The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About43-Planning & Building CI'TV OF SAN BER,.DINO - REQUEST feR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Development Code Amendment No. 91-0: Subject: to revise Development Code room siz< standards, and unit size standards. Dept: Planning & Building Services Da~: January 14, 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting February 3, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: May 3, 1991 The Mayor and Common Council adopted the Development Code which established minimum residential room size standards (single and minimum and average unit size standards for non-infill multiple family) single family detached dwellings. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the ordinance be adopted. Al Contact person: Al Boughey Supporting data attached: Staff Report, Ordinance Phone: 384-5357 Ward: Citywide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $25.00 Source: (Acct. No.) 001-171-53150 (Acct. Description) Professional Services ClJ.-+J )Jr Finance: Council Notes: 75.0:?62 Aaenda Item No. ~...3 CITY C;>>F SAN BERNVDINO - REQUEST FiR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 3, 1992 REOUBST Under the direction of .the Legislative Review Committee (LRC), a Development Code amendment to revise sections 19.04.030(2) (G) and (H) (1) (a) has been drafted for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council. This amendment proposes to delete the minimum residential room size standards in all land use districts and to revise the minimum dwelling size standards for non-infill single family detached dwellings in the RE (Residential Estates), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban) and RU (Residential Urban) land use districts citywide. BACKGROUND On June 3, 1991 San Bernardino's new Development Code became effective. The residential room and unit size standards currently read as follows: MXNXMUM ROOM SXZE STANDARDS Room Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage Bedroom (excluding closets) Full bath Half bath 400 110 (140 average) 35 (50 average) 25 (30 average) MXNXMUM NON-XNFXLL SXNGLE-FAMXLY DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS The following minimum dwelling areas are computed by calculating the living area as measured from the outside of walls and excludes garages, carports, exterior courtyards, patios or balconies: Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaae Livable Area in Sauare Feet 1,200 1,700 5-0264 . . Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 Mayor and Common co~ncil Meeting of February 3, 1992 Page 2 On October 21, 1991, an urgency ordinance was taken before the Mayor and Common Council to allow reductions from the required unit size requirements in the RS and RU land use districts through approval of a variance. The finding of urgency was based on a project submitted to the Planning Division for a 17-unit single- family subdivision with an average unit size of 1,450 square feet, which the developer sUbmjtted without consulting City codes, and was subject to losing the financing if the project could not be approved in October. Planning staff would have supported such a variance because the project is located within a nearly built out residential district where the average unit size is approximately 1,200 square feet and because the proposed 17-unit development was not enough to change the scale and character of the area, or to establish separate character for itself. However, the City Attorney advised the Mayor and Council that the finding for urgency was not valid, and Staff was directed to follow normal ordinance adoption procedures. Because the urgency aspect was invalidated, Staff was afforded the opportunity to develop a more fully conceived revision to the Development Code standards. Rather than pursue the variance concept, Staff considered wholesale revisions to the room and unit size requirements of the Development Code. On January 7, 1992, the following revisions to the Development Code were presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing: MINIMUM ROOM SIZE STANDARDS Room Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage (2-car) All other 400 Refer to adopted UBC standards MINIMUM NON-INFILL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS (Computed as before) Land Use District Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaqe Livable Area in Sauare Feet RE RL RS* RU 1,700 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,500 1,300 * When the proposed project is in an area that is 75% developed within a 1,000-foot radius, the minimum unit size may be reduced to 1,000 square feet and . . Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 3, 1992 Page 3 the average may be reduced to the average of the existing single-family dwelling units in the same land use district wi thin 1,000 feet of the proj ect perimeter. However, if this option is utilized and the average unit size of the existing dwellings within the above defined parameters exceeds the current Development Code requirements, the minimum average unit size of the proj ect shall. equal the average unit size of those dwellings. The maximum size of the tract shall not exceed 40 acres or 160 units. The proposed revisions to unit size requirements were designed to reflect the physical and intended differences between the various residential land use districts, as specified in the General Plan. The provision to allow for a reduced unit size in certain RS districts is intended to promote the continui ty of scale in established neighborhoods. The determination of room sizes is proposed to be left to market forces because it does not appear that the size of a bedroom or bathroom within a house has the potential of influencing other land uses. For purposes of comparison, staff recited the following unit size standards of neighboring cities to the Planning commission: Zone Min. Colton RE 6000 s.f. 7700 s.f. 8400 s.f. 8400 s.f. 1 000 s.f. 2000 s.f. 1200 s.f. no min'mum o minimum no minimum 1200 s.f. 1200 s. f. 1400 s.f. 1600 s. f. 1800 s. f. 750 s.f. d al all Re a all Rialto R-1-6000 R-1-C R-1-B R-A - -A v e all *excludes garage 0.5 acre 7200 s. . (Source: telephone survey) None of the above listed cities requires a minimum average unit size. CEOA STATUS Article 5, Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that, in general, CEQA applies only to projects that could have a significant effect on the environment (Section 15378 defines zoning ordinance amendments as "projects"). Where it can be determined with certainty that no possibility exists fora . . Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 3, 1992 Page 4 project to have a significant effect on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed amendment to the Development Code will not lead to an increase in the allowable density or intensity of residential development, Staff has determined that Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At the Planning Commission hearing of January 7, 1992, a motion to recommend adoption of Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 did not carry due to a tie vote. An alternative motion to adopt the amendment with an increase in the RL standards to require a 1,500 square-foot minimum was not seconded. Ultimately no recommendation on the proposed amendment carried; rather, the Commission voted unanimously to request a meeting with the Mayor and Common Council to discuss the proposed revisions prior to Council action. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the ordinance and approve Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 based on the findings contained- in Exhibit 1. 2. The Mayor and Common Council may adopt the ordinance and approve Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 subject to revisions to the standards proposed by staff. 3. The Mayor and Common Council may deny Development Code Amendment No. 91-08. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the ordinance, copy attached, which adopts and approves Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 as presented. Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP, Director Planning and Building Services Exhibit 1: Staff Report to Planning Commission January 7, 1992 Attachment A - Findings of Fact Attachment B - Letter of Support from Blackmon Homes Exhibit 2: Ordinance CITY OF SAN BERN DINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 6 1-7-92 Citywide r~ ..... ,- /"APPLICANT: City of San Bernardino UJ DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT rn 0( NO. 91-08 OWNER: Various (.) '-' .... r--. ~ A proposed Development Code Amendment to delete the m1n1mum fa residential room size standards in all land use districts and ~ to revise the minimum dwelling size standards for non-infill 0 single family dwelling in the RE (Residential Estates), RL UJ a: (Residential Low) , RS (Residential Suburban) and RU - (Residential Urban) land use districts citywide. 0( UJ a: 0( V "- EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Citywide ,- I GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES * FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A * [ SEWERS: DYES * HAZARD ZONE: o NO " ZONE: o NO OZONE B o NO I HIGH FIRE 0 YES * AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES * 1 REDEVELOPMENT DYES * HAZARD ZONE: CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: 0 NO I " 0 NO o NO .J -* -. '" ...I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ~ APPROVAL ~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 MITIGATING MEASURES - ~ 0 zrn NOE.l.R. 0( CONDITIONS WCJ 11.0 2Z lQ{ EXEMPT o E.I.R. RECUIRED BUT NO II.Z 0 DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS O(W 00 WITH MITIGATING t;2 a:ii MEASURES :::E 0 CONTINUANCE TO -II. > o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 Z (.) UJ EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W \. MINUTES G\. ..... '----' , anCl'~""""'" --- PLAN-i.Q2 PAGE' OF 1 (4-90) Exhibit 1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1-~-92 2 F" ""'III DOUBST Under the direction of the Legislative Review Committee (LRC), a Development Code amendment to revise Sections 19.04.030(2) (G) and (H) has been drafted for the Planning Commission's