot
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Lot Area Per
Dwelling Unit
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
R-1 7,200 7,200 6
R-2 7,200 3,600 12
R-3 10,000 1,452
(2,400 if adjacent
to R-1 zoned lots)
30
(18 if adjacent to
R-1 zoned lots)
Source: Temple City Zoning Code, 2013
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-6
The densities noted above are realistic in that the minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit
were determined after consideration of the other development standards including setbacks,
minimum lot widths, floor area ratios and maximum lot coverage. That is, in the R-3 Zone four
dwelling units can be constructed (and meet the development standards) on a lot that meets the
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Likewise, two units can be built on an R-2 lot that meets the
minimum lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet.
It must be noted that Temple City has no vacant residentially zoned sites except for one R-1 lot.
Residential development occurs on infill lots that are consolidated by investor/builders. As a result,
development does not occur on lots of, say, 7,200 square feet or 14,400 square feet. Most
development occurs on R-2 lots of various sizes.
Table B-2 outlines residential development standards in Temple City’s residential zones.
Table B-3 demonstrates that on lots of various sizes the maximum densities can be attained and the
minimum and maximum development standards satisfied based on five recently approved
developments in the R-2 Zone. The maximum densities were achieved while parking, height, floor
area, lot coverage and open space requirements were met. The lot sizes ranged from 12,017 square
feet to 38,006 square feet. As a result, the cumulative effect of the development standards does not
reduce the housing supply capacity below the maximum that can be developed. Lowering the
development standards would not result in bringing new housing within the cost/rent levels
affordable to lower income households. Land costs and the cost of constructing the housing unit itself
exceeds the maximum housing costs affordable to lower income households pursuant to the HOME
Program, California Community Redevelopment Law and Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-7 Temple City Housing Element
Table B-2
Temple City Residential Zones and Development Standards
Zone
Permitted
Uses
Required Yard Setbacks
Max.
Height
Min.
Lot Size
Lot Area
Per
Dwelling
Unit
Min.
Lot
Width F.A.R.
Max.
Lot
Cov.
Front Side Rear
R-1 Single Family
Dwelling
(Up to 6
du/acre)
20' Min,
30’ Max
(Ord.
98-823)
1st story: 5' or
10% of the lot
width whichever
is greater
Street Side: 10’
2nd story: 15’ for
the total
combined
setback on both
sides, or 20’ if it’s
a corner lot
15’ 18’
(single
story)
26’
(two
story)
7,200 sf
(existing
lots are
exempt)
7200 sf 60'
(existing
lots are
exempt)
Single story:
N/A
Two story:
35 % of the
lot size or
3,500 sq. ft.,
whichever is
smaller
50%
R-2 Single/
Multiple
Family,
Duplexes
(Up to 12
du/acre)
20’ Single story: 5'
Street Side: 10'
Two story:
1st story: 10'
2nd story: no
less than the 1st
story with an
average of 15’
setback
15’ 30’ 7,200 sf
(existing
lots are
exempt)
3,600 sf
(divide the
lot size by
this number
to get the
max. no. of
units)
60'
(existing
lots are
exempt)
50%
w/garage
50%
R-3 Single/
Multiple
Family,
Duplexes
(Up to 30
du/acre)
20’ Single story: 5'
Street side: 10'
Two story:
1st story: 10'
2nd story: no
less than
the 1st story
with an average
of 15’ setback
15’ 40’
(30’ if
adjacent
to R-1
zoned
lots)
10,000 sf
(existing
lots are
exempt)
1,452 sf
(divide the
lot size by
this number
to get the
max. no. of
units)
2,400 sf if
adjacent to
R-1 zoned lots
Interior
80Ft
Corner
100 ft
(existing lots
are exempt)
70%
w/garage
50%
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code, 2013
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-8
Table B-3
Temple City Approved Developments R-2 Zone
Lot Sizes
12,017 S.F. 16,128 S.F. 21,850 S.F. 27,569 S.F. 38,006 S.F
# of Units
Maximum 3 4 6 7 10
Proposed 3 4 5 7 10
Garage Parking
M i n i m u m 6 81 01 4 2 0
P r o p o s e d 6 81 01 4 2 0
Guest Parking
M i n i m u m 3 457 1 0
Proposed 3 4 5 9 10
Height
Maximum 30’0” 30’0” 30’0” 30’0” 30’0”
Proposed 23’10” 25’4” 25’11” 24’4” 25’0”
Floor Area
Maximum .50 .50 .50 .50 .50
Proposed .49 .49 .48 .49 .49
Lot Coverage
Maximum 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Proposed 37% 31% 29% 34% 25%
Open Space
Minimum 1,500SF 2,000SF 2,500SF 3,500SF 5,000SF
Proposed 2,576SF 3,136SF 3,489SF 7,100SF 13,395SF
Source: Temple City staff reports to Planning Commission on five R-2 Zone projects.
2) Parking Requirements: The parking requirements for dwelling units are as follows:
Single-family: 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be located in a garage. 3
garage parking spaces per dwelling unit for dwellings with more than 4 bedrooms. A den, library,
study or similar habitable room which functionally could be used as a bedroom shall be considered a
bedroom for purposes of determining required parking.
Multiple-family: 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, each of which must be located in a garage or
carport, plus 1 space, which shall be open and unenclosed, for each 2 units or any fraction thereof.
Second unit: 2 parking spaces, each of which shall be in a garage. Said parking may be in tandem.
Condominiums: 2 parking spaces (enclosed in a garage with door) per dwelling unit, plus 1 additional
open and unenclosed space for each 2 dwelling units. Units with 3 or more bedrooms shall require an
additional 1/2 parking space.
Provided that lots in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zones meet the minimum lot sizes, the parking requirements
pose no physical constraints to the development of said parcels. The residential densities are
achievable as the minimum housing unit sizes can be developed within the framework of lot size,
setback, floor to area ratio (FAR), and lot coverage standards.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-9 Temple City Housing Element
The cost impact of the City’s parking standards pertains primarily to construction costs. For a given
project, the land costs for two parking spaces, whether enclosed or in a carport, are essentially the
same. According to the Marshall-Swift Building Valuation Services, the value for a wood frame private
garage is $46.02 per square foot. Therefore, a 400 square foot garage (20’ x 20’) would have an
estimated cost of $18,408. The monthly cost would be about $116 (30-year loan amortization, 6.5%
interest rate). Thus, the cost of enclosed parking spaces is very modest in the context of the total
housing construction and production costs. Moreover, the difference in the costs of a carport
($26.77/SF) and a garage ($46.02/SF) is $19.25 per SF. A carport, then, would cost $7,700 less than a
garage. The parking standards have not had a negative impact on the supply of housing. The number
of spaces per unit is almost the same as the standards of surrounding cities. The recent multifamily
developments have provided the required off-street parking within the framework of the lot sizes and
maximum densities.
However, the City understands that the increase in cost potentially associated with covered parking
could constrain development of affordable housing. As such, the City allows parking reductions for R-3
zoned lots that do not adjoin R-1 zoned lots, subject to Director approval of a study adequately
demonstrating reduced parking demand resulting from transit accessibility or other factors.
3) Lot Sizes and Dimensions: Table B-4 summarizes lot size and dimensions for each zone. The
minimum lot size and lot area per dwelling unit were determined after consideration of the other
development standards including setbacks, minimum lot widths, floor area ratios and maximum lot
coverage. The lot area and dimensions facilitate development at the noted densities of 6, 12, and 18
(or 30) dwelling units per acre.
Table B-4
Temple City Lot Area and Dimensions
Residential Zone
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum Lot
Frontage
Minimum Lot
Depth
R-1 7,200 60 120
R-2 7,200 60 120
R-3 10,000 Interior 80
Corner 100
Interior 125
Corner 100
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code
4) Height Limits: The R-1 designation permits single-story dwellings to a maximum of 18 feet, and
two-story dwellings to 26 feet. Both the R-2 and R-3 zones have a maximum height of 30 feet,
although building height may go up to 40 feet in the R-3 zone when not adjacent to R-1 zoned lots.
Based on recent development and housing under construction, the typical heights in R-2 and R-3
zones are less than the maximum allowed, ranging from 23’10’ to 26’0”. The height limits have posed
no development constraints on lots that satisfy the minimum lot area standards. The Downtown
Specific Plan provides increased height incentives for projects that consolidate lots.
5) Floor Area Ratios and Housing Unit Sizes: Within the R-1 district, two-story units are permitted,
limited by to a maximum FAR of 35% or 3,500 square feet, whichever is smaller. The City’s regulations
would permit development of a 2,520-square-foot house on a standard R-1 7,200-square-foot lot. The
FAR within in the R-2 district is 50%, including the garage, and 70% including the garage in R-3 zones.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-10
Numerous variables impact the cost of producing new multi-family housing. For a given level of
housing quality, the larger the housing unit size, the more it will cost to construct. A survey of recently
constructed market rate housing in Temple City indicates the following housing unit sizes:
3-bedroom unit 1,670 square feet
4-bedroom unit: 1,492-1,512 square feet (3 bathrooms)
1,619-1,909 square feet
2,294 square feet
Consequently, minimum housing unit sizes have not constrained the production of market-rate
housing.
With respect to affordable housing,’ housing unit size is but one factor in the total cost of housing
production. For example, the cost savings induced by reducing the housing unit size by 200 square
feet would not be dramatic in the context of total construction and production costs. For many
affordable housing projects, this cost savings would be wiped out by the imposition of prevailing
wage rates. For instance, the Los Angeles Community Development Commission asks funding
applicants to increase construction costs by 20% if they think the development will be subject to
prevailing wages.
The City facilitates and encourages the production of SRO housing units. SROs have housing unit sizes
considerably less than one-bedroom units. SRO facilities provide dwelling units where each unit has a
minimum floor area of 150 square feet and a maximum floor area of 400 square feet, resulting in
significant construction cost reductions. These dwelling units may have kitchen or bathroom facilities
shared and may be offered on a monthly basis or longer. The Zoning Code permits SROs in the C-3
zone with a conditional use permit.
6) Setbacks: According to the Zoning Code, building setback means the minimum distance
between any property line and the closest point of the foundation of any building or structure on the
property. Table B-5 on the following page shows the minimum required setbacks for the three
residential zones. As previously explained, the minimum setback requirements do not pose a physical
constraint to the development of housing on lots that meet the minimum lot area standards of the R-
1, R-2, and R-3 Zones.
7) Open Space Requirements: All R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones require 500 square feet of landscaped
open space per unit. Housing recently constructed and under construction has met or exceeded the
minimum open space requirements. The projects listed in Table B-3 all exceeded the 500 square foot
standard.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-11 Temple City Housing Element
Table B-5
Temple City Setback Requirements for Residential Zones
Residential
Zone
Lot Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Front
Setback
Rear
Setback Side Setback
R-1 7,200 20 15 1st Story: 5’ or 10% of the
lot width whichever is
greater
Side Street: 10’
2nd Story: 15’ for the total
combined setback on
both sides, or 20’ if it is a
corner lot
R-2 7,200 20 15 Single Story: 5’
Street Side: 10’
Two Story:
1st Story: 10’
2nd Story: no less than
the 1st story with an
average of 15’ setback
R-3 10,000 20 15 Single Story: 5’
Street Side: 10’
Two Story:
1st Story: 10’
2nd Story: no less than
the 1st story with an
average of 15’ setback
Source: City of Temple City Zoning Code, 2013
Mixed Use Overlay Zone
1) General Description of MUZ: Zoning code Article R.1 establishes a Mixed-Use Zone (MUZ). A
mixed use development, according to the MUZ provisions, is a development project that consists of
residential uses in conjunction with commercial and office uses on a single integrated development
site.
The MUZ provides for a combined mix of medium (12 dus/ac) and high density (18 dus/ac) residential
development with retail, office and service uses, with the nonretail uses located primarily at the street
level to create a pedestrian oriented environment. The MUZ intends to encourage new housing
opportunities, such as residential over retail which are proximate to commercial services and promote
pedestrian activity.
The Mixed-Use zone is designed as an overlay zone where the General Plan designation of the
property is “commercial” and where the minimum site size is one acre.
The reclassification or rezoning process to MUZ is the same as that used for rezoning property in
general as set forth in the Zoning Code. Additionally, no property can be designated or classified as a
Mixed-Use Zone unless the rezoning request is accompanied by a development agreement and a
precise plan of development.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-12
In addition to high density residential uses, which would be allowed in conjunction with any mixed
use development, special consideration and/or a density bonus can be awarded when housing is
specifically designated and reserved for low moderate income households. If the development
agreement specifies a low income or moderate income housing component, specific rent and/or sale
price parameters are to be incorporated into the development agreement to ensure that affordable
housing is continuously maintained as such.
2) MUZ Development Standards: No specific development standards are incorporated in the
Overlay Zone, as its purpose is to foster creative design and development solutions. The Mixed Use
Overlay Zone is intended to facilitate and encourage a creative design that accommodates residential
and non-residential uses on commercially zoned sites that are a minimum of one-acre. Through this
Overlay Zone, then, the City encourages housing opportunities on sites that are not zoned residential.
According to the City’s Zoning Code:
“The mixed-use zone (MUZ) provides for a combined mix of medium and high density residential
development with retail, office and service uses, with the nonretail uses located primarily at the street
level to create a pedestrian oriented environment. Development approaches are intended to
encourage new housing opportunities, such as residential over retail which are proximate to
commercial services and promote pedestrian activity. Plazas, courtyards, outdoor dining and other
public gathering spaces and community amenities may be incorporated into such developments.
Development and design focuses on assuring that mixed use projects are functionally integrated
through the relationships between location and types of uses and structures, the efficient use of land,
optimal site planning and design elements. Mixed use projects shall also assure that infill
development is distributed and designed in a manner sensitive to scale and design to the street
environment and that such development incorporates appropriate landscaping and buffering
techniques. (Ord. 05-903, 1-3-2006)” [emphasis added]
In addition, the Zoning Code describes this zone as follows:
“The mixed-use zone as set forth in this article shall be designated as an overlay zone where the general
plan designation of the property is "commercial" and where the minimum site size is one acre. Any
development in the mixed-use zone (MUZ) shall require the preapproval of a development agreement
between the applicant/owner and the city in accordance with California Government Code sections
65864, 65865 and 65866. An application for a change to the mixed-use zone overlay category shall be
accompanied by a proposed development agreement and a precise plan of development which sets
forth principal permitted uses, accessory uses and precise development parameters to include, but
not limited to, fully dimensioned plans that show the proposed amount of building square footage by
use, detailed architectural drawings showing building elevations and fully dimensioned building
scales, detailed descriptions of points of ingress and egress for both pedestrians and vehicles and
other associated development details deemed necessary in order to fully evaluate, assess, apply and
enforce mitigation measures or conditions of approval. (Ord. 05-903, 1-3-2006)” [emphasis added]
“The development agreement shall specify the duration of the agreement, permitted uses, allowed
density and intensity of the uses, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings and
structures and any provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The benefits of
the agreement to the city, if any, shall also be stated. The agreement may contain other provisions as
permitted in the Government Code. Once signed by all parties to the agreement, the agreement shall
be recorded with the county recorder as a covenant or deed restriction upon the property.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-13 Temple City Housing Element
“The development agreement and precise plan shall contain all pertinent information relative to the
proposed development project including fully dimensioned plans that illustrate the total square footage,
the building configuration, building height, the amount of parking, floor area ratio, as well as the intensity
and density of both commercial and residential land uses. In addition to high density residential uses,
which would be allowed in conjunction with any mixed use development, special consideration
and/or a density bonus shall be awarded when housing is specifically designated and reserved for low
or moderate income households. If the development agreement specifies a low income or moderate
income housing component, specific rent and/or sale price parameters shall be incorporated into the
development agreement to assure that affordable housing is continuously maintained as such. (Ord.
