City Council - Regular Meeting

Regular City Council meeting of August 4th, 2026. We can begin with a roll call, please.

Council Member Chavez? Here. Council Member Sternquist? Here. Council Member Yu? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Chen? Here. Mayor Mann is absent.

Motion to excuse Mayor Mann for cause.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All right, motion carries. Next we'd like to have Jerry Jambazian, owner of Wonder Cleaners and Draperies, located at 9136 Las Tunas Drive, will be providing the invocation. Will you please all rise.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Please join me as we pray. Our gracious heavenly Father, we come to you tonight to once again ask for your guidance and direction upon our Mayor Pro Tem, council members and support staff. Today is National Night Out. We will be celebrating tomorrow, Wednesday in the park with our local sheriffs, public safety and CERT. It is a great time bringing out community together and partnering with agencies that help keep us safe. And Lord, with this recent heat wave, I pray for the most vulnerable of our citizenry, their senior citizens and children and pets. With school beginning next week, we thank you for the collaborative work of our city staff and school district to ensure that our students have a safe route to school, help our parents to be kind, patient, and obey the rules laid out for them. Father, we continue to pray for our world and the conflicts that don't seem to end. I pray for all those in uniform around the world, away from loved ones. We pray that those leading us, that they would always think of ways that would bring peace. In closing, Lord, I continue to pray for our sheriffs who protect us, especially our dedicated team of Bowie, Schwartz, and Felix. I ask this all in your name and for your glory. Amen.

Please remain standing. Leading the Pledge of Allegiance tonight will be Don Tarrin from Temple City Women's Club, Historical Society, Community Extraordinaire, and my neighbor, most importantly, Don.

Place your right hand over your heart and repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

All right, so ceremonial matters presentation. We have none. We move on to public comments on items not listed on the agenda. The City Council will now hear public comments regarding items not listed on the agenda. Each speaker will have up to three minutes. I have two speaker cards. If there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on an item not listed on the agenda, please fill out a speaker card. First, I'd like to have Kazuko Yamaguchi regarding pickleball courts.

This is Kazuko Yamaguchi. I live in 5570 Greek Mountain next to the tennis court. And then thank you for the opportunity to speak again. And then, OK, I won't pass you the three minutes. OK, last time. Last time I came here and speak it and then about the pickleball court and then I requested to that one is a limited time or a noticeable value and then green equipment sent to the ladies. But now I have researching and studying and then talking to the neighbor, I found out conclusion. This is not, I want to ask the city to ban the pickleball, at least reduce half of the pickleball court and the playtime limit from the eight. Thank you. to six or seven. The reason I have been using the sound volume meter at home, at seven o'clock, the noise is always 68 to 70 dBA, that's noise. And then city, municipal code, chapter nine, daytime, seven a.m. to 10 p.m., maximum is 55. I have a 68 to 70, weekend is more. So then noise value I research, reduce only eight to 12 decibel drop, but I have only six, I have a 68 to 70, that's still even more. And then pickable noise is different, because it's more sharp, and then just like a gunfire, and then pop and pop, and the sounds, this thing and then it's not acceptable. And then they say 70, this bears that the DBA at 100 feet. My house is eight court from the 60 feet in my house. And next neighbor is 65. So my neighbor, I talk to the neighbor in the back neighbor, and he wrote a letter, and then I pass everybody, and then so you can read it. And next one, is using green equipment to reduce noise or something. But I don't know. The city, if they mandate using the grid equipment, who's going to watch? So those, I doubt it. Even they, I doubt it. The next big problem is much traffic in the pickleball area. Eight pickleball court has 32 people, and then waiting 20 more people, and then use a big horn. You know, that's very noisy. And then remember, those people come with the car. And then where they can find the parking? So next neighbor is so doubted because it's not safety. They live in the gray suit, and the parking the car is parking, they almost hit the car. You can tell, he can tell the letter. So big problem with the parking. I'm just wondering, how come the city, they say okay to add the doors code and the 32 people?

Ms. Yamaguchi? Thank you very much for your passion. We've gone a little bit over time. If you could finish your last point.

Okay. The last comment, can I say?

Yes.

Okay. My... Conclusion is that the pickleball court at least reduce half unlimited time. That's my conclusion. Yeah. And then what's the safety for those always city has a problem with the city parking space short. I don't know how come they add the 30 to more people coming. So I'm kind of, me and my neighbor's opinion. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next speaker is Kaysen Tang, guarding tennis court, lights shut down.

Hi, my name is Kason Tang. I'm a resident of Temple City. This is my first time speaking, but it's not that serious. It was just that I take walks with my mom along Live Oak Park every night. And with the tennis courts, I've actually never played tennis in my life, though I'd like to. Around before 10, they automatically shut off. And according to the Temple City tennis courts rules and regulations, they do shut off right before 10. But I was wondering, I know we can't make any comments, but I was wondering if they could be dimmed before they just immediately shut off. That is honestly it. But yeah, if they were dimmed, I just thought, you know, the people there could find their tennis balls before they leave. Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Madam City Clerk, is there any caller or virtual participant who wish to speak on items not listed on the agenda?

Mayor Pro Tem Chen, there are none.

Do you have any written public comments that we received?

That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for all the speakers. Mr. City Manager will be addressing each of your concerns. We'll move on to item number seven. That will be the consent calendar. All consent calendar items may be approved in a single motion as recommended unless removed for further discussion. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on an item on the agenda? Seeing none, Madam City Clerk, are there any callers or remote participants who wish to speak on an item on the agenda?

Mayor Pro Tem Chen, there are no remote participants.

All right. Now moving on to council comments. Any comments from council regarding the consent calendar items? Seeing none, can I have a motion to approve the consent calendar item?

Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Madam City Clerk, roll call, please.

Council Member Chavez. Yes. Council Member Sternquist. Yes. Council Member Yu. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Chen.

Yes. All right. Now moving on to public hearing portion of the agenda. First item is introduction, first reading of ordinance number 26-1091 amending chapter 9-1T of the Temple City Municipal Code relating to urban dwelling units and urban lodgements. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Chen and members of the council. As you know, the city about a year and a half ago brought forward an ordinance related to SB 9. SB 9 is what's called urban lot splits. We then received communication from the state HCD regarding our ordinance and some of the elements that they thought was inconsistent with state law. We worked in a collaborative manner with HCD. And in fact, what we did as well to ensure that we were doing it in a manner that was consistent, we brought in Sagecrest Planning and Environmental Services, David Blumenthal, to assist us with that process and to actually essentially screen what we were doing. So working collaboratively with a third party and that third party then also working with us and the state of California. What we have before you today is what we think between our work and Sagecrest's work and work with HCD is that an ordinance that is in conformance with state law and meets the requirements in a collaborative way with state law. and with our partners at HCD. So with that, Mr. Cohn will go over some of the key elements and the changes in SB 9. And we're here for any questions that you may have. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Cohn.

Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem. Council members, this evening you're being asked to consider code amendments amending the city's SB9 ordinance. Just to get into it, I'm gonna just briefly go over some of the background or fresh your memory on this project that's been going on for some time. So back in 2021, the state passed its SB9 law, which allows property owners to subdivide single family lots into up to two parcels and allow them to build up to four units. on those parcels. So it would be two on each. If you subdivided a single family lot, you could have two new units on each lot. So leading up to four in total. In response to that change in law, the city passed its ordinance back in 2022. That same year, HCD reached out to the city and expressed their concern that some of the provisions in our ordinance may be a constraint that would make it difficult for property owners to do this type of development. And so they asked us to do a governmental constraints analysis. So the following year, in 2023, we hired a consultant to do that, and it took some time for that to be done. And then in 2025, we presented it to the Planning Commission, City Council, and then submitted that report to HCD. About six months later, we received communications from them. They directed us to move forward with all of the recommended changes that our consultant had identified. And in addition to that, they also asked us to remove any provisions in our ordinance that we do not already require of regular R1 projects. So they want us to apply R1 standards to SB9 projects. So that was something new that they had not previously told us. So in response to that, we developed an ordinance. We brought it to the Planning Commission in May 2026, and the Planning Commission reviewed it, recommended that you adopt the changes. And so tonight, we're going to present those to you. The next few slides, I'm just going to briefly go through the different provisions of the ordinance.

Mr. Mayor Bertin, may I ask a question?

Go for it.

Mr. Combs, so we got feedback from HCD on the previous ordinance and they gave us some comments and so we updated our proposed ordinance that's before us, right? So has this, what you're proposing tonight, been reviewed by HCD? No.

They have reviewed the recommended changes that are in the constraints analysis, which we submitted to them last year. The only thing that's new in it is the required change that we remove anything that's not applicable to R1 projects. That's new. They have not reviewed that yet.

Okay. But basically, what we're... we'll be seeing tonight is what we think that's what HCD wants us to do.

Yes, Council Member, it's not, I wouldn't call it an iterative process where you kind of go back and forth and toggle back and forth between the agencies, but bringing in Sagecrest and others to kind of work as for lack of a better word, intermediary with us to kind of gauge where HCD is at, look at the standards that they're applying across other agencies, then applying those standards here. We think we're in a good place to be there.

That's great. Thank you. So if the council approves this, we will then submit it to HCD and they will review it a second time.

So this could be back to us in a few months again. It's unlikely, but it's possible. Why did they make it so difficult? Why can't we just have dialogue back and forth and tell the thing?

I would say in the case of the SB9 ordinance, the requested changes or the required changes are very black and white and very clear. I don't think this is going to be an iterative process that requires additional negotiation. There was a list of government constraints that we showed. They said, yes, those are those. Take them out. And then under SB403, which is a new state law, anything that's not in compliance with R1, that gets removed as well. So it's pretty black and white.

At least to us.

We haven't received any letters on this ordinance, so far so good.

So in the next few slides, I'll go through each of the things that are changing that are in the ordinance. The first change is the new request that HCD made or direction that HCA gave us, which is that we need to remove any standards that are in our SB9 ordinance that do not already apply to R1 properties. So things like height limits, setbacks, requirements for particular architectural styles, all those things that we have in our current ordinance that apply only to SB9 units are now being struck from the city's rules. So we will only be applying R1 development standards and design standards to SB9 units. The next change is also in response to a change in state law. It deals with demolition limits. Right now we have a cap on 25% demolition of exterior walls. In order to comply with the change in state law, owners will now be able to fully or partially demolish structures as part of an SB9 project. The next deals with the objective design standards. In our existing ordinance, we have objective standards that deal with the design and the architectural style of SB 9 units. In order to comply with HCD's direction, we are removing all of those standards because those are specific to SB 9 units and not to the R1 code generally. The next deals with just clarifying how ADUs are included in the count for units. So this is just kind of a minor just adjustment in the language to make it very clear how we count ADUs when someone does an SB9 project. And the next slide will kind of make this a little bit more clear to you. So on this table, we're just breaking down some of the various scenarios that homeowners could do. So they have the option of splitting their lot or not splitting their lot. But in either case, they're not going to be able to have more than four units. So in the case of not doing a lot split, they could build two new houses or keep their existing house and build another new house. resulting in two units. They could also have the option of adding an ADU or JADU, which would bring them to four units on the property. The other option is they could split the lot, and then if they split the lot, they would be limited to two new units on each lot, or some other combination.

Mr. Mayor, for Tim, just a question. So if they build two houses or have built one additional house on the lot, so resigning into two, they still are under the same ownership, right? They are not really, but they can't sell one. Right. It would be a single parcel of two units. A single parcel, a single ownership. Yep. Right.

The next change deals with subterranean requirements. So our current ordinance requires that if a SB9 project has a third floor, that third floor needs to be subterranean, below grade. HCD has communicated to us that we cannot make that requirement, that that's a constraint. So we have removed that from our ordinance as well. The next change deals with the minimum unit size. This is a change that's also in response to state law. It was something that we identified in our housing element that we would remove from our code. So from now on, there will not be any minimum unit sizes. They would simply defer to whatever the building code allows. And in that case, the building code would allow a unit as small as 190 square feet. The next change deals with on-site parking. Our current ordinance prohibits SB9 projects from having any kind of parking on the site. They cannot have a garage or a driveway. And if they're trying to take an existing property, they would have to remove the garage and the driveway as part of the project. HCD found that to be a constraint, so we were removing that. So from now on, property owners would be allowed to have garage parking or driveway parking. They would also be eligible for overnight parking permits as well, like any other R1 property.

But if they should build a garage and a driveway, they have to comply with current driveway and garage?

Yes, however, for SB 9 units, the state says that the maximum number of parking spaces a city can require is one space per unit. So that would be similar to what we would have for, say, an ADU. You can't require, say, a two-car garage for the unit. The next change deals with the affordability mandate. We currently require SB9 projects to be affordable, deed restricted for 30 years. The ACD has directed us to remove that from our ordinance. If the council wish to discuss that further, that you could consider maybe doing incentives rather than the current mandates that we have in our code for affordable housing. That's something that is open to consideration. The next change deals with LEED Platinum. We're currently requiring that projects be LEED Platinum, which is a very high level of environmentally friendly construction. Per the findings of the constraints analysis and the direction of HDD, we are now simply going to rely on Cal Green's code for sustainable building standards. The next change deals with the annual inspections to verify homeowner occupancy because the properties do need to be owner occupied in order to be eligible for these types of projects. However, HCD has said that we cannot have any type of biannual, any type of inspection, formal inspection program. That doesn't prohibit the city's code enforcement from, say, trying to investigate to see if maybe there's some issue. But we can't have a formal program where we charge a fee or require that we go on the site to verify these things. The next change deals with appeals. So because this is a ministerial, meaning a project that you check off the boxes, either it meets the requirements or it doesn't, because it's this type of a project, we are not allowed to have any type of appeals. The only case where appeals would be allowed is if we were for some reason to deny the project and then that would give the homeowner an opportunity to appeal to the next level so they could go to the planning commission or to the council to appeal that decision. And this is mainly to prevent delays from third parties. With that, we recommend that you introduce for first reading by title only, and we further reading of Ordinance 26-1091, and then schedule the second reading for August 18th. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, we'll go to council questions. Council Member Chavez.

Not at this time, thank you.

Council Member Sternquist.

In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest change that really goes against what we've been trying to accomplish? It seems like so much of local control is gone anyway. But specifically, I know you mentioned that the R1 standards are now applied to SB9 ADUs, correct? And so, Are the R1 standards are not as stringent, I guess, right? Or they're not as strict as the SB9 rules?

I wouldn't say that they're not as strict, because our R1 code has design criteria, development standards dealing with the setbacks and building heights. I think the big difference, you're right, this is the biggest change. And it's that the HCD and the state is telling us that we can't treat these projects differently than we would any other single family project. We have to treat them like they're single family houses. So in that case, we have to just simply apply these single family standards.

So basically, since we took away the design standards, the things that you showed, so they pretty much can now come in and if they want to make it look like a triangle or whatever, they can.

I wouldn't say that because we do have design criteria in our code. But we're not limiting them to say in the existing ordinance we have, we're limiting them to specific architectural styles that they're only allowed to do for these projects. So now a homeowner would have a little bit more flexibility in terms of picking a style for their building when right now we're telling them you have to do it only in this style.

How do you think that is going to impact the city?

It remains to be seen. We haven't received any applications. Actually, I take that back. We did receive one application. However, it's pending right at this point in time upon adoption of this ordinance.

So I guess it doesn't matter because we have to do it. But the thing is, you as staff has worked so hard in developing these things. And then it's just like in a flash. Guess what? All that work doesn't matter anymore.

I think one of the challenges we have with SB9 is that any new design requirements have to be objective in nature. Our current R1 design requirements are not objective. They're subjective. So we can't really apply those design requirements to an SB9 project. If we wanted to fix that, what we'd have to do is we would have to make both the R1 standards and the SB9 standards objective. So then we would be losing that subjective conversation that we have with residents about the design of their new house or about the design of their addition. We'd be losing that subjective conversation and we'd be moving to a very black and white objective standard. That's a direction that some cities have decided to take and that's entirely up to you. I would suggest though that the R1 code is not broken. We're not getting complaints about how the R1 projects are being built and we're not seeing a strong demand for SB9 projects. What we're seeing is that With an ADU, you can do four units on a property. With an SB9 project, you can do four units on a property. So for a lot of developers, it's like, I might as well just do an ADU project rather than do an SB9 project. So we're not seeing a huge demand for it. So from staff's perspective, it may not be worth going through the process of changing the design guidelines and changing the design standards in the city to fix an issue that may not be as large at this point as we think it might become.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have no more questions. Thank you, Mayor.

And I have none at this time, so go ahead and open public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'll go to Madam City Clerk. Are there any callers or virtual participants who wish to speak on items on this item?

Mayor Pro Tem Chen, there are no remote or phone callers, but we did receive a written public comment from the California Housing Defense Fund, and the written comment has been distributed to City Council.

Thank you. At this time, I'll close public hearing, and I'll come back to the Council for final questions and comments. Council Member Chavez?

None.

Council Member Sternquist? Council Member Yu?

I just want to make a quick comment. I think I appreciate what staff has done. It's a great effort. I think a previous effort was good, too, I must admit. But I think if this aligns with what the state requires, I think that's what we need to do. And I read through the staff report, and I totally agree with what we're doing. So I just want to comment. Great job.

Great. I echo those comments. At this time, can I have a motion for this item?

I move that we introduce for first reading by title only and wait for the reading of ordinance number 26-1091 and schedule the second reading of ordinance number 26-1091 for August 18, 2026.

Second. It's been motioned and seconded. Roll call, please.

Council Member Chavez?

Yes.

Council Member Sternquist? Yes. Council Member Yu? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Chen?

Yes. And City Clerk, if you could please read the title of the ordinance.

Thank you. Ordinance number 26-1091, an ordinance of the City Council of City of Temple City, California to amend Chapter 9.1, Zoning Regulations of the Temple City Municipal Code relating to urban dwelling units and urban lot splits.

Great, all right, moving on to item B. I see Mr. Gulick already in the presenter's seat. Go ahead, turn it over to you, Mr. City Manager.

This is item AP, introduction of the first reading of the ordinance related to changes to the ADUs. Similar in context to our process with HCD and some of the comments we've heard from other stakeholders, PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY IS CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSE FOR OUR ADU AND JADU, WHICH MR. GULICK WILL GO OVER. I'D LIKE TO THANK AGAIN THE ASSISTANCE OF SAGE CREST PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ALONG WITH STAFF AND ALONG WITH HCD AS WELL AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, AS WE stated before, not an iterative process, but a process that does provide communication so we know that we are going along the right track and that we are being receptive but also compliant with what state law does require of us. And to an earlier point, Still doing our best to keep the nature and character of this community in place. I think that's one of the key things. And that is, if I may, Mayor Pro Tem, that is kudos to staff. Kudos and thank you to the Planning Commission as well, because we're dealing with all these changes, being good partners with the state of California and complying with state law, but also still keeping the character of what Temple City looks like. Reflected in the ADUs and the JADU changes as well is many of those characteristics, but also ensuring that from a technical standpoint, we're complying with all the state requirements. So with that, Mayor Pro Tem, I'll turn it over to Mr. Gillette.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, council members, members of the audience. A brief background about the ADU regulations in the state. State law was adopted in 2016, went into effect on January 1, 2017. The city adopted its own ordinance in 2017 with some updates after that. Since 2017, the state has passed several laws to revise the ADU requirements. In 2020, the city had the housing element was certified by the state, HCD. They include program B5, which is to maintain compliance with state ADU law. In 2025, the city received a formal letter from HCD identifying portions of the city's ADU ordinance that conflicted with state law. So most of those are included, or I should say all of those are included in the proposed ordinance before you tonight. The item was heard by the Planning Commission in May 2026 with a recommendation to approve the code amendments that are attached tonight. Most of the changes are clarifications, updates to be in compliance with state ADU law and also remove some of the items that the HCD has identified being conflicting with state law. Some of the updates that were made are regarding definitions, definitions of modifying some of the definitions that are in our zoning ordinance to be consistent with state ADU law. Additionally, there's some new definitions that are added to the city's zoning code that were not in there and are referenced in the state ADU law. Next is the ADU review deadline. So there are specific deadlines that were added to the state ADU law. For projects that have only an ADU, those projects are by right. So kind of like what Andrew Coyne mentioned previously, If they check all the boxes, then the city should be approving it. Essentially, 800 square foot ADU, we have to allow up to 800 square feet. And if it has a four foot side and rear setback, then we should be approving those projects. The state included a new completeness deadline, so within 15 business days, so three weeks from when we receive the application, we need to notify the applicant whether or not they're missing any items in order for us to make a decision. Also being included is that the city must approve or deny an ADU application within 60 days. And then the code also, or the proposed ordinance will establish a appeal process within 15 days of a project being considered incomplete or denied. If a project does include other items or developments such as an addition or a new house or multifamily development, then those would be subject to the regular zoning code requirements. It wouldn't have to follow the ADU streamline review deadlines that are mentioned in here. The next item provides clarification on what is allowed for ADUs or JADUs on a lot. So the first part is a single family property. So one house on a lot. You could have your main house, and I have some graphics following this description here, but you have one main house, one JADU or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit within the existing house or an attached garage, and then also you could do one detached ADU. For multi-families, you can, for existing lots with multiple units, You can do up to eight detached units, not to exceed the existing number of units on the property. And you're also allowed to do minimum one ADU or conversion of non-habitable space, so a carport, garage, or laundry room. And you can do up to 25% of the existing units. If you're proposing a new development, you can have up to two new detached ADUs on the property.

Mr. Mayor Patel, may I ask a question? Yes. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think we have that many or have any multifamily Any ADUs in multifamily projects?

We have had one that I'm aware of. And I think we just received a new application. There's one on the east side of the city. I don't know what street it's on. But there is an existing, I think, think 16 units, and they converted their carports, garages into four new ADUs. I see. OK. Adam.

Yes. I'm trying to think of the street. It has an alley behind it. It is west of Woodruff. No, west of Primrose. And there's an alley there. It might be one of the next couple streets. But they have an upstairs apartment. It's a multi-unit. They had three small garages or two. Do you know where that is, Scott? And those are now converted into ADUs. I was shocked, because they used to be small little garages, and now people are living in there.

Yeah. So under state law, you can do ADUs not just on single family properties, but also multifamily. And it's actually, if it's an existing multifamily site, the code's actually a little bit more a lenient, so you can do more units. So you can convert up to 25% of the units on site. Well, you take the number of units on site, you multiply it by 25%, and that's the number of units you can convert on site. So that's probably what happened in that case. So if there was eight units on the site, you could convert two of the garages to an ADU.

I don't think there's that many. But I'm curious, is there a minimum size that those

Under state law, it's 190 square feet. So it just falls under what the building code says. But I know it sounds small. And there's some downsides to having a small unit. But there are some upsides, which is if it's a smaller unit, you're likely putting less strain on the neighborhood. So you're having smaller units in neighborhoods rather than larger units. We do get people who want to come in and do a 1,200 square foot unit or a 1,000 square foot unit. Instead, you're getting only 190 square feet. And those units also tend to provide affordable units, which is good for our arena numbers. We can demonstrate that it's providing affordable housing.

Are those units more like a studio?

Yeah, they'd be a studio at that point.

They'd be a studio.

Most likely.

All right, thank you.

I have a follow-up question to what was discussed. So if they convert a multifamily project into and then use the garages as ADUs, I think the law does not require them to replace the garages. So then where do people park? And they have to get an overnight parking permit, right? Yes. And then we allow that? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

There's my question.

OK, so some illustrations to the previous slide that I had. So this is a single family lot. They have one main house on the property. They can convert the existing attached garage, the yellow or orangish area on the left part of the slide. You could do a new detached ADU, which is the green area at the top right part of the slide, and then convert part of the existing house to the junior accessory dwelling unit, the purple area there. It's a total of four units.

And they can have all three, right?

Correct. So for multifamily, so this is just a graphic of eight units, each with their own two-car garage. what the option would be for them to do. So they can convert two of the garages, which would be 25% of the existing units, and then they could build up to eight detached ADUs, not to exceed the number of units on the property. So for a new construction, new multifamily project, this is kind of similar to the The first slide, except this is brand new construction, so they could do a regular standard development, or if they wanted to, state law allows them to do up to two detached ADUs. So maximum heights, that's another thing that was modified in the code. So the state allow or require cities to allow if an ADU is attached to the house, that it could be up to the maximum height of that zone. So our zoning code, depending on the lot size, if it's less than 75 feet in width, you could go up to 28 feet. Or if you have a lot over 75 feet, you could go up to 32. So the maximum height, if it's attached to the primary house, could be that maximum height. If it's detached, the maximum height is 16 feet. And then the state has added an additional, if it's a detached ADU and it's near a high quality transit stop, you're allowed up to 18 feet plus an additional two feet for the roof pitch. So anywhere between 18 to 20 feet. So some of the development standards that we had in our code were some requirements. So now we've kind of changed that because we've been told that we can't prevent someone from doing the 800 square foot ADU if it complies essentially with the setbacks and the height requirement. So we have changed some of those previous requirements. We have changed them to that you could have that waived as part of what your proposal is. So if someone has a development and they're unable to comply with the FAR or lot coverage or the size of the ADU, we previously had a limited, could not exceed 50% the size of the main house. Or minimum open space requirement, we did have a 400 square foot open space requirement for the ADU. The height, design or setback. So some of those things can be waived if the applicant were to request that and it would depend on the situation. Whether or not any of these development standards would prevent someone from building an 800 square foot ADU. One thing that was added was new paving. Any new paving as part of ADU would need to comply with our regular development standards. And then what was mentioned previously, the removal of the size requirements based on the number of bedrooms, that was in our code previously, so that was being removed. Some other miscellaneous items that are being removed from the code, owner occupancy requirement. So in the earlier versions of the state ADU law, JADUs, they required that the owner live on the property. And they have revised it now where the owner is only required to live on the property and the city could require a covenant. if the JADU shares a bathroom or a kitchen with the main house. So if a JADU, so if you have your existing house and someone's converting maybe a part back of the house, oversized bedroom or has its own kitchen, they have their own kitchen, they have their own restroom, it's completely separated from the house, then the owner wouldn't be required to live on the property. So that's one of the new changes to state law. And then some other things here regarding the ADU must be on a permanent foundation. That's more of a building code requirement. ADU addressing, so it just needs to comply with the city's current addressing policy, which we already have. One other thing is the city cannot require a correction of non-conforming conditions. And then if a lot is created through SB9, if they do a lot split, then they would not be allowed to do additional ADUs or JADUs beyond whatever is allowed by SB9. And with that, staff is recommending that the city council introduce the first reading by title only and waive further reading of ordinance number 26-1087 and schedule the second reading for August 18th. And I'm available if you have any questions.

All right. Bring it to the council for council questions. Council Member Chavez.

No.

Council Member Sternquist?

No.

Council Member Yu? No additional questions, thank you. And I have none. At this time, I'll open public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak on this matter? Yes, Ms. Chambazian?

Good evening, Jerry Jambazian. I have a question maybe on the second or the third slide regarding the application process and the number of days. One of them was 15 business days and the other one was just regular 15 regular days. And I'm wondering why they're not the same.

That's very good, and I think even though this is a public comment, I think we'll allow some time to give to city manager.

Sure. What is dictated by state law, we'll make sure that there is consistency between the two. Whatever is dictated by state law is what we will be following.

Greg, is that usually business days?

Well, I believe that business days is what state law requires for ADUs and that the city's normal process for an appeal is 15 regular days. So what we're doing is keeping the appeal provision consistent with everything else in the city while meeting the requirement that the state puts on staff to do the completeness review.

Okay. Thank you for that. What if the 15 days pulls on a Sunday?

It's extended to the next business.

All right. Is there anyone else in the audience who wish to speak on this matter? Seeing none, City Clerk, are there any callers or virtual participants who wish to speak on items on this item?

Mayor Pro Tem Chen, there are no callers or virtual participants who are making a request to speak on this item, but I do want to make a correction. The previous written public comment is regarding ADU and Junior ADU and not SB9. Thank you.

Got it. Noted. At this time, I'll go ahead and close public hearing, and we'll bring it back to the council for final questions and comments. Council Member Chavez?

Nothing further.

Council Member Sternquist?

None, thank you.

Council Member Yu.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor Bertram. I just want to make a quick comment. I think the city's been doing a great job in meeting arena numbers. We've been encouraging development. And if the public doesn't know, I just want to cite that back in 2025, Los Angeles Times actually wrote an article on ADUs. And Temple City's actually cited one of the cities that permitted the most ADU construction. And that was even before what the proposed ordinance changes tonight. So I trust that with the change, we'll be seeing even more ADU construction. But I also must say that I think staff has done a great job in incorporating the ADU requirements. Because I think I would challenge most people, if you drive around town, you actually don't even see the ADUs, so they were blended so well into our neighborhood, so just want to say great job again to staff, and I think we have a great ordinance in front of us.

Ed? Yes. Just in response to that, I think, yes, you're absolutely right about they blend in, but one noticeable difference is there's no place to park on residential streets overnight.

That's true.

It's becoming more and more People are becoming more and more aggressive about their parking. They're leaving their trash cans out. I see it.

Yeah, I think that's something that may not be for tonight, but I think that is something that the city manager is going to bring back. I mean, if you convert a garage into a living unit, there's nowhere to park. They have the park in the street.

You know, you're right. It's not for tonight. But just a question. Do public, I mean, private parking lots, like the one where the Alpha Beta site is adjacent to it, on the corner of Primrose and Temple City Boulevard, the residents now in that area are parking there overnight. And so that parking lot used to be always empty. And now that parking lot has at least 10 to 14 cars overnight. But the city doesn't enforce parking in those lots, right? It's up to the owner. Is that how that works for parking? I mean, I think it's great that they're able to park there, honestly.

Yeah, we don't enforce parking on private property.

So I mean, it's nice for the people there because they can park there.

Great discussion all around. I don't have any further comments, so I will entertain a motion for this item.

I'll make a motion. I don't have the paper in front of me. I'll do it. I'll go ahead, Tom.

I'm gonna make a motion to introduce ordinance number 26-1087 for first reading a title only, amending various sections of the Title IX zoning regulations of the Tennessee Municipal Code relating to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and finding the ordinance. exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Wait for further reading of ordinance number 26-1087. Schedule a second reading of ordinance 26-1087 for August 18th, 2026. Second.

There's been a motion and seconded it. We have a roll call, please.

Council Member Chavez? Yes. Council Member Sternquist? Yes. Council Member Yu? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Chen?

Yes. City Clerk, can you please read the title of the ordinance?

Thank you. Ordinance number 26-1087, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temple City, California, amending sections 9-1A-12, definitions 9-1G-12F, accessory uses of structures, 9-1G-22E, Accessory Use and Structures. 9-1G-32E, Accessory Uses and Structures. And 9-1T13, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior EDU Dwelling Units of the Temple City Municipal Code.

All right, we're moving on to item nine, Unfinished Business. We have none. Item 10, New Business. We have none. Number 11, Update from our City Manager.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Chen, and thank you for filling in tonight, running the meeting as well, Mayor Pro Tem. Quickly, a couple things. National Eye out tomorrow night. We'll have some special guests. We'll start at about 6 o'clock. A lot of the sheriff's equipment. Thank you to Council Member Sternquist. We will have the... cooling bus, foothill cooling bus, deciding where it's likely to be on Golden West. So if you're hot, you can enjoy an indoor spacious bus, cool down. And thank you to our dedicated team and our CSOs and our Parks and Recreation Department and Ruby Ramos, who've been assisting us through another national night out. And officially today, Sheriff Captain Sharif Morrissey is now the captain of the Temple Station. So I think he may try to come by tomorrow, but he'll introduce himself formally to everybody and to the community over the next couple weeks as he's getting acclimated. formerly with the station in the early 2010 era. Previously, for the last about six months or so, has been the operational lieutenant at the industry station in the city of industry and those surrounding communities. And then two, I've been doing the correspondence regarding Measure G and the task force.

Sorry, go ahead. A quick question. Is Sheriff Luna is going to come? Has he confirmed?

Council Member Yu, that may be our special guest. It's not 100% confirmed yet, but it's very likely that Sheriff Zuna will be at our event tomorrow.

Why is it such a... Is it a secret or something? Surprise, yes. Are we expected to be part of that program?

I'll make sure to let you know, and I'll have the information from the Sheriff's Department as soon as I have it confirmed.

So they just haven't confirmed it?

It hasn't been fully confirmed yet.

That's all.

And then I've been corresponding with the Measure G Task Force, which we've had some correspondence in the last few weeks and sent some today as well. I'd like to thank, I'd like to particular shout out to the St. Gabriel Valley COG, the Gateway COG, and the South Bay COG who are helping to be clearing houses for some of the information and feedback that we'll be writing to the Measure G Task Force the most significant monumental change in county governance is happening. So I want to thank them for providing that avenue for all cities to give feedback and participate. That's it for me and Mayor Pro Tem today.

Compost. Sorry? Compost.

Thank you, Mr. Jambazian. This Saturday, 8 AM, be there, be square. Compost giveaway by our waste management provider and partner, Afton Services, will be out. It usually runs out pretty quickly. So we'll be out there on Saturday in the morning at 8 AM at Livewood Park. Thank you, Mr. Jambazian. That should be it.

All right. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Chen. Thank you. All right. So next, item number 12, update from city attorney.

No legal news tonight, sir.

Thank you, sir. We'll go on to item number 13, council reports regarding ad hoc or standing committee meetings. Have any updates?

Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I don't have a report, but I just want to say that the – facilities, public works and infrastructure standing committee has been working and we'll be meeting two weeks again on the paper management plan. So after that hopefully we'll bring back a report. Thank you.

All right, moving on, number 14,