San Marino City Council
February 9, 2022

Table 22: Community Development Department Fee Schedule Item/Permit Type Base Fee Basis for Valuation/Square Foot Cost Planning Fees
Design Review Committee
- Major
- Minor
$865
$285
N/A
Variance Application
Minor Variance
Major Variance
Creation of 300-foot Radius
Ownership List
Minor Exception
$1,260
$2,450
$65
$145
N/A
Conditional Use Permit Application
Minor CUP
Major CUP
Creation of 300-foot Radius
Ownership List
$1,420
$3,165
$65
N/A
Subdivisions or Lot-Splits $2,175 + $2,000
deposit
N/A
Rezone or Boundary Change $5,000 deposit +
hourly costs
N/A
Lot Line Adjustment $295 + $2,000 deposit N/A
Modification to Variance or
Conditional Use Permit
$955 N/A
Appeals
To Planning Commission
To City Council
$805
$805
N/A
Negative Declaration Fee $830 N/A
Inspection Fees
Residential Compliance Inspection
Reports
$65 N/A
Special Inspections $160 each N/A
Certificate of Use and Occupancy $95 each N/A

Table 23: Average Plan Check and Permit Fees for a New House Fee Average Fees for a New Single-Family House
Permits, Plan Check, & School Facility
Fees
Building Permit – Dwellings
Processing
Microfilming
Based on square
footage/ valuation of
work
$28.70
$3.00
Type V Wood Frame Additions or
Alterations - $125.00/sq. ft.

Basements - $83/sq. ft.

Garages - $36.00/sq. ft.

Patio Covers - $36.00/sq. ft.

Block Walls - $11.00 - 13
.00/sq. ft., depending on height.

Electrical Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per electrical permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Mechanical Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per mechanical permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Plumbing Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per plumbing permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Swimming Pool or Spa
Processing
Microfilming
$28.70
$3.00
Swimming Pool - $120.00 each
Spa - $60.00 each
Plan Check Fee Based on valuation of
work
N/A
Grading
Plan Check
Permit
Hourly rate from
consultant
Based on valuation
N/A
Solar Panel System $500 Flat fee (permit and plan check) School Facility Fees (applies only to
increase in square footage of 500 sq.
ft. or more)
$3.79/sq. ft. for
projects over
500 sq. ft.

N/A
Education Fee 3% of building permit
cost
N/A
General Plan Maintenance Fee 7% of building permit
cost
N/A
Source: City of San Marino, 2021

Plan Check (Building) $4,319
Plan Check (Planning) $200
Grading (Plan Check and Permit) $757.44
Demo $191.69
Building Permit $4,280.23
Mechanical Permit $298.11
Electrical Permit $249.46
Plumbing Permit $385.44
Fire Sprinkler (Plan Check and Permit) $473.25
Fire Alarm (Plan Check and Permit) $531.96
School Fees $5286.13
TOTAL $16,973.26
Source: City of San Marino, 2021

Compared to new houses, Accessory Dwelling Units have lower development costs because they take advantage of already-existing infrastructure and can also be created within an existing structure. Instead of calculating average costs, a typical one-bedroom ADU of 600 square feet was considered for the fees in Table 24 below. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) have no development or school fees.

Table 24: Average Plan Check and Permit Fees for Accessory Dwelling Unit Fee Approximate fees for a new ADU
Plan Check (Building) $818.75
Plan Check (Planning) $200
Building Permit $966.56
Mechanical Permit $84.50
Electrical Permit $47.00
Plumbing Permit $89
Fire Sprinkler (Plan Check and Permit) $473.25
Fire Alarm (Plan Check and Permit) $531.96
School Fees $1,920
TOTAL $5,131.02
Source: City of San Marino, 2021

These appear to be reasonable fees given the scope of work for projects in San Marino.

Development fees do not seem to impede development in San Marino. The much larger cost involved in developing homes is the high cost of land in San Marino. Because the land cost is removed from the cost of an ADU or JADU on a parcel with an existing home, these housing types have the best potential to be constructed and rented within an affordable range.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The City of San Marino's development approval process is designed to accommodate and not hinder development. Other than legally required public hearing notice and environmental review

periods, developers and property owners are not hindered by “down time” in application processing. All new homes require Design Review Committee approval, which is a public hearing process. This helps ensure that new homes are compatible with the neighborhood and do not negatively impact the neighbors. The City has Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines which encourage the use of certain design features and materials. The Guidelines are not requirements but assist applicants in designing a project that will move more quickly through the approval process. The Design Review Committee also holds “open forum” sessions where applicants can get informal, preliminary feedback on a design, which will also help facilitate the approval process.

The design review process consists of the applicant filing an application, processing fee ($865) and one set of plans. Staff then reviews the proposal and responds with a letter indicating any code issues or design concerns that should be addressed. After the applicant addresses the comment letter, they submit eight sets of plans which are distributed to the Design Review Committee for their review. The applicant must also present their plans to their neighbors as part of this process. The Code dictates that the notified neighbors must include two neighbors on each side of the subject property; all properties adjoining the rear of the subject property and one on either side of those properties; and the properties across from the subject property and one on either side of those properties. This usually comprises about 10-12 neighbors depending on how the lots are arranged. This is primarily to make sure neighbors are aware of the proposed project and to give them an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments. Even if all neighbors approve of or object to the project, it would still proceed to the Design Review Committee for their review. Once the eight sets of revised plans are submitted and the neighbor notification process is completed, staff assigns the project to the next available agenda and notices the project for a public hearing. This process typically takes about 8 weeks (about 2 months) in total. Once the project is approved, the applicant could submit for building plan check after the 15-day appeal period has expired (Source: City of San Marino, 2021).

The City has adopted Residential Design Guidelines to guide residents as well as review by the DRC (Design Review Committee). The purpose of these design guidelines is to provide a clear and concise summary of the City’s design policies for projects within the City’s residential neighborhoods. The guidelines address neighborhood compatibility, site development, physical design components, and landscaping.

Certain projects that exceed Code allowances or otherwise require an additional level of review will require either a Variance or Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These applications are heard by the Planning Commission. If the project also requires Design Review, the Planning Commission will review both actions. City staff tries to work with applicants ahead of time to determine the feasibility of their proposed project. Staff tries to guide applicants toward a solution that has the best chances of approval. Depending on the complexity of the project, initial Community Development Department review for new construction requiring Design Review Committee (DRC) or Planning Commission review averages approximately three to four weeks. Table 25 illustrates the approximate local processing times for developments in San Marino.

Table 25: Local Development Processing Time
Item Approximate Length of Time from Submittal
to Public Hearing
Conditional Use Permit 45-90 days
Design Review 30-90 days
Tentative Tract Map/Parcel Map/Subdivision 45-90 days
Variance 45-90 days
Zoning Amendments or Zone Change 45-90 days
General Plan Amendment 45-90 days
Environmental Initial Study 60 days
Source: City of San Marino, 2021
Table 25 identifies the approximate time from submittal to the initial public hearing. Since projects may require more than one hearing before the Planning Commission or DRC, it is also important to consider the length of time between submittal and approval or denial. For 2021, City staff reviewed the total amount of time it took for a project to go from the initial submittal by the applicant to an approval or denial from the DRC or Planning Commission. Staff found that the average time to process a variance application was 56 days, the average time to process a CUP application was 61 days, and the average time to process a DRC application was 68 days.

These time frames include the time that the applicant spends correcting or changing plans at the direction of staff or the approving body, as well as multiple hearings, if necessary.

Once projects have completed the public hearing process, or once staff determines the project does not require a hearing, the applicant may submit for building plan check. The City of San Marino contracts with an outside plan checker for this service. Once the plans are structurally approved, they are reviewed by both the Planning and Fire Departments. Informal conversations with some architects indicate that the City processes plans within a reasonable time frame; however, other architects and some public input has indicated that the time to get a new home approved is extensive even if the design guidelines are followed. Establishing a set of objective design and development standards will be important to overcome any delays and to allow ministerial processing of residential permits where required by law.

Historic Preservation
The City of San Marino is dedicated to preserving its Historical Resources. The City administers its own designation program for historic landmarks within the City. These resources are governed at the local level by Chapter 23.18 of the San Marino Municipal Code. While designated historic properties have additional requirements for development or redevelopment, these do not pose as a significant constraint because there are only eleven designated historic properties identified within the City. However, in the 2020 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Report, field surveyors identified a total of 286 resources that appear eligible for listing as a City of San Marino Historic Landmark, and several historic districts were named by the City.

Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards affecting housing units include geologic and seismic conditions that provide the greatest threat to the built environment. The City has identified areas where land development should be carefully controlled. The following hazards may impact future development of residential units in the City:
• Seismic Hazards: The City regulates the construction of new habitable structures within the identified hazard areas, shown in Figure 18, through the requirement of setbacks and construction standards in accordance with State law. Design and construction requirements related to seismic hazards are based on hazard mapping and Seismic Design Categories. The San Marino Municipal Code provides requirements and regulations for different Seismic Design Categories. These building requirements are likely to increase costs of housing development but are necessary to mitigate risks and minimize loss of life and property associated with these hazards.
(Source: CGS Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map) • Flooding: The City is at minimal risk for flooding; however, three specific flood areas have been identified which are susceptible to localized flooding in an intense storm period.

No major water courses traverse the City. There is no threat of water damage from either a seiche or a tsunami condition.

Figure 18: Fault, Liquefaction and Landslide Zones Map

• Dust and High Wind Hazards: This condition results in property damage from high winds, wind tunneling and channeling effects of buildings, soil erosion, and unpleasant living conditions. San Marino has experienced isolated high wind events in the past, prompting the City and homeowners to consider high wind hazards. For example, properly maintained trees are an important factor in reducing property damage during wind events. • Toxic and Hazardous Wastes: In San Marino, air pollution is the main area of concern relative to toxic substances. Major point sources of air pollution come from the variety of industrial uses throughout the region. The primary source, however, is automobile traffic. • Fire Hazards: There are no fire hazard severity zones within San Marino as identified by CAL FIRE. However, the City has established its own locally designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) with more stringent fire-safe building requirements.

These requirements affect the Estate Residential zone in the northwest area of the City, shown in Figure 20, which has increased fire risk due to its hilly topography, vegetation, and the presence of wood shake shingle roofs. The City has adopted the 2019 California Fire Code, which addresses requirements for fire sprinklers and fire alarms in residential buildings as well as brush clearance for homes in the locally designated VHFHSZ. These building requirements are likely to increase costs of housing development but are necessary to mitigate risks and minimize loss of life and property associated with these hazards. Furthermore, these hazards should be considered when making changes to residential density in the City, to avoid placing more homes at increased risk due to fire hazards.

Figure 19: CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map
Source: CAL FIRE

Figure 20: City of San Marino Enhanced Fire Inspection Zone Map

Source: City of San Marino Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019 • Noise: Residential uses are considered a noise-sensitive use rather than a noisegenerating use and are the most sensitive to loud noise. The principal noise sources in San Marino generate from local traffic, and noise measurement taken in 2021 indicate that traffic noise levels have not increased over the last ten years. Noise is not considered a significant problem in the City. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dB(A) as suitable for residential spaces; this can typically be achieved through standard construction methods.

Infrastructure Constraints
San Marino is a fully developed city and there are very few on or off-site improvements that are required as part of the development of housing. Most housing construction involves the demolition of an existing housing unit and the construction of a replacement unit, meaning all infrastructure is already in place. As part of the building permit process, the City will occasionally require the provision of on-site and off-site improvements necessitated by the development, such as improvements to curbs and gutters, alleys, streets, sidewalks, streetlights, and utility undergrounding. The cost of such improvements may increase the cost of development, which would ultimately be passed through to future tenants or owners. While these costs may not render a project infeasible, they contribute to the range of factors that affect the affordability of a project.
• Energy: Compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code on the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation has reduced energy demand stemming from new residential development. Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Efficiency Standards, is a set of requirements for energy conservation, green design, construction maintenance, safety, and accessibility. Title 24 was published by the California Building Standards Code and applies to all buildings in California, not just state-owned buildings and requires all residential construction to meet minimum energy conservation standards through either a prescriptive or performance-based approach. The former approach requires each individual component of a building to meet an identified minimum energy requirement.

The performance approach, on the other hand, allows developers to choose a range of measures which, in total, meet specified energy conservation targets. Title 24 regulations and requirements are enforced when an applicant pulls a building permit for a proposed project and have plans reviewed or a building inspected.

In addition to Title 24, all residential projects are required to meet state building codes, which also include energy conservation standards. The California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Building Codes based on model codes produced by various professional organizations.

Promoting energy conservation has become a consistent theme in regulations, green building practices, and general business operations. For San Marino, opportunities flourish to promote energy-efficient practices in the siting, design, construction, and renovation of housing stock. These practices not only respond to regulatory requirements, but also can

generate significant community, environmental, and economic benefits and do not constitute constraints on housing development.
• Water: The California America Water Company provides water services for the City of San Marino. Adequate water is available to serve existing and projected residences through 2021 and do not pose a constraint to development. See Section 3.6.1 for additional discussion regarding infrastructure available to support residential development.

4.5 FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS

4.5.1 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Assembly Bill 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH) was adopted into law in 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2019. The law requires state and local agencies to take proactive measures to correct any housing inequalities related to race, national origin, color, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability, religion, or other protected characteristics. Agencies must ensure that their laws and programs affirmatively further fair housing, and that they take no actions that do not do so.

Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing, or AFFH, means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Agencies must include in their Housing Elements a program that promotes fair housing opportunities for all persons. In the context of a community’s housing needs, AFFH is not just about the number of units needed, but also about where the units are located and who has access to them. AB 686 makes certain requirements for the analysis of fair housing issues; this analysis is contained in Section 4 along with a history of San Marino and its past practices of allowing only single-family homes.

As HCD guidance for fair housing assessments was released after the first administrative draft of the Housing Element Update was complete, this section of the housing element was updated and distributed separately for stakeholder input and public outreach. At the time of this draft, HCD guidance was to provide analysis in five different subsections: enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration patterns and trends, disparities in access to opportunity, disproportionate housing needs, and areas of concentration in poverty and affluence across racial and ethnic groups. This analysis and the related data are provided in Section 4 and summarized here.

San Marino is more racially diverse than the average U.S. city. While there is a somewhat greater White population in the northwestern part of the City and a slightly greater Asian population in the southeastern part of the City, there are no areas of ethnic or economic concentration. Median incomes are high and fairly stable throughout the City, as is the racial mix of its citizens. While there are a considerable number of lower-income senior households in San Marino, most (89.2%) own their homes and are not concentrated in any area or neighborhood. It is a well-integrated community, and the entire City is designated as an Area of Opportunity. This designation is based

on the consideration of factors affecting the quality of life and health outcomes including educational enrollment and attainment; employment rates; lack of overcrowding in housing or overpayment for housing costs; transportation costs; and environmental health. However, the City is notably more expensive than the surrounding areas, with median gross rents above $3000 per month and most mortgages above $4000 per month. Although median household incomes in San Marino are high compared to the surrounding areas, even moderate- and middle-income households cannot afford a home in San Marino where the median sales price exceeds $2 million.

San Marino currently lacks homes for these households, which include young families and firsttime homebuyers, which perpetuates exclusivity and can lead to inequity.

San Marino’s rich and varied past spans multiple eras of California history and is associated with cultural and social themes that were definitive in the history of Los Angeles County and Southern California. Since its 1913 incorporation, “the City envisioned itself as a residential enclave for people of means, with zoning that ensured minimal commercial development and no industry or multi-family residences” (Source: San Marino Historic Resources Survey Report, October 2020).

To ensure that property valuation would remain high, developers established expensive minimum home building costs, and racially restrictive covenants were incorporated into home deed sales – a practice that was common throughout Southern California and much of the country in the 1920s. These practices, coupled with the formation of the national Homeowner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1933 and passage of the National Housing Act (NHA), established systemic redlining practices throughout the Los Angeles region, including in San Marino, leading to the physical development pattern and single-family feel that is still experienced throughout the City today. Although redlining classifications practices were made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, single-family zoning is still considered exclusionary as it prohibits the development of the kind of housing that is typically more affordable to lower-income households.

San Marino is almost entirely residential, with its built environment dominated by detached singlefamily homes constructed primarily between the 1920s and the 1960s. As of 2021, there were no areas zoned for multi-family residences, or for industry/manufacturing. Small areas on Huntington Drive and Mission Street are zoned for commercial use, and the City has recently approved a mixed-use project on a commercial street. While not intending to be exclusionary, San Marino’s past prohibition of anything but single-family homes has had the effect of excluding persons who do not have incomes high enough to live in the City. Because poverty occurs most often with person of color, these practices have resulted in the exclusion of protected classes even though they were not intended to.

AB 686 requires that the City adopt programs to overcome and reverse this pattern of exclusion, and to identify locations for affordable housing through the AFFH lens. To do this, programs are included that change the zoning to allow for all types of housing, including the multi-family apartments and duplexes that have previously been banned in the City. Additionally, the location of potential housing sites to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA is considered through an equity lens, not only by choosing locations in areas throughout the City but also by including to promote the development of duplexes. ADUs, and affordable JADUs in all the City’s exclusive residential neighborhoods. Section 2 includes the policies and programs to reverse exclusionary zoning and to affirmatively further fair housing; Section 3 contains the sites location information and maps.

4.5.2 Fair Housing Enforcement and Public Outreach
Federal and State Regulations and Enforcement
Federal, state, and local laws make it illegal to discriminate based on a person’s protected class.

At the federal level, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act also make it illegal to discriminate based on marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other arbitrary forms of discrimination. Federal and state fair housing law both prohibit intentional housing discrimination and prohibit any actions or policies which may have a discriminatory effect on a protected group of people. Examples of policies or practices with discriminatory effects include exclusionary zoning and land use policies, mortgage lending and insurance practices, and residential rules that may indirectly inhibit religious or cultural expression. Both the state and the federal government have structures in place to process and investigate fair housing complaints. In California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains the authority to investigate complaints of discrimination related to employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence. The agency processes complaints online, over the phone and by mail. At a federal level, HUD also processes, investigates, and enforces any complaints in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Fair Housing Education and Enforcement at a Local Level The City has a robust Code Enforcement policy, but it is not relevant to Fair Housing as it is mainly focused on Code violations pertaining to the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion, and alteration of buildings.

Fair Housing Complaints
According to data from HUD, there have been zero Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity complaints in the City.

Public Housing
The City of San Marino does not currently have any public housing buildings in the City limits.

Likewise, there are no residents receiving housing choice vouchers.

Public Outreach
The 6th cycle Housing Element Update has been undertaken during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Public outreach, which is the cornerstone of the preparation process, had to be adjusted to allow and encourage meaningful public participation and input without the ability to meet or gather in-person. Staff and consultants made use of multiple digital platforms to facilitate the public input. Through community opinion surveys, stakeholder interviews, public workshops, and continued correspondence with advocacy groups, service providers, and developers the City

has consistently put forth efforts to engage the public during the update process. A complete outline of public outreach efforts can be found in Section 1.4.

Specific public outreach was done around the Fair Housing Analysis, including the distribution of the Draft Fair Housing Analysis to housing service providers and other stakeholders in the region, to ensure the data used accurately represents fair housing issues and integrates local knowledge.

Stakeholder input was considered in the preparation of the Fair Housing Analysis, as well as integrating principles of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) into housing policies and programs (found in Section 2) and housing sites (see Section 3), ensuring local concerns are addressed.

Stakeholders participating in AFFH outreach included:
• Abundant Housing Los Angeles;
• Union Station Homeless Services;
• Sycamores Child and Family Service;
• Friends in Deed; and
• Pomona Homeless Outreach.

4.5.3 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Racial and Ethnic Groups in San Marino
San Marino is racially integrated and becoming more so. As Table 26 shows, its White population is decreasing while the Asian population is increasing. The Black population also increased slightly over the last ten years, while the Hispanic or Latino population and those who identify as two or more races remained stable. This racial and ethnic composition is unusual for communities within Los Angeles County, where the population overall is about 49% Hispanic or Latino, 26% NonHispanic White, about 8% Black and about 15% Asian. San Marino also differs significantly in racial and ethnic composition from nearby communities, as shown in Table 27.

Table 26: Change in Racial and Ethnic Composition (2010 - 2019) Racial/Ethnic Group 2010 2019
White 41.3% 31.5%
Black 0.4% 1.9%
Asian 53.5% 60.5%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.02% 0.20%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.04% 0.00%
Hispanic or Latino 6.3% 6.3%
Two or More Races 3.1% 3.1%
Totals exceed 100% because all races can include Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: 2010 Census; 2019 U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts

Table 27: Comparison of Racial and Ethnic Composition with Nearby Communities As reflected in Figure 21, there are no concentrated areas of racial or ethnic segregation in San Marino. The area within City limits has a lower population density than most of the surrounding areas; however, this reflects the absence of any density in the 207-acre Huntington Gardens and Library, which comprises almost 10% of the City’s area. San Marino also has relatively little Hispanic or Latino population in comparison with some of the surrounding areas.

Figure 21: Racial Dot Density Map of San Marino, CA, and Surrounding Areas Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
Racial/Ethnic Group San Marino Pasadena El Monte Los Angeles County White 31.5% 49.5% 38.8% 52.1%
Black 1.9% 5.8% 0.6% 8.1%
Asian 60.5% 17.4% 28.8% 14.7%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.20% 0.00% 0.8% 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.00% 0.2% 0.9% 0.8%
Hispanic or Latino 6.3% 6.3% 65.7% 48.6%
Two or More Races 3.1% 5.7% 3.3% 4.1%
Some other Race 2.9% 21.3% 26.9% 19.9%
Totals exceed 100% because all races can include Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: 2019 U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts

Familial Status
It is important to analyze familial status to identify areas where a City might need to focus resources (i.e., single-parent households, female-headed, large families, and/or elderly persons living alone).

According to the 2019 ACS 5 -Year Estimates, there are no single-parent households with children under 6 years old in San Marino. 67.4% of San Marino’s households consist of married couples and the most commonly occurring household size is of two people (40.4%). More than 80% of children in the City live in households with married parents.

Of San Marino’s 4,566 households, only 8.8% were female-headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region); of those, just 3.9% had children at home and none had children under age six.

Notably, over half of the households experiencing poverty in San Marino are female-headed (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Households by Poverty Status
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
At 0.5% the City has a lower share of 7+ person households than the SCAG region overall. The City also has a lower share of single-person households than the SCAG region overall. Of the City’s 12.3% of single-person households, 8.1% are persons aged 65 or older.

Persons with Disabilities
As seen in
Table 28, there are fewer people living with disabilities in San Marino than in the County, State, or surrounding communities. There are no areas of concentration of disabled individuals in the City.

Table 28: Percentage of Population with a Disability
San Marino 5.5%

Pasadena 7.9%
El Monte 9.9%
Los Angeles 9.9%
California 10.6%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates, U.S Census Bureau
Income
Median incomes are high and well dispersed throughout the City, as shown in Figure 23.

San Marino lacks areas of economic concentration. The median incomes are well above the HCD 2020 State Median Income and are also higher than much of the surrounding area.

Figure 23: Median Income Based on ACS 5-Year Estimates 2014-2019 Source: HCD, 2021 (Please note tracts in white have no available data) Poverty

6.1 percent of San Marino's households are experiencing poverty, compared to 7.9 percent of households in the SCAG region. Poverty thresholds, as defined by the ACS, vary by household type. In 2018, a single individual under 65 was considered in poverty with a money income below $13,064/year while the threshold for a family consisting of 2 adults and 2 children was $25,465/year. Both San Marino tracts have the highest median incomes, while the tracts in the surrounding subregion reflect incomes ranging from highest to median.

4.5.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The City has been given the designation of “Highest Resource Area of Opportunity” which is based on the consideration of factors affecting quality of life and health outcomes including educational

enrollment and attainment, employment rates, lack of overcrowding in housing or overpayment for housing costs, transportation costs, and environmental health. The Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Index map is provided as Figure 24; the City of San Marino is outlined in black within a larger dark blue area; dark blue denotes the areas of highest resources. Adjacent cities are also areas of high or highest resources, and only one area (in nearby Pasadena) has high segregation and poverty All housing sites identified within the City are in an Area of Opportunity.

Figure 24: TCAC Opportunity Area Index Map
Source: HCD, 2021
Education
The San Marino Unified School District is well known for its students’ high levels of academic performance. In the 2018-2019 reporting year the district outperformed both the Los Angeles Unified District and the State in the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (Table 29).

Table 29: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Achievement Level State of California Los Angeles Unified District
San Marino Unified
District
Level 4: Standard Exceeded 22.48% 17.93% 64.41%
Level 3: Standard Met 28.62% 26.18% 24.82%
Level 2: Standard Nearly Met 22.28% 23.36% 6.83%
Level 1: Standard Not Met 26.63% 32.53% 3.94%
Source: caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov, 2021

There are slight disparities in performance between students of different races. It should be noted that White and Asian students slightly outperformed their Hispanic and Black peers, although this gap appears to be closing in recent years. These gaps in performance could be an indicator of educational disparities (Figure 25), but the small and irregular sample size for these minority groups does not allow for this conclusion to be drawn with a high level of accuracy.

Figure 25: Achievement Gap Results Racial/Demographic Breakdown Source: Edsource.org, 2021
Environment
San Marino has low scores on the CalEnviroScreen Index, which means that San Marino is likely to have more positive environment outcomes based upon aggregate measurements of the following indicators:
• Exposure: Air Quality, Lead Risk in Housing, Diesel Particulate Matter, Drinking Water Contaminants, Pesticide Use, Toxic Releases from Facilities, Traffic Density • Environmental Effects: Cleanup Sites, Groundwater Threats, Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities, Impaired Water Bodies, Solid Waste Sites and Facilities • Sensitive Populations: Asthma, Cardiovascular Disease, Low Birth Weight Infants • Socioeconomic Factors: Educational Attainment, Housing Burden, Linguistic Isolation, Poverty, Unemployment
San Marino has two census tracts. The Western census tract scored in the top 12th percentile, and the Eastern census tract scored in the top 10th percentile for overall environmental health, meaning only 12 and 10 percent of other census tracts in the state had better overall composite

scores. Of the individual indicators analyzed, the biggest factors for potential adverse environmental health outcomes in San Marino are pollution exposure, lead risk in housing, and contaminated drinking water.

Figure 26: CalEnviroScreen Index Map of San Marino and Surrounding Areas Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021 The Western San Marino census tract (seen in lighter green in Figure 26) scored in the 65th percentile for pollution burden, meaning that the tract had a higher pollution burden than 65% of other tracts in the state. This tract was also in the 64th percentile for lead risk in housing, largely due to the age of San Marino’s housing stock, and in the 93rd percentile for drinking water contaminants.

In comparison, the Eastern San Marino census tract (seen in dark green in Figure 26) scored in the 39th percentile, 66th percentile, and 79th percentile for pollution burden, lead risk, and drinking water contaminants, respectively.