05-903, 1-3-2006)” [emphasis added]
Downtown Specific Plan Area
One specific plan applies in Temple City: the Temple City Downtown Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
encourages and facilitates the development of high density housing and affordable senior housing.
The Specific Plan designates a one-acre area as Residential-Commercial and encourages senior
housing throughout the Specific Plan area.
1) Residential Uses Permitted by the Downtown Specific Plan: Convalescent homes are conditionally
permitted in the Temple City Boulevard Commercial District and the Las Tunas East Commercial
District. Mixed use projects are conditionally permitted throughout the Downtown Specific Plan Area.
Senior citizen/congregate care housing is permitted by right throughout the Downtown Specific Plan
area with restrictions within the Community Center district.
Additionally, in the R-C District, any property may be improved in accordance with the R-3
development standards without the need of a conditional use permit. The R-3 Zone permits non-
senior or senior housing. Please refer Table B-6 Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Matrix on the next
page.
2) Specific Plan Development Standards: Table B-7 shows the development standards for each
zone within the Downtown Specific Plan Area. The development standards provide incentives for high
intensity development. For instance, the greater the minimum lot width, the higher the maximum
building height and the greater the lot coverage. In addition, landscaping in the parking areas can
satisfy a portion of the total landscaping requirements. Front yard setbacks are not required in four of
the five zones. Altogether, the development standards seek to facilitate higher intensity land uses in
Temple City’s downtown.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-14
Table B-6
Downtown Specific Plan – Land Use Matrix
Residential Uses* GC WC CC TC EC
Mixed Use – Commercial/Retail/Residential
Convalescent Homes (including Adult Day Care Health Care Centers
CCC C
C
C
C
Mixed Use Projects
(Commercial/Residential – Minimum One Acre Site)
CCC C C
Senior Citizen/Congregate Care C3 C3 C3 C3 C
*In the R-C District, any property may be improved in accordance with the R-3 development standards
with a CUP or a Senior Citizen Housing project, subject to a CUP. Additionally, property in the R-C
district may be developed as commercial when combined with a commercially-designated lot(s) with
frontage on Temple City Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive, utilizing the applicable commercial development
standards of the abutting or adjoining commercial lot(s).
Notes:
1 – Refer to provisions in Chapter III
2 – Any permitted outdoor operations are subject to approval of a CUP
3 – Restricted to upper floors only
P – Permitted
C – Conditional Use Permit
GC – Gateway Commercial District
WC – Las Tunas West Commercial District
CC – City Center Commercial District
TC – Temple City Blvd. Commercial District
EC – Las Tunas East Commercial District
TE
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
B
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
C
O
N
S
T
R
A
I
N
T
S
B-
1
5
Ta
b
l
e
B
-
7
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Zo
n
e
Fr
o
n
t
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Si
d
e
Se
t
b
a
c
k
Re
a
r
Se
t
b
a
c
k
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
M
i
n
L
o
t
W
i
d
t
h
3
Ma
x
B
l
d
g
.
He
i
g
h
t
4
Ma
x
L
o
t
Co
v
e
r
a
g
e
L
o
t
S
i
z
e
GC
*
1
*
2
*
2
M
i
n
.
o
f
5
%
;
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
5
%
50
’
o
r
l
e
s
s
5
1
’
t
o
75
’
76
’
t
o
1
0
0
’
Ov
e
r
1
0
0
’
15
’
30
’
45
’
45
’
50
%
70
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
7,000 – less 7,001 – 10,000 10,001-20,000 Over 20,001
WC
*
1
*
2
*
2
M
i
n
.
o
f
5
%
;
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
5
%
.
50
’
o
r
l
e
s
s
51
’
t
o
7
5
’
76
’
t
o
1
0
0
’
Ov
e
r
1
0
0
’
15
’
30
’
45
’
45
’
50
%
70
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
7,000 – less 7,001 – 10,000 10,001 – 20,000 Over 20,001
CC
M
a
x
.
1
0
f
t
.
*
2
*
2
S
e
e
T
.
C
.
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
2
5
’
3
f
l
o
o
r
s
o
r
4
5
;
30
’
w
h
e
n
ab
u
t
t
i
n
g
R
zo
n
e
10
0
%
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
re
q
.
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
a
n
d
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Not applicable
T C
*
1
*
2
*
2
M
i
n
.
o
f
5
%
;
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
;
5
%
50
’
o
r
l
e
s
s
51
’
t
o
7
5
’
76
’
t
o
1
0
0
’
Ov
e
r
1
0
0
’
15
’
30
’
45
’
45
’
50
%
70
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
7,000 – less 7,001 – 10,000 10,001 – 20,000 Over 20,001
EC
*
1
*
2
*
2
M
i
n
.
o
f
5
%
;
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
i
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
5
%
.
50
’
o
r
l
e
s
s
51
’
t
o
7
5
’
76
’
t
o
1
0
0
’
Ov
e
r
1
0
0
’
15
’
30
’
45
’
45
’
50
%
70
%
10
0
%
10
0
%
7,000 – less 7,001 – 10,000 10,001 – 20,000 Over 20,001
RC
P
l
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
ni
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
*1
I
n
t
h
e
G
C
,
W
C
,
T
C
a
n
d
E
C
Z
o
n
e
s
,
n
o
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
;
h
o
w
e
ve
r
,
a
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
m
a
y
b
e
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
ss
.
*2
A
s
a
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
,
t
h
e
s
i
d
e
a
n
d
r
e
a
r
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
1
0
’-
0
”
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
f
l
o
o
r
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
nd
f
l
o
o
r
w
h
e
n
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
a
n
R
-
Z
o
n
e
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
*3
T
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
w
i
d
t
h
f
o
r
n
e
w
l
o
t
s
i
n
th
e
G
C
,
W
C
,
T
C
,
a
n
d
E
C
z
o
n
e
s
i
s
5
0
f
e
e
t
.
*4
N
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
2
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
a
n
R
-
z
o
n
e
d
l
o
t
.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-16
3) Downtown Residential-Commercial District: This district allows high density (R-3) residential
and senior housing, as well as a land use mix if parcels are combined with parcels fronting Temple City
Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive. The R-3 development standards (30 dus/ac) apply to freestanding high
density developments not adjoining R-1 zoned lots. The RC District is comprised of eight parcels
having a total of 87,482 square feet. Therefore, 60 high-density housing units can potentially be built
in the RC District.
The RC District contains existing uses such as low density housing, some multifamily housing, and
parking lots (30,100 square feet). The Specific Plan encourages and facilitates the development of the
high density housing by granting the following lot consolidation/density bonus incentives:
Consolidation of 4-6 lots 15% density bonus
A d d 1 s t o r y t o m a x i m u m h e i g h t
Consolidation of 7 or more lots 20% density bonus
A d d 2 s t o r i e s t o m a x i m u m h e i g h t
Other incentives such as vacation of alleys, reductions in processing fees, in lieu fees, or utility
connection fees may be granted through a development agreement process.
The purpose and intent of this district is to allow development at the high-density residential (R-3)
level or to allow Senior Citizen Housing or alternatively to allow lots designated as RC to be combined
with commercial properties with frontage on either Temple City Boulevard or Las Tunas Drive. If any
designated parcel is combined with a parcel designated as TC or CC, the applicable criteria for the
designated District shall apply. Any new development project in an RC District shall be subject to a
conditional use permit.
4) Senior Housing Located in the Downtown Specific Plan: The provision of senior housing is
encouraged throughout the Specific Plan area. Per the newly approved amendments to the
Downtown Specific Plan, senior housing is permitted in all the districts with the exception that in the
City Center (CC) Commercial District. Such uses are limited to the upper floors, with commercial
required on the ground floor. Senior citizen living facilities may be up to four stories and a maximum
of 55 feet. A conditional use permit is not required, and there is no density cap for senior housing.
To encourage the provision of senior citizen housing within the Downtown Specific Plan Area, the City
may offer a density bonus incentive and other development and zoning incentives, as follows:
Whenever at least 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development are made available
for qualifying senior citizen residents as defined by State law (Civic Code 51.2), a density bonus may be
approved.
In addition to the above, the City may offer at least one of the following regulatory incentives to
ensure that the project will be developed at an affordable cost for senior citizens:
A reduction or modification of Code requirements which exceed the minimum building
standards approved by the State Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5
(commencing with Section 18901) of Division 123 of the Health and Safety Code, including but
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-17 Temple City Housing Element
not limited to, a reduction in the minimum setback and square footage requirements and the
ratio of off-street parking spaces that would otherwise be required.
Approval of mixed use development in conjunction with senior citizen residential project if
commercial or office use will reduce the cost of the development and if the project will be
compatible internally and with the existing development in the area.
Other regulatory incentives proposed by the developer or the City which results in identifiable
cost reductions.
Prior to the 2013 Zoning Code amendments, a request for a density bonus required a conditional use
permit. In order to facilitate affordable housing, the City removed this requirement.
The key senior housing development standards include:
Density: The Specific Plan establishes no minimum or maximum density and there is no density cap
for senior housing.
Lower Income Group Set-Asides: In order to obtain a density bonus, the development must set-
aside a portion of the housing units for low income households.
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 require a minimum of 650 square feet
for a 1-bedroom unit and 800 square feet for a 2-bedroom unit.
The Specific Plan area includes existing six established and distinct commercial districts. As business
has been lost to competing commercial areas throughout the City and adjacent cities, there is a need
to revitalize the Downtown. The Specific Plan facilitates and encourages senior housing by the
following incentives:
50% housing for qualifying Density Bonus
Senior residents as defined by Reduction of setback, square footage and parking
Civil Code 51.2 requirements and the same lot consolidation
incentives as for high density residential
Senior housing density, height limits, and incentives facilitate and encourage the development of this
housing type at a density of at least 40-45 housing units per acre.
5) Lot Consolidation Incentives in the Downtown Specific Plan Area: The presence of small,
underutilized lots and irregularly shaped lots has been identified as one of the constraints affecting
future development in portions of the Specific Plan Area. It is desirable to encourage the
consolidation of smaller lots into larger development sites in order to achieve the scale and quality of
development envisioned for the area. As such, the Specific Plan includes incentives for lot
consolidation. In order to qualify for the lot consolidation incentive a project must meet the following
requirements:
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-18
A minimum of two existing lots must be combined under single ownership, or a minimum of
three lots may be combined under multiple ownership if developed as a single integrated
project with reciprocal parking agreements.
In order to qualify for a lot consolidation bonus, all lots combined must be developed as part
of a comprehensive planned project to be constructed in a single phase.
Bonuses are not available in the City Center Commercial District where the intent is to
maintain a small scale of development and allow market forces to dictate lot consolidation
opportunities.
For commercial, office, and mixed use projects meeting the above requirements, the following
development bonuses may be available:
Number of Consolidated Lots Incentive Bonuses
Consolidation of 2 to 3 Lots: 10% Reduction in parking
Add one story to maximum height
Consolidation of 4 to 6 Lots: 15% Reduction in parking
Add two stories to maximum height
Consolidation of 7 or More Lots: 15% Reduction in parking
Add three stories to maximum height
For multiple family residential projects meeting the above requirements, the following development
bonuses may be available:
Number of Consolidated Lots Number of Consolidated Lots
Consolidation of 4 to 6 Lots 15% increase in the number of allowable units
Add one story to maximum height
Consolidation of 7 or More Lots 10% increase in the number of allowable units
Add two stories to maximum height
Through the development agreement process, the City may consider other lot consolidation incentive
bonuses such as vacation of alleys, reduction in processing fees, in-lieu fees, or utility connection fees.
Senior Housing Overlay Zone
Description of the Overlay Zone: The purpose of the senior housing overlay zone is to provide
optional standards and incentives for the development of senior housing which is restricted to
residents 62 years of age or older and for married couples of which one spouse is 62 years of
age or older. Whenever the senior citizen housing has been added to an underlying zone in
accordance with the procedures for a zone change, the property may be developed in
accordance with the senior housing overlay zone or the underlying zone.
Senior citizen housing shall be permitted with a conditional use permit in all zones, with the exception
of the R-1 zone; senior citizen housing within the Downtown Specific Plan area shall be governed by
any special provisions of that specific plan, where applicable. There are two types of senior housing:
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-19 Temple City Housing Element
Congregate Care: A senior citizen housing development having a common dining facility and no
kitchen facilities in an individual unit.
Independent Living: A senior citizen housing development comprised of independent self-contained
dwelling units having one or more rooms with private bath and kitchen facilities.
California Government Code Section 65008 (the "California Planning and Zoning Law") prohibits,
among other things, local governments from enacting or administering zoning laws that would deny
housing opportunities because of the “age of the individual or group of individuals.” The implication is
housing could not be limited to seniors because such housing would deny the enjoyment of a
residence by non-seniors.
The City will ensure that its approval of new senior housing will abide by all applicable fair housing
laws, including:
Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Federal Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995
California Unruh Ralph Civil Rights Act
California Office of the Attorney General, Opinion No. 04-704, October 20, 2004 (“a city may
adopt a zoning ordinance that limits a specified parcel of land to use as a mobilehome park for
senior citizens”)
In addition, before the City approves new senior housing, it will obtain the advice and opinion of the
Housing Rights Center (the City’s fair housing services provider).
2) Development Standards: The development standards for senior housing are briefly described
below:
Density: determined at the time of public hearing for the zone change and conditional use permit.
Density Bonus Units: permitted when a portion of the units are set-aside for lower-income
households. The new density bonus ordinance establishes density bonus calculations and affordability
terms based on the requirements of Government Code Section 65915 et. seq.
Housing Unit Sizes for Congregate Care Units: One-bedroom units shall contain not less than 400
square feet. Two-bedroom units shall contain not less than 550 square feet.
Housing Unit Sizes for Independent Living Senior Units: One-bedroom units shall contain not less
than 650 square feet. Two-bedroom units shall contain not less than 800 square feet.
Setbacks and Heights: Determined by the underlying zone.
Off Street Parking: The minimum amount of parking required for any senior citizen housing
development proposal shall be determined in conjunction with the necessary zone change and
conditional use permit. In determining the adequacy of parking, consideration may be given to the
location of the proposed project, the age of the intended occupants and any other variables deemed
pertinent by the granting body.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-20
Open Space: As described below:
Required Usable Landscaped Open Space: There shall be a minimum of 300 square feet of
landscaped open space per unit.
