HomeMy WebLinkAboutS01-Council Office
- era OF SAN .I!RNAR~O - REG'OST FOR COUNCIL A:)TION
Fnwn: Councilman Gordon Quiel
~t: Council Office
~: February 12, 1985
Su~~: California State University
Land Development Area
Synopsis of ,"",ious Council ~ion:
NONE
REQUEST THIS ITEM BE SCHEDULED FOR 2:00 P.M.
\
Recommended motion:
1. File Dr. James L. Mulvihill's Report/Presentation.
2. Direct staff to prepare and report back to the Council
proposals to create:
a. An overlay zoning plan for development in the California
State University Area.
b. A maintenance district plan for development in the Cali-
fornia State University Area.
c;2/~0;/
Conuct person:
Phil Arvizo
Phone:
383-5168
Supporting data ItteChed: Cnnn,.; 1m,." On;..". R"pnr~ i
Dr. Mulvihill's Report
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Ward: Five
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
This report and slide presentation have been presented to
etaff and Planninq commission bv Dr. Mulvihill.
I ~-'l I
'0
o
o
o
REPORT
Councilman Gordon Quiel
Fifth Ward
I have reviewed Dr. Mulvihill's report and have seen his
slide presentation. I am sure that the Mayor and Council will
agree that immediate action is necessary to assure that future
development of the California State University area must enhance
and not degrade the area.
Overlay zoning would provide enhanced improvements for all
related projects. A full planning staff review and approval,
for on and off-site requirements, would provide for extensive
planting, landscaping, exterior wall designs, entry and exit to
the projects and interior layout and planting.
Establishment of a maintenance district would create con-
trol of off-site planting, landscape and wall maintenance to
assure individual project compliance. The City would assume
maintenance and repair and charge the project for costs incurred
if commitments were not met.
" . ..
o
CALIFORNIA STATE
o
o
COLLEGE. SAN BERNARDINO
OFfiCE OF THE DtRECTOR FOR ADMINJSTRATIVE AFFAIRS
TELEPHONE (7141187-7411
1llrCa~m'"
_ Un.......Uy
January 22, 1985
Councilman Gordon Quiel
Quiel Brothers Sign Company
272 South I Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Dear Councilman Quiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you the paper and
slides on land development in the State University area. If you
feel it would be appropriate, Jim Urata and I would like very much
to present it to the City Council. Given the recommendations that
the City Planning Department is composing in regards to overall
development, including the issue of bonus density, we feel this
would provide the Council needed background information.
We would like to make the presentation when it is convenient
for the Council. Mr. Urata and I are looking forward to hearing
from you on this matter.
JLM:ja
p.f1'
~
~/~
5500 STATE COLLEGE PARKWAY, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 112407
"" Ii
'0
o
o
o
REPORT ON THE STATUS AND
TRENDS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE VICINITY OF CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY - SAN BERNARDINO
Researcher: James L. Mulvihill. PhD.
California State University. San Bernardino
,"
lbo"~ II
c
o
i
o
o
SUMMARY:
Because of the increasing concerns the State University
has expressed recently over the character and trends of development
in its vicinity. the University was asked to prepare this statement
describing in more detail its position on present and future growth.
This report delineates two adjacent zones to the campus that have a
critical influence on the image of the area because they are seen
immediately by campus visitors. A zone of primary influence is
composed of the major transportation corridors that approach the
University: North Park Boulevard, Kendall Drive, University Parkway,
and Little lIountain Drive. Because the appearance of this primary
zone is influenced by the uses of the land beyond them. these latter
areas are designated as a secondary zone of influence', ,The outer
boundaries of these influence zones are Electric Avenue. the Shandin
Hills. and 1215.
Next. an inventory of both rental and single-family housing
within these zones of influence provides the substantive core on
which this report is based. It must be clearly understood that the
State University's position is very much in favor of development in
the area, but of development that makes intelligent use of the land
now and which will be a true asset to the area in the future. Because
of the great physical attractiveness of the area, its proximity to the
campus, and the increasing scarcity of developable land in the
immediate vicinity. every effort should be made to promote thoughtful.
well-designed. quality projects.
