HomeMy Public PortalAbout09.5) General Plan - Attachment S - Public Comment ReceivedCity of Temple City
Community Meeting Notes
June 26, 2017 at 7:30 PM
Draft Mid -Century General Plan, Crossroads Specific Plan, and EIR
Comment Cards
Card 1
From what I heard tonight, the general plan and specific plan are very exciting. If these changes
happened, I would want to stay in Temple City and raise my family here! I am particularly
excited about the increased density, increased pedestrian and bike traffic, and attention to
climate mitigation (efforts to minimize GHSs, energy use, and waste). I am very impressed and
look forward to learning more.
Card 2
Any incentives for energy efficiency in existing homes? Any way to celebrate low energy users
and onsite renewable generation? Any plans for less manicured (lawn type) parks? Any
incentives/education initiatives for household rainwater catchments? Incentives for converting
lawns to xeriscape and/or edible landscapes?
Card 3
Target commute mode mixed for Temple City in 2030, 2050? (% walk, bike, transit, car,
telecommute, etc.?) How to reconcile single family residential dominance with desire for
affordable housing?
Flip Chart Notes
1. How do we keep Temple City a “family-friendly” community?
2. Is the City considering using eminent domain to acquire property?
3. How will the General Plan work to develop a “smart” city (i.e. technology)?
4. What’s the reason for re-zoning industrial areas?
5. How is this plan going to be implemented?
6. When do property owners have to comply with the new zoning?
7. How will changes to development on adjacent properties affect the use of my property?
8. How will the capacity of parks and schools be affected by increased development?
9. How much does the General Plan update cost? Who’s paying for it?
10. How much time do we have to comment on the General Plan and environmental impact
report?
11. Will the Specific Plan help bring greater diversity to the types of stores in Temple City?
12. How are mature trees being protected in the City? Will there be a tree ordinance?
13. What impacts will increased development have on neighboring school districts?
14. Will the General Plan call for use of reclaimed water?
15. How will the mobility needs of older residents be addressed? Walking and biking are not
very feasible for older people.
Community Meeting Notes
June 26, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Attendees
1. Jim Law
2. Richard Saraceno
3. Gary and Cathy Hartman
4. Martin Ledwitz
5. Joseph F Ferro
6. Liliou De Luca
7. Rober DeVine
8. Jim Clift
9. Nancy Liu
10. Clark Chang
11. Lanny Aplavalp
12. Howard Bucy
13. Joe Conzonire
14. Steven Chan
15. Carol Daughery
16. Brian Chan
17. Bill Grange
18. Yu-Wen Taylor
19. (Illegible)
20. (Illegible) Yang
21. Brian Lewin
22. Alexis Nowak
23. Evelyn Wellman
24. Delfin V Bacold Jr
25. Gabriel Pedraza
26. Yu Ming Kuo
27. Gloria Landervere
28. Rhue Guyant
29. Stanley Ha
30. We Lee
31. Chris Stratton
32. Jean Wang
33. (Illegible)
34. Jim
35. (Illegible)
36. Heather Whitehead
37. Charles Kitching
38. Kenny Chung
39. Goldland LLC
40. Dong Chung
41. Vivian Chen
42. Bobbie McGowan
Community Meeting Notes
June 26, 2017
Page 3 of 3
43. Paul Wong
44. Lily Chang
45. Likeng Cheng
46. Ron Dearin
47. Xia Don Pei
48. Dennis Kim
49. Sean Xiangjin Li
50. Linda Ogata
51. Howie Ngo
52. Helen Marston
City of Temple City
Community Meeting Notes
July 8, 2017 at 9:00 AM
Draft Mid -Century General Plan, Crossroads Specific Plan, and EIR
Comment Cards
Card 1
Please reconsider the high densisty changes on Temple City Boulevard. There’s already too much
traffic, noise, and air pollution on Temple City Boulevard. Also, we’re asked by Edison Company
to cut back on our electricity use. The same for water. We’re told to cut back on our water usage.
These both significantly reduce of quality of life in Temple City. Bringing in more people will be
asking us to cut back even more on these essential parts of life here. Adding more people to
Temple City doesn’t mean more people will support the shops in Temple City. Bring in businesses
that people want to go to (instead of wedding and nail shops). Make it easy and attractive for
good businesses to come here.