Private Open Space: All ground level units shall have a minimum of 100 square feet of private open
space consisting of a patio or deck. All aboveground units shall have a minimum of 75 square feet of
balcony or deck space.
Common Open Space: A minimum of 40% of the required usable open space shall be devoted to
common open space when the development consists of four or more units. Common open space shall
be a minimum of 15 feet in one direction and be physically separated from private open space by a
wall or hedge. A swimming pool or covered patio may be counted toward meeting the common open
space requirement.
The development standards facilitate and encourage senior housing for the following reasons:
No maximum density is established; instead a developer can propose a residential density.
A density bonus is permitted above the units proposed by the developer in exchange for a set-
aside of lower income housing units.
Housing unit sizes are established at minimal square footage requirements.
Off-street requirements can be less than typically required because of the age of the intended
occupants of the new housing.
Affordable Second Unit Housing
The City facilitates and encourages the development of affordable second units. The list below
describes the key second unit requirements:
The second unit may not be sold separately, but may be rented; however, it must be
continuously maintained as “affordable” housing for a period of not less than 30 years from
the date of first occupancy.
In order to ensure affordability, any second unit shall be occupied by low or very low-income
households. (Low income is defined at 50% of the median income for the Los Angeles/Long
Beach metropolitan area).
The maximum amount of rent which may be charged is 30% of the total household income or
thirty percent 30% of the income limit for low income households whichever is less.
Every occupant of a second unit must be qualified for eligibility based upon annual tax
returns. The restrictions are set forth in a recorded covenant or deed restriction.
It is incumbent upon the property owner to provide documentation on an annual basis
relative to eligibility and the owner shall agree to evict any tenant, which does not meet the
eligibility requirement.
Affordable Housing Land Use Controls
Many cities encourage and facilitate the development of housing for low- and moderate-income
households by increased density, density bonuses and inclusionary housing.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-21 Temple City Housing Element
In 2013, Temple City made revisions to the Zoning Code to encourage and facilitate the development
of affordable housing. Such revisions included the modification of the R-3 zone to increase density up
to 30 dwelling units per acre (where not adjacent to R-1 parcels), establishment of a less costly site
plan review process for multi-family developments instead of a longer and more costly conditional use
permit review, and the establishment of a density bonus ordinance in compliance with Government
Code Section 65915 et seq.
Pursuant to Program 10 of the Housing Program, the City will explore the opportunities for creating an
inclusionary housing ordinance to encourage the development of housing that is affordable to low
and moderate income households.
In addition, pursuant to Program 8 of the Housing Element, the City will re-evaluate the Second Unit
Ordinance and consider revising development standards, including parking requirements, in order to
further facilitate the development of second units and ensure compliance with applicable State laws.
This assessment will occur during the upcoming comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Code
Update
Moratoria and Prohibitions Against Multifamily Housing Developments
The City has imposed no moratoria or prohibitions against multifamily housing developments.
Growth Controls and Urban Growth Boundaries
The City has no growth control policies or ordinances. Temple City is completely surrounded by other
incorporated cities and a small area of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The cities adjacent to
T e m p l e C i t y i n c l u d e R o s e m e a d , E l M o n t e a n d A r c a d i a . T h e C i t y ’ s S p h e r e o f I n f l u e n c e i s e n t i r e l y
urbanized.
Conclusions and Findings
The City’s land use controls provide for housing at a variety of densities and facilitate and encourage
high density, mixed use, and senior housing. In order to enhance housing opportunities, the City’s
Housing Program includes actions to: 1) consider an inclusionary housing ordinance, promote
development incentives within the Specific Plan area, and 2) continue to facilitate affordable housing
for special needs groups, including emergency shelters and supportive and transitional housing. The
City also provides reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and households in order to
remove regulatory barriers and provide residents equal opportunity through a reasonable
accommodation ordinance.
Building Codes and Enforcement
Guidelines
HCD guidance on this subject indicates that the analysis should:
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-22
Identify and analyze any local amendments to the State Housing Law or Uniform Building Code, and
the degree or type of enforcement. A strict code enforcement program or a code amendment, which
specifies expensive materials and/or methods, can pose a significant constraint to housing
development or maintenance.
Analysis
State Housing Law
The State Legislature has given Division 13, Part 1.5, commencing with Section 17910, in the Health
and Safety Code the name “State Housing Law.” The State Housing Law charges HCD with the
responsibility to adopt administrative regulations necessary to carry out its provisions, and for
proposing building standards to the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) for adoption
with application to the construction of hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartments, and dwellings.
Additionally, the State Housing Law mandates preemptive requirements applicable to such housing
structures, including substandard abatement proceedings for local government’s enforcement.
The State Housing Law mandates statewide residential building standards for new construction,
which are found in the California Code of Regulations, (CCR), Title 24, Parts 2 through 5, known as
known as the California Building Standards Code.
City Building Code
In January 2012, the City Council adopted the “Building Code known and designated as Title 26:
Building Code of the Los Angeles County Code by adopting the 2011 California Building Code and
portions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.” This Code “shall be and shall become the Building Code
of the City of Temple City, regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alternation, repair,
moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, use, height, area maintenance of all structures
and certain equipment therein specifically regulated and grading within the City of Temple City.”
The regulations governing residential use, maintenance and occupancy for existing buildings are
adopted into the California Code of Regulations. These regulations are not considered building
standards and are not adopted under the purview of the California Building Standards Commission.
The City has adopted the various provisions of the State Housing Law, as set forth in California Health
and Safety Code Section 17910 et. seq. and the State Housing Law Regulations as set forth in Title 25
of the California Code of Regulations.
Code Enforcement
According to Health and Safety Code Section 17920:
“Enforcement means diligent effort to secure compliance, including review of plans and permit
applications, response to complaints, citation of violations, and other legal process.”
“… enforcement may, but need not, include inspections of existing buildings on which no complaint
or permit application has been filed…”
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-23 Temple City Housing Element
California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 defines the conditions that constitute a
“substandard building.” The substandard housing conditions include, but are not limited, to:
inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, defective wiring, plumbing and mechanical equipment, and
faulty weather protection.
The City implements a housing code enforcement program. Enforcement of these codes has resulted
in the repair of substandard housing and the demolition of deteriorated housing. In some cases, those
cited for code violations are referred to the City's housing rehabilitation deferred loan and grant
programs. The City's proactive enforcement is not a constraint to the appropriate maintenance of the
existing housing stock.
Conclusions and Findings
The Los Angeles County Building Code, as noted, was adopted by reference with only minor
variations. The cost of new housing is not adversely impacted by the adopted amendments. The City's
codes are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
The Codes, which are based on the State Housing Law and uniform codes, are adopted by many cities
throughout southern California and do not pose a constraint to residential development.
On-Site and Off-Site Improvement Requirements
Guidelines
HCD guidance indicates that the analysis should:
Identify and analyze street widths, curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirements, water and sewer
connections, and circulation improvement requirements. Describe any generally applicable level of
service standards or mitigation thresholds.
Analysis
Pursuant to Title 9 (Zoning), Chapter 2 (Subdivision Regulations), Section 9503, new housing
development requires the following improvements:
No subdivision, lot split or other division of land shall be approved unless the following improvements
are constructed or required to be constructed in order to service the lots being created:
An adequate water distribution system designed and constructed to accommodate both
domestic and fire flows, together with necessary fire hydrants to serve each lot proposed to be
created.
An adequate sewage system designed and constructed to serve each lot being created.
An adequate storm water drainage system designed and constructed so as to serve each of
the lots proposed to be created.
An adequate public and/or private street and/or alley system designed and constructed to
serve each lot proposed to be created.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-24
An adequate system designed and constructed so as to provide all necessary utilities to each
lot proposed to be created, including, but not limited to, facilities for water, natural gas,
electricity, telephone services.
Any and all other public improvements, necessary to provide all services to each lot proposed
to be created.
Each tentative map shall be reviewed by the staff, the advisory agency and/or the city council, and
thereafter, steps shall be taken to ensure that all of the improvements reasonably required to service
all of the lots proposed to be created are specifically required as conditions of approval on such
tentative maps.
All development in the City is infill developments on existing (consolidated) lots that have existing
dwellings. Consequently, streets have already been constructed to the maximum widths and there is
existing curbs, gutter, sidewalks and other infrastructure such as street lights.
Residential street standards are 60 feet of right of way from property line to property line. This
standard includes 36 feet for the street and two 12 foot right of ways for parking. All residential streets
are finished.
On-site streets are required for common driveways serving condominium developments. The size and
grade of each public sewer must be such as to provide at all times sufficient capacity for peak flow
rates of discharge. In order to establish estimates of sanitary sewage at peak flow, the owner or
developer of a building must submit plans of intended construction to the City Engineer.
Water and sewer connections are required for new housing units. A new meter is required for each
housing unit.
Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are required. If there are no sidewalks fronting the property, a sidewalk
must be installed.
Conclusions and Findings
The improvement requirements described above have been applied to existing housing as well as all
residential developments under construction and approved for development. The improvement
requirements are not considered a constraint, as they are necessary to provide adequate services and
facilities to the future occupants of new housing. The backbone system for the services and facilities
exist because all new development occurs on infill sites.
Fees and Exactions
Guidelines
HCD guidance on this subject indicates that the analysis should:
Identify and analyze permit, development and impact fees (e.g., park, school, open space, parking
district, etc.) in-lieu fees, land dedication requirements (e.g., streets, public utility and other right-of-
ways, easements, parks, open spaces, etc.) and other exactions imposed on developers. Describe any
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-25 Temple City Housing Element
contribution or payment required as an authorized precondition for receiving any type of
development permit by type of development (i.e., multifamily and single-family).
Analysis
Fee Categories
Typical residential developments incur the following fees:
Building Plan Check
Building Permits
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Sewer Permits
Park Acquisition Fee
Sewer Reconstruction
Sanitation District
School District
The majority of the City is serviced by the Temple City School District. However, east of Baldwin
Avenue, within the City, the Arcadia and El Monte school districts also service the City. The school
impact fees as of September 2013 for the districts are as follows:
Temple City School District $3.20 per square foot
Arcadia School District $3.20 per square foot
El Monte School District $2.97 per square foot
Fees for Typical Multi-Family Housing and a Typical Single-Family House
Table B-8 shows the total fees for a typical multi-family development in Temple City. The total fees are
over $69,200. School and sanitation district fees are $24,038. The per unit fees are $17,311.27. Table
B-8 also shows the total fees for a typical single-family development in Temple City (almost $21,000
per unit). The school and sanitation district fees equal more than one-half of the total fees.
Table B-8
Fees for Multi-Family and Single-Family Housing
Example: Four (4) Detached Condominiums
(8,052 square feet: 6,452 sf living space, 1,600 sf garage space)
Building Plan Check $6,394.90
Building Permits $7,784.00
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Sewer Permits $4,028.17
Park Acquisition Fee $2,000.00 ($500.00 Per Unit)
Sewer Reconstruction $25,000.00
Sanitation District $4,876.00
School District $19,162 ($2.97 Per Sq. ft).
Total: $69,245.07 ($17,311.27 each)
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-26
Table B-8
Fees for Multi-Family and Single-Family Housing
Example: Single Family Dwelling
(3,132 square feet of living space and a 600-square-foot garage)
Building Plan Check $3,358.70
Building Permit $4,143.50
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Sewer Permits $1,759.35
Park Acquisition Fee $500.00
Sanitation District $1,750.00
School District $9,302.04
Total: $20,813.59
Exactions
By definition, an exaction is a large capital improvement included in a project’s approval for
development (e.g., land dedication for parks and schools, etc.). Temple City does not require large-
scale capital improvements to be constructed by project applicants. Instead, the City’s development
impact fees are intended to finance construction of such facilities.
Conclusions and Findings
The City fees for typical multi-family and single family housing represent a small percentage of total
development cost. Therefore, fees are not a constraint to the development of new housing.
Since the City does not impose exactions, they are not a constraint to local development. As explained
earlier, residential projects must dedicate land for street and alley widening when necessary.
Processing and Permit Procedures
Guidelines
Identify and analyze the types of permits, discretionary and standard approval procedures, and
processing time required for recent residential projects, including all permits applicable to residential
development. The element should also identify and analyze any overlay zones (e.g., Community Plan
Implementation Zones, Hillside Overlay Zones, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, etc.). The element
should identify and analyze the permitted uses in each zone. For example, if the jurisdiction requires a
conditional use permit for multifamily housing zone, the element should analyze this permit
procedure as a constraint. Other applicable regulations such as landscaping, design review policies,
planned districts should also be included. For this analysis, localities should compare the permit and
approvals process for a typical single-family subdivision and a typical multifamily project. [emphasis
added]
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-27 Temple City Housing Element
Analysis
Types of Permits for Residential Land Uses by Zone District
Table B-9 identifies 15 different housing types and the how they are addressed by five different zones:
R-1, R-2, R-3, Mixed Use and Senior Housing Overlay. Table B-9 also identifies for each zone whether
the housing types are: Permitted, Not Permitted, Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit, or No
Specific Reference (meaning the Zoning Code does not mention the use).
Table B-9
Temple City Housing Types by Residential Zone and Permits Required
Residential Use Zone
R-1 R-2 R-3 Mixed Use1 Senior Housing2
SF- Detached P P P NP NP
SF-Attached NP NP P P NP
2-3 DU NP P P P NP
4+ DU NP P P CUP CUP
Senior Housing NP CUP CUP CUP ZC and CUP
Residential Care <6P P P P P P
Residential Care >6P CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelter NP NP NP NP NP
Single-Room
Occupancy NP NP NP NP NP
Manufactured Homes P NP NP NP NP
Mobilehomes P NP NP NP NP
Transitional Housing P P P P P
Supportive Housing P P P P P
Farmworker Housing NSR NSR NSR NSR NSR
Second Units NP P P NP NP
P = Permitted NP = Not Permitted CUP = Conditional Use NSR = No Specific Reference
1 MUZ is an overlay zone. The MUZ can be applied to sites where the General Plan designation is commercial
and where the minimum site size is one acre. Application for an MUZ requires a zone change, precise plan of
development and development agreement.
2 Senior housing is an overlay zone. Senior housing is permitted in all zones except the R-1 zone. Senior
housing may be developed in accordance with the development standards of the underlying zone (e.g., R-3)
or the standards of the senior housing overlay zone.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-28
Multifamily housing is permitted in the R-2, R-3, and Mixed Use Zones. The Zoning Code was amended
in 2013 to provide for the following housing types: emergency shelters, single room occupancy,
transitional housing, and supportive housing. These housing types are described in Technical
Appendix D. The Zoning Code was also amended to permit residential care facilities for six or fewer
persons in all zones that permit single-family housing.
Processing Time/ Fast Track Processing
A typical single family development requires Site Plan Review and Building Plan Check. The former
typically is completed in one to three weeks and the latter is completed in four to six weeks.
A typical subdivision multi-family development requires a Site Plan Review, Tentative Tract Map, Final
Tract Map and Building Plan Check. The processing times are listed below:
Site Plan Review 1-3 weeks
Tentative Map 2 to 6 months
Final Map 2 to 6 months
Building Plan Check 4 to 6 weeks
For rental multi-family developments, the Tentative and Final Map phases are not required.
The processing time frames are well recognized by the development community. Most of the
residential developments in Temple City are processed by architects, engineers, developers and
builders that are very familiar with the City’s standards and processing procedures, requirements and
timelines.
All processing timelines are minimal. For example, the processing timeline for multi-family housing
with fewer than three units is nominal as only a Site Plan Review and Building Plan Check is required.
(The Site Plan Review process is explained on the next page.) In order to further reduce the Building
Plan Check timelines, the City has decided to contract with a private firm rather than continue with the
County of Los Angeles. The supply of housing is not adversely impacted by these requirements and
reducing the timelines would not result in the production of housing affordable to lower income
households.
The Zoning Code provides administrative relief and fast track processing of CUP and variance
applications. The Zoning Code establishes a “fast track modification committee” consisting of the City
Manager, City Attorney, and Chairman of the Planning Commission. Section 9152 of the Zoning Code
states:
“When an application for a CUP or variance is filed pursuant to the provisions of this code and fifty
percent (50%) of the fee prescribed for regular variances or CUPs has been paid, such application shall
first be presented to the FTMC together with the completed initial study and environmental
assessment….”
The Committee may decide to refer CUP and variance applications directly to the Planning
Commission when the Committee makes certain findings involving public health, safety, and welfare
and the absence of environmental impacts. The referral to the Planning Commission reduces
processing time.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-29 Temple City Housing Element
Site Plan Review Process
A site plan must include the following information:
The name, address and telephone number of the applicant, and of the person who 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 typically required by southern California cities prior to the issuance of a
building permit in the case of new structure or certificate of occupancy prior to completion of a
renovation.
The site plan review is conducted by the Community Development Department and does not require
a public hearing before either the Planning Commission or City Council. The site plan review process
does not hinder the development of permitted or conditionally permitted uses.
Conditional Use Permit Process
The City does not require a conditional use permit for single-family or multi-family development. The
City currently requires mixed-use development within the Downtown Specific Plan area to acquire a
conditional use permit. In order to help and guide applicants through this process, the City has
published and makes available to applicants a 2-page brochure. This brochure explains the CUP as
follows.
Conditional Use Permits are required for certain uses which typically have distinctive site development
or operating characteristics and require special consideration so that they may be designed and
operated compatibly with the surrounding neighborhood. These uses are listed in the Zoning Code as
uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process allows the Planning
Commission to review how the project will be developed and operated. In order to ensure that the
proposed use does not have a negative effect on surrounding properties, the Planning Commission
may impose conditions regulating the operation of the use or physical site design.
The Zoning Code, however, does provide administrative relief and fast track processing of CUP and
variance applications.
As measured by the level of residential development activity in Temple City, the CUP requirement has
not served as a significant constraint. Nonetheless, the added $1,000 fee and processing time
associated with the CUP does add cost and a degree of uncertainty to development.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-30
As a means of better facilitating housing, in 2013 the City implemented an administrative review
process for multi-family development focused on site and architectural review, rather than subject to a
discretionary review process. In administering the process, staff applies the 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.
Design Review Guidelines and Processing
1) Role of Design Review Process: The Zoning Code establishes design guidelines for development
in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zones. The guidelines are intended to be advisory rather than mandatory, and
are to be applied by the Community Development Department to the extent possible and reasonable.
It is the intent that all new construction and reconstruction shall comply with as many such guidelines
as may be amiably negotiated by the city staff with a property owner, builder, or developer.
If a person complies with the goals and intent of such guidelines, even though a minor portion of
them cannot or will not be accommodated by the property owner, builder or developer, then the
guidelines shall be deemed satisfied and the requisite permits shall be issued. If, on the other hand, a
property owner, builder or developer cannot or will not comply with a substantial portion of the goals
established by said guidelines, then permits may be denied by the Community Development
Department. Any such denial may be appealed to the Planning Commission via the procedures set
forth in the site plan review process. Any action of the Planning Commission may also be appealed to
the City Council via the procedure set forth in the site plan review process.
In evaluating an appeal, the Planning Commission or the City Council shall make a determination
based upon the following considerations: a) does the proposed project substantially meet the overall
intent, purpose, and goals of the design guidelines; b) would the proposed project adversely impact
property values within the neighborhood; c) could the proposed project adversely impact the peace,
quiet and enjoyment of the area; and d) would the proposed project be so incompatible with the
surrounding area that noncompliance would result in anticipated adverse impacts, including possible
adverse aesthetic impacts.
2) Objective Written Standards: The design guideline checklist includes the following:
Site Planning
Landscaping
Building Design
Windows
Roof Materials and Forms
Walls and Fences
Utilitarian Aspects
Applicants for residential development permits can easily determine what is required to satisfy the
City’s design guidelines. The guidelines are, in fact, written standards that are predominantly stated in
quantitative terms so that compliance can be measured by the applicant. Specifically, the design
standards state: “The suggested size of trees and shrubs; examples of how to achieve building design;
examples of architectural elements to add visual interest, scale and character; examples of how to
attain window articulation; examples of roof, wall, and fence materials.” No specific materials are
mandated.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-31 Temple City Housing Element
3) Impact on Housing Affordability: Landscaping, concrete, windows, roofs, garage doors, walls,
fences are all elements required to build a finished housing product. These materials and elements
are required of all housing regardless of whether the City has design standards or not. The City’s
design guidelines/standards do not require specific materials or products and therefore do not
generate incremental costs above those already required to build a finished home or apartment unit.
There is no negative impact on affordability because all new construction in Temple City as well as
other southern California cities exceeds the maximum housing costs affordable to lower income
households that are allowed by the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law,
Federal HOME Program, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Having no design standards or
guidelines does not reduce housing production costs to a level affordable to lower income
households.
Design review and site plan review are concurrent processes. Therefore, additional time is not need to
evaluate a project’s consistency with the design guidelines and standards.
Conclusions and Findings
Compliance with the design guidelines is negotiated by the City staff with the property owner, builder
or developer. In addition, design review is accomplished concurrently with the processing of other
applications. As a result, design review is not considered a constraint to the development of new
housing.
Constraints on Housing for Disabled Persons
Guidelines
HCD guidance indicates that the Housing Element should:
Analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance and
improvement of housing for persons with disabilities and demonstrate local efforts to remove
any such constraints.
More specifically, HCD recommends an analysis -
To identify whether the locality has an established reasonable accommodation procedure,
review zoning laws, policies, and practices for compliance with fair housing laws; evaluate
permits and processing as they affect applications from disabled persons; and review Building
Code amendments and practices that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons
with disabilities.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-32
Analysis
Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
HCD recommends the analysis -
Identify whether the locality has an established reasonable accommodation procedure and
describe how that procedure operates with respect to zoning, permit processing, or building
codes, accommodating procedures for the approval of licensed residential care facilities, Fair
Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) physical accessibility efforts, and an evaluation of the zoning
code for FHAA compliance.
The Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, requires that cities and counties provide reasonable
accommodation to rules, policies, practices, and procedures where such accommodation may be
necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. While fair housing laws
intend that all people have equal access to housing, the law also recognizes that people with
disabilities may need extra tools to achieve equality. Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools
intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. For developers and providers of
housing for people with disabilities who are often confronted with siting or use restrictions,
reasonable accommodation provides a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in
the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain
restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing. Cities and
counties are required to consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with
disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair
housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.
State law allows for a statutorily based four-part analysis to be used in evaluating requests for
reasonable accommodation related to land use and zoning matters and can be incorporated into
reasonable accommodation procedures. This analysis gives great weight to furthering the housing
needs of people with disabilities and also considers the impact or effect of providing the requested
accommodation on the City and its overall zoning scheme. Developers and providers of housing for
people with disabilities must be ready to address each element of the following four-part analysis:
The housing that is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation is for people
with disabilities as defined in federal or state fair housing laws;
The reasonable accommodation requested is necessary to make specific housing available to
people with disabilities who are protected under fair housing laws;
The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden
on the local government; and
The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the local zoning
code.
The City adopted a reasonable accommodation process ordinance in 2013 for making requests for
reasonable accommodation to land use and zoning decisions and procedures regulating the siting,
funding, development, and use of housing for people with disabilities The City provides notice to the
public of the availability of the accommodation process at all counters where applications are made
for permits and licenses, and on the City’s website.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-33 Temple City Housing Element
Zoning and Land Use
HCD recommends -
A review of all zoning laws, policies and practices for compliance with fair housing laws; broaden
the definition of family, identify zones allowing licensed residential care facilities including those
zones where facilities for seven or more persons are permitted, review siting or separation
requirements for licensed residential care facilities, and residential parking requirements for
persons with disabilities.
1) Definition of Family: In 1980, the California Supreme Court in the City of Santa Barbara v.
Adamson struck down a municipal ordinance that permitted any number of related people to live in a
house in a R1 zone, but limited the number of unrelated people who were allowed to do so to five. A
group home for individuals with disabilities that functions like a family could be excluded from the R1
zone solely because the residents are unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption.
Both State and Federal fair housing laws prohibit definitions of family that either intentionally
discriminate against people with disabilities or have the effect of excluding such individuals from
housing. Fair housing laws, for instance, prohibit definitions of family that limit the development and
siting of group homes for individuals with disabilities (but not families similarly sized and situated).
Such definitions are prohibited because they could have the effective of denying housing
opportunities to those who, because of their disability, live in a group setting. The failure to modify
the definition of family or make an exception for group homes for people with disabilities may also
constitute a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act.
As part of the 2013 Zoning Code Amendment, the City amended the definition of “family” to remove
the prerequisite of relation and number of persons. “Family” is now defined simply as two or more
individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. There is also a new
definition for “single housekeeping unit,” which is defined as “the functional equivalent of a traditional
family whose members are a non-transient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a dwelling
unit…”. By removing the parameters of relation and number of persons from the definition of
“family,” the City has removed unnecessary impediments for persons seeking special living
accommodations, as necessary to comply with state and federal laws.
2) Zones Allowing Residential Care Facilities: Residential care facilities are referenced as a
permitted use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zones. Under California State law, licensed facilities serving six
persons or fewer receive special land use protection.
California requires that many types of licensed facilities serving six persons or fewer be treated for
zoning purposes like single-family homes. Except in extraordinary cases in which even a single-family
home requires a conditional use permit, these laws bar conditional use permits for facilities that serve
six or fewer persons.
The land use protection applies to --
Intermediate care facilities for individuals who have developmental disabilities (Health and
Safety Code Section 1267.8)
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-34
Residential facilities for persons with disabilities and for abused children (Health and Safety
Code Section 1566.3, and Welfare and Institution Code Section 5116)
Residential care facility for the elderly (Health and Safety Code Section 1569.87)
Alcoholism and drug treatment facilities (Health and Safety Code Section 11834.23)
Residential facilities for persons with chronic life threatening illness (Health and Safety Code
Section 1568.0831)*1
Health and Safety Code Section 1566.3 states:
“No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of a
residential facility which serves six or fewer persons which is not required of a family dwelling of the
same type in the same zone.”
A residential facility “…means any family home, group care facility, or similar facility for 24-hour
nonmedical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for
sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual.
Further:
“’family dwelling,’ includes, but is not limited to, single-family dwellings, units in multifamily dwellings,
including units in duplexes and units in apartment dwellings, mobilehomes, including mobilehomes
located in mobilehome parks, units in cooperatives, units in condominiums, units in townhouses, and
units in planned developments.”
To achieve consistency with fair housing laws, the City amended the Zoning Code in 2013 with respect
to permitting residential care facilities for six or fewer persons in all zones that permit single-family
homes. As a part of the Zoning Code amendments, the City also established all-inclusive terms
“community care facility-small” to identify the scope of residential care facilities to be permitted
unconditionally.
In addition, State law requires that residential care facilities not be defined within the meaning of
boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or the mentally
infirm, foster care home, guest home, rest home, sanitarium, mental hygiene home, or other similar
term which implies that a residential facility is a business run for profit. The City’s Zoning Code has
definitions for four related terms:
Convalescent Home: The same as the definition of Nursing and Convalescent Hospital.
Home for the Aged: Any building or portion thereof, other than a hospital or a rest home, used and
maintained to provide living accommodations, including board, room, or care, for ambulatory aged
persons.
1 Source: Law Offices of Goldfarb & Lipman, Between the Lines: A Question and Answer Guide on Legal Issues in
Supportive Housing, 1999, pg. 110.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-35 Temple City Housing Element
Nursing and Convalescent Hospital: Any place or institution which provides bed accommodations
for one or more chronic or convalescent patients, who, by reason of illness or physical infirmity, are
unable to properly care for themselves. Alcoholics, drug addicts, persons with mental or
communicable diseases, including contagious tuberculosis, shall not be admitted or cared for in
nursing and convalescent hospitals.
Rest Home: The same as the definition of Nursing and Convalescent Hospital.
As part of the 2013 Zoning Code Amendment, the City introduced a new “community care facility-
large” definition to clearly differentiate from these other uses. The City, therefore, does not include
residential care facilities within meaning of the above terms.
3) Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons: State law -- as the summary below explains
-- allows cities to require a conditional use permit for residential care facilities for seven or more
persons.
“Because California law only protects facilities serving six or fewer residents, many cities and counties
restrict the location of facilities housing seven or more clients. They may do this by requiring use
permits, adopting special parking and other standards for these homes, or prohibiting these large
facilities outright in certain zoning districts. While this practice may raise fair housing issues, no
published California decision prohibits the practice, and analyses of recent State legislation appear to
assume that localities can restrict facilities with seven or more clients. Some cases in other federal
circuits have found that requiring a conditional use permit for large group homes violates the federal
Fair Housing Act. However, the federal Ninth Circuit, whose decisions are binding in California, found
that requiring a conditional use permit for a building atypical in size and bulk for a single-family residence
does not violate the Fair Housing Act.2 [emphasis added]
However, the City would adhere to the DOJ and HUD interpretation of the Fair Housing Act. In this
regard, the two Departments state that
“…because persons with disabilities are entitled to request reasonable accommodations in rules and
policies, the group home for seven persons with disabilities would have to be given the opportunity
to seek an exception or waiver.”
The reasonable accommodation procedures established by the City allow for facilities housing seven
or more disabled persons to seek an exception or waiver from the Zoning Code standards. Residential
care facilities serving seven or more non-disabled persons are required to have an approved
Conditional Use Permit.
4) Siting or Separation Requirements for Licensed Residential Care Facilities: The City’s Zoning Code
does not establish siting or separation requirements for the facilities.
Over-concentration of certain care homes in a neighborhood is regulated by the State for licensed
facilities. Except for foster homes and elderly care, licenses issued by the California Department of
2 Source: Barbara Kautz, Goldfarb & Lipman LLP, Select California Laws Relating to Residential Recovery Facilities
and Group Homes, pg. 3, (presented at the Residential Recovery Facilities Conference, Newport Beach, March 2,
2007)
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-36
Social Services (CDSS) must be a minimum of 300 feet away from any other licensed home (as
measured from the outside walls of the house – Health and Safety Code Section 1520.5) If a home is
less than the 300 feet, an exemption must be granted by the City, otherwise the license is denied. This
300-foot separation restriction does not apply to licenses issued by the State Department of Alcohol
and Drugs for rehabilitation homes.