consideration. This amendment will delete the minimum residential room size standards in all land use districts and revise the minimum dwelling size standards for non-infill single family detached dwellings in the RE (Residential Estates), RL (Residential LoW), RS (Residential Suburban) and RU (Residential Urban) land use districts citywide. CIlOA STATUS Article 5, Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that, in general, CEQA applies only to projects that could have a significant effect on the environment (Section 15378 defines zoning ordinance amendments as "projects"). Where it can be determined with certainty that no possibility exists for a project to have a significant effect on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. Because the proposed amendment to the Development Code will not lead to an increase in the allowable density or intensity of residential development, Staff has determined that Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. BACltGROtnm On June 3, 1991 San Bernardino's new Development Code became effective. The residential room and unit size standards currently read as follows: KINIKtJM ROOK SIZIl STAlIDARDS B22llI Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage Bedroom (excluding closets) Full bath Half bath 400 110 (140 average) 35 (50 average) 25 (30 average) KINIKtJM NON-IHrILL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING SIZIl STANDARDS The following minimum dwelling areas are computed by calculating the living area as measured from the outside of .. ClT'l'O'_1I!IIUIIllM:l ClImW.~~ PlAN.8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) OBSERVATIONS CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 6 1-7-92 3 r .... walls and excludes garages, carports, exterior courtyards, patios or balconies. Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaae Livable Area in Sauare Feet 1,200 1,700 On October 21, 1991, an urgency ordinance was taken before the Mayor and Common Council to allow reductions from the required unit size requirements in the RS and RU land use districts through approval of a variance. The proposed ordinance also limited variance applications to areas where the tracts in question contain 20 or fewer undeveloped lots and the land within a 1000-foot radius of the project is 75 percent developed; this provision was designed to ensure that such an exception from the Code standards would be allowed only where the established character of a neighborhood consisted of unit sizes that fell below current standards and the size of the development would be too small to alter that character. The finding of urgency was based on a project submitted to the Planning Division for a 17-unit single-family subdivision with an average unit size of 1,450 square feet. The developer submitted the project after obtaining financing, but without consulting City codes, and was subject to losing the financing if the project could not be approved in October. Planning Staff would have supported such a variance because the project is located within a nearly built out residential district where the average unit size is approximately 1,200 square feet and because the proposed 17-unit development was not enough to change the scale and character of the area, or to establish separate character for itself. However, the city Attorney advised the Mayor and Council that the finding for urgency was not valid, and Staff was directed to follow normal ordinance adoption procedures. Because the urgency aspect was invalidated, Staff was afforded the opportunity to develop a more fully conceived revision to the Development Code standards. Rather than pursue the variance concept, Staff considered wholesale revisions to the room and unit size requirements of the Development Code. On November 21, 1991, Staff presented the following concept to the Legislative Review Committee (LRC): '" ...j CIT'l'DF"""~ --...... PLAN-8.D8 PAGE, OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE b 1-7-92 4 ~ XINIKUK NON-IHrILL SINGLE-FAMILY DBTACBBD DWELLING SIZB 8TAXDARDS (Computed as before) Land Use District Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaae Livable Area in Sauare Feet RE RL RS RU 1,700 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,350 other, less restrictive proposals were submitted by representatives of the building Industry Association (BIA), the Board of Realtors and the Forecast development firm. Further discussion of the issue was continued so that Staff could be reach a compromise with the development community. On December 5, 1991, a final draft of the revised standards was submitted to the LRC. The LRC then recommended the following standards for adoption by the Mayor and Common Council: KINIKUK ROOK SIZB STAXDARDS BQgJB Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage (2-car) All other 400 Refer to adopted UBC standards XINIKUK NON-IHrILL SINGLE-FAMILY DBTACHED DWELLING SIZB STAXDARDS (Computed as before) Land Use District Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaae Livable Area in Sauare Feet RE RL RS* RU* 1,700 1,200 1,200 1,000 1,500 1,300 ...,j ClT'f'OI'IIMI!fIlIWIClNJ --- PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE DCA 91-08 {) 1-7-92 5 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ * When the proposed project is in an area that is 75' developed within a 1,000-foot radius, the minimum unit size may be reduced to 1,000 square feet and the average may be reduced to the average of the existing single-family dwelling units in the same land use district within 1,000 feet of the project perimeter. However, if this option is utilized and the average unit size of the existing dwellings within the above defined parameters exceeds the current Development Code requirements, the minimum average unit size of the project shall equal the average unit size of those dwellings. The maximum size of the tract shall not exceed 40 acres or 160 units. UlALYSIS The proposed reV1S1ons to unit size requirements are designed to reflect the physical and intended differences between the various land use districts, as specified in the General Plan. For example, the RE designation is intended to promote development that conveys an "estate" or "rural" character on lots that are at least one acre in area: whereas the RS designation is intended for single-family suburban development with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. However, in all residential districts, a minimum average unit size of 1,700 square feet is currently required by the Development Code. The provision that would allow for a reduced unit size in certain RS districts is intended to promote the continuity of scale in established neighborhoods. Staff originally proposed that this reduction be limited to developments consisting of 20 units or less, because a larger project has the potential of establishing a character or "neighborhood" separate from the surrounding development. However, the compromise reached with the building industry included a concession to allow a cap of 160 units. The elimination of the room size requirements is fundamentally based on the concept that planning should not regulate activities based on their intrinsic value, but rather on how those activities affect others. The size of bedrooms in residential development, beyond minimum health and safety standards, has been influenced by the choices of home buyers. Families are smaller than in the past, and the need for bedrooms that can accommodate multiple family members has been diminished. The size of a bedroom or bathroom within a house does not appear to have the potential of generating an externality that would influence other land uses, either negatively or positively. ..01 ClTYCIf_~ C!fIfMl.~.1MCU PLAN.8.OI PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.gQ) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE A 91-08 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE t> 1-7-92 6 ,. COIICLUSJ:OII Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 attempts to implement unit size requirements for non-infill, single-family dwellings that more closely reflect the differences between the RE, RL, RS and RU land use districts as defined in the General Plan. The proposed changes also provide more flexibility for development within these districts than currently allowed by the Development Code without compromising the high standards of quality promoted by the General Plan and Development Code. RBCOMMEIIDATJ:OII Staff recommends that the Planning commission make a recommendation to the Mayor and Common council to revise Sections 19.04.030(2) (G) and (H) as proposed in this staff report to eliminate room size requirements, except for garages, and to change the minimum non- infill single-family dwelling size standards based on the land use district in which development is proposed. Respectfully~mitted, ($A~hE !.1~ ~ "'" Al Boughe.l~ Director of Planning and Building Services ~ Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner ATTACHMMENTS: A - Findings of Fact B - Letter of support from Blackmon Homes, Inc. CITY 0' .... --...-0 --...... ~ ~ PL,AN.8.08 PAGE' OF 1 (4.go) Attachment "A" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT FINDINGS OF FACT CASE AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 6 1-7-92 7 ~ 1. Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 is consistent with the General Plan by: a. Accommodating housing which meets "the diverse economic and social needs of the residents" and retaining the "scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods; " (Obj ecti ve 1. 8) b. Permitting "a range of residential unit types" in the RE (Residential Estate), RL (Residential Low), RS (Residential Suburban) and RU (Residential Urban) land use districts; and (Policy 1.8.10) c. Defining minimum unit sizes "to maintain the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods." (Policy 1.8.30) 2. Development Code Amendment No. 91-08 will not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety, convenience or welfare of the City in that the proposed amendment will not lead to an increase in the allowable density or intensity of residential development. l. PLAN-8.C16 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4~) ~~~ &"').\..\....a.I..