Taken together, these specific outcomes are slightly above average for the Los Angeles region, but are fairly consistent with adjacent cities. Drinking water contamination and pollution burden continue to be issues for most census tracts in the State. There were not significant differences within San Marino City limits and the City regularly monitors and reports conditions to remain in compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State’s Water Board Regulations.

Transportation
San Marino is serviced by the LA Metro Bus Lines 78 Local and 487 Express. According to walkscore.com, the City has a Walk Score of 61 (out of 100) and is considered somewhat walkable with some errands able to be carried out on foot. The City has a Bike Score of 50, which means that there is some existing bike infrastructure. The City was not rated for transit. In comparison, the neighboring City of Pasadena was given Walk Score of 69, Bike Score of 70, and Transit Score of 71.

The City is part of a low-cost membership program for curb-to-curb ride services for seniors over 60 and for those under 60 with a disability. The service is available for residents who live in Pasadena, San Marino, Altadena, and unincorporated Los Angeles County areas within the service area.

Economic Development and Access to Jobs
The City is rated highly in terms of economic outcomes. The index is bases on measurements of the following indicators:
• Poverty
• Adult Education
• Employment
• Job Proximity
San Marino’s neighboring cities have similar positive outcome ratings on the index, while others in the region are rated considerably lower (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Economic Index Map of San Marino and Surrounding Areas Source: HCD, 2021
Data from the U.S. Census “OnTheMap” tool identifies the City as both an economic source and resource with a similar number of people coming into the City to work who live elsewhere, as residents of the City who leave to work in other places (Figure 28).

Ninety-five percent of the working population in San Marino is employed in white collar industries.

The top three professional sectors in the City are in management, health practices, and business/financial.

Figure 28: Inflow/ Outflow Analysis of San Marino
Source: OntheMap.ces.census.gov, 2021
Adults are well educated in San Marino and have better educational attainment outcomes than the County, State, and surrounding communities (Table 30).

Table 30: Educational Attainment for Adults 25 and Over Area Highschool Graduate or
Higher
Bachelor’s Degree or
Higher
Graduate or
Professional Degree
San Marino 97.8% 78.1% 39.7%
Pasadena 88.3% 52.3% 24.0%
El Monte 63.3% 12.2% 2.4%
Los Angeles 79.1% 21.2% 11.3%
California 83.3% 33.9% 12.8%
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
San Marino has a mid- to high-level rating on the HUD Jobs Proximity Index, which quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a statistical area. The scores in the region vary greatly.

Figure 29: HUD Jobs Proximity Index Map of San Marino and Surrounding Areas Source: HCD, 2021

4.5.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is most commonly measured as the percentage of gross income spent on housing, with 30% a usual threshold for 'cost burden' and 50% the threshold for 'severe cost burden.' However, a lower-income household spending the same percent of income on housing as a higher-income household will likely experience a truer 'cost burden.' The data in Table 31 indicates the number of households in San Marino by their income relative to the surrounding area and their share of income spent on housing.

Table 31: Households by Income Level and Share of Income spent on Housing Income Level <30% 30-50%
(Cost Burdened)
>50%
(Severely Cost Burdened)
Total Households
by Income Level
<30% HAMFI 25 0 290 315
30-50% HAMFI 50 60 165 275
50-80% HAMFI 120 48 105 273
80-100% HAMFI 180 65 195 440
>100% HAMFI 2,375 520 249 3,114
Total Households 2,750 693 1,004 4,447

Source: HUD CHAS 2012-2016. HAMFI refers to Housing Urban Development Area Median Family Income.

Additionally, across San Marino's 620 renter households, 158 (25.5%) spend thirty percent or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 55.3% in the SCAG region. Another 101 renter households in San Marino (16.3%) spend fifty percent or more of gross income on housing cost, compared to 28.9% in the SCAG region.

While renter households receive much of the focus when it comes to housing cost analysis, owner households make up 86.4% of San Marino and 52.5% of the SCAG region. The most commonly occurring mortgage payment in San Marino is >$4000/month and the most commonly occurring mortgage payment in the SCAG region is $2000-$3000/month (Figure 30).

Figure 30: Monthly Owner Costs for Mortgage Holders
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
Overcrowding
In San Marino, 29 owner-occupied and 21 renter-occupied households had more than 1.0 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for overcrowding. 19 owner-occupied households and renter-occupied households had more than 1.5 occupants per room, which meets the ACS definition for severe overcrowding. Overcrowding rates are much lower in San Marino than in the larger region.

Figure 31: Crowding by Extent and Tenure
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
Substandard Housing
The ACS includes surveys about three factors of what may be considered substandard housing.

In San Marino, 31 units lack telephone service, 20 units lack plumbing facilities, and 20 units lack complete kitchen facilities. While this is lower than the regional rates for substandard housing, rehabilitation programs should be utilized to maintain the housing stock.

Figure 32: Substandard Housing
Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates (2014-2019)
Homelessness
The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission conducts bi-annual point-in-time surveys of homeless populations. San Marino is occasionally reported to have 1 unhoused person, but typically is reported to have zero unhoused persons. Services for homeless individuals are available in neighboring Pasadena. San Marino allows emergency shelters to be established in any commercially zoned property as a permitted use; however, no interest has been shown on the part of homeless service providers in initiating homeless services in San Marino.

Displacement
According to the Urban Displacement Project, there are no sensitive populations subject to displacement in San Marino. However, there are approximately 225 very low-income, elderly households in the City. Special attention should be given to these households, as aging in place may become difficult for people with fixed incomes given the high cost of living in San Marino.

4.5.6 Areas of Concentration in Poverty and Affluence Across Racial/ Ethnic Groups
The City of San Marino does not contain any areas of racial or ethnically areas of poverty (R/CAPs); in fact, the entire City is an Area of Opportunity. However, the City is notably more expensive than the surrounding areas, with median gross rents above $3000 per month and the majority of mortgages above $4000 per month (Figure 30, Figure 33). There are no concentrated areas of affluence given the equal distribution of wealth within City limits.

Figure 33: Location Affordability Index
Source: HCD, 2021
While median household incomes in San Marino are high, even moderate- and middle-income households cannot afford a home in San Marino where the median sales price exceeds $2 million, and the median rental price exceeds $3000 per month (ACS). A moderate-income family of three could afford a home with a sales price of $385,859 or a monthly rent of $1,818. San Marino currently lacks homes for these households, which include young families and first-time homebuyers, which perpetuates exclusivity and can lead to inequity.

History of Exclusive Single-Family Zoning in San Marino San Marino is an almost exclusively residential community, with its built environment dominated by detached single-family houses in a range of scales, constructed primarily between the 1920s and the 1960s. As of 2021, there were no areas zoned for multi-family residences, or for industry/manufacturing. Small areas on Huntington Drive and Mission Street are zoned for commercial use, and the City has recently approved a mixed-use project on a commercial street.

San Marino’s rich and varied past that spans multiple eras of California history and is associated with cultural and social themes that were definitive in the history of Los Angeles County and Southern California. Since its 1913 incorporation, “the City envisioned itself as a residential enclave for people of means, with zoning that ensured minimal commercial development and no industry or multi-family residences” (Source: San Marino Historic Resources Survey Report, October 2020). This exclusive designation has played out in the City’s zoning since its establishment.

In its earliest days of development, zoning in San Marino was so strict that most commercial uses and even churches were restricted. To ensure that property valuation would remain high, developers established expensive minimum home building costs, and racially restrictive covenants were incorporated into home deed sales – a practice that was common throughout Southern California and much of the country in the 1920s. These practices, coupled with the formation of the national Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1933 and passage of the National Housing Act (NHA), established systemic redlining practices throughout the Los Angeles region, including in San Marino. This practice led to the physical development pattern and exclusive single-family feel that is still experienced throughout the City today.

Figure 34 illustrates how San Marino was graded “Best” by the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation.

This grade was given to upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed. Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still clearly observable today (Source: University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab, 2021).

Figure 34: 1930's HOLC Redlining Grade
(Source: University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab, 2021) Throughout the City’s development, it has prided itself on its exclusively single-family, affluent neighborhoods, with well-kept yards and beautiful parks. Apartments and duplexes had never been allowed. As recently as 2003, the City’s General Plan included goals to protect its singlefamily neighborhoods and to discourage the division of lots. While the 2003 General Plan promoted a well-integrated community, it failed to promote or allow the variety of housing types to enable that integration. A 2006 City handout for new San Marino residents notes:
“The principles upon which the first City Council established San Marino in 1913 have been followed through the ensuing ninety-three years. The founders of this city wished it to be uniquely residential - single-family homes on large lots surrounded by beautiful gardens, with wide streets and well-maintained parkways.

There were to be no manufacturing districts, heavy business areas or any apartment houses or duplexes. To maintain these standards, the City Council has continued to pass and enforce strict zoning regulations.” These strict zoning standards have been unintentionally discriminatory. A land use practice has a discriminatory effect if:
• It actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or • It creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns, based on membership in a protected class.

By definition, single-family zoning is exclusionary when it occurs to the exclusion of other types of residential use. Whether intended or not, San Marino’s past prohibition of anything but singlePage 350 of 1126 family homes had the effect of excluding persons who do not have incomes high enough to live in the City. Because poverty occurs most often with person of color, these practices have resulted in the exclusion of protected classes even though they were never intended to. AB 686 requires that the City adopt programs to overcome and reverse this pattern of exclusion, and to identify housing sites through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing lens.

Reversing Exclusionary Zoning Practices
The approach taken within this Housing Element update to address past exclusionary zoning practices and to affirmatively further fair housing are two-fold: First, programs are included that change the zoning to allow for all types of housing, including the multi-family apartments and duplexes that have previously been banned in the City; and secondly, the location of potential housing sites to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA is considered through an equity lens, not only by choosing locations in areas throughout the City but also by including to promote the development of duplexes. ADUs, and affordable JADUs in all of the City’s exclusive residential neighborhoods. Section 2 includes the policies and programs to reverse exclusionary zoning and to affirmatively further fair housing; Section 3 contains the sites location information and maps.

APPENDIX A: SCAG LOCAL HOUSING DATA

APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Government Code §65583 (c)(7) requires local government to “Include a diligent effort by the local government 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”. The federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule also requires community participation in the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Community engagement efforts undertaken for the 2021 Housing Element are summarized in Section 1.

Public Outreach Summary
Housing issues affect the entire community and can be confusing and contentious. State requirements about what Housing Elements must allow often seem at odds with long-standing community values. The public participation requirement of Housing Element law presents an opportunity to engage constituents in defining housing issues, and in creating solutions that both meet the needs of the community and the requirements of state law.

The ongoing restrictions on gatherings due to the COVID-19 pandemic have forced community outreach
and engagement into a virtual world. While in some cases this has made it possible for more people to be engaged in the process, a digital divide often exists in cases where households may lack internet connections or may be unable to attend virtual meetings due to work obligations.

To ensure that community outreach during the pandemic has been as equitable as possible, the community outreach program was designed to provide participation opportunities via cell phone and at the convenience of the resident. San Marino’s Housing Element Update has included the following public outreach efforts:
• December 7, 2020: City Council held a virtual Town Hall to introduce the Housing Element update and to present an overview of the Housing Element Update process and new laws.
• December 29, 2020: City developed and launched a webpage at http://cityofsanmarino.org/housingelement dedicated to the update of the Housing Element. The website includes a dedicated e-mail address for the Housing Element Update, a background on the Housing Element and its purpose; opportunities for participation; and links to meeting materials, presentations, and document drafts for public review. An outreach and notification list were developed and used throughout the update process.
• November 2020- January 2021: Community opinion surveys were conducted in English, Spanish, and Chinese. The surveys were structured to allow full participation via cell phone to overcome any digital divide. Survey results are provided in Section 4.
• January-April 2021: Stakeholder interviews conducted with responsive contacts representing for- and not-for-profit developers, advocacy groups, and

service providers, including Southern California Non-profit Housing Association; Milestone Housing Development Corporation; the Chinese Club of San Marino; the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation; and the PasadenaFoothills Association of Realtors. • February 24, 2021: Planning Commission held a publicly noticed workshop on the Housing Element Update. The Commission discussed the challenges faced by the City, took public input, and provided policy direction to staff in formulating strategies for meeting the State Housing Element mandates and identifying adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA.
• April 16, 2021: City Council held a publicly noticed workshop on the Housing Element Update and reviewed the Draft Housing Strategy (Policies and Programs for the Housing Element) and a preliminary rezoning program to address the City’s RHNA shortfall. The City Council reviewed the draft set of policies and discussed options to meet the Housing Element requirements and community housing needs. The City Council provided feedback and direction on the preparation of a draft for review by the public and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Notices for this workshop were sent to the outreach and notification list, as well as to those who had provided contact information on the community surveys and those that had spoken at previous meetings.
• July 17, 2021: City Council held a publicly noticed workshop to review the Draft Housing Element for possible transmittal to the State.
• July 21, 2021: Public Review Draft Housing Element was released and made available on the established website. Notices of the release of the draft document were sent to the outreach and notification list, including those who had spoken at previous meetings.
• August 3, 2021: City Council held a publicly noticed meeting to receive public input regarding the Housing Element Update and provided further direction to staff and consultants regarding sites to include on the inventory lists to be considered for rezoning.
• August 25, 2021: City held a Town Hall to continue to receive public input on the Draft Housing Element and advise the community of future opportunities to comments on the HE update document or meet with a planner individually to discuss the update process. Announcements for this Town Hall were included in two weekly community newsletters, advertised on social media, and mailed to tenants and property owners of the sites added to the updated Sites Inventory list.
• Between September 2 to 16: City staff offered “Coffee with a Planner” to meet with community members interested in one-on-one discussion of the Housing Element.

• September 24, 2021: The City Council held a duly noticed public meeting to take public comment and authorized staff to transmit the Draft to HCD to begin their review.
• September 24, 2021: The Draft Housing Element and all public comments received to date were transmitted to HCD to begin their mandatory 60-day review period, during which time all interested parties were invited and encouraged to submit comments directly to HCD.
• December xx, 2021: Received comments from HCD.
• January xx, 2022: The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared under CEQA was released for public review.
• January 26, 2022?: Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the HCD-reviewed Draft Housing Element and adopted a resolution finding the CEQA document adequate and appropriate for the project and also making findings of compliance with State law before recommending adoption of the Housing Element to the City Council.
• January 28, 2022?: City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the HCD-reviewed Draft 2021 Housing Element, consider changes and additions recommended by HCD and by the Planning Commission and adopted a resolution certifying the CEQA document and adopting the 2021 Housing Element.

Community Opinion Survey Results
Community opinion surveys were developed in three languages and have been distributed to residents in several ways: through the City website; through weekly community newsletter from the City Manager’s office; through direct emails to the updated interested persons list from the 2014 Housing Element; to the seniors mailing list; by posting to the City’s social media pages; and through distribution to the Chinese Club and local Realtors. The surveys are designed to elicit residents’ opinions about housing needs and opportunities, both now and in the future, as well as their ideas about new housing types that might help to meet identified needs.

Survey results demonstrate that residents have given housing issues a lot of thought and have some good ideas for meeting housing needs while preserving the City’s single-family neighborhoods and character. While some survey respondents indicated that all of San Marino’s housing needs are being met, many also listed the need for less expensive housing choices including homes affordable to first-time buyers as a pressing need. About half of respondents agreed that San Marino had grown too expensive for their children to be able to afford a home here, and over 60 percent acknowledged that people who work in San Marino cannot afford to live here. Many respondents provided thoughtful ideas for different types of housing including studios, more ADUs, and both small apartment complexes and mixed-use development in the commercial zones.

Some indicated that existing homes could be divided to allow more than one household or generation to live in the same home. At the same time, most survey respondents agreed that it was important to preserve San Marino’s existing neighborhoods and its beautiful architecture.

Complete survey results are provided as Attachment A. Some questions provided participants the opportunity to share their unique input; these questions and additional write-in comments are provided below in Table 32.

Table 32: Public Comments and Incorporation into Housing Element Written Comments Incorporation in Housing Element
Question:

The biggest housing needs facing San Marino today are:
“Homes without homeowners living in the country, rented or empty causing many homes lack of maintenance and
lack of laws for city to take serious action”
Discussion and program to consider
vacancy tax or other measures
“Do not need housing that sits empty because of LLC
ownership. Don’t allow LLC ownership & add a tax”
Discussion and program to consider
vacancy tax or other measures
“Vacant homes have to be pulled into market. Vacant
Homes have a lot of negative impact to our city. Crime, less property tax income, fewer families with school-aged kids, etic”
Discussion and program to consider
vacancy tax or other measures
“need more housing - staying with an edict of only singlefamily house is unrealistic and bourgeoise. We have commercial spaces that are vacant
and make the City downtown area
look destitute. Mixed use will help bring vibrancy to our community, increase walkable retail
spaces and open housing to people who work in our
communities: educators, public safety,
public service workers”
Programs included to allow all forms of
housing, including multi-family
“With-140 homes that are vacant, there is scant need for additionally housing”
Program to address vacant housing,
otherwise comment not consistent
with RHNA or statutory requirements
“No mixed-use commercial properties. The cost of housing in San Marino is due to our schools’ academic standards.

We need to make sure those standards are maintained.
that makes homeowners participate in positive city
participation”
Noted.
“San Marino needs to not just zone for the RHNA allocation but also zone enough capacity so it will be built. Since very new units have been built in recent years I request a zoning buffer of 50% above the allocation”
City will strive to zone for 120% of its
RHNA shortfall
Question:

San Marino’s housing needs in the coming 10 years will include:
“City can ease the building requirement for building under 100 sqft, because now there are
many children moving back into their parents' homes”
Assuming commenter meant 1,000 SF,
the Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.

“ADUs are the appropriate way to provide less expensive housing”
Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.
“Adopt advanced zoning and planning concepts” Comment not specific “Updating and renovation will continue and meet future
housing needs”
Comment is inconsistent with RHNA
requirements for new units
“Our city attracts homeowners who want their children to be a part of our schools and that will always mean a better city and school system. Our housing prices are based on that”
Comment noted
“More ADUs for family members to live close by” Housing Element contains multiple policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.
“Rental housing for young people and seniors. The rental to owner divide is not balanced”
New provisions and zoning will now
allow multi-family rentals in San
Marino.

Question:

What are some unique features of San Marino that can be housing opportunities for the community? For example: unused office spaces that can be used as artist studio or work/live spaces; carriage houses that can be converted to caretaker facilities; large homes modified to accommodate more family members or multigenerational home;s large lots perfect for tiny homes or cottages to be developed, etc. Your idea(s):
“Large homes can be renovated to accommodate more
family members or become multi-generation homes.”
Policy and program are included to
allow these homes to be divided into
duplexes and triplexes
“Please quickly approve building of a second unit that is less than 1000 sq ft on existing home property, which
would allow family members to come back and live there.” Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.
“Large lots can be developed into smaller single family homes, but the original appearance of San Marino should be the priority and not be affected”
Policies and Programs strive to protect
the character and architecture of the
City’s existing single-family
neighborhoods while allowing
additional housing units.
“Provide more convenient public facilities for seniors, such as caretaker facilities, and more public facilities for young adults and children”
Comment noted.
“Maintain the current situation” Noted. Comment is inconsistent with the City’s RHNA obligation and state
law.
“Carriage houses that can be converted to caretaker
facilities”
Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.
“The first item (ADUs)” Housing Element contains multiple policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.

“Smaller houses at lower rent” Housing Element contains multiple programs to encourage smaller units
such as ADUs, JADUs, and missing
middle housing
“Agree with the creative repurposing ideas listed” (ADUs, conversions)
Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs, as well
as to allow conversion of large homes
into duplexes and triplexes
“Downtown commercial facilities that can be converted to residential as well as commercial.”
Mixed occupancy along the Huntington
Drive corridor will be considered
provided conformance with objective
design standards.
“Allow for multi family properties” New provisions and zoning will now allow multi-family rentals in San
Marino.
“Turn commercial space into low income housing
opportunities”
Policies and Programs are included to
adopt an overlay zone applicable to
commercial properties and allowing
higher-density residential uses
“Guest houses able to be occupied, developing areas
belonging to SM that are by Carver School”
New provisions and zoning will now
allow multi-family rentals in San
Marino. Areas near Carver to be
considered for Housing Overlay.
“Carriage houses” Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.
“None of these are a good idea” Comment noted
“More multi-family/multi-unit housing” New provisions and zoning will now allow multi-family rentals in San
Marino.
“Like the idea of office spaces being used as artist studio or work/live spaces. This is appealing because it would not change the residential look of San Marino”
Opportunities exist for these spaces;
objective design standards will be
developed and adopted in 2022
“There is no mixed use in our code and it should stay that way. Right now the code does not address the required
separation for living space and other occupancies. That requires an entire separate section in the code (overlay zone). It would be very expensive to try to convert office space to living space; the only exception would be
conversion of the whole building to
residential, with fire sprinklers, exits, etc. and *limit it to one story*.”
Comment noted.
“Parking lots should be converted to housing. Allow people to park their cars on the street
Some underutilized parking lots are
proposed to be considered for rezoning
to high-density residential.

overnight which would free up driveway and garage space.

Change the zoning from commercial/retail to residential.

There do not need to be that many businesses in San
Marino when there are plenty of commercial and retail
spaces in larger, nearby cities.”
Additionally, policies and Programs are
included to adopt an overlay zone
applicable to commercial properties
and allowing higher-density residential
uses
“Whatever produces the least amount of density” Comment noted; San Marino’s default density is 20 units per acre, much
greater than the 4-6 units per acre of
the City’s residential areas.
“Easing up current restriction on home expansion and
allowing homeowners to expand their house to meet their family needs”
Current ADU and JADU ordinance
allows expansion and addition of living
area without discretionary approval.
“High density homes, townhouses, duplex, multi-family
condo or apartments, allow to convert empty commercial
buildings to live/work studios along Huntington Dr.”
New provisions and zoning will now
allow multi-family rentals in San
Marino. Opportunities for live-work
spaces exist and objective design
standards will be developed and
adopted in 2022.
“I would not like any of the suggestions in 4. to be
considered. San Marino is not suited for
things such as tiny homes. It is a city of single family residences and should remain that way.”
Noted. Comment inconsistent with
state housing element law.
“Multiple units on lots” Policy and Program to promote missing middle, including up to 3 units on
single-family lots.
“Bungalow courts. Live/work above existing commercial
units. Un/underutilized city properties
that could be developed as affordable, multi unit workforce housing for city and school district
staff (to reduce their commutes to San Marino, make it
easier for their kids to attend local
schools and be active in the community, and make
city/district jobs more competitive with
other cities )”
Policies and Programs are included to
encourage missing middle housing.

Another programs adopts a Housing
Overlay for placement over commercial
and institutional properties to allow
residential uses in addition to
commercial and institutional uses
(churches, schools, civic uses)
“To meet our affordable housing assessment we should
continue to pursue ADU development.

Mixed use construction in the Huntington Dr business
disctrict could also be explored but ONLY if the state would allow the city to determine it's own standards for
development. If the state continues to limit local control then the city should explore prohibiting any mixed use in the business districts.”
Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs.

Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards.
“Large homes modified to accommodate more family
members or multigenerational homes”
Policy and Program included to allow
the division of these homes into
duplexes or triplexes

“Large lots for smaller cluster houses in gated community” Policy and Program included to allow missing middle housing, may extend to
this type
“all of above, including mixed use for our commercial
areas”
Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards
“Allow mixed-use development in the commercial areas
along Huntington Dr. and Mission St., and allowing housing above the ground retail/commercial spaces.”
Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards
“San Marino is an upscale housing option. Converting it to allow for greater density is abhorrent. What we need is to oust the idiots in Sacramento.”
Noted.
“Why cant we let our elected city government decide the situations which the city can comfortably allow?”
Noted.
“Modular or pre-fabricated tiny homes (or container
houses) that can be quickly erected and streamlined
through permitting process”
Programs included to pre-approve ADU
plans, could include smaller factorybuilt home types.
“Convert Stoneman into condos/townhouses. Blend Carver
and Valentine, and use the Carver property to develop
more homes”
Stoneman is on sites inventory list.

Carver was on inventory list for Overlay
program but was subsequently
removed due to strong opposition from
property owner and the public.
“Granny housing on residential properties” Housing Element contains multiple policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs
“As Pasadena develops and grows into the city we think it will be become: a major city to the east of downtown
drawing people from LA, we can fit the need of those that are looking for a smaller town feet but close proximity to the growing city of Pasadena”
Comment noted
“Reduce or eliminate emotionally and politically motivated restriction of development at the DRC and Planning
Commission”
Comment noted
“all of above” Most of the referenced programs are
provided for in the updated housing
element
“Lacy Park” If desired by City, Lacy Park can be
considered for rezoning w/in 3 years
“Carriage houses for sublet to singles” Housing Element contains multiple policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs
“convert larger homes to senior living (maximum 3 people) per home”
Housing Element contains policy and
program to allow these homes to be
divided into duplexes or triplexes.

“like the carriage house idea” Housing Element contains multiple policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs
“Spaces above businesses could be used to construct
studios”
Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards
“Allow to reconvert big houses into few smaller houses” Housing Element contains policy and program to allow these homes to be
divided into duplexes or triplexes.
“Our commercial areas on Huntington and Mission should
have more mixed use buildings with living units above and retail and restaurants below. Our commercial arteries and dead or dying.”
Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards
“I am concerned that condos, townhouses, and apartments were not in the list of new housing
typologies? Re-zoning is needed”
Rezoning and zoning code changes to
allow attached and multi-family home
types are included
“Mixed use above existing and new Huntington Drive
commercial”
Mixed occupancy will be considered
along the Huntington Corridor provided
conformance with objective design
standards
“I don’t think tiny houses are a good idea, especially for this community. It’ll be liken to trailer
park homes. However, high-end apartment buildings on
large lots might be a great way to
expand housing and keep the integrity of San Marino.”
Tiny house comment noted. Rezoning
to provide for high-density apartments
will be accomplished within 3 years.
“Change nothing. Preserve the home architecture and stop allowing for Orange County-style homes to built in San
Marino”
Comment noted. Comment
inconsistent with RHNA and zoning
obligations
“ADUs and larger lots to accommodate more
multigenerational homes”
Housing Element contains multiple
policies and programs to encourage
and promote ADUs and JADUs
“Small Cottages, maybe 2 ADUs on large lots” Housing Element contains policy and program to allow homes to be divided
into duplexes or triplexes. Housing
Element contains multiple policies and
programs to encourage and promote
ADUs and JADUs
Community Outreach Messaging
In addition to the community surveys and stakeholder interviews, phone calls were made and emails sent to persons and companies that had participated in the 2014 Housing Element Update.

The following sections provides the specific messaging sent to individuals and groups in the specified Tables:

November 5-9, 2020: Participants in Table 33 were emailed the following message:

Table 33: Housing Outreach Informational Update Email Contacts

DATE OF CONTACT ORGANIZATION EMAIL ADDRESS
Special Needs
11/05/2020 IDEPSCA [email protected]
11/05/2020 Hope Through Housing Foundation [email protected] 11/05/2020 Families Forward [email protected]
11/05/2020 Journey House [email protected]
11/05/2020 Outward Bound Adventures [email protected]
11/05/2020 Pacific Clinics
[email protected]
11/06/2020 Victor Treatment Centers
[email protected]
11/09/2020 Arthritis Club of San Gabriel Valley [email protected] 11/09/2020 GLAD [email protected]
11/09/2020 Home Care1 [email protected]
11/05/2020 Better Living Homecare Services [email protected] Developer
Good evening,
The City of San Marino is updating their Housing Element for 2021-2029 and will correspondingly revise the public outreach list in the appendix of the City’s current Housing Element certified by HCD in 2014. __________is included in this list but is missing a few details.

I am reaching out to request the point of contact, email, and telephone number if at all possible.

I appreciate the time it took to read this email and look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,
Aundrea Cruz | Associate Planner | 4LEAF, Inc.

Email: [email protected]

11/05/2020 San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity
[email protected]
[email protected]
Realty/ Lending
11/06/2020 Rate One Financial [email protected] 11/09/2020 Prudential California Realty
[email protected]
[email protected]
11/09/2020 REH Real Estate [email protected]
November 9, 2020: Potential stakeholders in Table 34 emailed the following message:

Table 34: Potential Land Trust Outreach Contacts

ORGANIZATION CONTACT EMAILS TELEPHONE
The Trust for
Public Land
Robin Mark, Los Angeles
Program Director
[email protected] (415) 495-4014
California Council
of Land Trusts
Emailed [email protected] (916) 497-0272
Additional Telephone Outreach
Additional Telephone Outreach was conducted from November 2020- January 2021 to invite the following stakeholders to participate in the Update process and to confirm contact information (Table 35).
* Replies indicated in Yellow
Good afternoon,

The City of San Marino is updating their Housing Element for 2021-2029 and is building the public outreach list to alert interested parties on the progress of addressing the City’s housing needs and mandates. One of the initial steps in this process is gaining input from community groups, non-profits, housing developers, service providers, environmental groups, citizen’s groups, and residents. We are trying to gather as much feedback as possible before updating the Housing Element and would like to know _____________would like to participate?

Thank you,
Aundrea Cruz | Associate Planner | 4LEAF, Inc.

Email: [email protected]

Table 35: Additional Telephone Outreach
Advocacy/ Service
Chinese Club of San Marino
*January 14, 2021 – February 1, 2021, correspondence between 4LEAF and Joanne Cheng confirmed the City of San Marino Chinese Club would be distributing Housing Element Update and Survey Information to members on their mailing List.

San Marino Chamber of Commerce
East San Gabriel Valley Coalition for the Homeless
Rotary Club of San Marino
South Pasadena-San Marino YMCA
Stepping Stones to Learning
Housing Rights Center
Crowell Public Library
Property Management
ICM Resources, Inc.

Realty/ Lending
Region 1 Realty
Bank of the West
East West Bank
Roycroft Realty/C I Management, Compass Real Estate
Soma Warna Real Estate Services
Dilbeck Realtors Christie's Great Estates
RE/MAX Premier Properties
Utilities
California American Water Company
*Cal Am responded 03/25/2021 with email response and current Urban Water Management Plan Developers
A Community of Friends
San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity
Special Needs
Care 4 You - In Home Care, Homecare Assistance
Silverado Senior Living
CHAP
Mothers’ Club Family Learning Center, Families Forward Learning Center Pacific Clinics
Peace Over Violence
Shelter Partnership, Inc.

Union Station Homeless Services

January 5-11, 2021: Potential stakeholders in Table 36 emailed the following message:

Good afternoon! You are invited to participate in the City of San Marino’s Housing Element Update. The City is preparing an update to its General Plan Housing Element to cover the period between 2021-2029. The Housing Element Update will include the following:
• An assessment of the City’s housing needs and opportunities; • A collection of policies and programs that will govern housing development in San Marino over the next 8 years;
• A land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development in order for San Marino to meet its regional housing need; • An assessment of actions needed to affirmatively further fair housing; • An assessment of any special needs that San Marino residents have, and how those needs are being met; and
• Opportunities for stakeholders and the public to provide input through community engagement and outreach.

You may visit the project website here San Marino, CA (cityofsanmarino.org). If you would like to provide comments on the Housing Element update, please email:
[email protected]
In order to develop a comprehensive housing strategy, we would like to interview housing providers, developers, and other professionals. You are invited to participate in one of the following ways:
• Attend a 1-hour meeting virtually via Zoom; see available times below. • Schedule a date and time to speak over the phone:
• Call (707) 309-4775 with your available dates and times. • Return this email with answers to the following questions:

1. Have you or your firm attempted to develop housing in San Marino? If yes, please answer 2-5 below. If no, please answer 5-7 below:

2. If you have developed or attempted to develop housing in San Marino, please briefly describe the development process and any obstacles or roadblocks that you faced:

3. What were the biggest constraints to development? Please select all that apply:
a. High land costs
b. Community opposition
c. Lack of appropriately zoned land
d. High construction costs
e. Development fees and charges
f. City requirements in general
g. Other (please describe)

4. Do you see development opportunities in San Marino that the City is ignoring? If so, what are they?

5. In your professional opinion, are San Marino’s housing needs being met? Why or why not?

6. What do you see as the main constraints or roadblocks to development in San Marino?

7. Why do you think there is no affordable rental housing in San Marino?

8. If you are a service provider, please tell us what needs you see in San Marino and whether those needs are being met.

Thank you for lending us your time and expertise. To arrange a phone interview, please contact Principal Planner Jane Riley, AICP at (707) 309-4775 with your available dates and times.

Zoom Sessions: If you would like to join a virtual meeting to discuss housing issues in San Marino, please accept our invitation to join one of the below:

Housing Developers & Real Estate Professionals: Monday, January 11th 1:00 – 2:00 https://rlink.re/l/9f49ebec/6746/4c91/9097/ce722dd8d61a Meeting ID: 871 7637 1531 Passcode: Housing
Non-profits, service providers and housing advocacy groups: Wednesday, January 13th 4:00 – 5:00
https://rlink.re/l/6fc8eaff/7c35/4f71/8e74/e8ddfb42ce85 Meeting ID: 875 1151 1125 Passcode: Housing

Table 36: Housing Development Stakeholder Outreach
* Replies indicated in Yellow

DATE OF

CONTACT ORGANIZATION CONTACT CITY, ZIP EMAIL ADDRESS PHONE 01/05/2021 Universal Home
Design Inc.

Sherman
Oaks, CA
91401
info@universalhome
designinc.com (818) 786-7776
01/05/2021 Accessible
Construction Adam Fine Los Angeles, CA 90301
adam@accessibleco
nstruction.com (310) 215-3332
01/05/2021 Abode Communities Robin Hughes Los Angeles,
CA 90015
rhhughes@abodeco
mmunities.org (213) 225-2762
5/5/2021
(via Zoom)
California YIMBY
Jes McBride Sacramento,
CA 95814
[email protected] 209-329-7545
01/05/2021 Frank D. Lanterman
Regional Center
Melinda
Sullivan
Los Angeles
CA, 90010
Msullivan@lanterma
n.org (213) 383-1300
01/05/2021 Easterseals Angela F.

Williams
Pasadena, CA
91106
angelawilliams@eas
terseals.com (626) 793-7700
01/05/2021
Asians and Pacific
Islanders with
Disabilities of
California (APIDC)
Patricia Kinaga Los Angeles,
CA 90021
pkinaga@kinagalawf
irm.com (213) 207-6838
01/05/2021 Dahl Architects Inc. Steven P. Dahl
South
Pasadena, CA
91030
steve@dahlarchitect
s.com (626) 564-0011
01/05/2021
Kelly Sutherlin
McLeod
Architecture, Inc.

Kelly Sutherlin
McLeod
Long Beach,
CA 90807
kelly@ksmartarchite
cure.com (562) 427-6697
01/05/2021 Irwin Partners
Architects Greg Irwin Costa Mesa, CA 92626 [email protected] (714) 557-2448 01/05/2021 McKently Malak
Architects
Pasadena, CA
91103
CONTACTS@MCKEN
TLY.COM (626) 583-8348
01/05/2021 Hartman Baldwin
Design/Build Bill Baldwin Pasadena, CA 91105
info@hartmanbaldw
in.com (626) 486-0510
01/05/2021 Architectural
Resource Group Katie Horak Los Angeles, CA 90012 [email protected] (626) 583-1401 01/05/2021 Ellinger Architects
and Associates
William W.

Ellinger III
Pasadena, CA
91101
ellinger.wm@sbcglo
bal.net (626) 792-8539
01/11/2021 Ball Architecture Stephen Ball West Covina,
CA 91791 (949) 338-2679
01/05/2021 Morley Brothers Jan Karl
Santa
Monica, CA
90405
jkarl@morleybuilder
s.com (310) 399-1600
01/05/2021 Bridge Housing Corp Timothy Van
Scott II
Los Angeles,
CA 90056
vscott@bridgehou
sing.com (310) 422-2561

01/05/2021 Mercy House Erika
Villablance
Los Angeles
CA, 90015
evillablanca@mercy
housing.org (213) 743-5826
01/05/2021 Pkutzer Edgewood
Realty Partners Pete Kutzer
South
Pasadena, CA
91030
pkutzer@edgewood
realty.com
(626) 403-1469
ext 116
01/05/2021 Mur-Sol
Construction Inc Kevin Cole Arcadia, CA 91006 [email protected] (626) 802-8822 01/05/2021 Sunny Construction
and Development Sunny Chan Arcadia, CA 91006
info@sunnyconstr
uction.com (626) 574-8083
01/05/2021 Coldwell Banker Cordelia Wong cordeliaw@coldwell banker.com (626) 487-0837
01/05/2021
Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices
California Properties
Janice Lee San Marino,
CA 91108
[email protected]
om (626) 449-5222
01/05/2021
Redstone
Commercial Real
Estate
Dan Alle Pasadena, CA
91101
[email protected]
om (626) 795-2255
01/05/2021 Sun Realtors Eugene Sun San Marino,
CA 91108
[email protected]
t (626) 458-0216
01/05/2021
Pasadena-Foothills
Association of
Realtors
Laura Olhasso Pasadena, CA
91106 [email protected] (626) 795-2455
01/05/2021 Michael Chan michaelbchan@g
mail.com (626) 625-5595

January 19, 2021: The following message was distributed to a City-provided mailing list of 128 seniors:

Responses to this outreach are as follows:

The above email was sent to 128 contacts on the City’s Senior Contact list. Three responses were received:

1. An individual expressed their interest in participating in the update process via the public survey.

2. An individual expressed security concerns regarding the use of a third-party platform to conduct the outreach survey.

3. An individual expressed that they felt the City was compliant with State Law and should not pursue mixed-use to achieve unmet housing needs.

Good afternoon!
You are invited to participate in the City of San Marino’s Housing Element Update. While developing a comprehensive housing strategy, we would like to ensure that the community has the housing that residents want and need. To encompass a variety of opinions, experience, and expertise, we would like to include your input! This can be done one in one of the following ways:
• Taking the Community Survey here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7XGPV6K.
• Providing comments on the Housing Element or signing up for updates by emailing: [email protected]
•
• This update to the City’s General Plan Housing Element will cover the period between 2021-2029. The Housing Element Update will include the following:
• An assessment of the City’s housing needs and opportunities; • A collection of policies and programs that will govern housing development in San Marino over the next 8 years;
• A land inventory to identify specific sites that are suitable for residential development in order for San Marino to meet its regional housing need; • An assessment of actions needed to affirmatively further fair housing; • An assessment of any special needs that San Marino residents have, and how those needs are being met; and
• Opportunities for stakeholders and the public to provide input through community engagement and outreach.

March 17, 2021- Educational stakeholders in Table 37 were emailed the following message:

Good evening,
As you may know, the City of San Marino is preparing an update to its General Plan Housing Element to cover the period between 2021-2029. 4LEAF is the consulting firm that has been hired by the City to complete this Housing Element update, and we would very much like to hear from you about the housing needs of your staff and faculty.

One of the things that a Housing Element must include are an assessment of the City’s housing needs, including the needs of its workforce – like teachers.

Please assist us by responding to this email to briefly let us know two things:
1) Where (generally) do your school’s staff and faculty live? Are they able to live in San Marino, or do they need to commute to work? 2) If the City permitted it, would you be interested in providing housing for your staff and/or teachers on-site? If no, why not?
Thank you for lending us your time and expertise. We would very much appreciate your response by Wednesday, March 24. If you would prefer to arrange a phone interview, please contact Associate Planner Aundrea Cruz at [email protected] with your available dates and times.

For more information on the Housing Element Update, please visit the project website here:

San Marino, CA (cityofsanmarino.org).

This email is sent by 4LEAF staff. 4LEAF, Inc. is the consulting team that has been chosen to assist the City in the update of its Housing Element, as well as the City’s Public Safety and Health Element. 4LEAF is a full-service firm that has been providing services to numerous public agencies across California for more than 20 years. You may find more information about 4LEAF here: https://www.4leafinc.com/

Table 37: Educational Facilities Outreach
* Replies indicated in Yellow

EDUCATIONAL

FACILITY

PERSON OF

CONTACT

EMAIL ADDRESS
Southwestern
Academy
Robin Jarchow, Head
of School
[email protected]
Saints Felicitas and
Perpetua School
Missy O'Neill,
Principal
[email protected]
[email protected]
*St F & P School responded 3/17/2021- Indicated that there was no on-site housing for teachers and no room to place such housing. Most staff lived east of the cities in Arcadia, Monrovia, Azusa, Glendora, and La Verne. Several lived in San Gabriel, and only one lived in San Marino K.L Carver Elementary
School
(SMUSD)
Michael Lin,
Principal
[email protected]
Henry E. Huntington
Middle School
(SMUSD)
Daryl Topalian,
Vice Principal
[email protected]
W.L. Valentine
Elementary School
(SMUSD)
Alana Faure,
Principal
[email protected]
San Marino High
School (SMUSD)
Jason Kurtenbach,
Principal
[email protected]

Stakeholder Interviews
Various interviews were held with interested parties including those who responded to initial contacts and those who attended the scheduled stakeholder meetings. These stakeholder interviews are summarized below in Table 38.

Table 38: Stakeholder Interviews

ORGANIZATION/

INTERVIEWEE/ DATE OF

INTERVIEW

INTERVIEW SUMMARY INCORPORATION IN

HOUSING ELEMENT
Frank D. Lanterman
Regional Center
Christian IrigoyenResource Developer of
Community Services
01/08/2021
• Homes must be suitable for disabled
individuals to be placed in them
• Various Levels of Care determine
suitability (Level 2 = Lower level of
assistance needed, Level 4= Higher
level of assistance needed)
• Most homes in San Marino would be
suitable for Level 2 care needs
however, DDS encourages placement
in smaller homes
Continue existing
policies and support for
community care
facilities
Southern California
Association of Non-Profit
Housing (SCANPH)
Jeanette Brown- Director
of Public Affairs &
Programs
Alan Greenlee -Executive
Director
01/22/2021
• Public opposition barrier to Project
Roomkey Implementation
• Suggested public/private
partnerships for students like Orange
Coast College
• Mentioned Bill being used in City of
Pasadena to encourage ADUs
• Mentioned Oregon and Minnesota
banning single-family zoning
Comments were
regional or examples of
national programs and
were not directly
applicable to San
Marino.

Milestone Housing
Marcus Griffin
02/19/2021
San Marino
• High land values are barriers to
development
Suggestions:
• Lot consolidation program
• Public/Private Partnerships
• Potential for mixed-income
developments
• Stoneman site is promising
Acknowledge high land
prices
Acknowledge difficulty
in consolidating lots
with different owners
Stoneman Program
Mixed-income
assumptions made

Abundant Housing LA and
Climate Resolve
Leonora CamnerExecutive Director
Anthony DedousisDirector of Policy and
Research
Chase EnglehartClimate Planning and
Resilience Coordinator
02/25/2021
San Marino:
• Exclusionary Zoning in the City is very
similar to Historic Redlining
Boundaries
• Missing-middle housing is a low-cost
solution; see examples of by-right 4-
plexing in Sacramento
•
Suggestions:
• Land Trusts and Community
Ownership
• Tax Increment Financing
• Use revenue from greenfield land
declared a park to fund Affordable
Housing development
• Real Estate Transfer Tax; see
example in Culver City
Exclusionary history
addressed
Missing middle program
incorporated
Formation of a Land
Trust incorporated
Program included to
explore funding
mechanisms
Pasadena-Foothills

REALTORS (PFAR)
Rian Barrett -Government
Affairs and Leadership
Development Director
04/12/2021
San Marino:
• Low Housing Inventory
• High median home values compared
to neighboring Pasadena
• Specific/niche market
• Unaffordable to most 1st time
homebuyer
• Houses are on market ~21 days,
previously on market ~41 days
•
Suggestions:
• Increase Density Bonuses to
incentivize multi-family housing
development
• Lessen design requirements to make
it easier to build in the City
• Use Prop 19 to get more people to
move to City
Program included to
expand density bonus
program
Program included to
adopt objective design
& development
standards to remove
discretionary reviews

Summary of Community Comments of Draft Housing Element
On July 21, 2021, The City of San Marino published the Draft Version of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. In response, the City received 102 public comment letters and emails; of those, 81 were of similar format and substance: opposition to inclusion of the Carver School property on the list of sites to be considered for rezoning. The Carver School site was subsequently removed from the list.

Additional letters were received objecting to the public outreach not including each individual member of the community. One letter was received in support of multi-family housing, mixeduse zoning, and more practical design review standards.

All public comments received by the City have been provided to HCD upon submission of the Draft Housing Element Proposal.

Creation of the Initial Community Outreach List
In November of 2020, the City of San Marino provided the list of potential community stakeholders that had been utilized during the 5th Cycle Housing Element Update. 4LEAF consultants attempted to contact all individuals and organizations on the list via email and/or phone. Two weeks following attempted contact, including many cases where messages were left for named participants, non-responsive participants were removed from the list. The first edits are reflected as strikeouts in Table 39. The final outreach list is provided in Table 40. Additional outreach lists included the City’s senior mailing list; the members of the Chinese Club; and any residents who requested the City to include them in subsequent informational items and notices.

Table 39: Initial Community Outreach List with First Round of Revisions

TYPE ORGANIZATION CONTACT EMAILS PHONE
Developer
A Community of
Friends
Dora Leong Gallo,
Chief Executive Officer [email protected]. (626) 796-5190
Developer Abode Communities
Robin Hughes,
President & CEO
stephen@ballarchite
cture.com (949) 338-2679
Special Needs
Arthritis Club of San
Gabriel Valley,
Arthritis Foundation
Krista Conti, Market
Relations Coordinator
Special Needs Assisted Transition Frank Cunningham
avgwinn@silverdaos
enior.com (626) 812-9777
Realty/
Lending Bank of the West
Marlene Sanchez,
Robert Wongso
marlene.sanchez@b
ankofthewest.com
robert.wongso@ban
kofthewest (626)568-8300
Special Needs
Better Living
Homecare Services
tim.wang@ctbcbank
usa.com (626) 287-0716

Special Needs Bienvenidos
Ritchie L. Geisel,
President and CEO
aaaivazian@cbbank.
com (626) 281-0083
Utilities
California American
Water Company
Brian Barreto,
Southern California
Manager
anita.wong@eastwe
stbank.com (626) 457-1333
Special Needs
California Drug
Counseling, Inc.

Dr. Carl Rowe,
Executive Director [email protected] (626) 588 3760
Special Needs
Care 4 You - In Home
Care, Homecare
Assistance
Mark Barrett, Gaby
Romero, Head of
Operations
diana.feroyan@wells
fargo.com (626) 795-3567
Advocacy/
Service
Catholic Big Brothers
Big Sisters
Kenneth Martinet,
President/CEO
isaac.hung@icmreso
urces.com,
info@sanmarinohist
oricalsociety.org
(626) 255-8158
(626) 304-9375
Advocacy/
Service
Center For Community
& Family Services
Special Needs CHAP
Margaret B. Martinez,
CEO
devoncorlew@ymca
LA.org (626) 799-9119
Realty/
Lending
Chinatrust Bank
(U.S.A.) TIm Wang
Advocacy/
Service
Chinese Club of San
Marino
Calvin Lo, Tony Chou,
President
email@steppingston
es.net (626) 449-5986
Realty/
Lending Citizens Business Bank Anna Aivazian
gromero@homecare
assistance.com
(909) 599-0555
(626) 609-9194
Realty/
Lending Coldwell Banker Carson English
Realty/
Lending
Compass Real Estate
Team/Keller Williams Teri Barton, CEO
Advocacy/
Service Crowell Public Library Ann Dallavalle
Realty/
Lending Diamond Point
Realty/
Lending
Dilbeck Realtors
Christie's Great Estates Ray Hayes
[email protected]
om (626) 255-8158
Realty/
Lending
Dilbeck Realtors/The
Middleman Team Meg Middleman
Realty/
Lending
Dolan & Knight
Property Management
Advocacy/
Service
East San Gabriel Valley
Coalition for the
Homeless
Olivia, Megan Ryan,
Office Manager EAC (626) 765-4140
Realty/
Lending East West Bank
Anita Wong, Branch
Manager
megmiddleman@gm
ail.com
Realty/
Lending
First Capital Mortgage
Corporation Steve Kenilvort
marilynsimon@bhhs
cal.com

Special Needs Foothill Family Service
Helen Morran-Wolf,
Steve Aallen CEO [email protected] (626) 309-0000
Advocacy/
Service
Friends of The Crowell
Public Library
Maryann Seduski, Vice
-President (626) 705-0637
Special Needs
Greater Los Angeles
Agency on Deafness,
Inc.

Dr. Patricia Hughes,
CEO
[email protected]
m (626) 394-6216
Special Needs HomeCare 1 (626) 755-8383
Special Needs
Hope Through Housing
Foundation
George Searcy,
Executive Director
peteloeffler@remax.
net (626) 587-6711
Government
Housing Authority of
the County of Los
Angeles
Advocacy/
Service Housing Rights Center
Chancela Al-Mansour,
Executive Director
superintendent@sm
usd.us
(626) 299-7000
Ext. 1310
Property
Management ICM Resources, Inc. Isaac Hung, President
Special Needs IDEPSCA
Rebeca Ronquillo,
Interim President
brian.barreto@amw
ater (626) 614-2542
Special Needs Journey House
Fred Wong, Board
President
[email protected]
om (626) 303‐8419
Realty/
Lending Kennedy Capital
K. Kenji Tatsuno,
President [email protected] (626) 333-7204
Special Needs
Mothers’ Club Family
Learning Center,
Famiies Forward
Learning Center
HECTOR LAFARGA, JR.,
Elva D. Sandoval,
Executive Director
Property
Management NMN Enterprises Bob Nuccio
calmansour@housin
grightscenter.org
(213) 387-8400
ext. 1111
Realty/
Lending One West Bank Arlene Romero [email protected] (213) 480-0809 Special Needs
Outward Bound
Adventures (OBA, Inc.)
Gabrielle Wood,
Development Manager
rhughes@abodecom
munities.org
Special Needs Pacific Clinics
Susan Mandel, James
J. Balla, President &
CEO
[email protected]
rg
Realty/
Lending
Pasadena Service
Federal Credit Union Dina Lopez
Realty/
Lending
Pasadena-Foothills
Assocation of Realtors
mmartinez@chapcar
e.org (626) 993-1227
Special Needs Peace Over Violence
Patricia Giggans,
Executive Director
(951) 243-3837
ext. 231
Realty/
Lending PNC Mortgage
kmartinet@catholic
bigbrothers.org (213) 251-9800
Realty/
Lending
Prudential California
Realty Nina Kirkendall, (626) 577-8480

Realty/
Lending
Rate One Financial,
Inc.
pasadenapreschoola
[email protected]
Realty/
Lending
RE/MAX Premier
Properties Pete & Lisa Loeffler (626) 564-1613
Realty/
Lending Real Estate Heaven Paul Argueta, CEO (951) 764-5827 Realty/
Lending Region 1 Realty Eugene Sun
mmcbride@sgvhabit
at.org (626) 387-6899
Special Needs
Rosemary Children's
Services, Victor
Treatment Centers Greg Wessels, CEO
Advocacy/
Service
Rotary Club of San
Marino
Isaac Hung, Charities
President
contact@journeyho
useyouth.org (626) 798-9478
Realty/
Lending
Roycroft Realty/C I
Management,
Compass Real Estate Dave Melford
elva@FamiliesForwa
rdLC.org
(626-792-2687
ext 124
Developer
San Gabriel Valley
Habitat for Humanity
Dr. Sonja Yates,
Executive Director
Marta McBride,
Program Manager (626) 564-0844
Advocacy/
Service
San Marino Chamber
of Commerce
Joanna Jimenez,
Sandra Troup,
President
jballa@pacificclinics.
org (626) 254-5000
Advocacy/
Service San Marino City Club Andrew Yip
patti@peaceoverviol
ence.org
<patti@peaceovervi
olence.org>; (626) 793-3385
Education
San Marino Unified
School District
Loren Kleinrock, Dr.

Jeff Wilson,
Superintendent
rschwartz@shelterp
artnership.org (213) 688-2188
Special Needs
Shelter Partnership,
Inc.