CDSS must submit any application for a facility covered by the law to the city where the facility will be
located. The city may request that the license be denied based on the over concentration of an
existing facility (or within 1,000 feet of a congregate living health facility) unless the city approves the
application. Even if there is adequate separation between the facilities, a city or county may ask that
the license be denied based on over concentration.
These separation requirements apply only to facilities with the same type of license. For instance, a
community care facility would not violate the separation requirements even if located next to a drug
and alcohol treatment facility.
The City complies with fair housing laws as they relate to spacing and separation requirements. The
City has not adopted a standard different from or more stringent than the one the State applies.
Moreover, the DOJ and HUD acknowledge that neighborhoods as well as the disabled may suffer if
licensed residential care facilities are over concentrated. The DOJ and HUD offer the following
guidance:
“…if a neighborhood came to be composed largely of group homes, that could adversely affect
individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating persons with
disabilities into the community. Especially in the licensing and regulatory process, it is appropriate to
be concerned about the setting for a group home. A consideration of over-concentration could be
considered in this context. This objective does not, however, justify requiring separations which have
the effect of foreclosing group homes from locating in entire neighborhoods.”3
5) Parking Requirements for Persons with Disabilities: The City’s parking standards are established
for different uses, not in terms of the occupants of the use. For instance, the City does not have
parking standards for single- or multi-family housing occupied by disabled or elderly persons.
The City, however, recognizes that disabled persons who occupy licensed residential care facilities
generate a parking need different from non-disabled persons. For instance, developmentally disabled
persons may not have licenses to drive a car. The City’s reasonable accommodation procedures
include an opportunity for disabled persons (or their representatives) to request a reduction and/or
waiver of parking requirements.
Permits and Processing
According to HCD -
Issues to evaluate include the process for requesting retrofit for accessibility, ensuring compliance
with all State laws regulating permit requirement of licensed residential care facilities with fewer than
six persons in single-family zones, and identification of any conditions or use restrictions for licensed
3 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.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-37 Temple City Housing Element
residential care facilities with greater than 6 persons or group homes that will be providing services
on-site.
1) Requesting Retrofit for Accessibility: Non-structural retrofits within buildings like adding grab
bars, replacing doorknobs with single-lever doorknobs, and exchanging toilets do not require building
permits, or City approvals. Structural retrofits like widening doorways or constructing ramps requires
a building permit. These requirements are the same for single- and multi-family housing. Tenants
residing in apartments must first obtain permission from the owner and/or property manager to make
the retrofits.
2) Ensuring Compliance with all State Laws Regulating Requirements for Licensed Residential Care
Facilities: As explained earlier, in 2013 the City amended the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with
all State laws that regulate licensed residential care facilities.
3) Conditions or Use Restrictions for Licensed Residential Care Facilities with Greater than 6 persons or
Group Homes that will be Providing Services On-Site: Per the amendments to the Zoning Code as of
2013, residential care facilities with more than six persons are conditionally permitted all residential
zones.
Building Codes
HCD recommends the analysis -
The year of the Uniform Building Code adoption and any amendments that might diminish the ability
to accommodate persons with disabilities, identification of adopted universal design elements in the
building code, the provision of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in the
enforcement of building codes and the issuance of building permits.
1) Building Code Adoption and Amendments: Temple City has adopted the Los Angeles County
Building Code 2011 edition as amended, which is based on the 2010 California Uniform Building,
Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Codes. The City has also adopted the Uniform Housing Code,
1997 Edition, recommended by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Uniform
Fire Code, 2012.
2) Universal Design Elements: Although the City has not adopted a “universal design ordinance,”
this is not deemed a constraint on existing or new housing for disabled persons. The City understands
that universal design aims to serve all people of all ages, sizes, and abilities and is applied to all
buildings. For instance, a universal design feature is any component of a house that can be used by
everyone regardless of his or her level of ability or disability. A feature, for instance, such as no steps at
entrances. Or single-lever water controls at all plumbing fixtures and faucets.
California law, section 17959.6 of the Health and Safety Code, requires a builder of new for-sale
residential units to provide buyers with a list of specific ‘universal design features’ which make a home
safer and easier to use for persons who are aging or frail, or who have certain temporary or permanent
activity limitations or disabilities. A developer is not required to provide the listed features during
construction or at any other time, unless the developer has offered to provide a feature and the buyer
has requested to and agrees to provide payment.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-38
AB 2787 (2002) mandated HCD to develop one or more model ordinances for voluntary local
government adoption that would establish universal design building standards without a significant
impact on housing cost or affordability. After meetings with various stakeholders representing the
interests of persons with disabilities, seniors, the building industry, and assistive technology, HCD
developed a pair of draft ordinances. On October 31, 2005, HCD certified and made available the
“Model Universal Design Local Ordinance.” HCD indicated that the Ordinance might be adopted
voluntarily in substantially the same form by any city or county pursuant to Section 17959.
The City’s enforcement of the Uniform Building Code does not create an impediment to fair housing
choice. However, the City may explore the application of universal design features in both existing
and new housing.
3) Building Code Reasonable Accommodations: The City’s reasonable accommodation procedure
includes building code modifications as well as ones pertaining to zoning.
Conclusions and Findings
The Zoning Code was amended in 2013 to ensure that its rules, policies, and standards are consistent
with fair housing laws. The City also developed a reasonable accommodation procedure that
encompasses both zoning and building standards. Information regarding the reasonable
accommodation procedure is available on the City’s website and prominently displayed at the
Community Development Department counter.
In addition, amendments to the Zoning Code ensure that residential care facilities serving six or fewer
persons are permitted in all zones that permit single-family homes, and residential care facilities
serving seven or more persons are conditionally permitted in identified zones.
Constraints on Meeting the City’s Share of the
Regional Housing Need
Guidelines
The Housing Element Law requires the City to identify and remove any governmental constraints that
hinder meeting the community’s share of the regional housing need. Moreover, in regulating
subdivisions, Government Code Section 65913.2 provides --
that a local government may not impose design criteria for the purpose of rendering an
affordable housing development infeasible. A community may not impose standards and
criteria for public improvements (e.g. streets, sewers, schools, or parks) that exceed those
imposed on other developments in similar zones. Additionally, the effect of a community’s
ordinances and actions on accommodating the housing needs of the region must be
considered.
Technical Appendix B Governmental Constraints
B-39 Temple City Housing Element
Analysis
A total of 603 housing units has been allocated to the City as its share of the regional housing need
(Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment). The Sites Inventory and Analysis (Technical Appendix D)
documents the availability of sites for future development and the adequacy of these sites to address
Temple City’s regional housing needs. The City plans to fulfill its regional housing needs using a
combination of the following methods:
Residential development within the Downtown Specific Plan;
Underutilized sites zoned for residential use; and
Residential second units.
In 2013, densities in the Downtown Specific Plan and in R-3 zones not adjacent to R-1 neighborhoods
were increased to 30 dwelling units per acre to facilitate affordable housing and encourage
development of underutilized residential properties. In addition, the City has land use affordability
incentives, including a density bonus ordinance and second unit development incentives to further
encourage affordable housing. During the upcoming General Plan and Zoning Code Update, the City
will review and consider revising development standards, including parking requirements, for second
units in order to further facilitate their
Conclusions and Findings
The City minimizes the local governmental constraints that would prevent the City from meeting its
share of the regional housing need.
Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix B
Temple City Housing Element B-40
This page intentionally left blank.
C-1 Temple City Housing Element
APPENDIX C:
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Introduction
Introduction
For purposes of providing guidance to cities, HCD has offered the following advice:
Although nongovernmental constraints are primarily market driven and generally outside direct
government control, localities can significantly influence and offset the negative impact of
nongovernmental constraints through responsive programs and policies. Analyzing specific
housing cost components including the cost of land, construction costs, and the availability of
financing assists the locality in developing and implementing housing and land-use programs that
respond to existing local or regional conditions. While the price of new housing depends on some
factors beyond a locality’s control, local governments can create essential site preconditions
(favorable zoning and development standards, fast track permit processing, etc.) that encourage
and facilitate development of a variety of housing types and prices.
Per State law, the non-governmental factors that must be analyzed are:
Availability of financing
Price of land
Cost of construction
In addition, the analysis includes the cost of existing and new housing and apartment rents.
Availability of Financing
Guidelines
HCD guidance on this nongovernmental constraint factor states:
This analysis could indicate whether mortgage deficient areas or underserved groups exist in the
community.
Non-Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix C
Temple City Housing Element C-2
A lack of, or limited access to, take out (new construction, rehabilitation, and/or permanent
(mortgage) financing could be addressed through responsive housing finance programs such as
mortgage revenue bonding, a mortgage credit certificate program, use of tax credits, first time
homebuyer and down payment assistance programs, and/or targeted low-interest CDBG or HOME
rehabilitation loans.
(The italicized text is guidance provided by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development in Housing Element Questions and Answers, October 2006, pg. 35.)
Analysis
The availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home; the cost of
borrowing money for residential development is incorporated directly into the sales price or rent.
Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and there is virtually
nothing a local government can do to affect these rates. Jurisdictions can, however, offer
homeownership assistance programs to expand home purchasing opportunities to a broader
economic segment of the population. In addition, government-insured loan programs are an option
available to some households to reduce mortgage requirements.
Under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose
information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan
applicants. The availability of financing for a home greatly affects a person’s ability to purchase a
home or invest in repairs and improvements. HMDA requires lending institutions to disclose
information on the disposition of loan applications by income, gender, and race/ethnicity of
applicants.
In 2006,prior to the national economic downturn, a total of 149,226 conventional mortgage loans to
purchase homes were approved in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan statistical area
(MSA), which includes Temple City. An additional 193 government-assisted (commonly known as FHA)
loans were approved for the area as well. In 2011, the number of home loans was significantly less
than in previous years, with 34,795 conventional and 19,692 FHA loans approved for home purchases
in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MSA.
As shown in Table C-1, a total of 452 households applied for mortgage loans to purchase homes in
Temple City during 2011, and 122 households applied for home improvement loans. More than half of
the loan applications to purchase a home were approved, while about 16 percent of the home
improvement loans were approved.
Interest rates substantially impact home construction, purchase, and improvement costs. A fluctuation
in rates of just 2.5 percent can make a drastic difference in the annual income needed to qualify for a
loan. In the recent past, Temple City and the country as a whole have experienced interest rates at
historically low levels, enabling many households to purchase a home. Even so, the availability and
cost of capital required for pre-development costs for new housing, such as land purchase option
money and project design and entitlement processing, as well as uncertainty in the larger housing
market, may remain a deterrent to development of affordable multi-family housing.
Beginning in 2006, increases in interest rates resulted in an increased number of foreclosures for
households with sub-prime loans when a significant number of sub-prime loans with variable rates
Technical Appendix C Non-Governmental Constraints
C-3 Temple City Housing Element
began to convert to fixed-rate loans at much higher interest rates. This dramatic rise in foreclosures
was indicative of the housing and larger economic crisis of that began in 2008.
The number of foreclosure notices peaked in 2009, and has been on a steady downward trend since.
The number of default notices filed against homeowners in Los Angeles County at the end of 2012
was almost as low as that in 2006, and substantially lower than the peak in December 2009, as
indicated in Figure C-1.
Table C-1
Temple City Conventional Purchase and Home Improvement Loan Applications - 2011
Census
Tract
Home Purchase Loans Home Improvement Loans
Total
Apps.
%
Orig.
% Appr.
Not
Accepted
%
Denied
%
Other*
Total
Apps. % Orig.
% Appr.
Not
Accepted
%
Denied
%
Other*
4315.01 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
4315.02 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0%
4318 38 74% 13% 13% 53% 8 25% 13% 13% 50%
4319 26 50% 12% 8% 31% 10 10% 20% 10% 10%
4320 75 39% 7% 12% 43% 30 47% 7% 13% 33%
4321.01 57 47% 12% 12% 28% 15 67% 0% 0% 47%
4321.02 51 49% 6% 6% 39% 12 58% 0% 0% 42%
4800.12 52 44% 10% 8% 38% 7 43% 0% 29% 29%
4801.01 45 49% 2% 13% 36% 12 42% 8% 17% 50%
4801.02 34 35% 3% 15% 47% 10 40% 0% 20% 40%
4812.01 20 60% 5% 0% 35% 11 36% 18% 27% 18%
4812.02 54 43% 13% 9% 35% 7 57% 0% 29% 14%
Total 452 56% 4%8%27%122 16%5% 13%7%
Notes:
1. “Appr. Not Accepted” are those applications approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants.
2. “Other” includes files closed for incompleteness, and applications withdrawn.
3. These census tracts comprise the geographic area that generally approximates Temple City.
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2011.
Non-Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix C
Temple City Housing Element C-4
Figure C-1
Los Angeles County Notices of Default 2006-2012
Source: DQNews News Releases, 2008-2013.
Conclusions and Findings
The City has no direct influence on mitigating the effect of interest rates on reducing housing
affordability. If first-time homebuyer programs were feasible, the City could provide down payment
assistance at low or zero interest rate deferred until the home is sold. The City does utilize CDBG funds
to provide home improvement financing at no or low cost through grants and deferred home loans.
In addition, the City participates in implementation of home ownership programs available through
the County of Los Angeles, such as the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) and Homeownership
Program (HOP), to expand homeownership opportunities for lower- and moderate-income
households.
Land Costs
Guidelines
HCD suggests that –
In looking at the price of land, estimate the average per unit cost of land, or the range of costs for
developable parcels, in both single-family and multifamily zones.
Analysis
Land is perhaps the major variable cost component in producing new housing. Land cost may vary
significantly depending on location, permitted development capacity, and whether the site is vacant
13,613
14,410
16,595
14,188
12,355
8,1007,445
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2006Q4 2007Q4 2008Q4 2009Q4 2010Q4 2011Q4 2012Q4
Technical Appendix C Non-Governmental Constraints
C-5 Temple City Housing Element
or has an existing use that must be removed. There are not large tracts of vacant land in Temple City;
the few vacant lots are considerably less than one acre in size. Furthermore, a survey of residential
property sales reveals that no vacant residential properties were listed during August and September
2013. One residential property listed for sale was is 0.49 acres, zoned for multi-family development
and is developed with a 60-year old fourplex. This property is a prime example of a residential lot that
could be redeveloped to replace existing structure(s) with a higher and more appropriate density; this
site could support up to 14 units under existing zoning regulations. The cost of a typical underutilized
residential property with redevelopment potential such as this is approximately $70 per square foot.
Conclusions and Findings
In Temple City, the availability of vacant land is extremely limited and therefore a constraint to the
development of new housing of any kind. The improvement of a residential property would most
likely require removal of existing structures prior to site development thereby incurring additional
development costs. In addition, the purchaser must also pay for the value of the existing structures on
site, resulting in a higher total cost of development.
Construction Costs
Guidelines
HCD suggests –
The analysis of construction costs, for typical single-family and multifamily projects, should focus
on the total cost to the developer, exclusive of profit, but including land, fees, material, labor and
financing.
Analysis
One cost factor associated with residential building is the cost of construction, which can comprise a
significant portion of the sales price of a home. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation
Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include
structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site
preparation. The data are national, do not take into account regional differences, and do not include
the price of the land upon which the building is built. The 2012 national averages for costs per square
foot unit of apartments and single-family homes are as follows:
Type I or II, Multi-Family: $127.29 to $144.89 per square foot
Type V Wood Frame, Multi-Family: $96.58 to $101.08 per square foot
Type V Wood Frame, One and Two Family Dwelling: $105.93 to $113.10 per square foot
The unit costs for residential care facilities generally range between $122.17 and $171.33 per square
foot. These costs are exclusive of the costs of land and soft costs, such as entitlements, financing, etc.
The City's ability to mitigate high construction costs is limited without direct subsidies. Another factor
related to construction cost is development density. With an increase in the number of units built in a
project, overall costs generally decrease as builders can benefit from the economies of scale.
Non-Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix C
Temple City Housing Element C-6
Conclusions and Findings
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, and project factors including
the size of units, the number and quality of amenities provided, quality of construction, and the types
and quality of materials used. Another factor related to construction costs is the number of units built
at one time. As the number increase, overall costs generally decrease as builders can benefit from the
economies of scale. Additionally, manufactured housing (including both mobile homes and modular
housing) may provide for lower-priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs.
Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing when correlated with local income levels is directly related to the extent of
housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household
income, there will usually be a correspondingly higher prevalence of housing cost burden and
overcrowding.
Sales Prices
Table C-2 shows the median price of single-family homes and condominiums sold in 2011 and 2012 in
Temple City. The median price of all homes sold in Temple City was $550,500 at the end of 2012. This
was a four percent increase from the median price a year earlier in November 2011, indicating a stable
housing market. Many surrounding cities also experienced increases in home prices during the same
one-year period, often resulting in larger percent increases in median sales price than in Temple City.
However, the home price in Temple City was, and continues to be, well above that of many
surrounding jurisdictions.
Table C-2
Temple City 2011 and 2012 Median Sales Prices
County/City/Area Nov. 2011 Nov. 2012
%
Change
Temple City $529,000 $550,500 4%
Arcadia $820,000 $725,000 -11.59%
Azusa $241,500 $306,000 27%
Baldwin Park $252,000 $245,000 -3%
Covina $180,000 $187,000 4%
Duarte $240,000 $378,000 58%
El Monte $290,000 $300,000 3%
Glendora $330,000 $375,000 14%
La Puente $239,500 $270,000 13%
Rosemead $357,000 $387,500 4%
West Covina $317,000 $330,000 4%
Los Angeles County $310,000 $350,000 13%
Source: DataQuick California Home Sale Price Medians by County and City, 2012.
The National Association of Home Builders compiles and publishes a quarterly housing affordability
index (HOI). The index calculates the percentage of homes (on a scale from 0 to 100) that were sold
during a three-month period that would be affordable to a family earning the region’s median
Technical Appendix C Non-Governmental Constraints
C-7 Temple City Housing Element
income. The index assumes buyers will finance 90 percent of the purchase price with a 30-year fixed-
rate mortgage, and takes into account prevailing interest rates, property taxes, and insurance costs.
The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan area, which includes the Temple City, consistently
ranks among the least affordable metro areas in the country (222 out of 226 during the third quarter of
2012). According to the index, in 2006, less than two percent of the population in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area could afford a median-priced home. However, the index indicated in 2009 that 42
percent of the population could afford the median price home, as the median price has fallen
dramatically from its peak just a few years ago. In 2012, the index indicated that almost 50 percent of
the population could afford the median price home, indicating that the percentage of the Los Angeles
metropolitan area population that could afford a median-priced home has steadily increased in recent
years. However, the average home price in Temple City is approximately $200,000 more than the Los
Angeles County median sales price, indicating that homeownership may still be out of reach for many
in Temple City.
Rental Housing
Rental housing data for 2013 was compiled from internet rental sources (Table C-3). The survey
indicated that the majority of units available are one to three-bedrooms in size and that only a small
number of studios and four-bedroom apartments or single-family homes are available for rent. Four-
bedroom apartments are rare; however, a number of four-bedroom single-family homes were
available for rent during the time of the rental survey.
Table C-3
Temple City Apartment Rental Rates
Unit Size Apartments Average
Efficiency $699 - $1000 $800
1 bedroom $650 - $1,095 $922
2 bedroom $1,250 - $1,700 $1,476
3 bedroom $1,595 - $2,200 $1,811
4 bedroom $2,300-$3,000 $2,500
Source: Craigslist.com, 4rentinla.com, apartmenthunterz.com,
trullia.com, and westsiderentals.com. Search performed on
September 3, 2013
As Table C-4 shows, rental units in the Temple City generally fall within the range of HUD-determined
fair market rents for Los Angeles County.
Table C-4
2012 Los Angeles County Fair Market Rents
Efficiency One-Bed Two-Bed Three-Bed Four-Bed
$961 $1,159 $1,447 $1,943 $2,338
Source: HUD User 2012
Non-Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix C
Temple City Housing Element C-8
Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in Temple
City with the maximum affordable housing costs to households of different income levels. Taken
together, this information can reveal who can afford what size and type of housing. A cost burden
occurs when a households spends more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Using this
affordability threshold (30 percent of median income), housing affordability can be estimated for
various income groups (Table C-5).
Table C-5
Housing Affordability
Income Group
AMI adjusted
by size
Affordable
Payment Housing Costs
Maximum Affordable
Price
Renter Owner Utilities
Taxes &
Insurance Home Rental
Extremely Low (0-30% MFI) 30% AMI
One Person $17,750 $444 $444 $50 $80 $68,802 $394
Small Family $22,800 $570 $570 $100 $90 $83,330 $470
Four Person Family $25,300 $633 $633 $125 $95 $90,457 $508
Large Family $27,350 $684 $684 $150 $100 $95,117 $534
Very Low (30-50% MFI) 50% AMI
One Person $29,550 $739 $739 $85 $115 $118,143 $654
Small Family $37,950 $949 $949 $125 $130 $152,133 $824
Four Person Family $42,150 $1,054 $1,054 $175 $140 $162,001 $879
Large Family $45,550 $1,139 $1,139 $200 $145 $174,062 $939
Lower (50-80% MFI) 60%AMI 70%AMI
One Person $44,325 $41,370 $1,108 $1,034 $100 $165 $168,689 $1,008
Small Family $56,925 $53,130 $1,423 $1,328 $150 $190 $216,714 $1,273
Four Person Family $67,450 $59,010 $1,686 $1,475 $200 $210 $233,599 $1,486
Large Family $72,850 $63,770 $1,821 $1,594 $250 $220 $246,537 $1,571
Moderate Income (81-120%
MFI) 110% AMI
One Person $49,885 $1,247 $1,455 $100 $215 $249,986 $1,147
Small Family $64,130 $1,603 $1,870 $150 $260 $320,264 $1,453
Four Person Family $71,280 $1,782 $2,079 $200 $280 $350,645 $1,582
Large Family $77,000 $1,925 $2,246 $250 $300 $371,880 $1,675
Notations:
1. Small Family = 3 persons; Large Families = 5 persons
2. Property taxes and insurance based on averages for the region
3. Calculation of affordable home sales prices based on a down payment of 10%, annual interest rate of 4.5%, 30- year
mortgage, and monthly payment 30% of gross household income
4. Based on Los Angele County MFI $64,800 and 2012 HCD State Income Limits
5. Monthly affordable rent based on payments of no more than 30% of household income
Technical Appendix C Non-Governmental Constraints
C-9 Temple City Housing Element
Comparing housing costs and maximum affordable prices for low-income households shows that low-
income households are being priced out of the Los Angeles County rental and ownership market.
Given the median home prices presented in Table C-2, single-family homeownership in Temple City is
beyond the reach of all moderate- and lower-income households countywide.
In the rental market, lower-income households generally can afford the market rents in Temple City,
especially studios, one-, and two-bedroom apartments. Moderate-income households are able to
afford the average unit available for rent in the City, including a three-bedroom house or apartment
for a large family.
Conclusions and Findings
The City’s housing market is stable with slight fluctuations in home prices; however, the sales price of
single-family homes and condominiums are beyond the means of households with lower and
moderate incomes. Although homeownership is unattainable for moderate- and lower-income
households, the rents in Temple City are generally affordable to lower- and moderate-income
households.
Non-Governmental Constraints Technical Appendix C
Temple City Housing Element C-10
This page intentionally left blank.
D-1 Temple City Housing Element
APPENDIX D:
SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
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 covers the 2014 to 2021 planning
period.
Temple City’s 2014-2021 RHNA allocation is for 603 housing units. Section D of this Appendix assesses
the residential development potential on sites identified as suitable for development within the 2014-
2021 planning period, and demonstrates the provision of adequate sites to address the City’s RHNA by
income category.
Guidelines
Sites to Accommodate City’s Share of the Regional Housing Need
Section 65583(a) (3) states that a housing element must include:
An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having
potential for redevelopment and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and
services to these sites.
Section 65583.2(a) states that the inventory of land suitable for residential development –
…shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and
that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income
levels….”
HCD guidance includes the following:
The purpose of the land inventory is to identify specific sites suitable for residential development in
order to compare the locality’s new construction need by affordability category with its residential
development (total supply) capacity. A thorough land inventory will help the locality determine if
additional governmental actions are needed to provide enough sites with appropriate
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-2
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). [emphasis added]
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 is presented in this
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D. A discussion of sites to accommodate the 2014-2021
RHNA, environmental site conditions, and availability of public services and facilities are included.
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.
The final section of this Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D discusses zoning for a
variety of housing types.
Sites to Accommodate the 2014-2021 RHNA
Site Capacity Based on Existing Zoning
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 2014-2021 planning period. The City plans to
fulfill its regional housing needs using a combination of the following methods:
Residential development within the Downtown Specific Plan
Underutilized sites zoned for residential use
Residential second units
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-3 Temple City Housing Element
Housing opportunity sites to meet the RHNA are presented in Figure D-1. Table D-1 summarizes the
residential unit potential from the above methods and provides a comparison to Temple City’s 2006-
2014 RHNA.
Table D-1
Potential Housing Units during the 2014 – 2021 Planning Period
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
RHNA Targets 159 93 99 252 603
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-31 (30 du/acre) 101 101 202
Residential Second Units 30 30
Total Units under Existing Zoning 304 273 91 188 856
Units in Excess of RHNA2 145 180 (8) (64) 253
1 Increased densities (30 du/acre rather than 18 du/acre) are permitted on R-3 sites that do not border R-1 parcels.
2 Units in excess of the RHNA for very low- and low-income categories are applied to moderate- and above moderate-
income categories.
As detailed in the Sites Inventory discussion that follows, Temple City has developed a thorough and
realistic approach to identifying sites suitable for development during the planning period. Through
this refined site inventory analysis, the City is able to demonstrate sufficient site capacity zoned at
appropriate densities to accommodate its RHNA for the current planning period.
Si
t
e
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
is
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
D
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
D
-
4
S B a l d w i n A v e
B r o a
d w a
y
G r a n d A ve
T e m p l e C i t y B l v d
E l M o n t e A v e
E a t o n W a s h
R
i
o
H
o
n
d
o
A r c a d i a W a s h
O a k A v e
L
a
R
o
s
a
D
r
O
l
i
v
e
S
t
D
a
i
n
e
s
D
r
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
S
B
a
l
d
w
i
n
A
v
e
Li
v
e
O
a
k
Pa
r
k
Lo
n
g
d
e
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
L o n g d e n A v
e
Te
m
p
l
e
Ci
t
y
Hi
g
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Oa
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
Cleminson School
A r d e n D r
L a s T u n a s D r
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
B
l
v
d
L
o
w
e
r
A
z
u
s
a
R
d
T e m p l e C i t y B l v d
B a l d w i n A v e
S an t a A n i t a A veS Santa Anita Ave
M i s si on
D r
L a s T u n a s D r
L i v e O a k A v e City of Temple City 2014-2021 Housing ElementFIGURE D-1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY SITESLas T u n a s D r
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
A
v
e
13
11
12 9
8
10
7 654231 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 500FeetDate: September 3, 2013 Prepared by: MIG Source: Los Angeles Assessor, 2011 and Temple City, 2013.Downtown Specific Plan Area Inset Map R-2 Underutilized Parcels (12 du/acre)R-3 Underutilized Clusters (18 du/acre)R-3 Underutilized Clusters (30 du/acre)Downtown Specific Plan Sites #Downtown Specific Plan sites are discussed in detail by number in the Housing Element
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-5 Temple City Housing Element
Downtown Specific Plan Sites
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. In 2013, the City Council amended the Downtown Specific Plan to further encourage
development, adding development standards for mixed-use and establishing residential densities for
multi-family development. The Temple City Downtown Specific Plan now permits horizontal
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. Residential
development as part of a mixed-use project is permitted throughout the Downtown Specific Plan area
at 30 units/acre, and there is no established density cap for senior housing. In addition, the minimum
lot size requirement for mixed-use was removed, as was the requirement for a conditional use permit
for residential and senior housing projects, to provide more flexibility for future projects. These
revisions implement policy direction from the 2008-2014 Housing Element.
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. In response, 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. For instance, for multifamily residential projects – including senior housing – the
consolidation of lots will result in a 10-15% reduction in parking and a one to three story increase to
the maximum height, depending on the number of lots consolidated. Projects are also eligible for a
15-20% increase in number of allowable units when four or more lots are consolidated. In addition, no
front yard setbacks are required in the areas where sites are identified. The combination of generous
development standards and lot consolidation incentives facilitate residential housing, and senior
housing especially. Additional incentives for lot consolidation include reductions in processing time,
vacation of alleys, and fee reductions such as processing fees, in-lieu fees, and utility connection fees.
Consolidation of individual parcels within the larger development sites presented in Table D-2 is
consistent with the Plan’s vision for downtown, and will be facilitated by the Plan’s incentives.
Similar to the analysis conducted of underutilized residential sites and utilizing the same filtering
criteria, as part of the April 2012 land use survey staff conducted a detailed sites survey of the entire
specific plan area to identify parcels with near term recycling potential for residential use. Site visits
were completed in 2013 to confirm continued viability of these sites. Table D-2 presents key
characteristics of the underutilized parcels identified in each of the Specific Plan Districts. Where
opportunities for lot consolidation were present, parcels are grouped into larger development
opportunity sites.
The Downtown Specific Plan consists of multiple districts; sites have been identified in the East
Commercial District (EC), Temple City Boulevard Commercial District (TC), Las Tunas West Commercial
District (WC), and the Gateway Commercial (GC) District. The narrative that follows describes the
suitability of each site for residential redevelopment, organized by the Specific Plan District in which
they are located.