-HHlt:::l.i... 0 BLACKMON HO"', INC. 3233 Arlington Avenue. Suite 201 Riverside. California 92506 (714) 683-7688 December 10, 1991 City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 N. D. Street San Bernardino, CA Attn: Planning Director-Al Bohey Dear Al, . _~ CJ.r. r, ~ .-I,,"" !/ c.? 1J'fIi'J '. We, at Blackmon Homes, Inc. would like to extend our support for the changes to the residential square footage requirements that are being considered. Sincerely, - ~'Vid ::~2:.c'I-t Project Manager .....~.., : ~ 1 "" ..., r:::. " c::, " \ " - \ : \ "\ ~ , .j ~i:~' V_' :..-" . "~-- I . . C & B Enterprises URBAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3808 Osbun Road San Bernardino. CalIfornia 92404 Phones: (714) 883-2435 . . , '. i -c o ;~ n i Ii i a:;i L:~) January 14, 1992 .J JAN 1 0 .; "- ; Al Boughey, Director of Planning City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, Ca. 92401 Dear Mr. Boughey: Subject: Development Code amendment, minimum home size The Development Code stipulates a 1700 sq. ft. minimum home size. The cur~ent compromise recommendation is 1200 sq. ft. I do not support either of the two standards. I am particularly concerned regarding the northern portion of our community. If consistency with existing development is to be a guideline for future development then 1200 sq. ft. is to small. The role of new housing in our community is an important policy question that needs to be more thoroughly defined in the General Plan. While it is important to the process of developing standards it is a subject left for another day. As a 30-year resident of San Bernardino I have seen considerable development. To recommend. an "appropriate" standard I surveyed 30 subdivisions built over the past 15 years. While it is not a complete list, it is all the information I could gather and represents a reasonable cross-section of new homes (see attached survey). The survey is concentrated in the northern portion of the City since that is the area I feel most confident in offering a professional opinion. From the survey I have developed some conclusions: I . . 1) Only 2 of the 8 subdivisions presently being sold contain homes less than 1350 sq. ft. 2) Only 10 subdivisions in the entire survey offered homes less than 1350 sq. ft. 3) Larger lot sizes result in larger homes. 4) Local builders tend to build larger homes when compared to all developers. I address my recommendations to that portion of the City lying east of Fry. 215 and north of Fry. 30. It is not that other areas of the City should have different standards but that I only feel confident in my research for the northern portion. My recommendations are: RE - 1700 sq. ft. RL - 1500 sq. ft. RS - 1350 sq. ft. (excluding cluster development) Any proposed regulation should be tested in the real world. If the 1350 sq. ft. standard were applied to Tract No. 13554 which is presently being built in the Northpark area, only 1 (11%) of their 5 floor plans would be eliminated. The question of how much first-time buyer (entry level) housing should be incorporated into new subdivisions is a matter of debate. I believe the City should sponsor financing to focus first-time buyers towards the existing housing market which would create a sale for the "move up" buyer. I do not recommend an "average" sq. ft. size. The formula becomes confusing and lends itself to varying interpretations. Builders will offer a range of home sizes in order to sell to a broad market. During the public hearing process the City Council retains the opportunity to condition individual tracts with a formula of home sizes as warranted. If we are to have standards at all they should be appropriate for San Bernardino. Neither the present Code or the committee recommendation fits our needs. If the Council wishes to discuss this matter further I am confident that other local builders will support my recommendation at future hearings. Sincerely, . . . VERDEMONT Pf;:OJECT HOMES SIZE SALES PF: I CEI YE,;f;: NAME DEVELOPEf;: (SQ. FT. ) PF:ICE SQ. FT. 1 '3'31 Palm MOtlt1ig 1445 tel $144,000 tel $100 Terrace I I Devel clpmt?t1t 2208 $186,000 $ 84 19'31 AubLtr-n McClellan :t: 18'32 tel $162,000 to $ 8E, f;:i dge Devel clpment 2636 $190,000 $ 7.-) ~ 1'391 The Mot1t1ing :*: 1950 to $182,000 to $ 93 Estates Development 2809 $240,000 $ 85 1'387/88 University Jennel 1105 to $ '30, 000 toO' Hei ght s 2100 $105,000 MISC. AREAS DATE PF:OJECT NAME DEVELOPEf;: HOME SIZE ( SO . FT.) SALES PRICE Pf;:ICEI SO. FT. 19'31 Ci rnarrotl Ranch Century 1136 to Homes 1'3'30 Kaufman ~~ 1257 tel Brclad 1 72i~ Ashton lEi31 to Development 1'300 $113,0000 toO' $135,000 $ '3'3 $ 68 1'387 Southpointe (Cajon) (Cc.oley Ranch) 1'381 Park Val etlc i a (Valencia) Notes: -The smallest homes listed are 3 bedrooms with 2 baths unless (*) which are 4 bedrooms with either 3 or 2 baths. . This survey is limited to the northern portion of San Bernardino. . This survey does not include hillside developments. I . . YEAr::: PF~OJECT NAME 1'3'30/'31 r~leadowCtod II 19'31 Th", Ne-ighborhood 1986 Mayfi",ld Court 1978/79 Northpark Highlands 1978 Hillcr",st Terrace . NOFTHPAP1< DEVELOPEP HOt1E SIZE (SQ. FT.) PPICE/ SQ. FT" SALES PF::ICE FO'l"'t?cast 1186 to Development 1868 I3ri f fi th :t: 1 '350 to Helmes 2100 $118,000 tl:r $ '3'3 $141,000 $ 76 $196,000 tel $100 $208,000 $ '39 N",al Sayr", 1362 to 1458 Sunpark 1440 to Inc. 1705 Eastval", 1550 t,:, Co. 1885 SHANDIN HILLS PF.:OJECT HOME SIZE SALES PF.:ICE/ YEAP NAME DEVELOPEP (SQ. FT.) PRICE SQ. FT. 19'31 Monte': i to I I And",n 1200 tCi $120,000 tel $100 Group 1875 $150.000 $ 80 1 '391 Mar 1 bOY"Qugh Mar 1 bCtY' oLlgh :. 