Ruth Schwartz,
Executive Director (626) 844-3033
Special Needs Silverado Senior Living
Vita Gwinn, Regional
Administrator
Jcoran@unionstatio
nhs.org
(626) 240-4566
Advocacy/
Service
Simple Registration
Services Michael Frias
Realty/
Lending
Soma Warna Real
Estate Services Soma Warna
Advocacy/
Service
South Pasadena-San
Marino YMCA
Susan Marasco, Devon
Corlew, Senior Branch
Executive Director
Kenji@kennedycorp.
com (626) 440-9430
Utilities
Southern California
Edison Ronald Garcia
Special Needs Step by Step
Advocacy/
Service
Stepping Stones to
Learning
Anna & George
Hasbun

Special Needs
The Center for Aging
Resources
Vatche Kelartinian,
CEO
Special Needs Union Station
Homeless Services
Rabbi Marvin Gross,
Jeremy J. Coran,
Executive Assistant to
Chief Programs
Officer/
Interim Program
Manager [email protected]
Realty/
Lending
W.J. Bradley Mortgage
Captial
Realty/
Lending Wells Fargo Bank
Diana Feroyan, Branch
Manager
Table 40: Final Revised Community Outreach List

TYPE ORGANIZATION CONTACT EMAILS TELEPHONE
Architecture Stephen Ball stephen@ballarchite
cture.com (949) 338-2679
Developer A Community of
Friends
Dora Leong Gallo,
Chief Executive Officer [email protected] (213) 480-0809
Realty/
Lending Bank of the West Robert Wongso robert.wongso@bankofthewest (626)568-8300 Utilities California American
Water Company
Brian Barreto,
Southern California
Manager
brian.barreto@amw
ater (626) 614-2542
Advocacy/
Service
Catholic Big Brothers
Big Sisters
Kenneth Martinet,
President/CEO
kmartinet@catholic
bigbrothers.org (213) 251-9800
Special Needs CHAP Margaret B. Martinez,
CEO
mmartinez@chapcar
e.org
(626) 993-1227
Advocacy/
Service
Chinese Club of San
Marino Joanne [email protected] (626) 796-5190
Realty/
Lending Compass Real Estate Dave Melford (626) 705-0637 Advocacy/
Service
East San Gabriel Valley
Coalition for the
Homeless
Megan Ryan, Office
Manager EAC [email protected] (626) 333-7204
Realty/
Lending East West Bank Anita Wong, Branch Manager
anita.wong@eastwe
stbank.com (626) 457-1333
Special Needs Famiies Forward
Learning Center
Elva D. Sandoval,
Executive Director
elva@FamiliesForwa
rdLC.org
(626-792-2687
ext 124
Educational
Facility
Henry E. Huntington
Middle School
(SMUSD)
Daryl Topalian, Vice
Principal
[email protected] (626) 299-7060

Special Needs Homecare Assistance Gaby Romero, Head of
Operations
gromero@homecare
assistance.com
(909) 599-0555,
(626) 609-9194
Advocacy/
Service Housing Rights Center Chancela Al-Mansour, Executive Director calmansour@housin
grightscenter.org
(213) 387-8400,
ext. 1111
Property
Management ICM Resources, Inc. Isaac Hung, President [email protected] (626) 255-8158
Educational
Facility
K.L Carver Elementary
School (SMUSD)
Michael Lin, Principal [email protected] (626) 299-7080
Realty/
Lending One West Bank Arlene Romero [email protected] (626) 588 3760 Special Needs Pacific Clinics James J. Balla,
President & CEO
jballa@pacificclinics.
org
(626) 254-5000
Special Needs Peace Over Violence Patricia Giggans,
Executive Director
patti@peaceoverviol
ence.org
<patti@peaceovervi
olence.org>;
(626) 793-3385
Realty/
Lending
RE/MAX Premier
Properties Pete & Lisa Loeffler [email protected] (626) 587-6711 Realty/
Lending Region 1 Realty Eugene Sun [email protected] (626) 309-0000 Advocacy/
Service
Rotary Club of San
Marino
Isaac Hung, Charities
President
isaac.hung@icmreso
urces.com,
info@sanmarinohist
oricalsociety.org
(626) 255-8158,
(626) 304-9375
Educational
Facility
Saints Felicitas and
Perpetua School
Missy O'Neill, Principal missyoneill@laarchdiocese.org (626) 796-8223 Developer San Gabriel Valley
Habitat for Humanity
mmcbride@sgvhabit
at.org (626) 387-6899
Educational
Facility
San Marino High
School (SMUSD)
Jason Kurtenbach,
Principal
jkurtenbach@smusd
.us
(626) 299-7020
Special Needs Shelter Partnership,
Inc.

Ruth Schwartz,
Executive Director
rschwartz@shelterp
artnership.org (213) 688-2188
Special Needs Silverado Senior Living Vita Gwinn, Regional Administrator
avgwinn@silverdaos
enior.com (626) 812-9777
Realty/
Lending
Soma Warna Real
Estate Services Soma Warna [email protected]
(626) 394-6216
Advocacy/
Service
South Pasadena-San
Marino YMCA
Devon Corlew, Senior
Branch Executive
Director
devoncorlew@ymca
LA.org (626) 799-9119
Utilities Southern California
Edison Ronald Garcia [email protected]
(626) 303‐8419
Educational
Facility
Southwestern
Academy
Robin Jarchow, Head
of School
rjarchow@southwes
ternacademy.edu
(626) 799-5010

Advocacy/
Service
Stepping Stones to
Learning
Anna & George
Hasbun
email@steppingston
es.net (626) 449-5986
Special Needs Union Station
Homeless Services
Jeremy J. Coran,
Executive Asst
Interim Program
Manager
Jcoran@unionstatio
nhs.org (626) 240-4566
Educational
Facility
W.L.Valentine
Elementary School
(SMUSD)
Alana Faure, Principal [email protected] (626) 299-7090
Realty/
Lending Wells Fargo Bank Diana Feroyan, Branch Manager
diana.feroyan@wells
fargo.com (626) 795-3567
ATTATCHMENT A: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
One part of the community outreach and engagement plan included the distribution of community opinion surveys about housing needs and opportunities in San Marino. These surveys were designed to that they could be accessed and completed via cell phone in order to ensure equal access to households without internet connections. The surveys were conducted in the City’s three dominant languages (Chinese, English, and Spanish) to ensure that all residents had an opportunity to participate in the language that they felt most comfortable with. Multiple digital and social media platforms were used to facilitate the public input. Fill-in responses to questions are listed above, in Table 32: Public Comments and Incorporation into Housing Element. The remaining results of the community opinion surveys (all languages compiled) are presented here.

Q1 Answer Choice Responses:

Need housing choices in lower price range 39.02% 32
Need more housing for seniors 10.98% 9
Need lower-cost rental housing 20.73% 17
Need homes that are affordable to first-time homebuyers 39.02% 32 San Marino needs housing for people who work here 15.85% 13 All of San Marino’s housing needs are being met 37.80% 31 Other (please specify) 12.20% 10

Q2 Answer Choice Responses:

Housing priced so that my children can afford to live here 42.35% 36 Businesses will need housing affordable to their workers 17.65% 15 Housing will need to be priced to attract new families to San Marino 49.41% 42 Older homes will be deteriorating and in need of repair 64.71% 55 Our aging population will need accessible, well-designed housing options 34.12% 29 Other (please specify) 8.24% 7

Q3 Answer Choice Responses:

Disagree Neutral/
No
Opinion
Agree
It is important to preserve San Marino’s historic architecture 10.47% 9 23.26%
20 66.28%
57 There are no entry-level homes to purchase in San Marino Rental prices in San Marino are too high

25.88%
22 40.00%
34 34.12%
29 Some of the older homes in San Marino need rehabilitation 5.81% 5 22.09%
19 72.09%
62 My children can’t afford to live here in San Marino 10.47% 9 31.40%
27 58.14%
50 There are not enough housing options in San Marino 24.42% 21 29.07%
25 46.51%
40 Some seniors need assistance to remain in their homes 8.14% 7 30.23%
26 61.63%
53 San Marino should allow some apartments to be built 63.95% 55 11.63%
10 24.42%
21 It is important to preserve San Marino’s neighborhoods 3.49% 3 13.95%
12 82.56%
71 My housing costs have increased in the last 5 years 15.29% 13 22.35%
19 62.35%
53

People who work in San Marino can’t afford to live here 7.06% 6 32.94%
28 60.00%
51 There should not be any apartments in San Marino unless they look like our existing houses

39.29%
33 14.29%
12 46.43%
39 San Marino needs more housing options for all income levels 53.49% 46 16.28%
14 30.23%
26 Q4 Answer Choice Responses:
1 2 3 4 5
Accessory dwelling units (second units/granny
units/junior units)

29.41%
20 39.71%
27 16.18%
11 7.35%
5 7.35%
5 Smaller single-family dwellings/cottages 4.62%
3 3.08%
2 13.85%
9 18.46%
12 60.00%
39 Group or dormitory housing on school campuses
or public facility properties

5.63%
4 9.86%
7 35.21%
25 26.76%
19 22.54%
16 Alternative housing types like tiny homes,
work/live spaces, and intentional communities

15.19%
12 17.72%
14 21.52%
17 27.85%
22 17.72%
14 Independent senior housing 29.41%
20 39.71%
27 16.18%
11 7.35%
5 7.35%
5

STRATEGIC PLAN CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
• Engaged and Connected Residents
• Efficient, Responsive, and Effective City Services
• Safe Community
• Attractive, Complementary Business District
• Inviting and Relevant City Facilities

BACKGROUND
The City initiated the Housing Element Update process in December 2020 with the release of community surveys, a town hall meeting, and community outreach efforts. A Planning Commission workshop was conducted on February 24, 2021, and a City Council workshop took place on April 16, 2021. During both workshops, staff and the City’s Housing Consultant discussed the legal requirements for the housing element, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City, the current status of housing units, types of housing in the City, constraints that may deter housing production, and various strategies available to facilitate housing production in accordance with State laws.

At the April 16th workshop, the City Council provided policy direction on the Draft Housing Strategy, a document that outlines a housing policy framework for the City. Based on comments received from the workshop, the City’s Housing Consultant has updated the goals, policies, and programs section of the Housing Element and prepared the Housing Element Administrative Draft (Administrative Draft), provided as Attachment 1.

TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marcella Marlowe, Ph.D., City Manager
BY: Aldo Cervantes, Community Development Director
Eva Choi, Associate Planner
Jane Riley, AICP – Consultant
DATE: July 14, 2021
SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT WORKSHOP
Ken Ude, Mayor
Susan Jakubowski, Vice Mayor
Steven W. Huang, DDS, Council Member
Gretchen Shepherd Romey, Council Member
Steve Talt, Council Member

This report is an informational item intended to confirm City Council’s direction from the April 16th workshop and to advise the Council that staff will be submitting the Administrative Draft to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) to begin the required 60-day review period, after this workshop, if City Council’s direction does not result in substantive changes.

DISCUSSION
This workshop provides the City Council an opportunity to review the Housing Element Administrative Draft, as the Administrative Draft was updated to address comments received at the April 16th workshop without compromising the City’s ability to provide housing production opportunities to meet the RHNA for the 2021 to 2029.

The Housing Element Administrative Draft includes a site inventory to identify areas in the City for future consideration of a residential density increase. The goal is to focus any needed higher density development on currently underutilized properties and at locations near major employment centers within the City. Detailed discussion of the site inventory and the realistic development capacity is provided within Section II of the Administrative Draft. Because the City’s assigned RHNA is so much larger compared to the prior cycles, and requirements from SB 166 known as the No Net Loss law require a surplus of capacity above the assigned RHNA, a compliant sites inventory is not feasible without residential density increases in some areas of the City. Staff advises that the Council direct questions to our City Attorney as it relates to the No Net Loss provisions as well as any comments related to any other State mandate that effects or drives the current strategy.

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE
Following this workshop, the City’s consultant will make any necessary updates to the Administrative Draft and release the document for public input for a period of approximately two weeks. The Administrative Draft will then be submitted to HCD for review and comment.

HCD has a maximum of 60 days to provide comments on the Administrative Draft. Once HCD provides comments, the City’s consultant will incorporate these comments into the final draft of the Housing Element document. The final document will be presented to the Planning Commission for final review and to the City Council for adoption, and then the adopted Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for certification by October 15, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT & PROCUREMENT REVIEW
There will be no fiscal impact as a result of this report.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed this report and approved it as to form.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hear the staff report and pose questions to staff, the City Attorney, and/or the City’s consultant;

2. Hear from the public regarding the Housing Element Administrative Draft; and

3. Review the Housing Element Administrative Draft, provide direction to staff for changes, and confirm submittal to HCD.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Housing Element Administrative Draft

2. City Council staff report dated April 16, 2021

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Housing Element Admin Draft
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the San Marino General Plan presents goals, policies, programs, and supporting information related to the provision of housing for existing and future residents of the City. The purpose of the Housing Element is twofold: 1) to present specific policies and actions for housing development to meet San Marino’s specific, identified housing needs; and 2) to meet regional standards and achieve State certification, pursuant to statutory requirements.

1.2 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
The Housing Element of the General Plan is a detailed statement of the housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives for the City. The Element is based on a comprehensive technical assessment of existing housing policies and programs; current and projected housing needs, especially related to low income households and special needs populations; an analysis of market, environmental, governmental, and other factors which constrain housing production; an assessment of ways that the City can affirmatively further fair housing for its residents; an inventory of sites available for housing construction; and an assessment of new programs and policies that can enhance housing production in the City.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to guide decision-making by elected and appointed officials. Specifically, the Housing Element sets forth how the City will address the need for housing, especially by low- and moderate-income families and special needs families and individuals. The Housing Element also provides housing-related data and information to the public.

1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAWS AND GENERAL PLAN
State law requires that the General Plan include an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies.

The City of San Marino’s General Plan contains elements relating to land use, community services, natural resources, safety (including noise), housing, and circulation. The 2021 Housing Element provides goals, policies and implementation measures that are consistent with all other elements of the General Plan; amendments to the City’s Land Use Element are planned for immediately after adoption of the Housing Element. As the General Plan is amended in the future, the City will ensure the Housing Element remains consistent with the General Plan.

New State law requires that the Safety Element be updated to address climate adaptation upon revision of the Housing Element. The City will ensure compliance with this requirement by updating and adopting its updated Safety Element concurrent with the 2021 Housing Element.

The City will provide a copy of the Housing Element to the water and sewer service providers and has coordinated with these agencies regarding the State-mandated water and sewer service priority for housing projects that will help San Marino in meeting its regional housing need for lower-income households (Government Code Section 65589.7). Because San Marino does not

Housing Element Admin Draft
have any disadvantaged communities, an Environmental Justice Element is not required; however, a fair housing analysis has been conducted and policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing are included within the Housing Element.

1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The 6th cycle Housing Element Update has been undertaken during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Public outreach, which is the cornerstone of the preparation process, had to be adjusted to allow and encourage meaningful public participation and input without the ability to meet or gather in-person. Staff and consultants made use of multiple digital platforms to facilitate the public input, including mechanisms that used cell phones so that persons without internet access were still able to fully participate. Community opinion surveys were conducted in multiple languages to ensure that all residents had an opportunity to be heard. Public participation opportunities were provided as outlined in the list below:
● On December 7, 2020, the City Council held a virtual Town Hall to introduce the Housing Element update and to present an overview of the Housing Element Update process and new laws.
● Also in December of 2020, the City developed and launched a website dedicated to the update of the Housing Element. The website includes a dedicated e-mail address for the Housing Element Update, a background on the Housing Element and its purpose; opportunities for participation; and links to meeting materials, presentations, and document drafts for public review. An outreach and notification list was developed and used throughout the update process.
● Covid-safe Zoom meetings were conducted for local housing providers, developers, and other professionals on January 8th, 11th, and 13th.
● In January through March of 2021, community opinion surveys were conducted in English, Spanish and Chinese. The surveys were structured to allow full participation via cell phone to overcome any digital divide. Survey results are provided in Section 4. ● Six different stakeholder interviews were conducted during the first four months of 2021 and included multiple for-profit and non-profit developers, as well as advocacy groups and service providers:
o Southern California NPH
o Lanterman Regional Center
o Abundant Housing LA
o Climate Resolve
o Milestone Housing
o Local Builders & Applicants
o Chinese Club
o Pasadena-Foothills Area Realtors

Housing Element Admin Draft
● On February 24, 2021, the Planning Commission held a publicly noticed workshop on the Housing Element Update. The Commission discussed the challenges faced by the City, took public input, and provided policy direction to staff in formulating strategies for meeting the State Housing Element mandates and identifying adequate sites to meet the City’s RHNA.
● On April 16, 2021, the City Council held a publicly noticed workshop on the Housing Element Update and reviewed the Draft Housing Strategy (Policies and Programs for the Housing Element) and a preliminary rezoning program to address the City’s RHNA shortfall. The City Council reviewed the draft set of policies and discussed options to meet the Housing Element requirements and community housing needs. The City Council provided feedback and direction on the preparation of a draft for review by the public and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Notices for this workshop were sent to the outreach and notification list, as well as to those who had provided contact information on the community surveys and those that had spoken at previous meetings.
● On June 4, 2021, a Public/HCD Review Draft Housing Element was released and made available on the established website. Notices of the release of the draft document were sent to the outreach and notification list, including those who had spoken at previous meetings.
● On June 7, 2021, the Public/HCD Review Draft Housing Element was sent to HCD to begin their mandatory 60-day review period, during which time all interested parties were invited and encouraged to submit comments directly to HCD.
● On July 30, 2021, HCD responded with several changes that would be needed for the Draft Housing Element to be found in compliance with State law, and these changes were subsequently incorporated into the Planning Commission Draft. ● On August 16, 2021, the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element and the CEQA document were released for public review.
● On September 15, 2021; the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element and adopted a resolution finding the CEQA document adequate and appropriate for the project and also making findings of compliance with State law before recommending adoption of the Housing Element to the City Council.
● On October 5, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted a resolution finding the CEQA document adequate and appropriate for the Housing Element Update and adopting the amendments to the Housing Element.

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element is organized into four main sections. Section 1 introduces the overall Housing Element update effort, a summary of housing needs and constraints, a Fair Housing summary, and a review of the effectiveness of the 2014 Housing Element and the City’s progress

Housing Element Admin Draft
in its implementation. Section 2 sets forth the City’s Housing Strategy, which is comprised of the Goals, Policies and Programs that it intends to implement over the next 8-year planning cycle.

The City’s Quantified Objectives are also included in Section 2. Section 3 presents a detailed housing site inventory, including a discussion of the availability of services, and compares this inventory to the City’s projected housing needs. Section 4, the Technical Background Report, provides statutorily required data including an assessment of housing needs & programs, an analysis of non-governmental and governmental constraints to affordable housing provision, and a discussion of special needs populations. Pre-certified housing and demographic data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is included here.

1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Throughout the Housing Element, a variety of technical terms related to income levels are used in describing and quantifying conditions and objectives. The definitions of these terms follow:

Affordable Housing -- Housing which costs no more than 30 percent of a low-, very low-, or extremely low-income household’s gross monthly income. For rental housing, the residents may pay up to 30 percent of gross income on rent plus tenant-paid utilities. For homeownership, residents can pay up to 30 percent on the combination of mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and Homeowners' dues.

Area Median Income (AMI) -- The income figure representing the middle point of all Los Angeles household incomes. Fifty percent of households earn more than or equal to this figure and 50 percent earn less than or equal to this figure. The AMI varies according to the size of the household. For the year 2020, the AMI for a four-person household in Los Angeles County was $77,300.

Extremely Low-Income Households (ELI) -- Households earning not more than 30 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Very Low-Income Households (VLI) -- Households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Low Income Households -- Households earning between 51 and 80 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Moderate Income Households -- Households earning 81 to 120 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Middle Income Households – Households earning from 80 percent to 150 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Above Moderate-Income Households -- Households earning not less than 120 percent of the Los Angeles County AMI.

Housing Element Admin Draft

1.7 DATA SOURCES
The 2021 Housing Element Update makes full use of the pre-certified data package provided by SCAG, which is contained in its entirely within the Technical Background Report. Data provided within this policy document is taken from the SCAG data set and by other sources as noted. In addition to the SCAG dataset, the following sources of data were used to help identify historic patterns of segregation, assess constraints to housing and the market conditions in San Marino; and to better identify specific housing needs:
● U.S. Census 2010
● 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
● Realtor.com
● Zillow.com
● Los Angeles Economic Development Commission 2021 Economic Forecast ● LACDA Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice/Assessment of Fair Housing ● Connect SoCal 2020-2045
● Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Action Plan, 2018 ● Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor
● Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors
● Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority 2020 Homeless Count, by City ● City of San Marino Building Permit Data
● San Marino Historic Resource Survey, October 2020
● Historic neighborhood development data provided by City of San Marino staff ● 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for San Marino ● EPA’s San Marino Environmental Justice Report
● Rich Blocks, Poor Blocks based on 2012-2016 ACS for San Marino ● Income by Neighborhoods Map, CityData.com accessed March 2021 ● A Portrait of Los Angeles County, San Marino–Measure of America, as of March 2021 ● Los Angeles County Annual Affordable Housing Outcomes Report, CHP, 30 April 2019 ● CA Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Needs Data Certification Letter, 2020

1.8 COMMUNITY PROFILE
San Marino is a small city within the very large and diverse Los Angeles County (Figure 1). It is located 11 miles from the City of Los Angeles, and is surrounded by the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Gabriel, and Alhambra. While San Marino is served by the nearby freeway network (210 and 164) and by the Metro bus line 78/79/379, it does not have high-speed rail services and

Housing Element Admin Draft
does not contain any Priority Growth Areas envisioned in Connect SoCal 2020-2045. San Marino’s 2020 population of 12,870 represents a decrease from the 2010 population of 13,187. This lack of growth is consistent with that of Los Angeles County and the State of California, both of which have recently begun decreasing in population.

Figure 1: San Marino Location within Larger Los Angeles County Incorporated in 1913, San Marino was almost completely built out by the 1970s (Figure 2). San Marino is characterized by its beautiful homes and has multiple historic neighborhoods and structures. The intention of the City’s founding fathers was a high-quality, crime-free residential area that provides great schools, parks, and an exclusive lifestyle; the City’s physical form today reflects those early values and development patterns. The City’s lack of vacant parcels and subdivision potential has impeded development since the 1970s: an average of less than 6 new home permits have been issued annually since 1980, not counting Accessory Dwelling Units.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Figure 2: San Marino Neighborhood Development Chronology Source: San Marino Historical Survey, 2020 and San Marino staff

1.9 CHANGING HOUSING NEEDS AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Comparisons between San Marino’s data and that of the larger Los Angeles County show stark differences in many areas, as reflected in the information highlighted below. San Marino’s median household income and median housing price are both more than twice that of the surrounding county or region. As the City ages and demographics change, different housing needs have arisen, and new programs are needed to meet changing demands. This section explores the characteristics and the housing needs of the San Marino community and helps to provide direction in updating the City’s Housing Element goals, policies, and programs.

1.9.1 Population Characteristics and Trends
Los Angeles County’s population increased slightly (1.89%) between 2000 and 2010, from 9,787,747 residents in 2010 to 9,969,510 in 2020. By contrast, San Marino’s population

Housing Element Admin Draft
decreased 2.1% over the same period, from 13,147 residents in 2010 to 12,870 residents in 2020.

In addition to the population decrease, the average household size in San Marino also decreased and now average 2.92 persons per household, down from a household size of 3.02 persons in 2010. This decrease in household size coupled with a decrease in population is not unexpected in a community that has both a growing number of seniors and a shrinking number of young families.

Age Composition
Figure 3 helps to tell San Marino’s housing needs story: it has an aging population to be housed and cared for, and it will need to create reasonably inexpensive housing opportunities for young families if it is to stop the outmigration of young adults and families seeking a more affordable place to live.

Figure 3: Current Population by Age and Sex
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates Race and Ethnicity
The U.S. Census provides statistics regarding the race and ethnicity of a city's population. The 2010-2019 population estimates show that the City of San Marino is made up of persons classified as “Asian alone” at 60.5 % of the population, and with persons classified as “White alone” at

31.5% of the population. Hispanic or Latino persons formed 6.3 % of the population; Blacks or African Americans formed about 2% of the population; and about 3% of the population identified as two or more Races. Additional discussion of San Marino’s racial and ethnic composition is included in the Technical Background Report (Section 4).

Employment and Income
According to the American Community Survey 2014-2018, the City of San Marino has 5,474 residents in the workforce. This represents a 7.4% decrease from the 5,904 residents reported to be in San Marino’s workforce by the American Community Survey 2007-2011, consistent with the City’s aging workforce and its recent decrease in population. The industries with the highest percentage of employees are education and social services with 1,389 employees (25.4% of total). Professional services and finance make up another large segment of occupations. Figure 4 illustrates the breakdown of employment by industry.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Figure 4: Employment by Industry
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates w/ groupings of 2-digit NA/CS codes.

San Marino has relatively few low-paying jobs. It is primarily residential in nature and has only 2 streets (Mission and Huntington) with commercial uses that could support local employment.

These areas are primarily made up of small-scale retail and professional office spaces. The City’s largest employers are the San Marino Unified School District with 315 employees and the Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens with 459 employees.

1.9.2 Household Incomes and Housing Affordability
As noted, San Marino’s median household income of $159,509 is more than twice that of greater Los Angeles County at $77,300. While most San Marino residents have higher incomes than Los Angeles County in general, there are still a considerable number of San Marino households (970) with 2017 incomes at the “lower” level (80% of AMI) or less. The distribution of incomes for 2018 is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: San Marino Income Groups, by Type of Tenancy
Income Distribution
Overview
Owner
Households
Renter
Households
Total
Households
Percentage of
Households
Extremely Low Income 275 165 440 10%
Very Low Income 235 45 280 6%
Low Income 210 40 250 6%
Moderate Income 240 90 330 7%
Above Moderate 2,840 370 3,210 71%
Total 3,800 710 4,510 100%
Sources: Consolidated Planning /CHAS Data for San Marino; 2013-2017 ACS

Housing Element Admin Draft
Housing Costs and Overpayment
When housing prices are very high, many households must “overpay” for housing. Households are considered housing cost-burdened when their total housing costs exceed 30% of their gross monthly income, and to be “severely cost burdened” when their total housing costs exceed 50% of their gross monthly income. As would be expected, households with very-low and extremely low incomes are disproportionately housing cost-burdened. In San Marino, 22% of households are severely cost burdened and are paying more than 50% of their gross monthly incomes for housing. Another 15% of households are paying more than 30% of their incomes on housing, and 62% are paying less than 30% of their incomes for housing. While the high median household incomes in San Marino result in a relatively low overpayment rate, there are still 1,697 San Marino households who are overpaying for housing.

1.9.3 Special Needs Populations
Homeless
The Los Angeles County Community Development Commission conducts bi-annual point-in-time surveys of homeless populations. San Marino is occasionally reported to have 1 unhoused person, but typically is reported to have zero unhoused persons. Services for homeless individuals are available in neighboring Pasadena. San Marino allows emergency shelters to be established in any commercially zoned property as a permitted use; however, no interest has been shown on the part of homeless service providers in initiating homeless services in San Marino.

Disabled
Census data indicate that San Marino has 461 persons with an independent living disability, 248 with a self-care disability, 413 with an ambulatory disability, 229 with a vision disability, 199 with a cognitive disability and 163 with a hearing disability. These numbers are not exclusive, as some residents have more than one type of disability. The most commonly occurring disabilities among seniors 65 and older were independent living and ambulatory disabilities, each experienced by more than ten percent of San Marino’s seniors. The provision of ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) and JADUs (Junior Accessory Dwelling Units), and the adoption of a voluntary Universal Design program, can help to address these special needs.

Elderly
According to the 2019 U.S. Census population estimates, about 21 percent of San Marino’s population are aged 65 and above. As shown earlier in Figure 3, a large and growing percentage of San Marino’s population is elderly; by the end of the Housing Element period, the 70-75 age group will be the most prevalent, followed by the 65-70, 60-65, and 55-60 age groups. Elderly persons often have fixed incomes in addition to other special needs related to housing and may require physical improvements to their homes such as ramps, handrails, lower cupboards and counters, creation of a downstairs bedroom, and other modifications to enable them to remain in their homes. They may also need additional assistance in the form of a part-time or live-in caretaker. In most instances the elderly would like to stay in their own homes rather than move

Housing Element Admin Draft
to a retirement community. In San Marino, and particularly among the Asian community, it is common for multiple generations of a family to live together. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) will become increasingly important in accommodating the housing needs of this aging community. Encouraging new homes, additions, and remodels to include Universal Design elements will also be important to serving the needs of the mobility- or vision-impaired.

Large Households
Household size can be influenced by a lack of affordable housing options, an increase or decrease in family formations, or families leaving an area. Ethnicity can also affect sizes of households if a particular ethnic group has a tradition of living with family members upon retirement age. In San Marino, the average household size has continued to decrease, from 3.02 to 2.92 persons per household, while the number of smaller households (1-3 persons) has increased. San Marino has a relatively small number of large households, but when they do occur, they tend to be rental households.

Figure 5: Households by Household Size
Source: SCAG Local Housing Data
Female-headed households
State law requires an analysis of female-headed households to ensure adequate childcare and job training resources. Of San Marino’s 4,566 households, only 8.8% were female-headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region); of those, just 3.9% had children at home and none had children under age six.

Farmworkers
The 2014 – 2018 ACS indicated that no farmworkers live in San Marino, and there is no nearby farmland that would indicate a need for farmworker housing in San Marino.

Housing Element Admin Draft

1.10 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING STOCK
Type
San Marino’s housing stock consists almost exclusively of single-family homes (98.8%), compared to 54.4% for the greater SCAG region. Slightly more than 86% of San Marino’s homes are owneroccupied, compared to 52.5% for the SCAG region. Conversely, only 13.6% of San Marino’s homes are renter-occupied, compared to 47.5% of the SCAG region. The age group most likely to be renting in San Marino are those between 35 and 44; however, owners outnumber renters across all age groups.

Age & Condition
San Marino’s housing stock is much older than the SCAG regional average. As previously noted, San Marino was largely built-out by 1960 and has seen very little construction after 1980. The time period where the highest share of San Marino’s housing was built is before 1939, while in the larger SCAG region the period when most housing was build was during the 1970s.

Overcrowding
The ACS definition of overcrowding is more than 1.0 occupants per room, where the number of rooms includes all except kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 occupants per room. In San Marino, just 3.4% of households were overcrowded and less than 1% were severely overcrowded. Rental units were more likely to be overcrowded than were owner-occupied units.

Vacancy
The vacancy rate is a measure of the general availability of housing. It also shows how well the available units meet the current housing market demand. A low vacancy rate suggests that households will have difficulty finding housing within their price range. While the average vacancy rate across the US is approximately 7%, in metropolitan areas rates are generally about 3% - 4%. San Marino’s vacancy rate is 4.6%, with about 200 vacant units.

A “Vacancy” occurs for several reasons; a home may be listed for sale or being prepared for a rental tenant. Homes can also be held for seasonal or occasional use by their owners. The American Community Survey has categorized vacancy in San Marino by type as displayed in Figure 6:

Housing Element Admin Draft
Figure 6: Vacant Units by Type
Source: American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-year estimates The type of vacancy can be instructive
when one type varies significantly from
the norm, such as the “Other” category
for San Marino in Figure 6 above. This
may occur in vacation-destination
communities, where short-term
vacation rentals drive the “seasonal”
vacancy type higher. For ACS data,
vacant units are subdivided according
to their housing market classification
shown in the sidebar. Units held vacant
for “other” reasons make up 67%, or
about 134 of San Marino’s vacant units
as shown in Figure 6.

Public input received during preparation
of the Housing Element included
anecdotal information about “investor”
houses, which are bought by investors
who do not live in San Marino and are
held, vacant, purely for investment
purposes. These vacant homes are
reflected as “other” by the ACS data of
vacancy type in Figure 6; they are not
used for housing people. This
phenomenon has recently been seen in
high-value real estate markets on both
coasts, most notably in Vancouver,
Seattle, and San Francisco; a 2021
Report by SAGE and UCLA Law found
Types of Vacancy in Census Data
For Rent - These are vacant units offered "for rent,"
and vacant units offered either "for rent" or "for sale." Rented, Not Occupied - These are vacant units rented
but not yet occupied, including units where A has been
paid or agreed upon, but the renter has not yet moved
in.

For Sale Only - These are vacant units being offered
"for sale only," including units in cooperatives and
condominium projects if the individual units are offered "for sale only." If units are offered either "for rent" or "for sale" they are included in the "for rent" classification.

Sold, Not Occupied - These are vacant units sold but
not yet occupied, including units that have been sold
recently, but the new owner has not yet moved in.

For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use -
These are vacant units used or intended for use only in certain seasons or for weekends or other occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal units include those used
for summer or winter sports or recreation, such as beach cottages and hunting cabins. Seasonal units also may
include quarters for such workers as herders and
loggers. Interval ownership units, sometimes called
shared-ownership or timesharing condominiums, also
are included here.

For Migrant Workers - These include vacant units
intended for occupancy by migratory workers employed
in farm work during the crop season.

Other Vacant - If a vacant unit does not fall into any of the categories specified above, it is classified as "Other vacant." For example, this category includes units held for occupancy by a caretaker or janitor, and units held for personal reasons of the owner.

Housing Element Admin Draft
the same phenomenon occurring is the City of Los Angeles, where over 46,000 units are being held in this manner and thus not available for housing. If the census data and presence of speculative investor housing accurately represents the vacant home situation in San Marino, then the true housing vacancy rate for the City is actually much lower – less than 1 percent. As noted above, this shows there are not enough units to meet market demand and that households will have difficulty finding housing in San Marino.

Prices
San Marino’s housing prices have continued to accelerate at a greater rate than costs in Los Angeles County (Figure 7). While median household incomes in San Marino are high, even moderate- and middle-income households cannot afford a home in San Marino where the median sales price exceeds $2 million, and the median rental price exceeds $4000 per month (2021 figures). A moderate-income family of three could afford a home with a sales price of $385,859 or a monthly rent of $1,818. San Marino currently lacks homes for these households, which include young families and first-time homebuyers.

Figure 7: Growth in San Marino and Los Angeles County Homes Sale Prices, 2012 - 2021 Source: Realtor.com
Preservation of Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
There are no existing assisted housing units that are deed-restricted for lower-income households in San Marino. There are no units at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.

1.11 SUMMARY OF CONSTRAINTS
As discussed in Section 4, the primary constraints to housing in San Marino are the lack of vacant land and extremely high land values. Discussion with both market-rate and affordable housing developers revealed that the high land costs, together with San Marino’s relatively small lot sizes

Housing Element Admin Draft
and lack of available land, render San Marino unattractive for the development of affordable or market-rate housing. While these forces are beyond the City’s control, they are some of the primary drivers of high land costs and high median home prices. Affordable housing developers indicated that if lots could be combined and rezoned, they might achieve the economies of scale needed to develop 100 percent affordable multi-family housing. The City will explore a lot consolidation program; however, the potential to combine adjacent lots is somewhat limited by the lack of common parcel ownership in the City.

Two developers interviewed indicated areas where the City has potential (beyond ADUs and JADUs) to develop housing for multiple income levels. One opportunity is in the City’s two commercial areas; the adoption of objective design and development standards for residential uses in the C-1 zone and multi-family projects could significantly increase the viability of higher density residential projects. Other places where affordable and workforce housing could occur include the private Southwestern Academy campus; the Carver School campus; and a portion of the Huntington property. Another promising opportunity lies in the redevelopment of the Cityowned Stoneman site, where the City could partner with developers of both affordable and market-rate housing to put together an attractive land deal to development mixed-tenure and mixed-income housing. All these programs will be considered by the City (see Section 2).

One of the secondary constraints to the development of housing in San Marino is community opposition. The public opinion survey and public input received during preparation of the Housing Element indicate that a large segment of residents believe that San Marino should not build any multi-family housing. Many residents feel that either all of San Marino’s housing needs have been met, or that any needs that do exist can be satisfied by the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Additionally, stakeholder interviews revealed that San Marino can be difficult to get a project through, even if the project type and design are allowed by the City Codes. The development of objective design and development standards for the ministerial approval of qualified development projects will be important steps to ensure that San Marino is able to accommodate its fair share of the region’s housing needs (see Section 2).

1.12 SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ANALYSIS
Assembly Bill 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH) was adopted into law in 2018 and became effective on January 1, 2019. The law requires state and local agencies to take proactive measures to correct any housing inequalities related to race, national origin, color, ancestry, sex, marital status, disability, religion, or other protected characteristics. Agencies must ensure that their laws and programs affirmatively further fair housing, and that they take no actions that do not do so.

Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing, or AFFH, means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Agencies must include in their Housing Elements a program that promotes fair housing opportunities for all persons. In the context of a community’s housing needs, AFFH is not

Housing Element Admin Draft
just about the number of units needed, but also about where the units are located and who has access to them.

AB 686 makes certain requirements for the analysis of fair housing issues; this analysis is contained in Section 4 along with a history of San Marino and its past practices of allowing only single-family homes.

While HCD has not yet completed its guidance document for AFFH analysis within Housing Elements, discussions with HCD staff indicated that a proper course of action in Areas of Opportunity like San Marino would be to 1) analyze and discuss areas of ethnic or economic concentration; and 2) assess any exclusionary land use practices and include programs to overcome or reverse them. A history of San Marino’s development and growth patterns is provided in Section 4 and summarized here.

San Marino is much more racially diverse than the average U.S. city. While there is a somewhat greater White population in the northwestern part of the City and a slightly greater Asian population in the southeastern part of the City, there are not areas of ethnic or economic concentration. Median incomes are high and fairly stable throughout the City, as is the racial mix of its citizens. While there are a considerable number of low-income senior households in San Marino, they tend to own their homes and are not concentrated in any area or neighborhood.

San Marino does not have any areas of racial or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/CAPs).

It is a well-integrated community, and the entire City is designated as an Area of Opportunity.

This designation is based on the consideration of factors affecting the quality of life and health outcomes including educational enrollment and attainment; employment rates; lack of overcrowding in housing or overpayment for housing costs; transportation costs; and environmental health.

San Marino’s rich and varied past spans multiple eras of California history and is associated with cultural and social themes that were definitive in the history of Los Angeles County and Southern California. Since its 1913 incorporation, “the City envisioned itself as a residential enclave for people of means, with zoning that ensured minimal commercial development and no industry or multi-family residences” (Source: San Marino Historic Resources Survey Report, October 2020). This exclusive designation has played out in the City’s zoning since its establishment. San Marino is almost exclusively residential, with its built environment dominated by detached single-family homes constructed primarily between the 1920s and the 1960s. As of 2021, there were no areas zoned for multi-family residences, or for industry/manufacturing. Small areas on Huntington Drive and Mission Street are zoned for commercial use, and the City has recently approved a mixeduse project on a commercial street at 2405 Huntington Drive.

By definition, single-family zoning is exclusionary when it occurs to the exclusion of other types of residential uses. While not intending to be exclusionary, San Marino’s past prohibition of anything but single-family homes has had the effect of excluding persons who do not have incomes high enough to live in the City. Because poverty occurs most often with person of color, these practices have resulted in the exclusion of protected classes even though they were not intended to. AB 686 requires that the City adopt programs to overcome and reverse this pattern of exclusion, and to identify locations for affordable housing through the AFFH lens.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Reversing Exclusionary Zoning Practices
The approach taken in the 2021 Housing Element to address past exclusionary zoning practices and to affirmatively further fair housing is two-fold: First, programs are included that change zoning to allow for all types of housing, including the multi-family apartments and duplexes that have previously been banned in the City; and secondly, the location of potential housing sites to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA is considered through an equity lens, not only by choosing locations in areas throughout the City but also by including programs to promote the development of missing middle houses, duplexes, triplexes, ADUs, and affordable JADUs in the City’s singlefamily residential neighborhoods. Section 2 includes the specific policies and programs to reverse exclusionary zoning and to affirmatively further fair housing; Section 3 contains the housing sites location information and maps.

1.13 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), also known as the Regional Housing Need Assessment, is a requirement of State housing law and is a process that determines projected and existing housing needs for all jurisdictions in California. The Southern California Association of Governments, or SCAG, conducts the RHNA process every eight years. Every jurisdiction must plan for its RHNA allocation in its Housing Element by ensuring there are enough sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate their RHNA. The goal is to ensure that local plans have enough appropriately zoned land to accommodate their existing and projected housing needs for all income levels for the entire 8-year planning period. Jurisdictions are not expected to build the housing, but they must plan and zone for it.

The RHNA methodology applies several factors to further the objectives of State law and meet the goals of the Connect SoCal plan. After a RHNA total is calculated, a social equity adjustment is applied to determine the four income categories. The social equity adjustment is based on household income and access to resources. One of the five objectives of State housing law is to ensure that there is not an overconcentration of households by income group in comparison to the county or regional average. To ensure that the RHNA methodology does not overburden lowincome jurisdictions with more low-income households, a social equity adjustment is applied during the Income Group process. The result is that higher income jurisdictions are required to plan for fewer market rate units and more affordable units, while lower income jurisdictions plan for more market rate units and fewer affordable units.

San Marino’s RHNA for the period between October 2021 – October 2029 is 397 units, divided between income groups as follows:

Regional Housing Need Allocation, 2021 - 2029
Very Low Low Moderate Market Total
San Marino 149 91 91 66 397

Housing Element Admin Draft
While the RHNA is assigned based on the four income categories above, the law also requires that communities plan for the needs of extremely low-income households, defined as those making less than 30% of the County AMI. The housing need for this income group is generally considered to be half of the very low-income need. Because San Marino is a high-income and high-resource community, it has a much greater RHNA for affordable and moderate-income units than it does for market-rate units. Since the RHNA cannot be accommodated on existing sites with appropriate zoning, the City must rezone adequate new sites to meet its regional need and to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583 c. 1, which requires zoning for all types of residential uses including multi-family and manufactured homes. Section 3 provides an analysis of the RHNA shortfall, the required sites information, and the sites inventory.

1.14 2014 SAN MARINO HOUSING ELEMENT REVIEW
The City has taken multiple steps to facilitate residential and mixed-use development since adoption of the 2014 Housing Element, including the following:
● Expanded opportunities for low- and moderate-income housing by adopting a revised Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance and a new Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, in compliance with State law;
● Provided no-cost ADU/JADU pre-application consultations with planning staff to ensure complete application submittals and the shortest possible processing time; ● Drafted a mixed-use ordinance for City Council consideration (this was ultimately not adopted, but mixed uses continue to be allowed in the C-1 and the City Council has requested that staff prepare objective design standards to guide their development); ● Approved the first mixed-use project at 2405 Huntington Drive (3 commercial ground floor units, 2 residential units above);
● Produced and distributed public handouts on Fair Housing; ● Established a specific page within the City’s website that includes housing-related information; and
● Moved to an online permitting system to facilitate continued permit issuance during pandemic closure and beyond.

Progress Implementing Programs
The City was successful in implementing most of the programs in its 2014 Housing Element and is implementing others with the adoption of this 2021 Housing Element Update. See Table 3 at the end of this Section for full program implementation status.

Progress in Achieving RHNA and Quantified Objectives
The City was only partially successful in achieving its 5th cycle Quantified Objectives, as shown in Table 2 below. The City reached and exceeded its objectives for above-moderate and total units, and almost reached its objective for lower-income units. It saw the most success in converting existing pool houses and similar accessory structures to Accessory Dwelling Units, and

Housing Element Admin Draft
in the construction of new Accessory Dwelling Units. This is not an unexpected outcome in a city that is fully built out. The City also gained its first multi-family units as part of a mixed-use project near the end of the planning period.

Table 2: Progress in Achieving 2014 Quantified Objectives, by Income Group Income
Group
New
Construction
Projected/Actual
Rehabilitation
Projected/Actual
Conservation
Projected/Actual
2014
Quantified
Objective
Total Units
Realized
2014-2021
Very Low 6/3 5/0 2/0 13 3
Lower 6/9 5/2 2/0 13 11
Moderate 0 0/0 0/0 0 0
Above
Moderate
6/37 0/0 0/0 6 37
Total 18/49 10/2 4/0 32 51
Lessons Learned
The low level of permitting in San Marino is typical for a small, fully built-out City. The adoption of the new Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance required by the State had the greatest effect in adding housing units to San Marino’s housing stock, as the program allows additional housing units to be integrated into the City’s existing neighborhoods. Removal of the minimum parcel size requirement to establish an ADU more than doubled the number of eligible parcels and interest increased exponentially. Expansion of this program and the new Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions have the greatest potential to continue to add units within San Marino’s existing neighborhoods.

The City also struggled to revise its C-1 standards to specifically allow and set standards for Mixed-Use developments. While the standards were drafted by staff and brought forward for approval, community opposition was strong and ultimately the new provisions were not adopted.

The City was successful in achieving one mixed-use project under its existing C-1 provisions, which allows housing units as a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet of parcel size. Some local developers continue to be interested in pursuing mixed-use projects, and the City recognizes that a higher density of residential development in and near the commercial areas could assist in revitalizing them. With the recent strengthening of the Housing Accountability Act and the adoption of SB 35, the City has learned the importance of adopting objective design and development standards and anticipates the creation and adoption of such standards within the next year.

San Marino has always prided itself on having the best schools in the State, and one of the most difficult lessons for the City has been the loss of its student population. As reflected in Census data and school enrollment figures, young families cannot afford to live in San Marino because of the lack of housing affordable to lower, moderate, and middle-income households. This has resulted in a loss of the student population, and the recent failure of a bond measure to continue

Housing Element Admin Draft
funding the San Marino School District’s four schools is likely to result in a school closure. The City recognizes the need to ensure that young families can live in San Marino and is committed to putting new programs into place for lower- to middle-income households.

1.15 PROGRAM CHANGES IN 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT
The 2021 Housing Element update is not a comprehensive "new" Housing Element, but rather an update of the 2014 Housing Element. The focus of the update process has been to keep the programs that are working, adding new policies and programs where community needs have changed or where necessary to comply with new State laws. The same three goals of the existing 2014 Housing Element have been maintained, with new or revised policies and programs proposed to meet changing needs and legal requirements. Most ongoing policies and programs are successful and are continued in the Housing Element update; limited-term programs that have already been accomplished have not been carried forward.

The 2021 Housing Element updates housing numbers related to RHNA, outlines public participation, and makes limited changes in programs that commit the County to future land use changes to be made within three years. A brief summary of the changes and revisions are listed by Goal below:

GOAL 1: Provide a range of housing opportunities for all income levels. ● New Policy added to allow interior conversion of single-family residences into duplexes or triplexes in identified neighborhoods, and to consider other missing middle housing solutions.
● New policy added to ensure that adequate sites continue to be available throughout the planning period (statutory requirement).
● Policy revised to encourage local lenders to become approved for the Home Ownership and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs for first-time homebuyers. ● New Policy added to affirmatively further fair housing throughout San Marino’s neighborhoods (statutory requirement).
● Program revised to facilitate the development of ADUs and JADUs by providing preapproved plans and amnesty for ADUs, and to add consideration of a low-interest or forgivable loan program for lower-income households to create affordable JADUs. ● Program revised to increase the number of ADUs expected to be developed during the next planning period.
● New Program added to adopt objective design and development standards for residential projects.
● New Program added to consider adoption of a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone. ● New Program added to implement “missing middle” provisions in designated single-family neighborhoods.

Housing Element Admin Draft
● New Program added to adopt a density bonus ordinance to comply with new State laws, and to consider adopting a City density bonus ordinance to better address local housing needs for seniors, moderate-income and middle-income households. ● New Program added to consider and rezone sites to accommodate more than 100% of the identified RHNA shortfall within 3 years.
● New Program added to promote first-time homebuyer programs and to encourage use of the housing land trust model.

GOAL 2: Maintain the existing housing stock.
● New Policy added to ensure that the City’s housing stock is not lost to non-residential uses.
● New Program added to consider adopting the conservation measures in the EAP where appropriate for San Marino and not duplicative of Building Code requirements. ● New Program added to explore the nature of prolonged home vacancies in the City, and to consider adoption of an annual fee or “vacancy tax” if it is determined that vacant homes are being held only for investment purposes and are not being used for housing.

Funds from this fee or “tax” would be used to support the City’s housing programs.

GOAL 3: Ensure the accessibility to housing for all segments of society. ● New Policy added to promote and encourage special needs housing and universal design in new and remodeled homes.
● New Program added to implement Universal Design policies. ● New Program added to encourage ADUs and JADUs for seniors and persons with disabilities, and to include Universal Design provisions in pre-approved ADU plans.

Table 3: Status of 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Implementation Policy Description Implementation Status
GOAL 1: Provide a range
of housing opportunities
for all income levels.

Policy 1.1: Encourage the
development of housing on
vacant R-1 land to meet
market-rate housing demand.

Program 1.1: Fast track all
second unit applications
through the permitting
process.

Achieved and
ongoing
Policy 1.2: Continue to
encourage the development
of second units as a housing
resource.

Program 1.2: Facilitate
second unit construction by
revising the Second Unit
Ordinance.

Achieved and
ongoing

Housing Element Admin Draft
Policy 1.3: Encourage the
construction of attached
second units for multigenerational families, and as a
source of affordable housing
for extremely low/ lower
income households and
persons with disabilities.

Program 1.3: Distribute
information on second
units and the required
development standards to
achieve two second units
annually for a total of 16
second units over the
eight-year planning period.

Achieved and
ongoing; will
revise Program.

Policy 1.4: Continue to allow
residential uses in the C-1
zone as a conditionally
permitted use.

Program 1.4: Three years
from Housing Element
adoption evaluate the City
Code for residential
development in the C-1
Zone. Assess possible
barriers to development
and re-evaluate the City’s
policies.

Not yet
achieved; still
pursuing.

Council may
consider a live
work ordinance
Policy 1.5: Allow for
development of housing for
lower income households and
seniors in the City through
provision of density bonus as
required by State law.

Program 1.5: Encourage
the use of second units for
senior housing and housing
for persons with disabilities
(including persons with
developmental disabilities).

Achieved and
ongoing
Program 1.6: Adopt an
implementing ordinance
for density bonus law.

Not yet
achieved; will
continue and
expand
Program 1.7: Continue
community outreach and
education regarding the
development process.

Achieved and
ongoing

Housing Element Admin Draft
GOAL 2: Maintain the
existing housing stock.

Policy 2.1: Ensure that
currently sound housing is
maintained through code
enforcement activities and
nuisance abatement
procedures.

Program 2.1: Maintain
code enforcement
activities to ensure building
safety and integrity of
neighborhoods.

Achieved and
ongoing
Policy 2.2: Pursue programs
offered by State and Federal
governments to provide
monetary assistance to lower
and moderate-income
households (including
extremely low income) for
home maintenance.

Program 2.2: Continue to
implement the “abatement
of nuisance” ordinance
which seeks to ensure the
continued maintenance
and good appearance of
the City’s residential
structures and
neighborhoods.

Achieved and
ongoing
Program 2.3: Continue to
implement the Community
Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. Target
limited resources to
extremely low-income
households and persons
with disabilities.

Achieved but at
a lower rate
than projected.

Will continue.

Program 2.4: Gather and
distribute information to
homeowners on the use
rebates and incentives for
making their homes more
energy efficient.

Achieved and
ongoing
Program 2.5: Continue to
encourage seismic
retrofitting.

Achieved and
ongoing
GOAL 3: Ensure the
accessibility to housing
Policy 3.1: Promote equal
housing opportunity for all
economic, racial, and social
Program 3.1: Continue
implementation of the
reasonable
Achieved and
ongoing

Housing Element Admin Draft
for all segments of
society.
groups currently residing in
the City.
accommodation ordinance
and allow for exceptions to
the zoning code when
necessary to provide an
equal opportunity for
housing.

Policy 3.2: Promote housing
that meets the special needs
of elderly and disabled
(including those with
developmental disabilities).

Program 3.2: Work with
fair housing service
providers to ensure that
procedures are in place if a
complaint of housing
discrimination is made. In
2014, update the City’s
website to include fair
housing resources.

Achieved and
ongoing
Policy 3.3: Allow for housing
opportunities for the
homeless and special needs
populations.

Program 3.3: Distribute
information at City
counters and other
community locations
regarding housing
discrimination and what to
do if it occurs.

Achieved and
ongoing
Program 3.4: Update the
Zoning Code to allow for
emergency shelters by
right without discretionary
action in the C-1 zone
subject to certain
development and
operational standards.

Achieved 2019
Program 3.5: Update the
Zoning Code to address the
provision of transitional
housing and supportive
housing as residential uses,
to be permitted in the
same manner as similar
uses in the same zones.

Achieved 2021

Housing Element Admin Draft
Program 3.6: Update the
Zoning Code to address the
provision of single-room
occupancy housing as a
conditionally permitted use
in the C-1 zone.

Not specifically
achieved, but
deemed
possible under
existing
allowances for
residential uses
in the C-1
Program 3.7: Update the
Zoning Code to address the
provision of employee
housing pursuant to the
State Employee Housing
Act.

Achieved 2021

Housing Element Admin Draft
SECTION II: HOUSING STRATEGY

2.1 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
The City of San Marino, in adopting the Housing Element, adopts the goals and policies that follow as the framework for implementing its housing policies and programs over the timeframe of the Element.

Policies:

Policy 1.1: Encourage the development of housing on R-1 land to meet moderate and market-rate housing demand.

Policy 1.2: Allow the interior conversion of single-family homes into duplexes or triplexes in identified neighborhoods, subject to standards, and consider integrating other missing middle housing types into San Marino’s neighborhoods.

Policy 1.3: Continue to encourage and promote the development of accessory dwelling units as an important housing resource.

Policy 1.4: Encourage the construction of attached accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units to house multi-generational families, and as a source of affordable housing for extremely low- and lower-income households and persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities).

Policy 1.5: Maintain a sufficient inventory of sites suitably zoned for housing at all income levels throughout the planning period.

Policy 1.6: Continue to allow residential uses in the C-1 Zone as a conditionally permitted use. Allow these uses as a permitted use if at least 20 percent of project units are affordable to lower-income households, subject to objective design and development standards.

Policy 1.7: Allow for development of housing for lower-income households and seniors in the City through provision of density bonuses. Consider expanding the state’s density bonus program to provide bonuses and incentives for moderate and middle-income housing.

Policy 1.8: Participate in the LACDA’s Home Ownership Program and Mortgage Credit Certificate program to provide opportunities for first-time homebuyers.

Encourage local lenders to become approved for these programs.

GOAL 1: Provide a range of housing opportunities for all income levels.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Policy 1.9: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by ensuring that housing opportunities for all income levels are available throughout San Marino’s neighborhoods.

Implementing Programs:

Program 1.1: Fast track all ADU and JADU applications through the permitting process.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.2: Adopt a program to encourage and facilitate accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit construction. The program should include the following components:
 Adopt a penalty relief program to allow conversion of unpermitted, existing, accessory structures into accessory dwelling units without penalty, provided that all other applicable Code requirements are met. This provision shall be valid for three years into the planning period (through 2025) at which time it will be re-evaluated as to continued need.  Utilize pre-approved plans that have already gone through the City’s building plan check process, and which meet the City’s guidelines for architectural design, to save time and money for applicants.  Consider adoption of a program to financially assist low-income property owners in the development of junior attached accessory dwelling units through a low-interest or forgivable loan in exchange for continued affordability. A pilot program would be started while ongoing funding is identified and pursued.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2022 Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.3: Annually monitor the effectiveness of the City’s strategy for facilitating accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit construction, including conversion of pool houses and other accessory structures. If the City is not meeting its fair share objectives for ADUs by 2024, consider the following actions to enhance the program effectiveness:
 Adopt reduced fees or fee waivers for ADU and JADU permits;  Increase efforts to promote ADU development, including joint promotions on a subregional level; and
 Develop alternative strategies, within one year, as appropriate to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Housing Element Admin Draft
Review & adopt any
needed changes or
alternative strategies
by end of 2024; then
monitor effectiveness
annually.

Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.4: Distribute information on accessory dwelling units and the required development standards with the goal of achieving an average of twenty-five to thirty units annually for a total of 221 accessory dwelling units over the eight-year planning period, through new construction (attached or detached) or from conversion of residential accessory structures. Information and/or links about accessory dwelling units, their costs, financing, tax implications, and return on investment will be posted on the City website, available at public counters, and published in the City newsletter.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2022 then ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.5: Adopt objective design and development standards for residential developments in the C-1 zone.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2022 Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.6: Within three years from the date of adoption of the Housing Element, evaluate the City Code as it relates to residential development in the C-1 Zone.

Consideration shall be given to the following changes:
 Minimum lot size per residential unit;
 Establish a maximum size for residential units;
 Establish limits for the percentage of total project square feet that may be in residential use;
 Allow these developments by-right if at least 20% of project units are provided as affordable to low-income households and design & development standards are met. Waivers and incentives under GC 65915 would continue to be available to qualifying density bonus projects without invoking the need for a use permit.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Not later than October
15, 2024
Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget

Housing Element Admin Draft
Program 1.7: Consider adoption of a housing overlay zone that would allow either the underlying land use; multifamily housing at a density of 16 to 24 units per acre; or both. Once adopted into the Code, the overlay would proactively be applied to designated sites by the City within 3 years from the date of adoption of the Housing Element. The housing overlay zone could also apply to public and quasi-public uses in addition to commercial uses.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Not later than October
15, 2024
Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.8: Within three years from the date of adoption of the Housing Element, update the City Code and Zoning Maps to allow “missing middle” residential uses within designated single-family residential neighborhoods. The single-family areas to be considered for the pilot of this Program include, at a minimum, the first block south of the Mission commercial area (fronting on Los Robles and Euclid Avenues), including approximately 80 parcels. Other single-family areas may be identified and included during the process of considering sites eligible for this Program. This Program is intended to add realistic capacity for a minimum of 50 new “missing middle” housing units suitable for households with very low to middle incomes, subject to adopted design and development standards.

Missing Middle projects containing four or more units would be subject to Use Permit.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Pilot: 2022
Program: Not later
than October 15, 2024
Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.9: Adopt an implementing ordinance to address the recent changes made to the state’s density bonus law. Consider adopting an additional City density bonus program that is at least as permissive as the state program, but that better encourages and rewards projects that meet the City’s demonstrated housing needs such as for seniors and for middle- and moderate-income households.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2023 Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.10: Continue community outreach and education regarding the development process. Consider holding an annual “open house” at the planning and building department to introduce members of the public to personnel and procedures so that the development process is less daunting.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Housing Element Admin Draft
Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budgets
Program 1.11: Within three years from the date of adoption of the Housing Element, rezone adequate sites to facilitate development of housing affordable to lower- and moderate- income households. Total sites in inventory should accommodate more than the RHNA shortfall to maintain an adequate inventory throughout the planning period.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Not later than October
15, 2024
Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 1.12: Provide information about the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program and other programs for first-time homebuyers administered by the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission. Provide links to this information from the City’s website. Encourage local lenders to become approved under these programs. Consider use of the Housing Land Trust model to provide additional first-time homebuyer opportunities for San Marino residents under a local program.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2022 and ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
Administration;
LACCDC
Departmental Budgets
Program 1.13: Ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act and undertake the following measures prior to offering Stoneman or any other City-owned lands for sale, in compliance with the State Department of Housing and Community Development’s Surplus Land Act Guidelines (“Guidelines”):
 City Council will make formal findings declaring the land as surplus;  City will provide notices of availability of surplus land for lease or purchase to local public entities and designated housing sponsors, receive any notices of interest from entities desiring to purchase or lease the surplus land, and shall negotiate with those entities in good faith, provide HCD with descriptions of the notices of availability sent, and of any negotiations conducted, and shall forward to HCD a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the surplus land as described in Government Code Section 54230 and in the form prescribed by HCD in the Guidelines; and
 City shall report annually information about all locally owned surplus land sites in accordance with the APR instructions.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
City Attorney
General Fund
Policies:

Policy 2.1: Ensure that currently sound housing is maintained through code enforcement activities and nuisance abatement procedures.

Policy 2.2: Pursue housing programs offered by the State and Federal governments to provide monetary assistance to lower and moderate-income households (including extremely low-income households and special needs households) for maintenance of their homes.

Policy 2.3: Improve conservation of energy and natural resources.

Policy 2.4: Ensure that the City’s limited housing stock is not lost to non-residential uses.

Implementing Programs:

Program 2.1: Maintain code enforcement activities to ensure building safety and integrity of neighborhoods.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Code Enforcement Div. Departmental Budget
Program 2.2: Continue to implement the “abatement of nuisance” ordinance which seeks to ensure the continued maintenance and good appearance of the City’s residential structures and neighborhoods.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
Code Enforcement Div.

Departmental Budgets
Program 2.3: Continue to implement the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that offers assistance to income-qualified households for home repairs. Target limited resources to extremely low-income households and persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities). Annually pursue other State and Federal programs that offer funding and other incentives for housing rehabilitation, energy efficiency improvements, and affordable housing development. Continue to make information available on the City’s website GOAL 2: Maintain the existing housing stock.

Housing Element Admin Draft
about the assistance available for home repairs for income-qualified households.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
Administration;
LACCDC
Departmental Budget;
CDBG
Program 2.4: Gather and distribute information to homeowners on the use of rebates and incentives for making their homes more energy efficient. Provide links to related information and applications on the City’s website.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 2.5: Continue to encourage seismic retrofitting.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 2.6: Consider adopting the conservation measures in the EAP where appropriate for San Marino and not duplicative of Building Code requirements.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2026 Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 2.7: Explore use of the housing land trust model to enable the City to purchase less-expensive homes when they go on the market, for resale at the cost of the home only (land leased through land trust) to first-time homebuyers.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

By 2024 Comm. Dev. Dept.;
LACCDC;
Administration
Departmental Budget
Program 2.8: Explore the nature of the prolonged home vacancies within the City. If appropriate, consider adoption of an annual “vacancy tax” on vacant homes that are being held for investment purposes and not used for housing.

Proceeds from this tax would be used to support housing programs that assist the City in meeting its identified housing needs, including its regional needs.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.,
Administration
Departmental Budgets

Housing Element Admin Draft
Responsible Agencies: San Marino Planning Department, Administration (Code Enforcement and CDBG), Policy Department (Code Enforcement)
Funding Sources: Departmental budget and CDBG funds
Policies:

Policy 3.1: Promote equal housing opportunity for all economic, racial, and social groups currently residing in the City.

Policy 3.2: Promote housing that meets the special needs of elderly and disabled, including those with developmental disabilities. Encourage universal design in all new and remodeled homes.

Policy 3.3: Allow for housing opportunities for the homeless and special needs populations.

Implementing Programs:

Program 3.1: Continue implementation of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and allow for exceptions to the zoning code when necessary to provide an equal opportunity for housing. Monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance; identify and address any constraints to accommodating the housing needs of persons with disabilities.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
LACCDC
Departmental Budget
Program 3.2: Work with the fair housing service providers to ensure that procedures are in place if a complaint of housing discrimination is made. Continue to update the City’s website with fair housing resources, including a link to the fair housing service provider’s website. Annually contact the fair housing service provider to obtain updated contact information for questions and referrals.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
LACCDC
Departmental Budget
GOAL 3: Ensure the accessibility to housing for all segments of society.

Policies

Housing Element Admin Draft
Program 3.3: Distribute information at City counters and other community locations regarding housing discrimination and what to do if it occurs. Utilize flyers sent out with utility bills or City newsletters to ensure that fair housing information is broadly available. Encourage landlords to provide fair housing handbooks to all new tenants and real estate offices and lending institutions to display and provide information about discrimination in sales and landing practices.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 3.4: Consider amending the Zoning Code to address the provision of single-room occupancy housing as a conditionally permitted use in the C-1 Zone.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:
2022 (within 1 year of
Housing Element
adoption)
Comm. Dev. Dept. Departmental Budget
Program 3.5: Consider adoption of a Universal Design program that encourages but does not require that new and remodeled homes meet the basic tenets of Universal Design (stepless entry, ground floor living, environmental controls at accessible heights). Produce and distribute information about Universal Design.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
LACCDC
Departmental Budget
Program 3.6: Encourage the use of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units for seniors and for persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities. Pre-approved plans for ADUs and JADUs should incorporate the basic tenets of Universal Design, and promotional literature should include information about requesting reasonable accommodations under the Fair Housing Act.

Timeline: Responsibility: Funding:

Ongoing Comm. Dev. Dept.;
LACCDC
Department Budget;
CDBG
Responsible Agencies: San Marino Planning Department in conjunction with selected the Fair Housing Agency contracted by the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission.

Funding Sources: Departmental budget and CDBG funds

Housing Element Admin Draft

2.2 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
The following table summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period.

Quantified Objectives may exceed the RHNA but may not be less than RHNA. San Marino’s quantified objectives include units for middle-income households (81-150% AMI) which are an identified need in San Marino, but which count as moderate and above moderate for RHNA affordability levels.

Table 4: Quantified Objectives by Income Group
Income
Group
RHNA ADU JADU Stoneman Missing
Middle
Housing
Overlay Rehab New
M/F Totals
Extremely
Low Income
75 33 10 0 0 10 5 11 69
Very Low
Income
74 19 10 8 4 30 5 8 84
Low Income 91 91 0 0 0 12 0 0 103
Moderate
Income
91 12 0 12 73 26 0 27 150
Middle
Income
0 36 0 10 10 18 0 6 80
Above
Moderate
66 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Totals 397 221 20 30 87 96 10 52 516

2.2.1 New Construction
Accessory Dwelling Units
Achieve construction of 221 Accessory Dwelling Units at the rate 40 units/year in the first year; 30 units in the second year; and 25 units/year for the rest of the planning period (until 2029).

These figures are based on the substantial increase in inquiries and applications received, and in permits issued for accessory dwelling units following the City’s adoption of an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance removing the minimum parcel size, which had previously been 12,000 square feet and prohibited ADUs on more than half of the City’s residential parcels. The new ordinance without the minimum parcel size went into effect in early 2020 and in the months since the new ordinance has been in effect, the city has already issued 14 building permits for ADUs with 24 more in the application and approval process. With the new programs put into place by the 2021 Housing Element to encourage and facilitate the provision of additional accessory dwelling units, the City expects a large number of permits during the first year and that permit applications will decrease over the next seven years.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Achieve construction of 20 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units over the next 8 years. The City will promote the construction of Junior Accessory Dwelling Units as the least expensive method to provide housing units for very low and extremely low-income households, including seniors who wish to live near their families but in an independent living space. The City has approved one JADU to date and expects to approve three to four units per year once the programs outlined in the 2021 Housing Element have been put into place.

Additional New Construction – vacant sites
Achieve construction of one additional market-rate residential unit on the City’s one remaining vacant residential lot.

2.2.2 RHNA Shortfall
Under existing zoning, the City does not have adequate sites to fulfill its regional housing need allocation (RHNA). Changes to the Zoning Code, a Program to allow missing middle housing in R1 Zones, the rezoning of sites and the redevelopment of a City-owned parcel will be necessary to address the RHNA shortfall of approximately 150 units (see Section 3).

Rezoning and Zoning Code Changes to Address RHNA Shortfall Through the rezonings and other programs in the 2021 Housing Element, the City will ensure adequate sites zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate more than 400 new dwelling units, including affordable units. Rezoning programs and zone changes will include the following:
 Rezoning to Multifamily, 20 units per acre: 415 & 475 Huntington Avenue (2.03 acres; 34 units);
 Subdivision and concurrent rezoning of 1.66 acres of the City-owned Stoneman property to Multifamily 20 units per acre and making the property available to an affordable housing developer in compliance with the Surplus Land Act. If negotiations do not result in agreement with an affordable housing developer, City shall issue an RFP specifying minimum levels of affordability (minimum of 28 units);
 Zoning Code change to adopt the Housing Overlay Zone; rezoning to apply it to appropriate sites as may be designated in Program 1.7 to yield capacity for a minimum of 96 additional dwelling units;
 Zoning Code changes to include establishment of a new multifamily zone, and to include objective design & development standards for multi-family and residential projects in the C-1 zone; and
 Zoning Code change to allow “Missing Middle” housing (duplexes, triplexes etc) in singlefamily neighborhoods, with up to 3 units allowed by-right subject to design review and 4 or more units requiring a Use Permit (minimum of 83 units).

Housing Element Admin Draft
Rehabilitation
Two of San Marino’s identified housing needs are supporting an aging housing stock and helping low-income senior who own their homes. The City will rehabilitate 10 homes belonging to lowincome (up to 80 percent AMI) families or seniors over the planning period using CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money and other sources as available. The City expects to rehabilitate one to two homes per year, for a total of 10 units over the next 8 years.

Conservation
There are no affordable units in the City that are at risk of being converted to market rate units.

There are currently no restricted affordable or multi-family units to conserve.

Housing Element Admin Draft
SECTION III: HOUSING SITES

3.1 CONTEXT
Assembly Bill 1397 has added additional requirements for the adequacy of inventoried housing sites, including non‐vacant sites and sites that were identified in previous elements. This severely limits the sites available to use in the City of San Marino, which is fully built-out with no vacant sites that can meet the new inventory requirements. San Marino cannot demonstrate adequate sites to meet its RHNA under the current zoning, and rezoning programs will be required as described below and in Section 2.

According to HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook, there are unusual circumstances where “local governments with limited vacant land resources or with infill and reuse goals may rely on the potential for new residential development on nonvacant sites.” In accordance with Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(1) and the Guidebook, this Section will describe the nonvacant sites to be considered in the rezoning programs and estimate a realistic development potential.

The City’s lack of vacant parcels and subdivision potential has impeded development since the 1970s. Only 11 percent of the current housing units in San Marino were built in 1970 or after, and the biggest periods of housing growth occurred from 1923 until around 1952, when residential development began experiencing a steady decline (Figure 8). Since 1980, the rate of residential development with the city has remained low at only 214 units since 1980. (Source:

Assessor Parcel Open Data; City of San Marino staff).

Figure 8: Residential Units in San Marino, by Year Built Source: County of Los Angeles Assessor Parcel Data 2019

Housing Element Admin Draft

3.2 REALISTIC CAPACITY OF SITES ZONED FOR HOUSING
The City currently allows only single-family dwellings on lots zoned for housing. All residential properties are categorized into eight Area Districts allowing various densities through minimum lot size requirements; these range from 1-4 units per acre to 2-6 units per acre. Each residentially zoned parcel only allows one residence, one ADU, and one JADU under existing zoning. Because not all housing types are currently allowed, rezoning will be necessary to accommodate the regional housing need as well as to enable the development of all types of housing.

The one vacant residentially zoned site available in the City has a realistic capacity of one abovemoderate income unit. The non-vacant City-owned Stoneman property could have capacity for 11 residential units were it to be subdivided into 11 lots; however, this is not a realistic capacity because the City does not intend to subdivide the property and instead intends to find a developer through the RFP process. While both properties could also accommodate an ADU and a JADU, those types are summarized below and are not included here. Table 5 summarizes the realistic capacity for residentially zoned sites:

Table 5: Realistic Development Capacity for Residentially Zoned Sites Realistic Capacity of Vacant Sites Zoned for Housing
APN/ Address Size Zoning/
General Plan
Allowable
Density
Realistic
Capacity
Infrastructure
Capacity
Income
Group
5323-016-030/
Winthrop Rd

0.12 acres
Low Density
Residential/
R-1 District
4 units/ acre;
1 unit per
parcel
1 Yes Above
Moderate
Realistic Capacity of Non-Vacant Sites Zoned for Housing 5323-008-900/
1570 Pasqualito
Dr. (Stoneman
property)

2.86 acres
Low Density
Residential/
R-I District
4 units/ acre;
1 unit per
parcel
1 Yes Above
Moderate
Total Realistic Development Capacity for Residentially Zoned Sites Total 2.98
acres
2 Yes Above
Moderate

3.2.1 ADUs
The new ADU and JADU laws that became effective January 1, 2020 require ministerial approval of ADUs meeting certain requirements. Because this law required the City of San Marino to remove its minimum parcel size and discretionary approval process, the number of parcels qualifying for ADUs has doubled and ADU interest and applications have increased substantially. Given San Marino’s changing demographics and housing needs, and with the new programs in the 2021 Housing Element to encourage and facilitate the provision of more ADUs, the City expects 40 permits during the first year of the 6th cycle but that permit applications will then decrease

Housing Element Admin Draft
somewhat for the rest of the planning period. The City estimates that construction of ADUs will occur at the rate 40 units/year in the first year of the planning period; 30 units in the second year; and then about 25 units/year for the remainder of the 6th cycle (Table 6). These figures are based on the significant increase in inquiries, applications received, and permits issued for accessory dwelling units following the City’s adoption of an updated ADU ordinance making permits ministerial and removing the minimum parcel size. The ordinance went into effect in during 2020 and in the months since the new ordinance has been in effect, the City has already issued 14 building permits for accessory dwelling units with 24 more in the application and approval process.

Table 6: ADUs Anticipated 2022 - 2029
Year/Years Number of Units
2022 40
2023 30
2024-2029 151
6th Cycle Total 221
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has conducted a survey of ADU rents and has issued pre-certified affordability assumptions for ADUs. Application of these affordability assumptions to the expected number of ADUs through the planning period indicates that San Marino can expect 151 ADUs affordable to households making less than 80% of AMI; 4 ADUs affordable to moderate-income households, and 66 market-rate ADUs (see Table 7).

Table 7: Assumed Affordability for 6th Cycle ADUSs (SCAG survey) Category Affordability
Assumption for
Rented ADUs
Affordability Assumption
for ADUs (percent of total)
Extremely Low 33 15%
Very Low 19 9%
Low 99 45%
Moderate 4 2%
Above Moderate 66 30%
Total 221 100%*
*Due to rounding, percentages may not always appear to add up to 100%

3.2.2 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
JADUs have recently been enabled by State law and are now allowed in San Marino. JADUs are small independent living units created within an existing single-family dwelling and can be a maximum of 500 square feet in size. Construction of JADUs can supply housing units for very low- and extremely low-income individuals and small families and are expected to be especially

Housing Element Admin Draft
popular in San Marino given its aging population and the prevalence multi-generational households. There has been one JADU approval to date and additional property owners have expressed interest in creating such a unit. Because of the increasing interest in the development of JADUs and a new program to finance and facilitate their construction, the City is projecting the creation of 20 new affordable JADUs during the planning period at the rate of about 3 per year for the first three years of the period, and an additional 14 through 2029 for a total of 20 during the planning period (Table 8). Because JADUs are created out of existing space and are inexpensive to build, and because of the new program to facilitate and finance their construction with a low-interest forgivable loan if rented affordably, the City expects that they will be affordable to very low and extremely low-income households (Table 9).

Table 8: Expected JADUs per Year
Year/Years Number of Units
2022 3
2023 3
2024-2029 14
6th Cycle Total 20
Table 9: Affordability Assumptions for JADUs
Category Expected Number, by
Income Group
Affordability Assumption for
all ADUs (percent of total)
Extremely Low 10 50%
Very Low 10 50%
Low 0 0%
Moderate 0 0%
Above Moderate 0 0%
Total 20 100%

3.3 REALISTIC CAPACITY OF OTHER SITES ALLOWING HOUSING
The below sites were identified in the previous Housing Element and remain ideal candidates for additional moderate- and above-moderate income. They are in commercial areas near jobs and transit, where a CUP is currently for residential use. Realistic development capacity was calculated at approximately 85% the allowable densities for each lot, taking into consideration the units achieved in the last mixed-use project approved as well as parking requirements, landscaping requirements, and architectural design standards.

Table 10: Realistic Capacity of Other Sites Allowing Housing APN/ Address Size Zoning/
General Plan
Allowable
Density
Realistic
Capacity
Infrastructure
Capacity
Income
Group

Housing Element Admin Draft
5335-007-001/
810 Huntington
Dr.

0.27 acres
Commercial/
C-1

8.7 units/
acre
2 Yes Middle,
Market
5331-018-005/
2995 Huntington
Dr.

0.29 acres
Commercial/
C-1

8.7 units/
acre
2 Yes Middle,
Market
Total Realistic Capacity of Other Sites Allowing Housing Total 0.56
acres
Commercial/
C-1 8.7 units/
acre
4 Yes Middle,
Market
* Zoning Code changes will allow by-right residential use in C-1 zone if 20% affordable.

3.4 RHNA SHORTFALL
As noted above, San Marino is fully built out and its sites inventory must utilize non-vacant parcels to accommodate its RHNA. Of the 397 RHNA unit obligation, 247 units can realistically be accommodated with ADUs (221), JADUs (20), residentially zoned sites under current zoning (2), and other sites that allow residential development under current zoning (4). Even if all of these sites were to be developed to their realistic potential, the capacity under current zoning (247 units) leaves a RHNA shortfall of at least 150 units, including 77 units affordable at the very low and extremely low-income levels and 87 units for moderate-income households (see Table 11).

These units must be planned for and accommodated by rezoning and zoning code changes within the next three years. Section 2 includes policies and programs to address the RHNA shortfall, summarized below.

Table 11: RHNA Surplus/Shortfall After Rezoning and Programs, by Income Group Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
2021-2029 RHNA 75 74 91 91 66 397
ResidentiallyZoned Sites 0 0 0 0 2 2
Other Sites (C-1)
Allowing
Residential uses
0 0 0 0 4 4
ADUs 33 19 99 4 66 221
JADUs 10 10 0 0 0 20
Total Realistic
Capacity under
Existing Zoning
43 29 99 4 72 247
Sites Surplus or
Shortfall (+/-)
-32 -45 +8 -87 +6 -150
Rezone to 20 upa 14 20 0 0 0 34

Housing Element Admin Draft
Stoneman 12 0 0 8 8 28
AH Overlays 10 42 0 26 18 96
Missing Middle 0 0 0 73 10 83
Total New Units
from Rezonings &
Programs
36 62 0 107 36 241
RHNA Surplus
After Rezoning &
Programs
+4 +17 +8 +20 +42 +91

3.4.1 Summary of Rezoning and Code Changes to Address RHNA Shortfall Rezoning
 Rezoning 2.03 acres at 415 & 475 Huntington to default density of Multifamily, 20 units per acre (34 units realistic capacity);
 Subdivision of the City-owned Stoneman property into two parcels, with one 1.2 acre parcel housing the historic Stoneman School building and associated parking; and one parcel of 1.66 acres containing a vacant, non-historic structure and parking area. The

1.66 acre parcel would be made available to an affordable housing developer in compliance with the Surplus Land Act and rezoned to Planned Development, allowing housing at default density if affordable. If negotiations do not result in an agreement with a developer of affordable housing, the City will issue an RFP specifying minimum levels of affordability (28 units realistic capacity); and,  Rezoning to apply the Housing Overlay (16-24 units per acre) to multiple sites meeting location criteria for proximity to transit and jobs (target 80 units), including the 9.54 acre Carver Elementary School site, the 8-acre Southwestern Academy, a 1-acre portion of the Huntington Library site, two sites of approximately 1.6 acres each along Huntington Avenue (96 units realistic capacity with rezoning of these five sites), and consideration of approximately 40 additional parcels meeting the specified locational criteria for rezoning.

Zoning Code Changes to Increase Allowable Densities & By-Right Uses  Zoning Code change to adopt the Housing Overlay zone;  Zoning Code changes to include multifamily zoning, and to include objective design & development standards for by-right multi-family and residential projects in C-1 zone;  Zoning Code change to allow residential use developments in C-1 zone by-right if at least 20% are affordable, subject to objective design & development standards; and  Zoning Code change to allow “Missing Middle” housing in single-family neighborhoods that are near jobs and transit but that are not within the City’s designated very high wildfire risk area (83 units).

Housing Element Admin Draft
Additional Programs are included to facilitate and encourage the provision and ADUs and JADUs, two forms of housing that will best assist the City to meet its identified housing needs for aging and disabled households.

3.5 PROGRAMS & REZONING TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SITES
In compliance with Government Code §65583 (d), the City of San Marino will pursue the rezoning of sites to meet the RHNA shortfall. To comply with the “No Net Loss” law and to ensure that sufficient sites are maintained to accommodate the remaining RHNA throughout the planning period, the City will adopt Programs and will identify and rezone enough sites to accommodate 120% of its RHNA shortfall. Rezoned sites will allow qualified developments by-right if at least 20% of units are provided as affordable; a Use Permit will be required for market-rate projects.

All new multi-family and residential projects in C-1 zone will be subject to objective design and development standards. The City is committed to identifying and rezoning adequate sites within the first three years of the housing element period through a variety of rezoning programs and other actions, as outlined below.

3.5.1 Rezoning to Default Density (Program 1.6)
The initial step is rezoning sites to meet the RHNA is to identify and rezone appropriate sites at a density of 20 units per acre, by-right if the project contains at least 20% affordable and subject to use permit if no affordability is included. While the City will consider a variety of sites to be rezoned to receive this high-density designation and will perform its environmental (CEQA) analysis after all sites have been identified, the sites in Table 12 below are included as having realistic redevelopment potential because of interest previously expressed by developers in building multi-family housing on at least one of the two adjacent sites.

Table 12: Sites to Rezone to Default Density of 20 units/acre APN/
Address
(adjacent
sites)
Size Zoning/
General Plan
Previous
Allowable
Density
New
Allowable
Density
New Site
Capacity
Realistic
Site
Capacity
Affordability
Level
5323-020-
035/ 415
Huntington

1.14 acres
Commercial/
C-1

8.7 upa 20 upa 40 34 Extremely
low and
Very-low
Incomes
5323-020-
036/ 475
Huntington
Dr

0.89 acres

Housing Element Admin Draft

3.5.2 Stoneman Site – Subdivision, Rezoning, Surplus and RFP Program (Program 1.13)
The City-owned 2.86 acre Stoneman site (Figure 9) will be subdivided by the City to place the historic Stoneman school building on a 1.20 acre parcel, with the remaining 1.66 acre parcel declared as surplus and made available to an affordable housing developer consistent with the Surplus Lands Act. The 1.66 acre parcel currently contains the play area and a portion of the parking from the former Stoneman school, as well as a non-historic vacant storage structure. The site is currently zoned for lower density residential use and will be rezoned to another appropriate Planned Community designation that accommodates the development of multi-family housing to serve the local workforce. If an agreement cannot be reached with an affordable housing developer to purchase and develop the property consistent with the Surplus Lands Act, the City will issue an RFP outlining the minimum affordability requirements for the parcel. The selected developer would be responsible for all aspects of site design and development, including conducting environmental review once the full development project has been identified. Table 13 below shows the development potential for the City-owned Stoneman site following the subdivision and rezoning.

Figure 9: Stoneman Site and Proposed Subdivision

Housing Element Admin Draft
Table 13: Realistic Capacity of Stoneman Site through RFP & Rezoning Program APN/ Address Size Zoning/
General Plan
New
Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity Constraints
Income
Group
5323-008-900
1570 Pasqualito Dr.
“Stoneman” yard

1.66 acres
R-1/Low
Density
Residential
33 28 units
Vacant
building,
parking,
playground
Extremely
Low, Very
Low, Low

3.5.3 Housing Overlay Program and Rezoning (Program 1.7) There are a number of sites within the City that are located near jobs or transit and may benefit from rezoning to allow affordable and workforce housing, either instead of or in addition to existing uses. Examples of these sites include Southwestern Academy, to allow construction of housing for teachers as well as the potential for conversion of existing dorm rooms into full units; Carver Elementary School, either to provide housing for teachers or to redevelop the site with higher-density housing if the tough decision to close the school is ultimately made; and an approximately two-acre portion of the Huntington site, to allow the development of housing for workers (see Figure 10, below). Additionally, there are two C-1 sites of approximately 1.6 acres each that were listed in the City’s 5th cycle housing element and remain excellent candidates for redevelopment due to the age of the structures and ongoing vacancies of the commercial spaces (see Figure 11, below).

The City will consider a Housing Overlay to apply to these sites and will identify other suitable sites near jobs or transit for consideration of rezoning to apply the Housing Overlay. The Housing Overlay Zone will be adopted into the City’s Code and will allow housing projects at a density of 16 to 24 units per acre, by-right if the project includes at least 20% affordable housing and otherwise subject to use permit. All Housing Overlay or residential projects in C-1 zone will be subject to objective design and development standards.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Figure 10: Huntington Site for Housing Overlay

Housing Element Admin Draft
Figure 11: Commercial Parcels for Housing Overlay
Identification of all sites to be considered for the Housing Overlay, a full project description, environmental review, and the actual rezoning to apply the overlay must be accomplished within three years (by October 2025) so that the sites are available to be developed at the listed densities in Table 14 below prior to the end of the planning period.

Table 14: Realistic Development Potential for Selected Sites to be Rezoned to Add Housing Overlay APN/ Address Size
Current
Zoning/
General Plan
New
Allowable
Unit
Range
Realistic
Capacity
w/Rezone
Constraints
Income
Group
Southwestern
Academy 8.0 acres
R-1/Low
Density
Residential
80-160
8 Existing
Historic
School on
large property
Very Low
10 Moderate
Carver
Elementary
School 5376-
026-900/ 3100
Huntington Dr

9.54 acres
R-1/Low
Density
Residential
95-190
24 Existing
school slated
for potential
closure on
large,
underutilized
property
Very low &
low (50-60%
of AMI)
14 Moderate

Housing Element Admin Draft
Portion of the
Huntington
Property
2 acres
(of 207) Historic 20-40
10 Huntington
Library &
Gardens;
workforce
housing
needed
Extremely
Low
10 Very Low
5332-001-001
through
5332-001-005/
2950 Huntington
Dr / 1225 S San
Gabriel Blvd

1.63 acres
Commercial/
C-1

8.7 units/
acre
1 Xxxx
Used in 5th
cycle; must be
rezoned to
allow 20 upa
by-right if 20%
affordable
Moderate
9 Middle,
Market
5334-016-016
through 5334-
016-018
2000-2020/
Huntington Dr.

1.59 acres
Commercial/
C-1

8.7 units/
acre
1 Xxxx
ibid
Moderate
9 Middle,
Market

3.5.4 Program to Allow Missing Middle Housing in R-1 (Program 1.8) “Missing middle” describes housing forms that are more than single family homes but are less that standard apartments. Examples include duplexes, triplexes, 4-plexes and cottage courts; each are compatible in scale with single-family neighborhoods. This form of housing responds to San Marino’s changing demographics and will provide housing for different generations at more affordable rates. Because any single-family property can already accommodate three dwelling units (the main dwelling, an ADU and a JADU), allowing duplexes and triplexes does not increase allowable densities within single-family neighborhoods. Instead, this flexibility will allow badly needed smaller, more affordable units to be created through interior remodeling of homes to add private living spaces for families and renters without changing a home’s appearance from the street. It may also allow more creative solutions in the form of cottage courts and missing middle developments of four or more units subject to the granting of a use permit.

The City will make Zoning Code change to allow “missing middle” housing to expand San Marino’s housing stock and accommodate those seeking housing between single-family homes and higherdensity apartment buildings. Parcels eligible for missing middle housing are those R-1 parcels that are located within 2000 feet of transit stops and jobs, to encourage walking to daily needs and decreasing the need to drive (see Figure 12, below). Using these parameters, there are a total of over 3,200 single-family parcels that could qualify for missing middle housing. Assuming the development of duplexes and triplexes only, the changes to allow denser development in the R1 zone has the potential to increase inventory by over 4000 new infill dwelling units. However,

Housing Element Admin Draft
because the Program is new and not yet proven, the City will anticipate the development of only about 2%of the total possible units for a total of 83 units under this program, including 73 units affordable to moderate-income households and 10 units affordable to middle-income households.

Figure 12: Parcels Eligible for Missing Middle Housing

3.5.5 Program to Adopt Housing Overlay into Zoning Code (Program 1.7) As outlined in 3.5.3 above, before the Housing Overlay Zone can be applied to appropriate properties it must first be adopted into the City’s Zoning Code. The Housing Overlay Zone will allow a variety of housing types, tenures, and densities to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing for seniors; the local workforce, including teachers, small households, and first-time homebuyers. Allowable densities would range from 10 to 24 units per acre, depending on housing type; multi-family rental housing would be allowed at a density of at least 20 units per acre and projects providing at least 20% of units as affordable would be eligible for both a density bonus and for by-right processing. The Housing Overlay may be placed over any base zoning designation but only to sites located within 2000 feet of jobs, transit, or both.

Housing Element Admin Draft

3.5.6 Programs to Promote & Encourage ADUs (Programs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4) Through aggressive ADU facilitation and promotion, the City can expect to develop 221 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) over the 8-year planning period, including 40 units in the first year, 30 in the second year, and 25 per year for the balance of the planning period. In accordance with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) survey of affordability levels of ADUs, the City can expect 33 extremely low income, 19 very low income, and 99 low-income units to be built with the adoption of aggressive programs designed to encourage and facilitate construction of ADUs. These programs are detailed in Section 2.

3.5.7 Program of Low-interest or Forgivable Loans for JADUs (Program 1.2) JADUs are the least expensive method to provide housing units for lower income households, including young adults starting out or seniors who wish to live near their families but in an independent living space. Because they are carved out of existing space and do not involve new construction, they can be accommodated in existing neighborhoods without impacting architectural and historic character, two qualities that the San Marino community feels strongly about. They are the least expensive way to produce additional housing units (as low as $20,000 per unit) and can affirmatively further fair housing because they open up high-income neighborhoods to a very low-income source of housing.

Demographic information and survey data indicate that a significant percentage of San Marino’s elderly households are low income, despite owning their own homes. A local low-interest or forgivable loan program can assist lower-income homeowners in constructing these small units in exchange for continued affordability. This would provide affordable units within San Marino’s existing single-family neighborhoods. While a permanent source of funding for this program would need to be identified, the City could establish a pilot with limited funding while additional sources are explored.

3.5.8 With Rezoning, Housing Sites Adequate to Meet RHNA The City is committed to providing adequate sites to meet its regional housing need, while also addressing the City’s identified housing needs and affirmatively furthering fair housing. The City will locate and consider a number of housing sites and will rezone appropriate sites before October 2024 to meet its RHNA shortfall, with enough remaining capacity to comply with No Net Loss laws. The wide range of programs adopted or enhanced with the 2021 Housing Element Update will assist the City in meeting its commitment by providing opportunities for all income levels, ages, and abilities throughout San Marino’s high opportunity neighborhoods. With the adoption of all of the programs in the 2021 Housing Element, any site in San Marino can be an affordable housing site.

The realistic capacity of sites to be rezoned and programs to be developed in the 2021 Housing Element is provided in Table 15, below. Implementation of these programs and rezonings will increase San Marino’s housing capacity by over 500 units, exceeding its RHNA of 397 units and allowing adequate sites to meet remaining RHNA needs throughout the planning period.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Table 15: Available Sites for Housing After Rezoning Programs* Category or Program
Total
Possible
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Income Group
Sites Currently Zoned for
Housing 6 2 Market
Other Sites that Currently
Allow Housing 60 4
Moderate,
Middle,
Market
Rezoning to Default Density 40 34 Very Low-Mod
Stoneman RFP & Rezoning 33 28 Ex. Low-Middle
Housing Overlay Zone 417 96 Ex. Low-Middle
Missing Middle 4000+ 83 73 Moderate
10 Middle
Programs to Facilitate ADUs 2,200 221 Ex. Low-Market
Loan Program for JADUs 80 20 Ex. Low-V. Low
Return Vacant Homes to
Housing
134 40 Market
1 st Time Homebuyers
Programs & Housing Land
Trust Model
n/a 8 Moderate
Total New Units w/Changes 6,904 530 units Ex. Low -
Market
 Table 15 reflects maximum potential units and is intended to demonstrate how San Marino could meet its regional housing need through a combination of rezonings and adoption of the Programs outlined in the Housing Element. It is not intended to commit the City to adopting Programs and Rezonings to allow all units reflected above.

3.6 INFRASTRUCTURE
This subsection provides information about the availability of services to serve new housing and examines any infrastructure limitations within the City. San Marino is entirely developed and is surrounded by other incorporated communities with similar fully developed properties. As a developed city, San Marino has multiple infrastructure services developed and maintained by multiple agencies. Currently, the City’s infrastructure is in good condition and the agencies

Housing Element Admin Draft
providing services have indicated there are no foreseeable issues maintaining service to existing housing or providing service to the additional housing anticipated in the 2021 Housing Element.

3.6.1 Water
The City of San Marino is served with water by California American Water and by sewer from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (District).

California American Water serves the City of San Marino with the “San Marino System” which also serves portions of neighboring cities of Rosemead, Temple City, San Gabriel, El Monte, Pasadena and some unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. The San Marino Water System is primarily supplied by groundwater sources in the Main San Gabriel and Raymond Basins; In 2019, the system supply consisted of 90 percent local well water and 10 percent purchased treated surface water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Water District). Since both basins have adjudicated groundwater allocations, additional supplies are purchased to meet seasonal and annual demands. The sources for these additional supplies are the Sacramento River Delta and the Colorado River. Drinking water provided by the Water District receives multiple technological treatments including sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. Groundwater supplies are disinfected with chlorine and surface water supplies are treated with chloramines for bacteriological quality in the distribution system. The District’s technological treatments and practices are evaluated every five years by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (Water Board). The water sources for the California American Water - San Marino System were assessed in 2003 to evaluate the pattern of pollutant sources and ensure proper decontamination of the water to make it suitable for human consumption. Ongoing monitoring and annual reporting are performed to ensure that tap water is safe to drink and compliant with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Board regulations limiting the quantity of contaminants in public water systems.

3.6.2 Sewer
The LACSD serves the City of San Marino through their Districts 15 and 16. Conversations with District staff in early 2021 indicate that the District is confident in the ability to serve the projected number of new residences of the City of San Marino. The District has enough capacity and adequate budget to ensure regular monitoring and maintenance and the ongoing provision of quality services to both residential and commercial properties in the City. San Marino is currently utilizing only 25 to 30 percent of its sewer capacity.

3.6.3 Other Utilities
San Marino is entirely developed and as such, connections for public utilities such as electricity, gas, telephone, cable and garbage collection are readily available for future development. The streets are paved and receive regular maintenance by the Parks & Public Works Department. The Department facilitates street sweeping, sidewalk maintenance, streetlight repair, enforcement of the tree and landscape ordinance, coordinating trash and recycling materials collection, and is the point of contact for water and sewage services.

Housing Element Admin Draft

3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Because San Marino is built out and has no special status species or habitat, environmental considerations are generally not a constraint to the development of housing with the limited exceptions summarized below and discussed in more detail in Section 4.

3.7.1 Seismic Hazards
San Marino is located within an area of high seismic activity due to the proximity of the Raymond Hill fault. The greatest potential danger from seismic hazards is the collapse of older residential units constructed from unreinforced masonry, and explosions of petroleum and fuel lines. The City regulates the construction of new habitable structures within seismic hazard zones through required site investigations, setbacks and construction standards to comply with State law and minimize risks from seismic events.

3.7.2 Flooding Hazards
While San Marino faces minimal risk from flood hazards, there are three limited areas that are susceptible to short periods of localized flooding during periods of intense rainfall: Huntington Boulevard near Old Mill Road; Lacy Park; and Huntington Boulevard near San Marino High School.

Because there is minimal risk and no history of repeatedly damaged structures due to flooding, there are no additional conditions or requirements imposed on development in these areas that would pose a constraint to development.

3.7.3 Fire Hazards
San Marino contains no State-recognize wildfire hazard zones. However, the City has identified their own locally designated wildfire hazard zone in the Northwest area of the City with stricter requirements, including construction standards and brush clearance, to minimize risk. Past fires have damaged or destroyed structures due to combustible roofing material, wood construction, and lack of defensible space. The City prohibits replacement or installation of new wood roofing and enforces fire safety building practices found within the California Building Code (Source: San Marino Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019). Programs to increase densities are not applicable within this area, except as required under State law.

Housing Element Admin Draft
SECTION IV: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
REPORT

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Technical Background Report (TBR) of the 2021 San Marino Housing Element includes statutorily required data, an analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to the provision of housing. As part of the new AB 686 requirements to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, the TBR also includes a brief history of San Marino’s growth and exclusively single-family zoning practices, and an analysis of the economic and ethnic make-up of the city and its neighborhoods. Section 1 of the Housing Element contains summary information and further analysis where new policies or programs are needed to overcome past exclusionary land use practices and to respond to changing demographics and housing needs.

4.2 PRE-CERTIFIED SCAG DATASET
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has compiled a housing needs data package for each jurisdiction. These housing data packages have been pre-certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meet statutory requirements for the quantification of existing and projected housing needs including:
 Identification of population and employment trends;
 Household characteristics (i.e., existing households by tenure, existing extremely lowincome households, total, lower and extremely low-income households overpaying, overcrowded households);
 Special needs (i.e., number of persons with disabilities, number of persons with developmental disabilities, elderly households by tenure, large households by tenure and female headed households); and
 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) by income group, including extremely lowincome households.

In order to meet all statutory requirements in Government Code §65583(a) (1 and 2) related to quantification and analysis of existing housing needs, this Technical Background Report also includes locally acquired information and data including but not limited to areas of economic and ethnic segregation, special needs, local knowledge of the housing stock, local housing resources, and an analysis of housing constraints. The San Marino 2020 Pre-Certified Local Housing Data Packet includes the requisite data on farmworkers, persons experiencing homelessness, substandard housing, and units at-risk of conversion to market rate uses in the jurisdiction. The packet also includes some analysis of the data; further analysis is provided herein and throughout the Housing Element (Source: Housing Needs Data Certification Letter from HCD).

Housing Element Admin Draft
The SCAG Housing Needs Dataset is included in Appendix A of this Section in its entire original form. The remainder of this Technical Background Report contains other data related to local housing programs and resources and housing constraints.

4.3 LOCAL HOUSING PROGRAMS & RESOURCES
San Marino is served by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA), formerly known as the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles. The LACDA was formed from a consolidation of the Los Angeles Housing Authority, Community Development Department, and the Redevelopment Agency. The LACDA provides resources for housing assistance, affordable rental housing, first-time homebuyers, home improvements, community development, construction management, economic development, and traffic services. The jurisdiction of the LACDA includes all unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the 70 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County that do not have their own public housing agencies. The City of San Marino is within the jurisdiction of the LACDA.

4.3.1 Resources: Housing Assistance Programs
The following programs are primarily Federal- and State-run programs providing funding for construction, rehabilitation, or rental assistance for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. This section describes programs that may be locally available and potentially applicable within the City.
 The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV Program) is the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the provide market. Participants may choose any housing that meet the requirements of the program. The LACDA pays a housing subsidy directly to the landlord, and the participant pays the difference between the actual rent charged and the amount subsidized by the program. (Source: LACDA) The availability of this program depends on LACDA funding, efforts, and priorities. San Marino rental rates general exceed Fair Market Rents for the program and therefore are not eligible properties.  Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) are grants provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund a wide variety of projects that implement local housing strategies and create affordable housing for low-income households including building, buying, rehabilitating affordable housing, or providing direct rental assistance (Source: HUD). San Marino’s existing housing stock and lack of developable land hampers the City’s ability to compete for these funds.  Section 203(k) funding provided by HUD facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of single-family residential properties by insuring homeowner loans for purchase or refinancing of properties and can enable homebuyers to purchase homes that need significant repairs. It can also be used for a variety of other improvements, including conversion of properties up to a four-unit structure, enhance accessibility for a disabled person, or elimination of health and safety hazards. Most homes in San Marino are not

Housing Element Admin Draft
eligible for this funding due to the well-maintained condition and high home values of the housing stock (Source: HUD).
 Section 202 funding provided by HUD finances construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of structures for supportive housing for VLI elderly persons through interestfree capital advances and rental assistance funds. This funding is only available to private nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives and is highly competitive.  The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program provides State and Local agencies the equivalent of approximately $8 billion in annual budget authority to issues tax credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing targeted to lower-income households. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) competitively administers credits to projects based on priorities they set each year.

Interested developers may apply for a 9% tax credit (which is often competitive) or a 4% tax credit. The developers who have been awarded the credits sell the credits to investors.

This creates cash equity which provides a significant portion of the funds that developers need to build affordable housing. A 9% tax credit raises about 70% of the cost of a development and a 4% credit raises about 30% of the cost of a development. Since the debt needed to develop is lower, a project can offer more affordable rents while still being a financially viable venture. Investors buy these credits as a tax benefit; tax credits are subtracted directly from a taxpayer’s liability each year for 10 years Buildings eligible for the LIHTC must either have 20% of units must rent-restricted and occupied by tenants with incomes no higher than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or 40% of units rent restricted and occupied by tenants with incomes no higher than 60% of AMI.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designates Qualified Census Tracts (QCTs) and Difficult Development Areas (DDAs) that have increased eligibility.

QCTs must have 50 percent of households with incomes below 60 percent of the AMI or have a poverty rate of 25 percent or more. DDAs are areas with high land, construction, and utility costs relative to the area median income. There are no QCTs in San Marino. All of San Marino is in a DDA. San Marino is also within a ‘Highest Resource’ designation which provides an eligibility bonus in applying for this funding; however, even with the tax credit, affordable housing projects in a high-cost area can be very difficult to fund because of the high cost of land. The ability to apply for this program depends on the level of interest from developers, developable sites, constraints imposed by development standards, and the level of competition in the region for LIHTC funding. (Sources:

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, National Housing Law Project, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development)
 Preservation Funding is not currently needed due to the absence of at-risk housing units in the City.
 The California Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) is a state program that provides technical assistance and funding for the training and supervision of low- and moderateincome self-help homebuilders. Funding is provided through sponsor organizations, either local government agencies or nonprofit corporations.

Housing Element Admin Draft
 The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program is managed by HUD and provides funding through interest-free capital advances, operating subsidies, and/or project rental assistance for eligible projects developing affordable housing for persons with disabilities. This program is highly competitive and requires a nonprofit housing sponsor.
 The Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishes an Affordable Housing Program (AHP) within the Federal Housing Finance Agency. AHP funds are granted to financial institutions on behalf of a housing sponsor and may be used to finance the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing for low- or moderate-income households and the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of rental housing where at least 20 percent of the units are affordable for and occupied by very low-income households. Local development costs may deter local developers from applying for this program.

4.3.2 Resources: Homeless Population
Individuals are considered homeless when they lack fixed and regular nighttime residences.

Homeless individuals may be unsheltered, including those living in tents, cars, makeshift shelters, or on the street, or sheltered, including those in emergency shelters or transitional shelters. By the most recent count, the City of San Marino has no homeless residents. Over the past four years, there has occasionally been up to one homeless resident in the City. (Source: Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, 2020)

4.3.3 Resources: Homeless Shelters
Homeless shelters provide temporary shelter for the homeless population. Although the City of San Marino has little to no homeless population, the City does allow emergency shelters by-right within its commercial zone. There are currently no homeless shelters within the San Marino city limits; however, there are shelters available in nearby Pasadena. The closest homeless shelter to San Marino is Union Station Homeless Services, located at 412 S. Raymond Avenue in Pasadena.

4.3.4 Resources: Transitional Housing
Transitional housing provides temporary lodging and is designed to move individuals and families into permanent housing within a specified period of time, no longer than 24 months. The City of San Marino does not currently have any known transitional housing facilities. The closest transitional housing facilities are located in the Euclid Village Condominium complex in nearby Pasadena.

4.3.5 Resources: Supportive Housing
Supportive housing provides shelter and supportive services to homeless persons with a disability or mental illness. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority provides Safe Haven (SH) housing as temporary supportive housing for hard-to-reach homeless persons with severe mental illness that have been unwilling or unable to participate in supportive services, as well as Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) to assist homeless individuals with a disability or families in which one

Housing Element Admin Draft
adult or child has a disability to live independently. The City of San Marino does not currently have any known supportive housing facilities.

4.3.6 At-Risk Assisted Housing Developments.

In compliance with Government Code §65583(a)(9), this section will report a zero inventory of at-risk units (10 years from the Housing Element due date). The City of San Marino contains no assisted housing developments, and therefore contains no at-risk assisted housing developments.

4.3.7 Planning and Zoning Incentives
AB 2345 provides developers with density bonuses or other incentives in exchange for the provision of affordable housing which meets certain requirements. As of January 2021, up to a 50% density bonus can be approved for housing projects consisting of a combination of affordable and market-rate homes. The legislation also reduces specific thresholds for obtaining approvals and allowances from local jurisdictions, requires density bonus reporting, and reduces parking obligations for many projects qualifying for a density bonus.

4.4 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
This section of the Housing Element examines the constraints that could hinder the City’s achievement of its housing objectives and the resources that are available to assist in the production, maintenance, and improvement of the City’s housing stock.

4.4.1 Non-Governmental Constraints
In compliance with Government Code §65583(a)(6) the following is an analysis of potential nongovernmental constraints including an analysis of actual and potential governmental constraints for each of the following:

Vacant Land
The City's vacant land supply is extremely small. There is one (1) vacant residential lot remaining in the City. Since the City is built-out and there are no remaining subdividable parcels, subdivision standards do not form a constraint to development. The City’s established policies of maintaining excellent design standards and very low densities to maintain the community character apply to all new development. With only one vacant residential lot remaining, there is little potential to develop new affordable housing units on vacant land within City limits. It is likely that the vacant lot will be developed with a market rate single family home that will increase the City’s housing supply for that income level. Development of the vacant commercial lot could include some affordable units, especially if the vacant lot is merged with the adjacent auto repair property. The City will consider designating these sites for additional housing units.

Land Costs
The cost of land directly influences the cost of housing. In turn, land prices are determined by several factors, most importantly the availability of land. As previously noted, there is only one

Housing Element Admin Draft
vacant residential parcel in San Marino. Compared to surrounding jurisdictions, as well as the region, land prices in San Marino significantly constrain the production of housing. Table 16 below provides the land cost for a standardized ¼ acre residential lot in San Marino ($1,673,700) compared to the highest-cost jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and the immediate area around the city. San Marino consistently ranks among the top 100 most expensive zip codes in the nation; in 2019 it ranked 34th most expensive in the annual Price Shark survey. Land costs in San Marino are a significant constraint to the development of housing; this is a factor that is outside of the City’s control.

Table 16: Land Costs in Selected LA County Zip Codes
City ZIP Code Land Value (Per
Acre, As-Is)
Land Value (1/4
Acre Lot,
Standardized)
Land Share of
Property Value
Home Price
Appreciation
USA
Rank
Santa
Monica
90402 $15,511,600.00 $3,606,200.00 80.8% 160.7% #3
Beverly
Hills
90210 $8,560,500.00 $3,168,300.00 74.1% 160.2% #4
San
Marino
91108 $5,574,100.00 $1,673,700.00 69.8% 157.3% #34
Source: American Enterprise Institute 2019; Property Shark Most Expensive US Zip Codes 2019 Construction Costs
The cost of construction depends primarily on the cost of materials and labor, but it is also influenced by market demand and market-based changes in the cost of materials. The cost of construction depends on the type of unit being built and on the quality of the product being produced. Labor saving materials and construction techniques are available, but they tend to reduce the quality of the finished product. The type of product largely determines the cost of construction. The cost of labor is based on several factors, including housing demand, the number of contractors in an area and the unionization of workers, but it is generally two to three times the cost of materials.

Construction costs in the Los Angeles area are significantly higher than the state average with costs in San Marino higher still based on the high quality of living and design standards embraced by the community. Construction costs for San Marino are $331 per square foot. Additionally, recent wildfires in the region have increased the demand for new construction, which in turn have driven up the cost of materials and have resulted in a shortage of skilled labor. The construction cost of housing affects the affordability of new housing and does pose a significant constraint to housing in the San Marino area that is outside of the City’s control.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Financing
Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions, and there is little that local governments can do to affect these rates. Jurisdictions can, however, offer interest rate write-downs to extend home purchase opportunities to lower income households. In addition, government insured loan programs may be available to reduce mortgage down payment requirements.

First time homebuyers are the group affected the most by financing requirements. Mortgage interest rates for new home purchases ranged from 2.3% to 4.5% for a fixed rate 30-year loan in 2021. Lower initial rates are available with other mortgage types. Although rates are currently low, they can change significantly and substantially impact the affordability of the housing stock.

Interest rates at the present time are not a constraint to affordable housing. Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in San Marino subject to normal underwriting standards. A more critical obstacle to homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down payment requirements.