~~
l'
creative development is not taking place. Instead. there appears to ~ t'\
be a land rush underway to bui ve"f'Y plain. multiple-family housing - \
units, and even request. nsit1e' cess of city standards.
It's not simply the physica hese deve nfs that is a---~~"
concern. but the speed at which the proposal;" are ,being made. There
is no time to establish the capacity of the local market and the public
services needed to support this rapid. high density growth. Another
concern is that the balance needed to provide housing for all the
citizens of the cOllDllUnity not being maintained. This "bandwagon"
effect in which inexpensive. high-density housing drives out the
construction of other housing types isn't uncommon.
Unfortunately. the housing inventory shows that such imaginative.
, ,
-0
o
ii
o
o
In its final section, the paper presents a series of
recommendations that will help assure that specifically multiple-
family housing will possess basic standards of desirability and
livability (comparable standards could be developed for single-
family housing). The recollllDendations address the design of
individual structures, their positioning on the site, the type
of building materials used (roofing materials are of particular
concern), and the level and quality of services to be provided
residents. The goal of these recODDllendations, indeed this entire
paper, is to provide a starting point for a thorough review of our
cODDllUDi ty' s development standards to help guarantee stable
neighborhoods and a wholesome quality of life to all its citizens.
.1>
'0
o
(1)
o
o
Because the long awaited growth near the State University is now
well underway, the University Planning Committee has undertaken an assess-
ment of the present development trends, and, from this, has formed some
opinions about that development and has composed several recoDDllendations
concerning future development. This paper presents the main elements of
that study by, first, discussing a map showing the main zones of influence
on the University, and second, a section that presents an overview of two
surveys, one of rental properties and the other of single family dwellings
within these zones. The character of these dwellings is a principal
control over the image of the entire area. Lastly, a series of recommen-
dations are presented that should mitigate many of the problems that
result from the rapid expansion of multiple family dwellings in the area.
This study becomes increasingly important as the overwhelming defeat of
the Highland annexation initiative underlines the poor image the City
has in managing public affairs, especially land development.
TIlE STATE UNIVERSITY'S
ZONES OF INFLUENCE
The corridors along which visitors to the campus must travel are
a key concern because they influence the visitor's immediate perception
of the campus. These compose a zone of primary concern iDDllediately
adjacent to the main traffic arteries approaching the campus: University
Parkway, Kendall Drive, and North Park Boulevard (Figure 1). The extent
of this primary zone is boUnded by Electric Avenue, the Shandin Hills,
and 1215. Also included in this primary zone of influence is the large
block of land contiguous to the campus to the south, and bounded by
University Parkway, North Park Boulevard, Little Mountain Drive, and
Kendall Drive.
I ~ I. I I
'0
o
(2)
o
o
Because the appearance of this primary zone is influenced by the
uses of the land beyond them, there is a secondary zone of interest within
the area to the south of Kendall Drive, between the Shandin Hills, 1215 and
Palm Avenue, and the area to the east known as the Arrowhead Suburban
Farms (Figure 1).
Concerns Over Development
Within The Zones Of Influence
The University's position favors development in these influence
zones, but it is concerned with the intelligent use qf ~he land. Because
of the physical attractiveness of the area, its proximity to the campus, and
the increasing scarcity of developable land in the vicinity, new development
should be closely scrutinized for quality. Unfortunately, instead of being
considered for thoughtful, well-designed development, there appears to be a
land rush underway to build very plain, multiple-family housing units, and
to request building densities exceeding present limits to even further
degrade the appearance and character of the area. Although developers claim
that their projects will truly benefit the area, their design, choice of
materials, and immediate request for density bonuses, makes their long term
commitment questionable.
.
The physical layout of these developments is one concern, the
rapidity at which the proposals are being made is another. A proposal for
500 is preceded by a proposal for 200, and is followed by one for 400.
There is no time to establish the capacity of the local market and infra-
structure to support such expansion. Even if it is supposed that the market
can support such growth, the "balance" of housing types becomes skewed towards
Il.JJ J,
'0
o
(3)
o
o
one segment of the overall market. A similar situation arose in Riverside
County three years ago when a new zone permitted a reduction in the minimum
lot size of a single family residence to 3600 square feet. In the following
two years 26 developments tota1ing 5000 units were approved. The problem
wasn't that a -.rket didn't exist, in fact sales of such houses were brisk.
What developed was a tremendous pressure on public services, i.e. schools,
recreation facilities, water, fire protection, etc. These problems were
particularly apparent in the town of Sunnymead where 2/3's of the units
were built. Public service administrators hadn't anticipated the speed and
1,2
overall density of development. There were also''Signs that a form of
Gresham's Law was influencing the housing market in that developers stopped
proposing higher quality housing developments in the area - cheap housing
3
was driving out higher quality development. Ultimately the County Board of
Supervisors were forced to suspend the small lot zone and develop more tightly
controlled land development policies. The 1essons learned in Riverside should
be a concern in the present situation because no comprehensive study of
housing need or of public service impact exists of the present development
in the Uni versi ty area.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
STATE UNIVERSITY AREA
Given the above concerns, what' follows are two inventories: one of
rental units and the other of single family housing.
Survey of Rental Housing
Twelve rental housing developments were surveyed; of these, only
Calmark's Sunrise Apartments is finished (Table 1). Figure 2 indicates the
'".."
o
o
(..)
o
o
location of these sites. Excluding sites 11 and 12 (397.5 acres) that form
the Shandin Hills development. the remaining sites total 185.5 acres zoned
for multiple-family housing development. This area is zoned for a dwelling
unit density of 8-1" units per acre. Table 2 shows the resulting minimum
and maximum units on the 185.5 acres, and the expected population at both
these extremes. For comparison, estimates are given for a 25\ bonus density,
bringing unit density to 17.5 per acre. Actual bonus density requests in the
State University area have been as high as 100%. As shown the 25\ bonus
density would accomodate an estimated 71..2 persons. Adding to this the
2..90 units in the Shand in Hills development and the estimated 5478 persons
who will live there, the parcels shown would accomodate over 12600 additional
inhabitants. The implications of adding this number of persons to public
service capacities has never been thoroughly studied.
In addition to these rental units. one development at the corner of
Kendall Drive at Little Mountain Road that was begun as a condominium
complex, has been converted to rental units. The same has happened to
the Shadow Hills condominiums at Kendall Drive and Pine Avenue. Finally,
an unknown, but substantial, proportion of the "owner-occupied" housing
described below is actually available for rent.
Survey of
Single-family Housing
The seventeen developments included in this survey showed units
selling in the $70,000 to $90,000 range. with the following exceptions
(Table 3):
." ,
-0
o
(5)
o
o
a) As indicated above, there appears to be little market
for condominiums in the lower price range. In two
instances, Kendall Drive Apartments and Shadow Hills
were unable to sell all their units and are currently
or planned to be rented.
b) Manufactured homes (Country Meadows) are less costly -
in the $67,000 to $78,000 range.
c) PRD developments such as Barrett's College Park tend
to be less expensive, although prices here appear to
be rising.
Points of Concern
The survey of owner-occupied housing identified a number of
problem developments that deserve attention. These include:
a) Barrett's College Park PRO appeared to be moving
well, though sales may have slowed in recent weeks.
Although these are "affordable" homes of small
structural and lot dimensions, e.g. one bedroom
units possess only 750 square feet, they are
attractively packaged. There is concern', hOwever,
over its long term stability -- that within a short
period of time a family will find the units inadequate
and the neighborhood cramped. The survey found one
unit already advertised for rent.
b) The Village PRD, across from Mountain Park condominiums, have
larger structures (one bedroom, 952 square feet), but are
also priced higher, between $70,000 and $98,000.
[.."
'0
o
(6)
o
o
Unfortunately, the external design of the rear of these
houses, viewed from Little Mountain Road, remind one
of army barracks, and, while there are small private
backyards, the house sizes are totally out of scale
with small lots and gives the development a closed-in
look.
c) In the Ponderosa Sage development, the first homes were
over 2000 square feet and were built, for the upper end
of the housing market. But while the homes 'were priced
above $100,000, they didn't sell. Subsequent construction
is of smaller homes, selling between $73,000 and $88,000.
d) Condominium developments show mixed results. The Northwoods
and Mountain Park appear tastefully designed, well landscaped
and maintained, and seem to have no problem in selling or
re-selling. On the other hand, Fairway Condominiums on the
south side of the Shand in Hills along 1215 contain 108 units,
and 10 units remain unsold after approximately eight years.
In addition, many units have been turned into rentals by
their owners. The structures are not appe~ling in structural
design; also, being laid-out in a single line, they lack
any central focus to draw the development together. The
long-awaited opening of the adjoining golf course hopefully
will alleviate some of these problems.
" '"
o
o
(7)
o
o
e) The Wagonwheel development started approximately 15 years
ago with several high quality homes. Then the city began
interspersing low cost Section 235 houses among this
initial group with the expectation that this proximity
would encourage the owners of the less expensive homes to
maintain them better. In reality. the opposite happened.
Given low homeowner incomes and poor construction. the
235 houses rapidly deteriorated and degraded the appearance
of the entire neighborhood. The ~evelopment now looks
generally "run down". with lawns used for,' extra parking.
while many homes show peeling paint a.nd leaking roofs.
f) The California Classics development shares many traits
in cOllllDOn with Wagonwheel. Many of the first phase
owners relied on low interest government loans. and have
little money and/or desire to properly maintain their
properties. Many homes have no lawns. In the second
development phase. the special loans were not available.
consequently each buyer had to qualify for conventional
financing. 'A drive through this latter area indicates
they also have funds for upkeep on their'houses and lawns.
g) On the periphery of the University's zone of influence lies
Arrowhead Suburban Farms. The tract was originally laid-
out in the 1920's for small farms. thus the lots are
extremely deep. Because of this. some landowners have
subdivided their lots into a hodge-podge of relatively
,..", ,.
'0
o
(8) 0
o
isolated parcels. Host homes are older frame s1:ruc'tUres
of varying design and maintenance. All houses are on
septic tanks, few streets have curbs or sidewalks, and
design standards on new cons1:ructions are very lax.
Given this, along with abandoned automobiles and
refrigerators on rear lots, a person senses he is
viewing a scene from Appalachia.
PERSPECTIVES AND RECOM1!ENDATIONS
The survey shows that the area surrounding the State University
is not de!eloping along the lines promised by ci;y off" s the time
Trustees of the State University system selected the present site in
---
San Bernardino. Plans at that time indicated development compa ~ e
with a spacious, parklike campus, that is, expensive homes and high
quality garden apar1:ments. The survey reveals a trend towards poorly
designed "affordable" houses, and low cost rentals. Cheaply built
developments rapidly deteriorate due to: developer's cost-cutting
measures, the inability and/or lack of concern among residents of the new
developments to adequately maintain their properties, the des1:ructive
effects of local high winds, among others.
However, the concern is not over low to moderate income housing,
but rather the growing imbalance in the type of housing being made available
in the University area. The university wants the area to provide for the
needs of the many groups living in the cODDllunity. If accepted, recent
development proposals point to an increasing concentration of bonus-density
multiple family developments with a substantial proportion of their units
reserved for 30 years for low income individuals. This imbalance would be
deleterious to the community as well as the University.
