The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About32-Workshop yo - .II.. _ lIL _ .... o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Department of Planning & Building Services Interoffice Memorandum TO: Mayor and Co~on Council {{!f Al Boughey, Director of Planning & Building Services FROM: SUBJECT : UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS DATE: March 16, 1992 At the meeting of February 3, 1992 the Mayor and Common Council continued the discussion on unit and room size requirements in order to hold a joint workshop with the Planning Commission. The following is a comparison of existing standards vs. proposed standards: EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CODE Minimum Room Size Standards R22!!l Minimum Area In Sauare Feet Square Bedroom (excluding closets) Full bath Half bath 400 110 (140 average) 35 (50 average) 25 (30 average) Minimum Dwelling Size Minimum Livable Area in Sauare Feet Minimum Averaae Livable Area in Sauare Feet 1,200 1,700 LRC RECOJDIBNDATION LAND USE DISTRICT MINIMUM LIVABLE AREA IN SOUARE FEET MINIMUM AVERAGE LIVABLE AREA IN SOUARE FEET RE RL RS* RU* 1,700 1,200 1,200 1,000 1. 500 1,300 ~.-J/_A!L ''If., - J. - -- o o l KllflKUK ROOK SIZB STAlfDARDS BQQm Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage (2-car) All othr 400 Refer to adopted UBC standards STUJ' RBCOIIJIBIfDATIOIf Minimum Dwelling size standards LAND USE DISTRICT MINIMUM LIVABLE AREA IN SQUARE FEET MINIMUM AVERAGE LIVABLE AREA IN SQUARE FEET RE RL RS RU 1,700 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,350 KllfIJI1JJI ROOK SIZE STAlfDARDS BQQm Minimum Area in Sauare Feet Garage (2-car) All other 400 Refer to adopted UBC standards Attached are two letters received since the February 3rd Council Meeting. - - o o .. C & B Enterprises URBAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3808 Osbun Road San Bernardino. California 92404 Phones: (714) 883-2435 MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES AND HOME SALES Housing is our single most expensive purchase. Home ownership is important in our country and is supported by many government programs. Housing needs change throughout our lives beginning with an apartment we move into a small house, then into a larger home and finally down-sizing to a smaller apartment or condo. Each home purchase requires a qualified buyer and an agreeable seller. To buy a larger home requires in most cases selling a small one. Assisting the first-time buyer with below-market interest rate loans has been focused on the new home market. The savings resulting from below-market rates has attracted buyers towards new homes rather than the existing inventory. The result is that the move-up buyer can not sell his existing home and purchase a larger hopefully new one. To illustrate this thought the following analysis is provided. During 1991, 1,724 two and three bedroom homes were sold in the greater San Bernardino area through the Multiple Listing Service. The average sales price was $107,100. Assuming for every 3 homes sold one family did not quality and therefore could not buy a home. If a reduction in interest rates would qualify those families, 575 additional homes would have been sold. The majority of sellers of those homes would be seeking a larger and newer home and hopefully focus on new subdivisions. The move-up buyer has a credit history of mortgage payments and cash equity from the sale which makes hie an easy qualifier for a new home. Calculated on a $105,000 loan, reducing the interest r~te from 10% to 8% results in a eonthly payment saving of $151. It also reduces the monthly minimum income requirement by $540. PITI/mo. income/mo. (28% ratio) $105,000 @ 10% inst. $1,063 $3,796 $105,000 @ 8% inst. 912 3,257 reduction $ 151 $ 540 RaG7 V 8]) 3//0 I1v ~ o o San Bernardino has a substantial inventory of existing good smaller homes in stable neighborhoods (1,000 to 1,300 sq. ft.). Rather than encouraging developers to build smaller first-time buyer homes the City should sponsor reduced interest rate mortgages for existing homes throughout the community. One source of funds is the State Housing Bond. The buyer would access these loans ~hrough local real estate and finance companies. The benefit to the builder of new ho,sing is that the process creates a new buyer who can afford a larger and more expensive home. Rutgers University demographer James W. Hughes recently published his study of home ownership and affordability in Fannie Mae's quarterly Housing Policy Debate. Hughes finds that the pool of potential first-time buyers is shrinking rapidly. The following is a summation of Hughes' study. A phenomenon called "the vanishing young adult" is the result of a maturing baby-bust generation. America will loose 15.5% of its 25 to 34 year olds in this decade. Entry-level housing demand will go through a decade-long slide. Population and households between the ages of 35 to 54 years will account virtually all of the national growth increments in the 1990s. Even in the "hot" growth areas, such as Calfornia more than 1/2 of the population growth will take place in the middle-age bracket. The demand for new construction will more likely be in the trade-up market. Selling affordable move-up houses still requires the sale of the former home. Another question asked in the discussion about the cost of housing is weather or not home prices are rising in terms of "real" dollars. The following limited survey may indicate a general trend for the City. A review of new housing costs over the past 13 years indicates little increase in the "real" cost (basic dollars). The small increase can be attributed to higher cost of construction funds and additional City development fees. Year Tract No. Sq.Ft. Sales Price Basic No. Bed. Price /Sq~Ft. Dollars .......... 1978 10258 3 1550 $61,000 $39 $60 "F" St. 4 1700 66,500 39 60 1981 10502 3 1550 77,500 50 55 La Praix 4 1710 81,000 48 52 1991 13554 3 1188 118,000 99 70 "H" St. 4 1460 127,000 87 61 4 1759 137,000 78 55 Note - Calculated on Los Angeles SMSA 1982/84 basic dollars CPI r ~ . o fE:~ ICfqZ. ""'^,< _.' ~-~ - California Trends Bradley Inman l , ... , '--""'t , .;.c-~--j- \;J~ '!i " Housing industry goes ballistic' ',over bond issue .~S ome of the state's most '.' . powerful housing indus- ( try groups are unhappy ; with a massive general :, obligation bond proposal -that would pump $325 million 'into affordable housin~ In a letter sent to the state I awmakers last week, the state's l<'lading Realtors, apartment own- e'rs, builders and mortgage bank- el"S complained that there wasil't er..ough money set aside for hous- ing', which they argue is essential ' .. for the state's economic recovery, Plus, they want more of the bond mOl1ey spent on first-time home buyers and less for renters, hom.eless and non-prolit housing groups. '''There are inadequate funds allocE.ted for housing compared to those allocated for parks and open space - parks don't gener- ate jobs." reads the letter, which was signed by the California As- sociation of Realtors (CAR), Cali- fornia A\O\artment Association, Building Industry Association and CalifOrnia Mortgage Bankers Associatiol." . "We are extremely concerned about the ~nomy and we want to make sure the full weight ofthe bond measure attacks the prob- lem;' said Joel Singer, executive vice preside~for the state-wide Realtors grou ; Introduc by Sen. David Roberti, D-Los Angeles, SB 593 would place the housing bond measure on the June ballot. Also included in the $6 billion bond package are funds for parks, open space, child care, education and transportation. An intense lobby- ing campaign by real estate inter- ests could stall action on the en- tire bond proposal. A:ting witb 'Volt: ting more moncy spent on l:o~sing, the in- dustry coalition has made several ~tJ!;;diic recommendations. . They want to see more funds for Iirst-time buyers. The letter claims that only 9 percent of the housing bond money in the Roberti measure is dedicated to new home buyers. "Californians cannot continue to pass bonds that ignore the state's compet- itiveness. Middle income Califor- nians are Iinding housing unaf- fordable and they are leaving the state," reads the letter. . The housing funds should not go to communities that do not have an approved local housing plan, which is required by state law. According to a recent report, 80 percent of the state's cities and' counties have housing plans that are out of compliance with state mandates. . The proposed ballot initia- tive states that there should be limits on how much home price appreciation Iirst-time home buy- ers can realize when they tap the bond proceeds for downpayment assistance or lower interest-rate loans. The industry coalition . wants to see these "re-saJe price controls" removed rfQm the bill. . The Roberti measure gives preference to non-profit housing groups, which real estate inter- estS oppose. "The for-prolit in- dustry is critical to any solution to the state's housing crisis;' reads the letter. Housing advocates who crafted the Roberti measure are concerned that the action taken by the real estate industry could undo the housing package. . , "It's like a bank robbery and at the 11th hour;' said Marcus B. Brown of the California Rural Le- gal Assistance Corporation in Sacramento. "Where was the (housing industry) on this when we began working on it six months ago?" he asked. o There's speculation - tl;ough denied by real estate representa- tives - that the industry action is a way to get politic;lIleverage with the legislature on a rent con- trol bill that is being pushed by apartment owners. The measure would weaken local re:nt control legislation. "I really don't know what the . motives ai-e here butit could be disastrous to our efforts for affor- dable housing;' said Brown. In the past live years, three housing bond measures have been approved by the voters with widespread, bi-partisan support from state lawmakers and various special interest groups including real estate. Housing indust!;X leaders claiin that - there;s' no. "hidden agenda" and promise to work "constructively" with the legis- lature and housing advocates to resolve the differences. Only a day after the letter wais sent to the legislature, Republ i- can lawmakers weighed in with their concerns about the housil)g measure. , ! But their recommendatiol:lS weren't necessarily consistent with the views of real estate ,in- terestL : I "Bond funds should be! di- rected to promote self-sumci.