Typically, conventional home loans will require 5% to 20% of the sale price as a down payment, which is the largest constraint to first time homebuyers. This indicates a need for flexible loan programs and a method to bridge the gap between the down payment required and a potential homeowner's available funds.

The real estate market continues to experience many all cash offers for homes in San Marino.

This makes it much more difficult for first time home buyers with minimal down payments to compete for a home. Anecdotal information received during the public input process for the Housing Element update indicated that these smaller homes were almost always bought by “flippers” for cash with no intent to make it a home. Instead, the houses are enlarged and remodeled, then put back on the market for much higher prices where they sit vacant for months or even years. Vacancy rate data would seem to collaborate this anecdotal information. The City is exploring use of a subregional Housing Land Trust that could help to reduce this constraint.

Community Opposition
Many California homeowners, including those in San Marino, are resistant to new housing development, especially that of higher density, in their towns. Public input received during the Housing Element Update process identified an environment in which negative citizen input made it impossible to build anything new or creative within the City, even if all zoning, and design guidelines were followed. This position is often referred to as “NIMBYism”, which stands for “notin-my-backyard”. These residents often fear that new development will negatively impact their quality of life by decreasing privacy, safety, property value, public health, or service levels.

A program to consider amending the City’s commercial development standards to make it easier to build mixed use projects was met with significant community opposition and the program was abandoned. As shown by the community opinion surveys, there are many members of the community who feel that all of San Marino’s housing needs are being met and there should be no changes made to the existing physical form of the City. Many respondents to the survey felt

Housing Element Admin Draft
that no apartments should be built in San Marino. To help overcome this opposition, objective design and development standards could be adopted to allow for ministerial review of qualified housing projects.

Community resistance can lead to a variety of constraints on housing development. Community members may pressure the Planning Commission and City Council to deny projects, and in some cases may also threaten legal action. This environment increases risk for developers and may discourage them from bringing development proposals to the City. It also means that development proposals, especially multifamily residential development or development at a higher density than currently exists, will likely require more time and resources in the development process to address community concerns. Constraints from community resistance and NIMBYism in discretionary decision-making and design review processes make it even more important for the City to adopt objective design and development standards for multifamily and residential projects in the C-1 zone.

4.4.2 Potential Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements, or actions imposed by the various levels of government upon land and housing ownership and development. Although federal and state agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in this document.

General Plan and Zoning Code
Every city must have a General Plan that establishes policy guidelines for development within the city. The General Plan is the basis for land use decisions in a jurisdiction. The Land Use Element identifies the location, distribution and density of land uses in the City. In implementing the General Plan, the City of San Marino uses Zoning Regulations and the Subdivision Ordinance.

General Plan densities are expressed as dwelling units per acre. The San Marino General Plan provides for three residential land use designations in the City, as shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Residential Land Use Categories
Designation Density Range
1 Description Acreage Maximum
DUs
Low Density 0 - 2 du/ac Low-density single family
residential uses
585.29 1,170
Medium Density 2.1 - 4 du/ac Medium-density single` family residential uses
1,032.95 4,131
High Density 4.1 - 6 du/ac High-density single family
residential uses
411.04 2,466
TOTAL total 7,767
Additional
Dwelling Units
(ADUs and
JADUs)
Not applicable
Permitted by-right on any
residentially zoned lot2
“ 5,023 ADUs
5,023 JADU

Housing Element Admin Draft
Residential
Units in C-1
Zone

8.7 du/ac Residential uses in C-1 zone at a
density of one residential unit per
5,000 SF of land area, with
Conditional Use Permit

36.14 314
1 Density range expressed in dwelling units per gross acre. 2 ADUs and JADUs must conform to standards set forth in City Code Section 23.02.25(G) Source: City of San Marino, 2021
Hypothetically, a total of 7,767 dwelling units could be accommodated within the existing City limits, based on build-out of all residentially designated acreage at the maximum of the density range. Because of lot configurations, however, the City is considered built-out at its current 5,023 dwelling units. The amount of single-family housing stock within the City is not expected to increase beyond the stated maximum build-out of the General Plan. Future growth could only be realized through the provision of ADUs, JADUs, and C-1 residential developments unless new programs are developed.

Density
Density is a critical factor in the development of affordable housing. Maintaining low densities typically increases housing costs per unit, while higher densities lower the per unit land cost and.

This situation is amplified in San Marino: the land share of property values is nearly 70 percent and the 2019 standardized value for a quarter-acre lot was $1,673,700, making San Marino the 3rd most expensive zip code in the SCAG region and the 34th most expensive in the nation (Table 16). San Marino’s current highest allowable density is 6.0 dwelling units per acre in residential areas, and about 8.7 units per acre in commercial areas. No multi-family is currently allowed. The City’s founding vision of San Marino as a high quality, low density residential community, together with the fact that it was essentially built out by 1970, has helped to drive up the land costs and results in a market cost for housing in the City that is well beyond the reach of median- or moderate-income households. As reflected in the census data, this has resulted in a sharp decrease of population in the 20-40 age brackets because first-time homebuyers cannot afford San Marino. There are currently no residential designations in the City which permit the density of development that will accommodate multi-family housing that might be affordable to Very Lowand Low-income households and rezoning to allow the City’s default density of 20 units per acre will be required.

Zoning
Zoning, which must be consistent with the General Plan, establishes more specific development standards, allowable uses, and limitations. Zoning regulations control development by establishing requirements related to height, density, lot area, yard setbacks, and minimum parking spaces. Site development standards are comparable to other community requirements and ensure a quality living environment for all household groups in the City. Design standards such as roofing materials, architectural enhancements, and landscaping may also increase the costs of housing. The City's perspective is that all housing should meet the same fundamental high quality design standards.

Housing Element Admin Draft
The City of San Marino's Zoning Code currently contains eight residential district classifications within the Residential R-1 Zone that accommodate a range of densities and lot size requirements from 60,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet per unit, as shown in Table 18. Additionally, residential units may be allowed in the C-1 Zone with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) and a requirement for 5,000 square feet of land area per residential unit, resulting in allowable densities of 8.7 units per acre.

Table 18: Development Standards - City of San Marino
Zone
Permitted
Uses
Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Height
Front
Setback
Interior
Setback
Rear
Setback
Minimum
Avg. Width
of Lot
Minimum
Street
Frontage
R1 – IE
Singlefamily
dwellings
60,000 35 ft. 40 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. 125 ft. 100 ft.

R1- I
Singlefamily
dwellings
30,000 35 ft. 40 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. 125 ft. 100 ft.

R1 - II
Singlefamily
dwellings
20,000 35 ft. 40 ft. 12 ft. 40 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft.

R1- III
Singlefamily
dwellings
17,000 30 ft. 40 ft. 12 ft. 40 ft. 100 ft. 80 ft.

R1 – IV
Singlefamily
dwellings
15,000 30 ft. 35 ft. 10 ft. 35 ft. 85 ft. 70 ft.

R1 – V
Singlefamily
dwellings
12,000 30 ft. 30 ft. 8 ft. 30 ft. 80 ft. 70 ft.

R1 – VI
Singlefamily
dwellings
10,000 30 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. 25 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft.

R1 – VII
Singlefamily
dwellings
9,000 30 ft. 25 f
t.
5 ft. 25 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.

C-1
Singlefamily
dwellings
with CUP
5,000 30 ft. 25 ft.
8 ft. for singlestory
buildings
18 ft. for
multi-story
buildings
20 ft. - 60 ft.

Source: City of San Marino, 2021

Housing Element Admin Draft
Parking Requirements
Parking requirements in San Marino are typical for a city of its size and character, as shown in Table 19. The number of parking spaces required for a single-family unit is related to number of bedrooms. These characteristics do not constrain the development of housing directly, although a greater amount of acreage is required for meeting parking requirements as the number of bedrooms increase.

For residential uses within a Commercial Zone, the parking requirements will be determined by the Planning Commission, based upon either the requirements for the most comparable use specified in the Zoning Code, or upon a special study of parking requirements for that use. The City does have joint use provisions subject to approval of a CUP. The requirements for parking do not directly constrain the development of housing for single-family or residential uses in the C-1 zone. As zoning changes are made to allow more residential units in commercial areas and to allow multi-family housing, new parking requirements may need to be adopted.

Table 19: Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Residential Development Required Parking Spaces1 Comments Single Family Residential
1 – 4 bedrooms 2 spaces
5 – 6 bedrooms 3 spaces
7 and above bedrooms 4 spaces Plus one space per every 2 additional bedrooms
ADU 1 space2
JADU None
Residential Units in the C-1 Zone Not Specified
To be determined by special
parking study or application of
requirements for a similar use
1 All required spaces must be within an enclosed garage; carports are prohibited 2 Off-street; not subject to enclosed garage requirement Source: City of San Marino, 2021
Density Bonus Law
In general, this state law provides developers with density bonuses or other incentives in exchange for the provision of affordable housing which meets certain requirements. San Marino does not have its own density bonus ordinance and will comply with the provisions of the State Density Bonus law when or if such a project arises. Given that there is no subdividable land and no multi-family housing in San Marino, the City has not yet received an application for a project that would be subject to these laws. The City will review its existing provisions to ensure consistency with the revised density bonus programs under state law.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
San Marino has expanded its opportunities for different types of housing since the previous planning cycle. A table showing the Zone Districts where housing is allowed is include below:

Table 20: San Marino Zones where Housing is Allowed
Zone District Permitted Residential Uses Residential Uses Subject to Use Permit C-1 Emergency shelters. Projects with up to 1 residential unit for each 5,000 SF of lot area.

Historical and
Cultural Zone
Housing for Employees of on-site uses Replacement or new residential structure (unless damaged or
destroyed by natural disasters)
R-1 Single family homes; accessory dwelling
units; junior accessory dwelling units.

None.

Source: City of San Marino, 2021
A. Accessory Dwelling Units
In response to state mandated requirements and local needs, the City of San Marino allows for the development of accessory dwelling units. The City strives to ensure the availability of affordable housing for family members, students, and the elderly, among others, in the City while mitigating impacts to traffic, utilities, public health and safety and preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. ADUs and JADUs are permitted on single family residential lots without discretionary approval. Any application for an ADU that meets the location and development standards contained in City Code Section 23.02.25(G) is approved following a ministerial review for compliance, and within sixty (60) days after submission of a complete application.

The Zoning Code requires:
 The ADU/JADU may be located only on residentially zoned lots;  One ADU may be constructed on a lot zoned to allow residential use;  One JADU may be constructed on a lot zoned to allow residential use;  One JADU and one ADU may be constructed on a single-family residential lot where the JADU and ADU meet the requirements in Government Code Section 65852.2(e);  For safety purposes, new ADUs and JADUs may only be located on a residential lot that has:
o At least a 10-foot-wide fire lane within 150 feet of the subject property; and o A minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute.
 This restriction shall not apply to ADUs and JADUs that are exempt from planning review;

Housing Element Admin Draft
 The ADU/JADU shall not be sold separately from the primary residence;  If the ADU/JADU is rented, it shall not be rented for a period of less that 90 consecutive days;
 Owner-occupancy is required for parcels with a JADU;
 The ADU/JADU shall be restricted to the Livable Area approved at the time of the building permit issuance; and
 The ADU/JADU may not have utility services separate from those of the main residential structure on the same property.

ADU Development Standards:
 ADUs are limited to a maximum of two bedrooms.
 Studio and one-bedroom ADUs shall not exceed 850 square feet of Livable Area.  Two Bedroom ADUs shall no exceed 1,000 square feet of Livable Area.  A Detached ADU shall not exceed 1000 square feet of Livable Area and shall not exceed one story or sixteen feet (16’) in height.
 An ADU shall include a kitchen for cooking and eating and other permanent provisions for living and sleeping, including a closet or other reasonable storage area.  Exterior lighting shall be shielded or directed so that it does not glare off-site or illuminate the primary residence or any adjacent property.  Windows shall be located to avoid direct line of sign to windows of adjacent properties.  An ADU shall have a separate exterior access and to the greatest extent feasible, shall not be visible from the street.
 Any common wall separating the accessory dwelling unit from the main building shall be soundproofed.
 A permanent foundation shall be required for all ADUs.  One off-street parking space shall be provided for each ADU except when:
o The ADU is located within a one-half mile walking distance of Public Transit. o The ADU is entirely within a proposed or existing primary dwelling or other existing structure.
o The ADU is located within an historic district.
 The design of the second unit shall be consistent with that of the main building; and  The ADU must be served by its own parking space.
 An ADU may not have separate utility services.

JADU Development standards:
 The Owner of a parcel proposed for a JADU shall occupy as a principal residence either the Single-Family Dwelling Unit or the JADU. Owner-occupancy shall not be required if the Owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

Housing Element Admin Draft
 The JADU shall be a minimum of 150 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet of Livable Area.
 The JADU must be contained entirely within the walls of the existing or proposed Single Family Dwelling Unit.
 The JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen.
 The JADU shall have a separate entry from the main entrance to the Single-Family Dwelling.
 An interior entry to the main living area shall be provided to serv a JADU.  No additional parking is required for a JADU.

B. Manufactured Housing
The City has allowed manufactured, prefabricated and mobile home construction in its R-1 Zone since 1996. No manufactured housing currently exists in the City. It is subject to the same development standards as otherwise required for that zone. Certain additional requirements are included in the City Code:
 Minimum Dimensions: Thirty feet (30') (excluding garage).  Roof: Pressure treated, fire retardant wood shake or shingle, 300# or heavier composition shingle, clay or cement tile, rock, or gravel; shaped, rolled or reflective roofs are prohibited.
 Eaves: Minimum sixteen-inch (16") eave protection unless otherwise approved by the Commission.
 Exterior Wall Treatment:
o Permitted Materials: Wood siding, stucco, brick or as approved by the Commission.
o Color: Natural earth tones, white, with complementary trim color. o Prohibited Materials: No reflective, glossy, polished, roll-formed, stamped, extruded, plastic, PVC or similar type of materials shall be used for roofing or siding.
 Foundation Required: All manufactured homes shall be installed on a foundation system, pursuant to section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code, and no more than ten (10) years shall have elapsed between the date of manufacture of the home and the date of the application for issuance of a permit to install the manufactured home in the City.
 Design Review: Such manufactured homes shall meet all other requirements of this Code and are subject to design review.

C. Emergency Shelters
In accordance with State Law and as set forth in City Code 23.03.01(I) (1-9), Emergency shelters are permitted in the C-1 Zone. Emergency shelters must comply with the following

Housing Element Admin Draft
standards in addition to the development requirements and other requirements generally applicable in the C-1 Zone:
 Maximum number of persons to be served on any given night shall not exceed ten (10).
 A minimum distance of three hundred feet (300’) shall be maintained from any other emergency shelter.
 The maximum stay at the facility shall not exceed ninety (90) days in a three hundred and sixty-five (365) day period.
 On site client waiting and intake areas shall be located inside the building.  A minimum of one manager, in addition to security personnel, shall be on duty and remain on site during intake hours.
 Security personnel shall be provided on site at all times.  Exterior lighting shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site consistent with the provisions of The Code. Exterior lighting shall be stationary and shall be directed away from adjacent properties and public rights of way.  A minimum of one parking space for every five (5) beds, or one parking space for each bedroom designated for families with children, plus one parking space for each employee/volunteer on duty during the largest shift, shall be maintained.  Hours of operation for client intake and discharge shall comply with The Code.

D. Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
Changes were made to the City Code in 2021 to specify that transitional, supportive, and employee housing types are considered permitted uses in all Districts that allow residential uses, subject only to the same standards as other residential uses in the same District.

E. Residential Care Facility
Licensed residential care facilities are state licensed facilities maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, day treatment, or foster agency services for six or fewer adults, children, or adults and children. State law requires that these facilities be treated as a single housekeeping unit for zoning purposes. Licensed residential care facilities are permitted in the R-1 Zone in accordance with state law. The City currently has one residential care facility in the R-1 Zone.

F. SRO Housing
The City of San Marino does not specifically address this use within the zoning code. The C1 Commercial Zone allows residential uses with the issuance of a conditional use permit, but it does not allow for hotel or motel uses. The Code currently allows one residential unit per 5,000 square feet of land. Market conditions and the relatively small size of C-1 zoned parcels are the likely factors as to why higher density housing has not been pursued in the city.

G. Farmworker Housing/Employee Housing

Housing Element Admin Draft
The 2007-2011 ACS identified zero agricultural employees living within San Marino. There is no agricultural land in or near San Marino, and there does not appear to be a need for farmworker housing. If employee housing were to be proposed under the Employee Housing Act, it would be allowed as a residential use so long as the program was licensed and administered by HCD.

Building Codes and Enforcement
A variety of building and safety codes, while adopted for purposes of preserving public health and safety, and ensuring the construction of safe and decent housing, have the potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance.

The City of San Marino has adopted the California Building Code, 2019 edition, based on the 2018 International Building Code as published by the International Code Council. The Codes are based on regulations necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Building Codes and related amendments do not seem to impede the development of housing. Many newer requirements such as fire safety systems and green building requirements had been implemented by residents prior to being required.

Code enforcement is conducted by way of Code Enforcement Officers patrolling the city and investigating complaints received. The main issue that Code Enforcement addresses is construction or remodeling without permits. Very rarely are substandard housing conditions or other health and safety issues identified. The City’s older housing stock is very well maintained.

Housing for People with Disabilities
Americans with Disabilities Act
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions include requirements for a minimum percentage of units in new multi-family developments to be fully accessible to the physically disabled.

Development of fully accessible units may also increase the overall project costs. Enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the discretion of the City but is mandated under federal law. However, the City does not currently have any multi-family units. The provisions of the ADA would apply only to potential residential components of a project in a Commercial Zone.

Compliance with building codes and the ADA may increase the cost of housing production.

However, these regulations provide minimum standards that must be followed to ensure the development of safe and accessible housing. Therefore, the local enforcement of these codes does not significantly constrain the development of housing.

Accessible Development
The City has seen an increase in projects such as handicapped accessible bathrooms, elevators, and first floor master suites. These items are treated in the same manner as any other project in terms of fees, permitting, and processing. Residential Care Facilities are also treated in the same manner as a single-family home. There is no additional hindrance on the development of housing for the disabled. No distance requirements have been adopted.

Housing Element Admin Draft
The City’s aging population, which includes residents with disabilities related to vision and mobility, will need to be accommodated within this eight-year planning period. The City should consider adopting a Universal Design program and applying it to new and remodeled dwellings to ensure that residents can age in place and that homes are designed for all stages of life.

Reasonable Accommodation
The City has also adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance. Under the ADA, cities must reasonably modify policies when necessary to avoid discrimination because of disability, unless they can show that the modifications “would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.” (28 Code of Federal Regulations 35.130(b)(7).) In general, the law states that local agencies retain their ability to regulate land uses and to apply neutral, nondiscriminatory regulations, but are required to make accommodations to allow persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing in the community. The City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance establishes a process for considering these types of accommodations and provides findings that must be met for an application to be approved as a reasonable accommodation. This process makes it easier for a resident to obtain approval for an accommodation, such as a wheelchair ramp or front yard parking space, that may not otherwise meet the Code requirements. Two reasonable accommodations have been requested and both have been granted within a reasonable time frame.

The City’s Zoning Code defines “family” as “an immediate family related by blood, marriage or adoption, or a group of individuals who are unrelated and live together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. This shall not include an individual paying rent to a landlord for the purpose of temporarily residing in a dwelling unit.” This definition is inclusive of all types of households and does not serve to constrain housing for persons with disabilities.

Development and Permitting Fees
Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other agencies to cover the cost of processing development permits and providing local services. These fees help ensure quality development and the provision of adequate public services. The City is legally required to set permit and development fees in amounts that are no more than equal the cost of providing services associated with these fees. The City recently conducted a comprehensive fee study to ensure the cost of providing the services was consistent with the required fee for those services.

San Marino is a largely developed, suburban jurisdiction with most of its necessary infrastructure such as streets, electrical, sewer and water facilities in place. Aside from fees collected to offset public school impacts and General Plan maintenance, the City does not require impact fees to make the necessary land improvements to accommodate development. The City does not maintain a different fee schedule for single family or multi-family units.

Development and permitting fees are not believed to be a constraint to housing development in the City. In fact, based on informal input from local contractors, San Marino has reasonable permit fees that are lower than other surrounding cities. Table 21 displays the San Marino Planning Department Fee Schedule. This is a comprehensive list of fees. The City does not charge any

Housing Element Admin Draft
development impact fees. School fees are required per State law. Average fees per single-family dwelling are displayed in
Table 22; these fees are generally lower than all surrounding jurisdictions.

Table 21: Planning Department Fee Schedule
Item/Permit Type Base Fee Basis for Valuation/Square Foot Cost Planning Fees
Design Review Committee
- Major
- Minor
$865
$285
N/A
Variance Application
Minor Variance
Major Variance
Creation of 300-foot Radius
Ownership List
Minor Exception
$1,260
$2,450
$65
$145
N/A
Conditional Use Permit Application
Minor CUP
Major CUP
Creation of 300-foot Radius
Ownership List
$1,420
$3,165
$65
N/A
Subdivisions or Lot-Splits $2,175 + $2,000
deposit
N/A
Rezone or Boundary Change $5,000 deposit +
hourly costs
N/A
Lot Line Adjustment $295 + $2,000 deposit N/A
Modification to Variance or
Conditional Use Permit
$955 N/A
Appeals
To Planning Commission
To CC
$805
$805
N/A
Negative Declaration Fee $830 N/A
Inspection Fees
Residential Compliance Inspection
Reports
$65 N/A
Special Inspections $160 each N/A
Certificate of Use and Occupancy $95 each N/A

Housing Element Admin Draft
Permits, Plan Check, & School Facility
Fees
Building Permit – Dwellings
Processing
Microfilming
Based on square
footage/ valuation of
work
$28.70
$3.00
Type V Wood Frame Additions or
Alterations - $125.00/sq. ft.

Basements - $83/sq. ft.

Garages - $36.00/sq. ft.

Patio Covers - $36.00/sq. ft.

Block Walls - $11.00 - 13
.00/sq. ft., depending on height.

Electrical Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per electrical permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Mechanical Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per mechanical permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Plumbing Permit
Processing
Microfilming
Other Fees
$28.70
$3.00
Per plumbing permit
schedule
Per fixture charge
Swimming Pool or Spa
Processing
Microfilming
$28.70
$3.00
Swimming Pool - $120.00 each
Spa - $60.00 each
Plan Check Fee Based on valuation of
work
N/A
Grading
Plan Check
Permit
Hourly rate from
consultant
Based on valuation
N/A
Solar Panel System $500 Flat fee (permit and plan check) School Facility Fees (applies only to
increase in square footage of 500 sq.
ft. or more)
$3.79/sq. ft. for
projects over
500 sq. ft.

N/A
Education Fee 3% of building permit
cost
N/A
General Plan Maintenance Fee 7% of building permit
cost
N/A
Source: City of San Marino, 2021

Housing Element Admin Draft
Table 22: Average Plan Check and Permit Fees for a New House Fee Average Fees for a New Single-Family House
Plan Check (Building) $4,319
Plan Check (Planning) $200
Grading (Plan Check and Permit) $757.44
Demo $191.69
Building Permit $4,280.23
Mechanical Permit $298.11
Electrical Permit $249.46
Plumbing Permit $385.44
Fire Sprinkler (Plan Check and Permit) $473.25
Fire Alarm (Plan Check and Permit) $531.96
School Fees $5286.13
TOTAL $16,973.26
Source: City of San Marino, 2021
Contrary to new houses, accessory dwelling units have lower development costs because they take advantage of already-existing infrastructure and can also be created within an existing structure. Instead of calculating average costs, a typical one-bedroom ADU of 600 square feet was considered for the fees in Table 23 below. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) have no development or school fees.

Table 23: Average Plan Check and Permit Fees for Accessory Dwelling Unit Fee Approximate fees for a new ADU
Plan Check (Building) $818.75
Plan Check (Planning) $200
Building Permit $966.56
Mechanical Permit $84.50
Electrical Permit $47.00
Plumbing Permit $89
Fire Sprinkler (Plan Check and Permit) $473.25
Fire Alarm (Plan Check and Permit) $531.96
School Fees $1,920
TOTAL $5,131.02
Source: City of San Marino, 2021
These appear to be reasonable fees given the scope of work for projects in San Marino.

Development fees do not seem to impede development in San Marino. The much larger cost involved in developing homes is the high cost of land in San Marino. Because the land cost is removed from the cost of an ADU or JADU on a parcel with an existing home, these housing types have the best potential to be constructed and rented within an affordable range.

Housing Element Admin Draft
Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The City of San Marino's development approval process is designed to accommodate, not hinder, development. Other than legally required public hearing notice and environmental review periods, developers and property owners are not hindered by “down time” in application processing. All new homes require Design Review Committee approval, which is a public hearing process. This helps ensure that new homes are compatible with the neighborhood and do not negatively impact the neighbors. The City has Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines which encourage the use of certain design features and materials. The Guidelines are not requirements but assist applicants in designing a project that will move more quickly through the approval process. The Design Review Committee also holds “open forum” sessions where applicants can get informal, preliminary feedback on a design, which will also help facilitate the approval process.

The design review process consists of the applicant filing an application, processing fee ($865) and one set of plans. Staff then reviews the proposal and responds with a letter indicating any code issues or design concerns that should be addressed. After the applicant addresses the comment letter, they submit eight sets of plans which are distributed to the Design Review Committee for their review. The applicant must also present their plans to their neighbors as part of this process. The Code dictates that the notified neighbors must include two neighbors on each side of the subject property; all properties adjoining the rear of the subject property and one on either side of those properties; and the properties across from the subject property and one on either side of those properties. This usually comprises about 10-12 neighbors depending on how the lots are arranged. This is primarily to make sure neighbors are aware of the proposed project and to give them an opportunity to ask questions or provide comments. Even if all neighbors approve of or object to the project, it would still proceed to the Design Review Committee for their review. Once the eight sets of revised plans are submitted and the neighbor notification process is completed, staff assigns the project to the next available agenda and notices the project for a public hearing. This process typically takes about 8 weeks in total. Once the project is approved, the applicant could submit for building plan check after the 15-day appeal period has expired (Source: City of San Marino, 2021).

The City has adopted Residential Design Guidelines to guide residents as well as review by the DRC (Design Review Committee). The purpose of these design guidelines is to provide a clear and concise summary of the City’s design policies for projects within the City’s residential neighborhoods. The guidelines address neighborhood compatibility, site development, physical design components, and landscaping.

Certain projects that exceed Code allowances or otherwise require an additional level of review will require either a Variance or Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These applications are heard by the Planning Commission. If the project also requires Design Review, the Planning Commission will review both actions. City staff tries to work with applicants ahead of time to determine the feasibility of their proposed project. Staff tries to guide applicants toward a solution that has the best chances of approval. Depending on the complexity of the project, initial Planning Department review for new construction requiring Design Review Committee (DRC) or Planning Commission