Flip Chart Notes
1. Concerns with upzoning for R-1 single family residences (E) cul-de-sacs changing into
multi-family residences.
2. ADU new law changing to multi-family.
3. Asked about designation of a park/community recreation center.
4. Can someone get a waiver to new regulations?
5. Concerns with height and density in the new Specific Plan.
6. Concerns with traffic at Las Tunas Drive and Temple City Boulevard. A.M. and P.M.
increased density will make it worse.
7. Concerns with future businesses, energy/water, and traffic.
8. Concerns with increased number of bike lanes reducing the vehicle lanes.
9. Concerns with (E) problems of patched sidewalks address now /prioritize.
10. Concerns with public safety (fire) for new developments. Concerns with traffic in adjacent
communities (SG). Police/fire response time concerns.
11. City use EBS program to develop/buy properties to increase development and future taxes.
Attendees
1. Diane Willson
2. Gary Wolff
3. Stella MacDonald
4. George MacDonald
5. Dave Smith
6. Mark Gallatin, mgallatineprodigy.net
7. Leo M. Acenas
8. Joe Conzonire
9. Jim Law
10. Jackie
Community Meeting Notes
July 8, 2017
Page 2 of 2
11. Helen Dey,
12. Heather Whitehead
13. Doug Blatt
14. Tracy Wong
15. Bill Lang
16. Valere Byrnes
17. Jeff Lee
18. Ted & Maria Chan
19. George & Cecelia Rubar
20. Serge Haddad
21. Norma Boekne
22. Kenneth Krollenky
23. Elizabeth Pearson
24. Peter Agboh
25. Emily Wisnesh
26. Faith Levsey
27. Russ Woke
28. Jim LeBerthon
29. Phong Lu
30. Janet Ng
31. Tom O’Leary
32. Carol Ma
33. Kenny Chung
on CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 7:30 P.M.
City Council Chambers, 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City
www.templecity.us
OPENING MATTERS:
Call to Order
Roll Call:
PRESENT: Commissioner—Haddad, Lee, O'Leary, Cordes, Marston
ABSENT: Commissioner—None
ALSO PRESENT: Planning Manager Reimers, City Attorney Thuyen, and Planning Secretary
Venters
Pledge of Allegiance
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS / PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Vice -Chair Cordes made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Seconded
by Commissioner Haddad and was approved unanimously by the following votes:
AYES: Commissioner — Haddad, Lee, O'Leary, Cordes, Marston
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — None
1. Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: NONE
PAGE 1 OF 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 25, 2017
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
2. File: PL 17-865. Draft Mid -Century General Plan, Crossroads Specific Plan, and Environmental
Impact Report.
Address: Citywide
Recommendation: Receive the Staff Report and provide comment on the Draft Mid -Century
General Plan, Crossroads Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report
EIR), noting that the close of the public comment period is August 3,
2017.
Project Planner: Scott Reimers
sreimers@templecity.us
Planning Manager Reimers stated that the action before the Planning Commission is to listen and
consider the public comment and receive the Staff Report, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the
Mid -Century General Plan and the Crossroads Specific Plan.
Woodie Tescher. Placeworks, briefed the Planning Commission regarding the purpose and contents
of a General Plan, Specific Plan, and EIR.
Planning Manager Reimers discussed the vision and goals of the Mid -Century General Plan including:
creating places to gather, improving sustainability, creating safe streets, improving pedestrian access,
encouraging mixed-use, creating voluntary incentives for preserving historical resources, and
improving civic involvement. He explained that the Crossroads Specific Plan, oriented at the
intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive, would create a mixed use district that is
sustainable and includes open space and places for people to gather. He stated that the vision
includes creating new streets, encouraging alternate travel methods, developing creative parking
strategies, and development standards and guidelines specific to the area.
Nicole Morse, Placeworks, explained to the Commission that an EIR addresses environmental impacts
such as air quality, public services, aesthetics, recreation, and utilities. The requirement for an EIR is
determined through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If an EIR is required, a study
will be conducted to determine the impact the project could have on the environment and how to
mitigate such impacts. She concluded that the public can comment on the EIR until August 3, 2017.