~ncy of housing residents;' according to an announcement from iSen- ator Ken Maddy, R-Fresno, I . ( For example, "a great~r em- phasis should be placed 01"4 farm- worker housing as an a;rea. of need. " "J . ,. For now, the housirlg bond measure appears to be al tree-for- all; . ( t'.. ...... . o. C & B Enterprises URBAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS 3808 0Ibun ... San ~ CeIIomia 92404 Phona: (71*883-2435 '0 ~ " 8 .." n ~." .---., n I::: ;~.~ !..~.' .t'. \':1 '~ f.~ \ .... ~,:J ~,',' :'~ d ':/ ;~ t;j' I fU i uJ .~ JAM 1 ti 1;;:lL '- ~ January 14, 1992 D~~~}~~l-~'J;~'(~;~'}~:.1 s. Al Boughey, Director of Planning City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, Ca. 92401 Dear Mr. Boughey: f Subject: Development Code amendment, minimum home size t The Development Code stipulates a 1700 sq. ft. minimum home size. The current 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 3D-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: ~ o o 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. I 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 dis€uss this matter further I am confident that other local builders will support my recommendation at future hearings. Sincerely, o o VERDEMONT PROJECT HOMES SIZE SALES PRICEI YEAR NAME DEVELOPER (SQ. FT.) PRICE SQ. FT. 1991 Palm Mom, i g 1445 to $144,000 to $100 Terrace I I Development 2208 $186,000 $ 84 1991 Auburn McClellan :t: 1892 tlJ $162,000 to $ 86 Ridge Development 2636 $1'30,000 $ 72 19'31 The ,M'='t1tl i ng :t: 1950 to $182,000 to $ '33 Estates Devel c.pment 2809 $240,000 $ 85 1987/88 University Jennel 1106 to $ 90,000 to Heights 2100 $105,000 MISC. AREAS PROJECT HOME SIZE DATE NAME DEVELOPER (SQ. FT.) 19'31 Gimarron Century 1136 tel Ranch HQme-s 1'3'30 1987 Southpointe- I{au f man & 1257 to Broad 1 ..,..-,-, /.4.1 1'381 Park Ashton 16'31 to Valencia Developwent 1900 SALES PRICE PRICEI SQ. FT. $113,0000 tc. $136,000 $ '3'3 $ 68 (CajOt1) (CclI~ley Ran.:h) (Valencia) Note-s: . The swallest homes listed are 3 bedrooms with 2 baths unless (:t:) which are 4 bedrooms with either 3 or 2 baths. "This survey is liwited to the northern portion of San Bernardino. "This survey does not include hillside developments. o 0 NOF:THPAFn:: PROJECT HOME SIZE SALES PRICEI YEAR NAME DEVELOPER (SQ. FT. ) PRICE SQ. F'" .. i.. 19'30/'31 Meadowood Foreca.st 1188 to $118,000 to $ '3 '~:.I II Development 1858 $141,000 $ 76 1'3'31 The 131' iff it h :j( 1950 tel $1 '35,000 tCI $100 Neighborhood HI;:.rnes 2100 $208,000 $ '3'3 1'386 ,Mayfield Neal Sayre 1362 tQ Court 1458 1978/7'3 N.:orthpar k SLlnpark 1440 to Highlands Inc.. 1705 1'378 Hillcrest Eastvale 1550 to Terrace Co. 1885 SHANDIN HILLS PROJECT HOME SIZE SALES PRICE/ YEAR NAME DEVELOPEF.: (SQ. FT..) PRICE SQ. FT. 1'391 Motyl:;ec i to I I Anden 1200 to $120,000 to $100 Group 1875 $150.000 $ 80 1 '3'31 r"lay 1 belYO oLlgh Marlborough :>: 2057 to $183,000 to $ 89 Estates Dev. Corp. 2773 $227,000 $ 8'-' "" 1990/91 Shandin Hills Acacia :t: 2032 to $210,000 to $103 Estates Const .. Co.. 2520 $250,000 $103 1'3'30 Catl',br i dge Osb':IY'tle Dev. 1314 to $131,000 to $100 1753 $14'3,000 $ 85 1 '385 Morgan Hunter 1055 tCi Mat10r Const.. 1534 1'380 Fairway Lewis 1372 tel Estates Homes 1754 AI ~ ..~'~~...... .fII III --~-~ ~"-,"...........~_..-~..~....,,,.~. ....',.~. ,.,. ...--'-....---.-',...'.- -~-'-~ -~._....-"---,..~~_......_'-.. ..., " o o HIGHLAND / DEL F.:OSA PROJECT HOME SIZE SALES PI'<: I CE YEAR NAME DEVELOPEF.: (SQ. FT.) PRICE SQ. FT. 198'3/90 Bonita NIl"al 1420 to $114,000 $ 80 Vi sta Bakll"r 1500 $123,000 $ 77 1'381 St Il"r 1 i ng Bob Britton 1500 tel Heights 2100 1'381 Wo.:)dr i dgll" Westll"l'"t1 1458 tc- CommUtl i t; i es 1734 1'381 Paci fic Le Brll"tt 1290 to Terrace Helmes 1643 1'380 Highland Sunpayk 1500 to Terrace Inc. 1705 1'380 F'al:i fic William 1180 to Highlands Bustll"r 1434 1''380 Orangll" Vat1guar d 1040 to Crest Build..rs 1440 1'380 Casa DIl" Grll"enberg 1520 tCt Linda Inc. 1650 1980 Serratlo John 1563 to Park Heers 177''3 Highland De-velopment 1638 to Vista Estates Dimensions 2001 197'3 Foothill BClb Britte,n 1510 to Canyon Estates 2143 1 '376/77 Indian Bob Britton 1500 to Canyon Estates 2100