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-6
Table D-2
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - 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
Potential
DSP Site #1 – EC District
9901 Las
Tunas Auto Repair 0 2,046 1948 11,478 .18 .71 7
9909 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR -
Orthodontist 0 1,724 1956 8,752 .20 .43 6
Total Site #1 20,230 13
DSP Site #2 – EC District
9810 Las
Tunas Dr
1 story medical
office 0 5,322 1966 19,249 .28 .64 13
9802 Las
Tunas Dr Dentist office 0 2,004 1997 8,348 .24 .53 5
Total Site #2 27,597 19
DSP Site #3 – EC District
9823 Las
Tunas Dr SFR 1 1,226 1928 8,808 .14 .83 5
9819 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR -
Acupuncture 0 1,796 1941 8,773 .20 .75 6
9815 Las
Tunas Dr
SFR – Medical
Use 0 1,779 1930 8,800 .20 .77 6
Total Site #3 26,381 17
DSP Site #4 – EC District
9738 Las
Tunas Dr Laundromat 0 2,613 1966 8,174 .32 .63 5
9730 Las
Tunas Dr
Retail/ Photo
Framing 0 875 1961 2,723 .32 .49 1
Total Site #4 10,897 7
Total EC District 56
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
Total 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
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-7 Temple City Housing Element
Table D-2
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - 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
Potential
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
Total 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
Total Site #7 105,151 71
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
Total 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
Total Site #9 18,264 11
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-8
Table D-2
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) - 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
Potential
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
Total 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
Total 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
Total 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
Total Site #13 47,556 30
Total All DSP Sites 501,577 344
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-9 Temple City Housing Element
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.
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 nondescript 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 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% to 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,
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-10
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.
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 old 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, upholstery shop, and vacuum
cleaner repair shop. Sites are physically underutilized (35%
floor area ratio), with low value improvements (25% to 40%
of total property value). The properties are maintained but
weathered; one space was available for lease in August 2013.
DSP Site 6, at over 75,000 square feet, is one of the larger
underutilized sites within the Downtown Specific Plan area. 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 eight 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, medical office, jewelry store, law office, small
restaurant, beauty salon, and a small printing shop. 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
area, totaling over 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
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-11 Temple City Housing Element
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-
f o o t b u i l d i n g u s e d a s a b a k ery. 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.
DSP Site 8 is approximately one acre, 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 acupuncture, 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–square-
foot. 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% of 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
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-12
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 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 located 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.
The residential development capacity on all identified sites
is based on a permitted density of 30 units/acre, with the
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-13 Temple City Housing Element
unit potential calculated based on the same methodology utilized for the R-2 and R-3 sites, described
in detail below.
Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites (R-2 and R-3)
The demand for residential development in Temple City is quite strong. The majority of residential
development in Temple City occurs through intensification on underutilized R-2 and R-3 sites, either
by additions to existing units, or more commonly, through the demolition of existing units and
replacement with a greater number of units as permitted under existing zoning. 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.
For purposes of identifying properties suitable for intensification during the 2014-2021 Housing
Element, City staff conducted a review of the land use survey conducted 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 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, and to confirm that no new
development had occurred since the April 2012 land use survey was completed.
As summarized in Table D-1 (and provided in greater detail in Attachment A), a total of 31
underutilized sites are located within the R-3 zone; 15 of these sites are not adjacent to R-1 zoned
properties and thus would be eligible for a by-right density allowance of 30 units/acre, yielding a
potential net increase of 101 units. The remaining 16 clusters of R-3 sites would permit development
at 18 du/acre, yielding a potential net increase in 91 units. Typical R-3 parcel sizes can support 3 to 4
units, and are frequently combined to achieve larger projects. Within the R-2 zone, a total of 153
underutilized parcels were identified, yielding a net increase of 188 units. As a means of illustrating
the significant opportunity for lot consolidation, the R-3 site inventory groups adjacent underutilized
parcels into larger development sites, and specifically identifies adjacent parcels under common
ownership. The City continues to experience significant infill development interest in its R-2 and R-3
neighborhoods by investors/builders of condominium subdivisions.
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 that illustrate the residential recycling occurring
in these zones and the achievement of maximum permitted densities on both individual and
consolidated lots.
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-14
As a means of further facilitating recycling and providing for a broader range of housing types, the
City is allows increased multi-family densities on parcels which do not directly impact single-family
residential neighborhoods. In 2013, Temple City revised the Zoning Code to permit residential
development at 30 units/acre in the R-3 zone where R-3 parcels are not adjacent to R-1
neighborhoods. This recent zoning amendment preserves Temple City’s existing transition of
densities from multi-family zoned areas to abutting single-family neighborhoods while serving as a
strong economic incentive for development.
In order to assess the realistic development capacity on each parcel, the following methodology was
utilized. Review of development projects within the R-2 and R-3 zones demonstrate the ability to
achieve the maximum permitted density of 12 and 18 units per acre, respectively, under the City’s
development standards on both individual and consolidated lots. While not all projects are built to
the maximum density, the majority of developments maximize the floor area through the provision of
larger three and four bedroom unit sizes. Given the height, reduced parking and lot consolidation
incentives provided for under recent zoning amendments, the unit capacity calculation is based on 12
units/acre for R-2 parcels, 18 units/acre for R-3 parcels, and 30 units/acre for non-R-1 adjacent R-3
parcels. In determining the net unit potential on each parcel, fractional units are rounded down to the
nearest whole number, and the existing number of units on the site is subtracted.
As illustrated in Figure D-1, 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, and construction broke ground in March 2013. 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 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.
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. In addition, pursuant to Program 8 of the
Housing Element, to further facilitate development of second units the City will re-evaluate the
development standards for second units during the upcoming comprehensive General Plan and
Zoning Code Update.
With 23 second units constructed during the previous planning period (2008 to July 2013), the market
for second units in Temple City is considered robust. Projecting a similar rate of second unit
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-15 Temple City Housing Element
construction during the 2014-2021 period, the City conservatively anticipates an additional 30 second
units would be developed.
Environmental Conditions
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.
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 generally
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.
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.
Public Facilities and Services
Guidelines
The Housing Element must include “…an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and
services to these sites.” Section 65583.2 (b)(5) states the inventory shall include:
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-16
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 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.
Analysis
Water Delivery Service
Water service to properties within Temple City is provided by four water providers, which are not
governed the City of Temple City: the California American Water Company, the East Pasadena Water
Company, the Sunny Slope Water Company, and the Golden State Water Company. Many lines are old,
and may need to be upgraded to meet fire flow or water service requirements for a large new
development. The providers estimate that they can serve approximately 350 new net water meters for
all consumers residential, commercial and industrial under existing conditions. Water demand
beyond this number of net water meters could require developers to upgrade existing lines.
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 system
was 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 uses 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.
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-17 Temple City Housing Element
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.
Specific capital improvement projects to replace aging sewer lines were identified pursuant to the
Sewer Master Plan and improvements have been implemented by the City of Temple City. The
Longden Avenue Sewer Replacement Project, one of the primary recommendations of the Sewer
Master Plan, is funded and anticipated to occur in 2014.
Storm Drainage Facilities
A network of storm drain facilities is in place, although storm drains may be required at the time of
subdivision.
Roads
The City’s street system is in place, with occasional need for street widening or extensions, or new cul-
de-sacs.
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, and for large developments
upgrades to existing water or sewer lines may be required. Sewer improvements also may be needed
in areas where Priority 1 improvements overlap areas to be re-zoned.
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 F 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
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-18
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).
Emergency Shelters
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]
Emergency and transitional shelters are facilities for the temporary shelter and feeding of homeless,
disaster victims, or persons facing other difficulties, such as domestic violence. The Temple City
Zoning Code allows emergency shelters as a permitted use in the C-3 Zone.
The C-3 Zone extends along Rosemead Boulevard between Las Tunas Drive and Broadway. City staff
conducted a land use survey of this 16.1 acre area and identified numerous existing buildings that
could be renovated, rehabilitated, or converted to an emergency shelter.
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.
Based on the size of the zone identified, opportunities for adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and
ready access to services and transportation, the zone has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
City’s homeless need in at least one year-round shelter.
The development and management standards for emergency shelters in the City’s Zoning Code were
drafted to be consistent with State law. Specific provisions for emergency shelters in Temple City are
as follows:
C-3 Zone Standards: An emergency shelter shall be subject to the standards of development
that apply to the C-3 zone. There is no density standard applicable in the C-3 Zone.
Maximum capacity: An emergency shelter shall contain a maximum of 30 beds and shall serve
no more than 30 homeless persons at the same time.
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-19 Temple City Housing Element
Interior intake space: An emergency shelter shall provide an interior waiting and intake area
shall which contains a minimum of 200 square feet. No exterior waiting area shall be allowed
on or off the premises.
Common facilities: An emergency shelter shall provide common areas with common facilities
including but not limited to a central kitchen, dining room, laundry room, and a common
gathering area.
Open space: An emergency shelter shall provide adequate outdoor open space area with
landscaping. All open spaces shall be fenced and not visible from Rosemead Boulevard.
Lighting. An emergency shelter shall provide adequate external lighting for security purposes.
The lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-
way, and with brightness or glare controlled so as to be compatible with the neighborhood.
Maintenance facilities: An emergency shelter shall provide a utility closet with a wash sink
having hot and cold running water for storage of cleaning supplies and equipment.
Trash Enclosure: An emergency shelter shall provide a trash enclosure to the minimum
requirements of Section 9362(E).
Parking: An emergency shelter shall provide one (1) off-street parking space for every ten (10)
beds plus one (1) off-street parking space per each employee and agency vehicle, all in a
manner consistent with Section 9291.
Management: The agency or organization operating the shelter shall comply with the
following requirements:
1. Duration of stay by residents shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) months.
2. Supportive services shall be provided to assist residents to obtain permanent shelter and
income. Such services shall be provided at no cost to tenants.
3. The agency or organization operating the emergency shelter shall have a written
management plan including, as applicable, provisions of staff training, neighborhood
outreach, admittance hours, security, screening of residents to insure compatibility with
services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for
tenants.
4. Emergency shelters shall provide for an on-site resident manager, an on-site management
office and security during all hours of operation.
Business License: The agency or organization operating the emergency shelter shall obtain a
city business license before commencing operation.
All uses permitted in the C-3 Zone require a site plan review. Required information as part of the site
plan application 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 includes emergency shelters.
The C-3 Zone requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Setback 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.
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-20
Transitional Housing
Transitional housing provides longer-term housing (up to two years), coupled with supportive services
such as job training and counseling, to individuals and families who are transitioning to permanent
housing. The City treats 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. Consistent with State law, small
transitional housing is considered a standard residential use and is permitted by right in the R-1, R-2,
and R-3 zones, pursuant to Zoning Code amendments adopted in 2013.
Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing is defined as housing with no limit on the length of stay and that is occupied by a
special needs population (as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d)), and that provides a
significant level of onsite and offsite services that assist the supportive housing residents in retaining
the housing, improving their health status and maximizing their ability to live, and when possible, to
work in the community. As required by State Law, the City permits supportive housing as a residential
use and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same
residential housing type located in the same zoning district; supportive housing is defined in the
Zoning Code and permitted by right in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing
Single-Room Occupancy Housing is defined in the Temple City Zoning Code as any building
containing five or more guestrooms or units which are used, rented, or hired out to be occupied for
sleeping purposes by residents, and which is also the primary residence of those residents. The
individual units may lack either cooking facilities or a full bathroom, or both. However, for purposes of
this definition, an SRO does not include residential care homes, senior housing projects, rooming and
boarding houses, hotels and motels, bed and breakfast lodging, extended care facilities or hospitals.
Single Room Occupancy facilities are permitted within the C-3 Zone subject to a conditional use
permit.
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.
Technical Appendix D Sites Inventory and Analysis
D-21 Temple City Housing Element
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.”
There is no housing need for farmworkers in Temple City. According to the State of California
Employment Development Department, 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.”
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;
however, the latest Census estimates indicated that no persons reported an agriculture occupation.
Multi-family Rental Housing
The Housing Element Law requires cities to facilitate and encourage the development of multi-family
rental housing. 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.
Multi-family 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
Sites Inventory and Analysis Technical Appendix D
Temple City Housing Element D-22
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 the
senior citizen housing overlay 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. In 2013, Temple City amended the
Downtown Specific Plan to add development standards and design incentives for mixed-use
development, including: 1) allowing horizontal mixed use with ground floor residential in all
Downtown Specific Plan districts (with the exception of parcels fronting on Las Tunas Drive in the City
Center Commercial District); 2) establishment of R-3 residential densities for non-senior housing, with
no established density cap for senior housing; 3) elimination of the conditional use permit
requirement for residential and senior housing projects; and 4) elimination of one acre minimum lot
size requirements for mixed use.
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, clear definitions, and fast track processing of projects. As a means
of further facilitating housing consistent with the City’s regional housing needs, the City recently
established a new administrative review process for multi-family development applications that is
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
Factory-Built Housing
Modular homes are permitted in the R-1 Zone.
E-1 Temple City Housing Element
APPENDIX E:
REVIEW AND REVISION – PROGRESS REPORT
Introduction
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that the City review the current Housing Element
to evaluate:
“Effectiveness of the element” (Section 65588[a][2]): A comparison of the actual results of the earlier
element with its goals, objectives, policies and programs. The results should be quantified where
possible (e.g., rehabilitation results), but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g., mitigation of
government constraints).
“Progress in implementation” (Section 65583[a][3]): An analysis of the significant differences between
what was projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved.
“Appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies” (Section 65588[a][1]): A description of how the
goals, objectives, policies and programs of the updated element incorporate what has been learned
from the results of the prior element.
The information presented in this Technical Appendi x p r o v i d e s a n e v a l u a t i o n o f T e m p l e C i t y ’ s
accomplishments toward implementing the 2008-2014 Housing Element and contributes to
establishing the policies and programs that should be retained and carried forward in the updated
2014-2021 Housing Element.
Effectiveness of the Housing Element
For the 2008-2014 Housing Element cycle, Temple City was assigned a RHNA of 987. Of these 987
units, 249 units were allocated to be affordable to very low-income households, 156 units to low-
income households, 165 units to moderate-income households, and 416 units to upper-income
households.
The 2008-2014 Housing Element was found to be in compliance with Housing Element law by the
State in 2013. The Housing Element demonstrated that the City has adequate zoning and sites to meet
its 2008-2014 RHNA of 987 units.
Due to the economic downturn of recent years, Temple City experienced very little residential growth
between 2008 and 2013. Based upon a review of building permit records from the City, between
Review and Revision – Progress Report Technical Appendix E
Temple City Housing Element E-2
2008 and 2013, 34 percent of the regional housing construction needs were met. Of the 338 housing
units built during this period, 23 were second units that are affordable to very low- and low-income
households, achieving 68 percent of the City’s quantified objective for second units.
The loss of Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Funds due to the dissolution of the
Redevelopment Agency in 2011 resulted in a greater reliance upon Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds to support the ongoing Housing Rehabilitation Program. Since 2008, $602,680 of
CDBG funds were expended for improving 26 housing units (68 percent of the City’s quantified goal)
using the Home Improvement Deferred Loan Program. The City also assisted 17 households (33
percent of the City’s quantified goal) with home repair projects through the Handyworker Assistance
Program using Redevelopment Agency Funds and CDBG Funds during the 2008-2014 Housing
Element planning period.
The City’s quantified objective in providing affordable housing through the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program was 59 households. As of September 2013, 89 households received Housing Choice
Vouchers in Temple City, exceeding the quantified objective.
Progress in Implementation
The progress report also involves an analysis of the significant differences between what was
projected or planned in the earlier element and what was achieved. Table E-1 summarizes the
quantified objectives contained the City’s 2008-2014 Housing Element and evaluates progress toward
fulfilling these objectives. A program-by-program review, including the progress and implementation
of programs, is provided in Table E-2.
Table E-1
Temple City Summary of 2008-2014 Quantified Objectives and Progress
Income Level
Total
Very Low
(0-50%)
Low
(51-80%)
Moderate
(81-120%)
Above Moderate
(120%+)
Construction Objectives (RHNA)
Goal 249 156 165 416 987
Progress 23 (9%) 0(0%)315 (76%) 338 (34%)
Second Units Objectives
Goal 34 ----34
Progress 23 (68%) ----23 (68%)
Section 8 Rental Assistance Objectives
Goal 59 -- -- -- 59
Progress 89 (151%) -- -- -- 89 (151%)
Housing Code Enforcement Objectives
Goal 875 875
Progress 4,273 (488%) 4,273 (488%)
Home Improvement Deferred Loan Objectives
Goal 18 20 ----38
Progress 5(28%) 6 (30%)15 --26 (68%)
Handyworker Assistance Objectives
Goal 35 16 ----51
Progress 4 (11%) 7 (44%)6 --17 (33%)
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
E-
3
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
1.
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
l
o
t
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
we
b
s
i
t
e
.
A
m
e
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
ec
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
t
o
b
e
t
t
e
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
ma
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
:
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
(
s
i
d
e
-
b
y
-
s
i
d
e
)
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
w
i
t
h
gr
o
u
n
d
f
l
o
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
n
a
l
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
wi
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
f
r
o
n
t
i
n
g
o
n
La
s
T
u
n
a
s
D
r
i
v
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
C
C
)
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
3
0
u
n
i
t
/
a
c
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
n
o
n
-
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
w
i
t
h
no
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
c
a
p
f
o
r
s
e
n
i
o
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
nd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
a
c
r
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
s
i
z
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
m
i
x
e
d
u
s
e
A
c
o
p
y
o
f
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
ar
e
a
,
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
a
t
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
20
1
3
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
o
f
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
ar
e
a
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
b
e
a
n
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
n
s
f
o
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
al
l
i
n
c
o
m
e
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
Technical Appendix E
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
E-4
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
2.
M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
S
i
t
e
s
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
v
a
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
an
d
p
l
a
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
to
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
.
A
d
o
p
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
t
e
x
t
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
R
-
3
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
no
t
a
b
u
t
s
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
t
o
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
ma
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
ng
C
o
d
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
o
f
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
:
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
b
y
-
r
i
g
h
t
3
0
u
n
i
t
/
a
c
r
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
i
n
R
-
3
z
o
n
e
s
n
o
t
ab
u
t
t
i
n
g
R
-
1
z
o
n
e
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
t
o
3
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
i
n
R-
3
z
o
n
e
s
n
o
t
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
R
-
1
z
o
n
e
s
.
Al
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
u
d
y
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
d
e
m
a
n
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
U
P
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
3
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
i
t
s
Lo
t
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
(
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
fu
r
t
h
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
3
)
A
c
o
p
y
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
S
i
t
e
s
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
we
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
a
t
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
.
T he
p
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
o
f
v
a
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
b
e
a
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
me
a
n
s
f
o
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
l
l
in
c
o
m
e
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
3.
L
o
t
C
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
Ad
o
p
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
l
o
t
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
R-
3
z
o
n
e
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
o
f
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
pa
r
c
e
l
s
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
R
-
3
z
o
n
e
t
o
pr
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
l
o
t
c
o
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
mo
r
e
v
i
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
R
-
3
z
o
n
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
a
n
d
h
e
i
g
h
t
,
re
d
u
c
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
r
e
d
u
ce
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
,
va
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
l
e
y
s
,
a
n
d
f
e
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
an
d
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
20
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
4.
Z
o
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
Ne
e
d
s
Am
e
n
d
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
i
x
mo
n
t
h
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
d
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
a
s
a
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
-
3
zo
n
e
a
l
o
n
g
R
o
s
e
m
e
a
d
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
t
o
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
sh
e
l
t
e
r
s
a
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
B
2
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
w
a
s
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
s
t
o
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
s
o
f
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
,
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
Su
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
o
o
m
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
U
n
i
t
s
(
S
R
O
)
.
As
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
w
a
s
am
e
n
d
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
3
t
o
b
e
i
n
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
th pertinent
St
a
t
e
l
a
w
s
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
b
e
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
r
e
m
o
v
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
E-
5
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
Am
e
n
d
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
i
x
mo
n
t
h
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
t
o
ma
k
e
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
20
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
gr
o
u
p
s
.
Am
e
n
d
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
i
x
mo
n
t
h
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
t
o
de
f
i
n
e
a
n
d
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
f
o
r
s
i
n
g
l
e
ro
o
m
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
u
s
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
-
3
z
o
n
i
n
g
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
5.
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Ad
o
p
t
t
h
e
E
n
e
r
g
y
E
f
f
i
c
i
en
c
y
P
l
a
n
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
of
2
0
1
2
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
on
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
t
o
e
d
u
c
a
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
o
n
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
e
y
c
a
n
ta
k
e
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
u
s
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
.
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
up
d
a
t
e
,
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
2
0
1
3
s
t
a
r
t
d
a
t
e
.
In
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
n
E
n
e
r
g
y
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
d
i
s
o
n
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
L
o
c
a
l
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
e
r
g
y
ut
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
ef
f
e
c
t
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
a
i
m
i
n
g
t
o
b
e
g
i
n
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
b
e
f
o
r
e
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
3
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
As
t
h
e
E
n
e
r
g
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
w
a
s
ad
o
p
t
e
d
a
n
d
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
b
y
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
be
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
pr
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
n
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
g
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
6.
R
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
f
o
r
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
B
u
r
d
e
n
e
d
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
)
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
i
n
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
an
d
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
e
x
p
a
n
d
u
s
a
g
e
of
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
T he
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
L
o
s
An
g
e
l
e
s
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
s
t
h
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ch
o
i
c
e
V
o
u
c
h
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
fo
r
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
.
I
n
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
,
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
59
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
A
s
o
f
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
,
8
9
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
r
e
n
t
a
l
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
4
4
,
2
1
0
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
o
n
th
e
H
A
C
o
L
A
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
.
Re
n
t
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
t
h
e
mo
s
t
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
f
o
r
m
o
f
ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
l
o
w
e
r
-
in
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
20
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
Technical Appendix E
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
E-6
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
7.
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
pr
i
v
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
qu
a
l
i
t
y
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
a
n
d
se
n
i
o
r
s
.
S
e
e
k
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
o
me
e
t
C
i
t
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
g
o
a
l
s
.
Si
n
c
e
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
r
e
l
i
e
s
o
n
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
fe
e
s
,
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
a
n
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
e
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
l
s
o
re
v
i
s
e
d
t
h
e
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
c
o
s
t
s
o
f
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,
l
a
n
d
w
r
i
t
e
-
do
w
n
s
a
n
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
c
a
n
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
n
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
G
i
v
e
n
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
t
h
e
pr
i
m
a
r
y
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
f
o
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
T
e
m
p
l
e
Ci
t
y
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
d
e
m
i
s
e
of
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in California.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
b
e
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
,
a
n
d
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
th
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
.
8.
S
e
c
o
n
d
U
n
i
t
s
T hr
o
u
g
h
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
un
i
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
n
t
a
l
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
E
d
u
c
a
t
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
o
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
co
u
n
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
b
y
2
0
1
3
.
S
e
e
k
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
to
t
a
l
o
f
3
4
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
.
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
c
y
c
l
e
,
2
3
se
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
S
e
c
o
n
d
U
n
i
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
at
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
a
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
co
u
n
t
e
r
a
t
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
.
I
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
o
f
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
,
th
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
r
e
-
a
s
s
e
s
s
t
h
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
an
d
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
s
e
c
o
n
d
u
n
i
t
s
.
In
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
8
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
h
e
l
p
s
to
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
f
o
r
d
able access to
ho
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
o
w
e
r
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
s
ov
e
r
p
a
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
o
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
m
i
n
o
r
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
E-
7
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
9.
R
e
v
i
s
e
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
Pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
Up
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
2
0
1
3
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
b
y
a
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
o
n
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
we
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
i
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
t
s
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
.
T
h
e
De
n
s
i
t
y
B
o
n
u
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
an
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
De
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
n
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
s
s
i
s
t
in
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
10
.
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
P
o
l
i
c
y
Co
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
x
u
s
a
n
d
In
-
L
i
e
u
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
t
o
e
s
ta
b
l
i
s
h
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
ho
u
s
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
Gi
v
e
n
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
s
i
n
c
e
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
e
x
u
s
s
t
u
d
y
ha
s
n
o
t
y
e
t
b
e
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
An
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
t
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
n
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
n
s
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
th
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
11
.
M
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
C
U
P
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
n
e
w
mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
R
-
2
an
d
R
-
3
z
o
n
e
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
u
n
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
n
-
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
re
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
-
b
a
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
to
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
fo
r
n
e
w
m
u
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
a
l
e
s
s
c
o
s
t
l
y
a
n
d
st
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
d
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
on
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
an
d
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
20
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
12
.
A
d
o
p
t
a
R
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
Ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
o
n
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
S
t
a
t
e
la
w
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
.
T
h
i
s
t
a
s
k
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
by
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
0
9
.
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
h
r
e
e
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
ad
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
n
d
u
c
t
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
d
r
a
f
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
a
n
d
g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
p
u
t
.
T
h
e
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
T he
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
ed
u
r
e
,
w
i
t
h
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
m
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
at
p
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
s
a
t
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
h
e
l
p
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
eq
u
a
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
pe
o
p
l
e
w
i
t
h
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
Technical Appendix E
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
E-8
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
bl
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
.
Di
s
p
l
a
y
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
/
f
l
y
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
a
t
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
tm
e
n
t
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
.
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
13
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
Di
s
a
b
l
e
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
T he
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
z
o
n
i
n
g
co
d
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
3
:
In
2
0
1
3
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
m
a
d
e
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
st
a
t
e
a
n
d
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
a
w
s
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
o
s
e
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
w
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
de
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
“
f
a
m
i
l
y
”
t
o
r
e
m
o
v
e
t
h
e
pa
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
fr
o
m
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
a
l
s
o
ma
d
e
t
o
d
e
f
i
n
e
s
m
a
l
l
a
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ca
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
o
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
m
a
l
l
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
R
-
1
,
R
-
2
,
a
n
d
R-
3
z
o
n
e
s
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
a
n
d
t
o
pe
r
m
i
t
l
a
r
g
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
R-
2
,
R
-
3
,
C
-
1
,
C
-
1
-
R
,
C
-
2
,
a
n
d
C
-
3
z
o
n
e
s
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
an
d
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
20
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
Re
v
i
s
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
“
f
a
m
i
l
y
.
”
A
de
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
a
m
i
l
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
a
ho
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
o
r
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
di
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
i
n
g
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
un
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
,
a
s
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
de
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
d
o
e
s
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
s
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
t
o
b
e
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
z
o
ne
s
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
o
w
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
fa
m
i
l
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
s
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
n
e
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
f
o
r
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
ho
u
s
i
n
g
s
e
v
e
n
o
r
m
o
r
e
d
i
s
a
b
l
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
.
14
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Co
n
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
t
o
c
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
ho
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
le
v
e
l
o
f
1
2
5
n
e
w
c
a
s
e
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
f
o
r
a
l
l
i
n
c
o
m
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
Si
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
h
a
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
d
t
o
4
,
2
7
3
ho
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
s
e
s
a
t
a
n
av
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
o
v
e
r
7
0
0
o
p
e
n
e
d
c
a
s
e
s
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
.
Th
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
a
b
l
e
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
t
o
co
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
l
o
s
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
8
0
%
o
f
ca
s
e
s
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
an
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
t
o
w
a
r
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
20
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
E-
9
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
15
.
H
a
n
d
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
h
a
n
d
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
g
r
a
n
t
s
t
o
5
1
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
:
9
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
29
V
e
r
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
16
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
Si
n
c
e
2
0
0
8
,
1
7
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
e
r
e
a
s
s
i
s
t
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
H
a
n
d
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
F
o
u
r
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
,
s
e
v
e
n
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
,
an
d
s
i
x
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
e
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
g
r
a
n
t
s
u
p
t
o
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
f
o
r
h
o
m
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
a
s
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
F
u
n
d
s
a
n
d
C
D
B
G
mo
n
i
e
s
.
D
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
’
s
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
th
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
’
s
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
a
n
n
u
a
l
C
D
B
G
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
2
0
1
1
th
e
C
i
t
y
s
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
H
a
n
d
y
w
o
r
k
e
r
As
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
th
e
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
.
16
.
H
o
m
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
De
f
e
r
r
e
d
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
ac
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
(
3
8
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
)
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
2
0
0
6
-
2
0
1
4
pe
r
i
o
d
:
9
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
9
V
e
r
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
20
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
,
o
v
e
r
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
in
C
D
B
G
f
u
n
d
s
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
2
6
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
H
o
m
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
D
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
F
i
v
e
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
,
s
i
x
l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
,
a
n
d
15
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
-
i
n
c
o
m
e
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
e
r
e
as
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
o
w
i
n
t
e
r
e
st
d
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
l
o
a
n
s
t
o
re
p
a
i
r
t
h
e
i
r
h
o
m
e
s
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
Co
u
n
t
y
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
is
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
s
a
t
C
i
t
y
Ha
l
l
.
T hi
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
an
d
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
t
o
w
a
r
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
20
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
17
.
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
,
an
d
r
e
f
e
r
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
e
n
a
n
t
/
l
a
n
d
l
o
r
d
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
T he
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
f
u
n
d
a
n
d
w
o
r
k
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
wi
t
h
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
R
i
g
h
t
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
H
R
C
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
is
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
g
o
a
l
fo
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
be
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
“
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
”
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
–
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
Technical Appendix E
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
E-10
Ta
b
l
e
E
-
2
Te
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
sh
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
4
A
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
Effectiveness and Appropriateness
18
.
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ad
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
f
a
i
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
a
i
r
ho
u
s
i
n
g
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
an
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
.
T he
C
i
t
y
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
y
m
a
k
i
n
g
fa
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
C
i
t
y
Ha
l
l
,
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
,
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
P
a
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
,
t
h
e
T
e
m
p
l
e
C
i
t
y
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
an
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
.
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
r
o
c
h
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ri
g
h
t
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
,
H
U
D
,
S
t
a
t
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
a
i
r
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
’
s
(
D
F
E
H
)
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
f
a
i
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
g
o
a
l
fo
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
be
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
2
0
1
4
-
2
0
2
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
“
F
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
”
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.