Commissioner Lee asked Planning Manager Reimers if increased pedestrian traffic is projected and
how the City plans to mitigate intensified vehicular traffic.
Planning Manager Reimers stated that the projected impacts of traffic are described in Chapter 5.13
of the EIR. He further described two tables regarding traffic in the EIR (Tables 5.13-7 and 5.13-8)
further explaining what is projected to happen to traffic by 2035.
PAGE 2 OF 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 25, 2017
Commissioner Haddad asked Ms. Morse if parking lots that accommodate over thirty vehicles would
require vehicle charging stations.
Nicole Morse. Placeworksstated that the amount of vehicle charging stations varies on the size of
the parking lot.
Chair Marston asked if solar panels would be included in the Mid -Century General Plan.
Woodie Tescher. Placeworks, stated that solar panels are addressed in the waste reduction strategies
and sustainability.
Chair Marston opened the item for public discussion.
Joe Conzonire, business owner, asked the Planning Commission to reconsider aspects of the
Crossroads Specific Plan that may adversely affect existing businesses. He felt that the following
would directly affect his business: permit properties occupied by existing restaurants with drive-thru
facilities to be grandfathered; permit presently existing businesses to retain the nature and character
of the signs that are trademarked, historic, or readily identifiable; ensure that access to existing
property owners' businesses will not be impeded; and allow property owners to undertake minor and
moderate construction without affecting a property's non -conforming use protections.
Carl Blum, resident, expressed concern regarding the current price of housing in the City. He stated
that mixed-use zoning and high density residential zones could be a way to allow generations to
retain their residency in the City.
Sean Lee, resident, suggested that the City incorporate a "smart city" concept in the Mid -Century
General Plan.
Jerry Jambazian, business owner, asked Planning Manager Reimers if mixed-use would be allowable
on Woodruff Avenue above Temple City Boulevard and if public comments would be posted online.
Planning Manager Reimers stated that mixed-use would be allowable and that all comments will be
made public at www.maketemplecityhappen.
Chair Marston closed the item for public discussion.
Commissioner O'Leary stated that the Mid -Century General Plan is well written and that he concurs
with the comments made by Mr. Blum.
Commissioner Haddad stated that he is in favor of technological advances and feels that smart city
concepts have been incorporated into the proposed General Plan. He also concurred with the
statements made by Mr. Blum.
PAGE 3 OF 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 25, 2017
Vice -Chair Cordes stated that he is in favor of the Parks and Open Space Master Plan, he would like
to see more effort supporting public transportation, that he would like the City to try and further
engage potentially affected Native American tribes, and would like to know if internet access could
be considered a utility.
Commissioner Lee stated that he would like to see that every resident is aware of the General Plan
update and provided suggestions on how to reach out to people of all ages and cultures.
Chair Marston stated that higher density housing and mixed-use zoning is an option to allow future
generations to own property in the City.
Commissioner O'Leary made a motion to receive and file the Staff Report. Seconded by Vice -Chair
Cordes and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner— Haddad, Lee, O'Leary, Cordes, Marston
ABSTAIN: Commissioner — None
NOES: Commissioner — None
ABSENT: Commissioner — None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND REPORTS:
3. Planning Manager's Report
Planning Manager Reimers stated that due to lack of business there will be no Planning
Commission Meeting August 8.
4. Comments from Commissioners
Commissioner Haddad — None
Commissioner Lee — None
Commissioner O'Leary — None
Vice -Chair Cordes — None
Chair Marston — Announced that she will be attending her son's naval academy boot camp
August 8, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Chair
PAGE 4 OF 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 25, 2017
SEeretary
PAGE 5 OF 5
BYRNES & WILEY
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
307 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE
POST OFFICE BOX 1039
ALHAMBRA, CA 91802-1039
Valiere M. Byrnes
TEL. (626) 289-3551
FAX. (626) 289-0285
Email: valiere.m.byrnes@gmail.com
July 25, 2017
Via Electronic Mail: planning@templecity.us
and U.S. Mail
Planning Commission
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Via Electronic Mail: sreimers@templecity.us
Scott Reimer, Planning Manager
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Via Electronic Mail: mforbes@templecity.us
Michael D. Forbes, Community Develop. Dir.