2057 to $183,000 to $ 8'3 Estat!?s D!?v. Corp. 2773 $227,000 $ 8-' .:. 1990/91 Shandin Hills Acacia :t: 2032 to $210,000 t':l $103 Estat!?s Const. Co. 2520 $260,000 $103 1'390 Cambridge Osborne D!?v. 1314 to $131,000 to $100 ......c:-..." $149,000 $ 85 1 /..Ju 1986 Morgan Hunt!?r 1066 tel Manor Const. 1534- 1'380 Fairway L!?wis 1372 to Estat",s Homes 1754 r "",",c' ," .. J""'~"""" ;~'- ._...:..~...~._4:~~:.;..a:.~"~" .",',,' . ...t.-t>-'~v--i~",,::, ." -. .~~~~"~:~:,::..':~I1.~~:::{~.~,~:.. . . HIGHLAND I DEL ROSA F'F.:O,JECT I-IOME SIZE SALES PF: I CE YEAF.: NAt"iE DEVELOPER (E;Q. F-' ) PRICE SQ. FT. I. 1'38'3/'30 Bonita N€'al 1420 to $114,000 $ 80 Vi st a Bak€'r 1600 $123,000 $ 77 1 '381 St€'rling Bob Br i ttc.n 1600 to Heights 2100 1 '381 Woodridg€' W€'st€'rt1 1468 tel CommUtl it i €'s 1734 1'381 Paci fic L€'- Br€'tt 12'30 to T1?yrac1? Homes 1 [.~:; 2- 1 '380 Highland Sunpai'. k 1500 to Tt-t-rac€- Inc. 1705 1980 Pacific William 1180 to Highlands Bust€'r 1434 1980 Orange ,Vanguard 1040 to Crest Bui 1 d.,,, s 1';:;'':::'0 1':180 Casa De I3rt"e-nberg 1520 to Linda Inc. 1550 1':180 Se-.,.-ratl0 John 15tS3 t':1 Park H~~Y's 177':1 Highland De-v€'-lopl....ent 1(,38 to Vista Estat€'s Di rnensi CJt1S 2001 1S7':I Foothill Bc.b Britton 1610 t.o Canyon Estat€'5 2143 , 1 ':176/77 Indian Bc.b Br i t t on 1600 tCl Canyon Estat",s 2100 . . Ordinance No. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04.030(2) (G) AND 19.04.030(2) (H) (1) (a) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE TO REVISE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL ROOM SIZE STANDARDS AND TO REVISE THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS FOR NON-INFILL SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (RE), RESIDENTIAL LOW (RL), RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) AND RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) LAND USE DISTRICTS CITYWIDE. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Page n-19, Section 19.04.030(2) (G), MINIMUM ROOM SIZE STANDARDS, is amended to read as follows: "Minimum room size standards are as follows: Room Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage (2-car) 400 All other Subject to adopted UBC standards" SECTION 2. Page 11-19, Section 19.04.030(2)(H)(1)(a), MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS (Single-Family Dwellings), is amended to read as follows: "Land Use Minimum Minimum Averaqe District Area in Sauare Livable Area Feet in Square Feet RE 1,700 RL 1,200 1,500 RS* 1,200 1,300 RU 1,000 * If the area within a 1, OOO-foot radius of the proposed project perimeter is 75% developed and if the average livable area for existing single- IIII L__ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -' . . ORDINANCE...AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04.030(2)(G) AND 19.04.030(2) (H) (1) (a) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE TO REVISE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL ROOM SIZE STANDARDS AND TO REVISE THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS FOR NON-INFILL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (RE), RESIDENTIAL LOW (RL), RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) AND RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) LAND USE DISTRICTS CITYWIDE. IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII family dwellings in the RS land use district within this radius is less than 1,300 square feet, then the minimum livable area for the proposed project may be reduced to 1,000 square feet and the average livable area may be reduced to the average for the existing single-family dwelling units in the same land use district within this radius; in no event, however, shall the average livable area for the proposed project fall below 1,000 square feet. The maximum size of the development utilizing these alternative standards shall not exceed 40 acres or 160 units." . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . ORDINANCE...AMENDING SECTIONS 19.04.030(2) (G) AND 19.04.030(2) (H) (1) (a) OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL (DEVELOPMENT) CODE TO REVISE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL ROOM SIZE STANDARDS AND TO REVISE THE MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE STANDARDS FOR NON-INFILL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATES (RE), RESIDENTIAL LOW (RL), RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN (RS) AND RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) LAND USE DISTRICTS CITYWIDE. I HEREBY .CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting therefore, held on the day of , 1992, by the day of , 1992. W.R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: