Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Sb9 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City staff outline SB9 constraints analysis after state review; revised ordinance expected
Summary
Staff presented a consultant constraints analysis requested by California's HCD identifying about 10 ordinance provisions (unit-size minimums, third-floor rules, parking prohibitions, affordability mandates, environmental standards, appeal rights) that HCD flagged as potential constraints; staff said a cleanup ordinance will be brought back after iterative work with HCD.
City planning staff briefed the Temple City Council on a consultant-prepared constraints analysis of the city’s SB9 ordinance, a response to concerns raised by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Associate Planner Andrew Cohen reviewed the consultant’s findings. The consultant identified approximately 10 provisions in the city’s SB9 ordinance that could be considered constraints to SB9 development, including: a minimum unit-size floor (the current local rule requires at least 500 ft² for an SB9 unit while the building code allows units as small as 190 ft²), a subterranean third‑floor requirement, a prohibition on retaining existing on‑site parking and on-site parking permits for SB9 tenants, a mandatory affordability occupancy covenant for low- or very-low-income households, a local requirement that units meet LEED Platinum–level standards, and allowance for public appeals on ministerial SB9 approvals.
Staff said the city previously amended its code in 2022 to address several immediate HCD concerns (unit counts, maximum unit size, open-space requirements) and that this constraints analysis is the next step in an iterative review with HCD. The consultant’s findings propose removing local constraints (for instance, eliminating the minimum size and subterranean requirement and allowing certain on‑site parking) or converting some mandatory local requirements to incentives.
Council members asked about the independence of the consultant, the consultant’s cost (reported in discussion as about $20,000), and the practical effect of pending appellate litigation about SB9 and charter-city authority. City Attorney Greg noted trial courts have tended to side with the state in SB9 litigation to date, though appellate decisions could change guidance; staff said they will continue iterative written exchanges and meetings with HCD before returning a formal cleanup ordinance to the planning commission and council.
Next steps: staff will submit the constraints analysis to HCD, engage in iterative review, and return in late summer with a revised ordinance recommendation for public hearing.