City of Temple City
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Re: Public Comments pertaining to the Crossroads Specific Plan and
Las Tunas – Rosemead District Specific Plan
Gentlepersons:
This correspondence is provided on behalf of C & J Food Company dba The Hat in response to
the City’s invitation for public review and comment regarding the Mid-Century General Plan, the
Crossroads Specific Plan and the Las Tunas – Rosemead District Specific Plan.
To avoid a regulatory taking or the risk of inverse condemnation of the properties affected by the
Specific Plans, the following modifications to the Specific Plans are proposed:
1. Permit properties occupied by existing restaurants with drive-thru facilities to be
“grandfathered” in to the specific plans to enable the drive-thrus to continue to operate
under new mixed-use zoning regulations, regardless of any subsequent need to modify
the property or relocation of the business. This would permit existing drive-thru
restaurants (or any successor in interest) to continue to operate under the specific plans,
despite changes in ownership and also despite potential subsequent relocation of the
restaurant and drive-thru within the specific plan areas.
Planning Commission, Scott Reimer and Michael D. Forbes
July 25, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Re: Public Comments pertaining to the Crossroads Specific Plan and
Las Tunas – Rosemead District Specific Plan
2. Permit presently existing businesses to retain the nature and character of their
signage which is trademarked, historically used by the business, or readily identifiable
and associated with the business, whether or not the signs are designed to match the
materials, textures and colors of the primary building façade on which they are located,
for as long as the businesses continue to operate within the specific plan areas.
3. Articulate a specific written policy which relates to ensuring that access to
existing property owners’ businesses, including drive-thrus, will not be impeded by
development of adjacent properties under the specific plan guidelines. This policy will
provide written assurance to existing property owners that Temple City will work with
current property owners to satisfactorily address concerns regarding access to existing
businesses, including drive-thrus. This policy would relate to both construction of new
buildings, landscaping, and the positioning of streetscapes and transit routes.
4. Permit existing businesses to undertake minor and moderate construction,
retrofits, revisions, structural repairs, maintenance or upgrades on their properties without
triggering the obligation to develop the entire property in compliance with the specific
plans. This provision would enable a greater scope of work to be performed to ensure
existing businesses can continue to operate in well-maintained, safe and modernized
structures.
The City’s thoughtful attention to these concerns is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned for further discussion of these concerns, as well as the City’s proposals for
addressing and resolving them.
Very t ruly yours,
BYRNES & WILEY, APC
Valiere M. Byrnes, Esq.
VB/jeb
City of Temple City
E-Mail Correspondence
Attachment S – Public Comment Received
Email 1
From: Frank Tremmel "Neighborhood Nursery" [mailto:frank@neighborhoodnursery.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 9:45 AM
To: Jennifer Venters <jventers@templecity.us>
Subject: Comment on Traffic at City Council Meeting
Good Day,
I sat in on the Planning Commission meeting last night and was most interested in the
comment from John Cordes concerning the request to increase the use of public
transportation in the city.
As he mentioned we are only few miles away from several mass transit hubs, however, I have
found that it is a tedious task to get to them. Here is a personal example.
I regularly attend conferences in downtown Los Angeles at the convention center and find the
Metro Gold line an excellent way to get there. I usually drive to the Sierra Madre station where
I find the train to be both time and cost efficient
On a recent trip to get downtown, I decided to take the local Metro bus to the Gold Line
station. I walked a quarter mile to the closest bus stop where I waited 20 minutes for a bus to
arrive. I could have planned this better, but with the long walk to the stop I did not want to be
late.
The journey really began from there. I generally take 10 minutes or less to drive directly to the
Sierra Madre Station, but taking the bus took 45 minutes. My trip to the closest transportation
hub took nearly an HOUR vs my usual ten minutes to the train and only a 30-35 train ride
downtown. I would have already arrived at the convention center downtown if I had driven to
the train station or directly downtown, while I was just arriving at the gold line station by
taking the bus. And the bus ride home was not that pleasant either. I wasted almost two hours
of my day on a simple trip.
As Mr Cordes experienced in his travels over seas, I too have traveled to areas where the
public uses a well developed mass transit system on a daily basis. I found it very handy, just
getting on and off the bus as necessary, quick and efficient.
This planning has to be area wide. I understand costs are an issue, but my negative experience
certainly does not promote the use of the system, so why will others use it?
Let me know you received this email OK. They still seem to get lost in space.
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
Sincerely
Frank
--
Thank You
Frank Tremmel
To catch us in the Nursery-
By Appointment Only
Neighborhood Nursery with Present Perfect Nursery
140 S Kinneloa Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91107
626-872-4537 Phone or Text
888-694-2733 (888-MyGarden)
888-693-2962 (888-MyFaxMachine) fax
info@NeighborhoodNursery.com
Our mailing address-
Neighborhood Nursery
5828 N Burton Ave
San Gabriel, CA 91775
Email 2
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:42 PM
To: planning <planning@templecity.us>
Subject: Re: Comments for the Mid-Century Plan
Sorry, typo error, s/b set limitation on building the giant mansion style houses.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 12:16 PM, opalpliu <opalpliu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello,
I am a resident of Temple City. I just have two suggests as follows:
1. Please plant more trees on our streets and encourage residents to plant more trees. I
see the dead trees been cut down but no new tree has been planted on the streets.
2. I would like our city set limitation on building the giant ugly mention style
houses. They doesn’t fit in to our neighborhoods, and look awkward.
Thank you for putting my opinion into considerations.
NL
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
Email 3
From: Peter Lo. <peter.n.lo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:01 PM
Subject: My opinion for City's general plan
To: pkuo@templecity.us
This is a local resident's personal opinion for the City general plan review meeting.
I am Peter Lo, my family are living in City for more than 20 years, I personally thinking City has
limit space to support the large commercial development project which the near by cities like
to generate more sale tax revenues. Temple City is a residential community having safety
environment, good school, moderate traffic and clean street, parks, and sufficient business for
local resident shopping needed.
I observe the present general plan has commercial zone is enough for City business operation.
Do not expanding C zone will be a smart strategy for next 10 years to come.
sincerely,
--
Peter Lo, DRE #01062167
Global Realty, DRE# 01044799
130 E. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, Ca 91006
Ph. (626) 739 5300
Fax(626) 739 5331
Cell(626) 625 4271
email: peter.n.lo@gmail.com
--
Peter Lo, DRE #01062167
Global Realty, DRE# 01044799
130 E. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, Ca 91006
Ph. (626) 739 5300
Fax(626) 739 5331
Cell(626) 625 4271
email: peter.n.lo@gmail.com
Email 4
From: Richard [mailto:econ105@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:39 AM
To: Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>
Subject: Crossroads Specific Plan comments
Hi Scott,
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
I have the following comments on the SP.
1. Page 1-10 – Because 91% of all parcels in the SP area are less than 1.25 acres each,
why not break this 91% down into 1 acre, half an acre, 20k sq. ft., and 10k sq. ft.?
2. Provide an unconsolidated parcel ownership map with square footage of each lot similar
to the County Assessor Parcel Maps.
3. What is "Build-to-zone" as shown in the Development Standards for each land use
district? Build-to-zone is stated as "measured from the minimum front setback line",
but what exactly is being measured from the front setback line?
4. Page 3-7 – Although the illustration in Figure 3-2 is an example only, the 125' length
of the lot is wrong. It should be 126'. The scale is most likely wrong also.
5. What is "Vertical Setback" as shown in the Development Standards of each land use
district?
6. Page 3-8 – The last sentence in footnote #6 is very confusing.
7. Pages 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10 break down the MU/C district into "MU/C Mixed Use along
Rosemead",
"MU/C Mixed Use along Wash", and "MU/C Parking Structure". This gives the appearance
that
they are different, but the development standards for all three are the same.
8. Page 3-15 – In the second paragraph under the Permitted Uses subheading, the "A"
designation is listed, but the paragraph right below doesn't tell what it stands for.
9. Page 3-16 – For the Group living use type, the Auto Min is "2 space per unit".
10. Page 3-17 – What is the Auto Min for the Community center use type?
11. Pages 3-17 and 3-18 – The use types for schools and auto oriented businesses are all
shown as not permitted in all the land uses districts. This can't be right.
12. Page 3-18 – The Auto Min for the Fuel/service station is not clear. Also, right below it
the Auto Min for the two Parking land use types is missing.
13. Tattoo parlor is shown as not permitted in all land use districts, but the parking
requirements are shown.
14. Page 3-22 – There is an overlap in the square footage for "Retail sales (6,000 - 90,000 sf)"
and "Retail sales (90,000 - 150,000 sf)". "90,000 sf" appears in both retail use types.
15. Page 3-22 – Are "Internet Gaming" and "Karaoke, primary use" permitted in any of the
land use districts?
16. Page 3-23 – A large Child daycare is 9-14 children and not 8-14 children.
17. Page 3-26 – 3.g Home Occupation – Point #1 states that home occupation use must be
conducted within a principal dwelling or permitted accessory buildings while point #4
states that not more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the principal dwelling
shall be devoted to the home occupation. Is this saying that home occupation is
permitted
only in the principal dwelling or that there is no restriction on the percent of the
accessory
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
building that can be use for home occupation?
18. Page 3-26 – 3.g Home Occupation – The last two points mention bridal shop and
restaurant.
They are not home occupations.
19. Pages 3-26 and 3-27 – 3.h Karaoke, accessory and 3.i Massage. These two are shown
under
Accessory Uses, but what would they be accessory to?
Richard
Email 5
From: Richard [mailto:econ105@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:02 PM
To: Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>
Subject: Crossroads Specific Plan
Hi Scott,
Can you help answer the following questions regarding the Specific Plan? Thank you very
much.
1. Do you have an approximate timeframe for the adoption of the General Plan and the
Crossroads Specific Plan?
2. In the NT Development Standards, there is mention of lot coverage, but no FAR.
Does that mean FAR can be as big as lot coverage on the first story and no limit
on the second story?
3. 30 du/acre is permitted in the NT District. Are there other factors other than lot
size that could limit the number of du/acre?
4. "Mixed-Use building" is shown as N/A in the "NT Development Standards", however,
in Table 3-A, it's shown as a permitted use under "Dwelling, Multi-family within
Mixed-Use development". Which one is correct or are they two different things?
5. Also in Table 3-A, "Auto Min." is 1.5 per unit for "Dwelling, Multi-family". Are these
covered parking or open space parking?
6. Can multiple units in the "Dwelling, Multi-family" be attached? If not, then what is
the required building separation?
7. Can accessory structures such as a garage be located within the 15' rear setback
if it's in the last third of a lot?
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
8. It appears that the 15' rear setback for a residence is the same as current standards.
How come the specific plan doesn't provide relief for this setback given that it's
supposed to promote more intense use and higher density development? Is there a
yard modification process to allow for less than the proposed 15' rear setback for a
multi-family development?
9. Can a house with an attached garage be situated in such a way that the garage is
located within the 15' rear setback while the house portion is located away from the
15' rear setback?
10. On Page 3-15, what does the designation "A" stand for?
Thank you,
Richard
Email 6
From: Rick Kuo [mailto:rkuo8@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:23 AM
To: Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>
Subject: Myda Ave
Mr. Reimers,
Can you please provide information on the following?
1. Did the Planning Commission take any action on the General Plan and the Specific Plan on
11/14?
2. Has Myda Ave been removed from the Specific Plan? If so, what was the reason?
3. The previously proposed density on Myda Ave was 30 du/acre. Has that changed?
4. The revised Specific Plan states the following:
Single-family structures shall adhere to the Zoning Code R-1 code requirements.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for projects with frontage on Myda Ave. or Reno
Ave.
to ensure that siting and design of the building(s) achieve an effective transition in function,
scale,
and bulk with adjoining residential neighborhoods.
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
Why is a CUP be required and for what types of projects would these be?
Thank you,
Rick Kuo
Email 7
From: Scott Reimers
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Liz Lampton <relampton@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Forbes (mforbes@templecity.us) <mforbes@templecity.us>
Subject: RE: Historic Preservation of Early Homes in T.C.
Ms. Lampton,
Thank you for your email. I will forward it to the Planning Commission for their consideration
tonight. I did want to point your attention to Goal LU 5 and the following policies of the
General Plan which are supportive of historic preservation, see below. There is also a measure
in the Implementation Program (page A-24) regarding historic preservation.
Thank you,
Scott Reimers
Planning Manager
------------------
Goal LU 5: Identification and Preservation. Identify and preserve Temple City’s historic and
cultural resources to enrich our sense of place, foster stewardship and civic pride, and
understand the City’s prehistory and history.
» LU 5.1 Consultation. Consult with the appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g.
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), etc.) to minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources.
» LU 5.2 National, California, and Local Registers. Encourage property owners of qualified
resources to seek listing under the appropriate register(s) including the National Register of
Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, and Los Angeles County Historical
Landmarks and Records.
» LU 5.3 Adaptive Reuse. Encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources when the original use
of the resource is no longer feasible.
» LU 5.4 Incentive Program. Explore the feasibility of establishing a voluntary incentive
program, such as a Mills Act program, that would provide financial assistance, including
property tax reductions, to owners of qualifying historic properties, as demonstrated by
owner-funded studies, for property maintenance and improvements.
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
» LU 5.5 Awareness of Historic Resources. Support programs and policies that raise awareness
of Temple City’s historic buildings, sites, and contextual features.
» LU 5.6 Coordination with Other Entities. Coordinate with and support public, quasi-public,
and private entities in their historic preservation programs and efforts.
» LU 5.7 Education. Provide information to the public on Temple City’s historic and cultural
resources through landmark plaques, wayfinding signage, and collateral materials that
provide residents and visitors with an understanding of the City’s heritage.
------------------
From: Liz Lampton [mailto:relampton@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:10 AM
To: planning <planning@templecity.us>
Subject: Historic Preservation of Early Homes in T.C.
Temple City Planning Department:
If you look at the date on this post:
10/22/2013, it’s been almost four years.
I am requesting the planning commission move forward with establishing a historical
preservation program for the city of Temple City. It is necessary because we do not see the
preservation of Temple City being integrated in the general plan.
Email 8
From: shirley zhai [mailto:budgetinn168@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:44 PM
To: Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>
Subject: 回复： RE: questions regarding area of change
Mr. Reimers
I am surprised how fast you had replied my email. That is a good news. Thanks a lot.
If the General plan passed, would receive a confirmation letter?
Shirley zhai
发自 iPhone 版 Yahoo 邮箱
星期一, 十一月 13, 2017, 15:36 于 Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>写道：
Ms. Zhai,
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
I believe the official address is 5516 Sultana (Assessor Parcel Number 5387-026-010). That
property is 81.82 feet by 176.78 feet, for a total of 14,464 square feet. The General Plan is
changing the maximum allowed density from 30 units per acre to 36 units per acre. Currently
the site is zoned for 9.96 dwelling units, or 9 units. The proposed General Plan would allow
11.95 dwelling units, or 11 units. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thanks,
Scott Reimers
Planning Manager
From: shirley zhai [mailto:budgetinn168@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:22 PM
To: planning <planning@templecity.us>
Subject: questions regarding area of change
Hi Mr. Reimers,
I want to ask if there is any change on my property. My address is 5522 sultana ave. Temple
city, which is a four-unit appartment. If there is any change, what would it affect my property. I
am looking forward to hear from you. Thanks a lot。
Best wishes,
Shirley Zhai
Email 9
From: Charles Kitching [mailto:kitchingcharles@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 9:02 PM
To: Scott Reimers <sreimers@templecity.us>
Subject: Temple City Planning
Dear Scott,
Although I am surrounded by areas having higher Dwelling Densities thanks mine,
I am grateful your commission did not raise Dwelling Density in my immediate area.
Thanks!
I am sure you know, higher Densities bring more automobile traffic,
Emailed Correspondence
Attachment R – Pubic Comment Received
more automobile noise and more pollution.
I appreciate you and your comission's efforts to make TC a better place to live.
Chuck Kitching
5452 Welland Ave
Temple City, CA