,...,
o
o
(9) 0
o
As to what might be built, the study indicates a positive sales
record for moderately priced housing south and east of the campus, and
for higher priced housing to the west. The University feels there is
a good market for tastefully designed single family dwellings and
condominiums, particularly given the physical beauty of the landscape,
and the proximity and image enhancement provided by the University.
Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of land left in the immediate
area to properly take advantage of these qualities.
To encourage and support the development of quality housing for
all social groups within our community, the fOllpwing recommendations for
multiple family housing building standards are made. It is hoped that
corresponding ordinances will be developed and applied to single family
housing:
a) Retain 60% of property as open space, such as lawns,
~
trees, and walks,
b) Maximum building space should not exceed 20% of the
....., --
site,
c) There shall be an average landscaped building setback
.
of not less than "tWenty five (25) feet in depth from
any street or highway,
" d) Provide a minimum of 2 parking spaces per unit, one
under a carport, one open.
e) Carports should have a solid wall along the back,
'"
( I~
\("~\
f~~J
and side panels at the ends to eliminate views of
long, open bays.
[."
o
o
(10) 0
o
f) Parking spaces are to be screened by eans of
plant landscape or architectural devices,
''"' g) Perimeter carports should be bermed to minimize
exposure ,
h) Adequate bumper guards shall be provided to protect
interior of walls,
i) Views into entrances should present an appealing
vista and not long strips of asphalt or carports,
j) A solid decorative type masonry wall, landscaped
berm, or any combination thereof, totaling not
less than 6' in height shall be provided along
site boundary,
k) The design of individual st:ructures and their
positioning throughout the development must provide
an aesthetically appealing and interesting living
environment for their residents.
1) Asphalt shingle roofing material sbould be avoided
in favor of more appealing and durable materials,
r ~
; m) Each unit must include a ground floor enclosed patio
i
\ area of not less than 100 square feet or a balcony
I
!
I
i
I
,
l
of not less than 50 square feet on the second floor,
and a minimum of i50 cubic feet of secured storage
space,
'.L LLL _h
'0
o
(11) 0
o
n) Single bedroom apartments should be at
~
square feet. while two bedroom apartments should
be at leas
feet.
d
0) Trash collection areas shall be provided and
screened so as not to be readily identifiable
from adjacent streets.
p) A central television antennae or a connection to a
cable television system
shall be pf'Ovided through
?r/~ tZ1rIlJ"l-6.-
an underground conduit.
;JJ'~ Provide:
, .f':'t One swimming pool per 200 units I'}
,If r One club house per 200 units .--
"_~-=-erved area f-.... RV's ~ ·
, ~e laundry room per 100~i
r) Provide adequate measures to accomodate the locally
tt
Q
severe wind conditions.
'1
s) All deveopments greater than 50 individual must obtain
.
a conditional use permit.
t) Prior to cODlDencing any work that modifies any
building. all building and site plans shall be
. ,
submitted for review by the City Planning
Department.
In addition to these measures. it may be necessary to consider changing the
~ local zoning designations as the present mandated density bonuses were not
anticipated by planners when the existing zones were laid-out.
, '" "
o
o
(12) 0
o
The~e is a long list of legal p~ecedents fo~ ~aking a strong stance
in p~eserving the living quality of not only the University area, but in the
cOllllluni ty as a whole.. In the landma~k decision concerning Petaluma' s
growth control plan, U.S. 9th Circui~ Court Judge Choy upheld the ci~y's
~ight ~o p~eserve the ~own's "rural environment" even ~hough such
~egulations frustrate ~egional housing needs and exclude some pe~sons
desiring ~o live in the city, such planning is not necessarily a~bitrary
and unreasonable.
Furthe~,
"It does not necessarily follow, howeveJ>, that ~he due
p~ocess ~igh~s of builde~s and landowne~s are violated
me~ely because a local entity exe~cises in its own
self-inte~est the police power lawfully delegated to
it by ~he state."4
And:
".. . We conclude ~he~efo~e that... the concept of the public
welfare is sufficiently broad to uphold Petaluma's desire
to p~eserve its 'small ~own characte~, its open spaces and
low density of population, and to grow at an orde~ly and
delibera~e pace."4
The decision in the Petaluma case was based on a U.S. Supreme Court
decision a year earlier in Belle Terre.S Speaking fo~ the majority, Justice
Douglas states:
"...We do not sit to determine whether a particular
housing project is o~ is not desirable. The concept
of the public welfare is broad and inclusive... The
values it ~ep~esentsare spiritual as well as physical,
aesthetic as well as moneta~y. It is within the power
of the legislature to determine that the community should
be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as
clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled."
'0
IL.'II'..JJ
o
(13)
o
And:
"...The police power is not confined to elimination of
filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to
layout zones where family values, youth values, and
the blessings of quiet seclusion, and clean air make
the area a sanctuary for people."
Land is a precious resource. Once developed, the character of a
site is changed forever. In addition to its character being changed, a
momentum is established for subsequent development around it. It's time
to recognize that there is very little space ~vailable to enhance the image
of San Bernardino as a cODDIIUnity. The State University area becomes
increasingly important in this regard because of'lts rapid growth, and
the increasing numbers of visitors that are and will be attracted to use
its facilities.
o
~
.<lI:a...J.'.....
. ."'\,
. "
. .
: ~ '
: t
,. en
: lX:
: I'il
: i:: Q
: z ~
. =:;l 0
.
. 1'illX:
: Eo< <
. <z
: Eo< lX:
: enl'il
: <1Il
. -z
: z<
. lX:en
. 0
: ~
. -
: ....l
" <
: u
.
. '
.. ....~.I.,..
....n ,....... ...--',.,.
----------"';---
_------- Ji,qV~r to.
,.,,'fJtf'.' ..
.
.
.
.
I~.
.
'.
.
.
.
:"':"'-o.>--i.. ---
. . ,- I
. '
,
':' I
"
"
'. .
',",
\
.
..:;,...\.;;..:~::;..~' ,.
~
o!'
S
~
~
l
.z
'--
'.
--'-,
'-'
./
.
_. ",0
#A'
,.-- .. .
s: ~..
\ .......
I
IDV
I
!
i
I.~
~
, v....
.. .., ~P,""" ..:
,- " ~ ." "
~ 1.1.- ,. ~.~~-..
,.. ~ ' '.... ....
".~.;; . l -~ ,4..-Ro_
.,< ~ ..... i
,,~'"'' ?t.
l' ~,. ~ r" \. ir~'
,&..' '---r
'~'" ',. I
, 'Vt'-l i '
. ,l I! ·
,.~..-- J I
. . ..J-...,., -...-. r----
~ .".f 1- ' '
,,' i , 'i 1i-i;:;.,~. I"; .
P l'" I ~ 'I
... !. I ..
I' ,t --t--~ ......! -- [ ,
..~_3 ~ 1 I i -;'
, . I.
_ ...,.ar.. .. : .
.,~:=,,- ... .....~:I ! ~ ~ I . .
~~ .,.., I~I-.~ -- I _ -----1 .....
'~. -, . ~-.. _.~
"r',~ I I I. I 7.~
~...._ . ~ if'! ,.
,. I ~ ,
'~1/1
.
j
IZJ
~
IZJ
~
....l
rz.
z
-
rz. 0
o z
IZJ IZJ
Z 0
o I'il
tool ....l
>c
t
en
II:
IZJ
>
Z
~
A'.: .........:.',
.~..-:...' , ..,.
"J"" ,'.
.'.
."
'..
.
o
. ,
. ~ ...'- .'
~", I
'it> 1
__a'
r- .,.;
.
I
c
...
GI
~
C
o
u
t'
.
s
'..
...
~
c
...
GI
~
C
o
(,)
t'
.
'tI
C
o
~
GI
en
"
............ "..
--... 1ft .'...,1.no.
l \,'~~ -..
'" ~-- :~
'll;! .. !
~>~
f::
III
a:
fz1~
~Q
,~ Cl;
fz1<
~~
t=
<z
...<
~1lI
~
...
.J
<
U
,,~ ..... i
/ ...' .
.'~.,'
ole
o~
II: ~
L=
II:
:'.f)
" -
.
-
-
oo!
:,
-
II:
II:
-
.
II:
:.-:"',
-
Ii:
..
o~
II: ,.
....
:0
.1:
..
;~~:':.
~~~ ~~,.;;~
"..1- .
.. '
.c'''.
o
~
c.
....
,-,
-
-
~
.
~
.J
:S~
~ ~
fz1 ..:l
E-< rj
~~
oll .J
~ <
t; ~
- c::
~
IL III ..l,.,
...
'0 0 c .B 0 0
0
...
. ... III
CI) U 0
,.,. t ..,
... C
... 0
. ., U
~ c
1: II 0 .,
... U IIIl1ll
E II C
II .... ~ .......
> ~ II .......
0 .., ....c
z 0 :5 " 411
e.> IIQ~
..:l
< CD ll> '"
f-o ll> CO> '"
0 . ... ....
Clf-o
Z
...
~gi . Ol on
. . 0 ...
... <"" .... .... ...
Ol ""0
...
. f-o .... CD CI)
~ a: a: ... ... ...
i <0 .... CD ...
e.>""
~
Z
..:l
I < .... .... on '" .,. ... CI) .... 0 CI)
IIlf-o '" ... ... :7 :7 :7 0 ... :7 ...
f-o f-oO '" .... CO> :7 III '" ...
Z Zf-o ....
fil ~
"" a: CD CO>
0 a: "" '" ...
..:l <
~ "" '"
<
l"I
Q lwa: CD 0 :7 CD
01lQ ... CO> CD 0
..:l ... .... '" ...
< l"I....
~ N
...
l:I III a:
"" 0 ... :7 ....
CD .... .... ...
..:l ... ...
<
...
f-o
Z on
~ e.> 0 ... ... .... 0 0 on .... 0 CD
< . . . . . . .
0 ...... '" '" 0 CD .... .... .... .... 0 :7
"" :;) '" ... ... ... ... ... ....
Q
...
Cl l"I
Z Cl .,. ... 0 .... on .... .... '" 0 .,. 0 on 0 ... ... 0 on 10
... < . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f-o l:I .,. ... CD 0 on CD ... .... '" :7 .... 0 .,. ... CD .... :7'"
III ... ... ... CO> CD '" .... ... ... ....<Xl
.... e.> '" on
X <
l"I
lw . .
0 8 .,
... Do ...
>- " ., Do ., .,
~ ~ a: '8 0 ., < ~ ~ >>
~ l5 < 411 411 j
IIQ ~ ~ . s:. s:. 6
~ S III E; ... ... 6
III ~ III g .., 411 ~ 0 0 ~ ""....
~ III " C c 8 ~ ~ .! ... ... ~
:c '" .l( 0 ... .... III :l .... "" III II III lIll 411
l:l I C ~ .... ... ..:l .... .... II lIll.... C >
., III ~ lIll C 0 C III >> .l( .l( .... 411 U ~ .... 411
C ~ .... ... j ~ III '" ~ u u ... ....0 II > 411
~ .... .... > ... 6 c 0 0 III .... III U .... :.:
411 tS II 0 411 411 .... .... III o III :. ::! u
l"I lw a: t.l "" IIQ :.: ~ IIQ III e.> e.>< E
~
....f-oa:
f-oe.>w ... :7 0 :7
<~"" ... .... .... ....
~f-o!5 CO> <Xl .... CD
... .... .... ....
~ Z ... ... ... ...
W
""Q . . . . . . . . . . .
<0 ... .... '" :7 ll> CD .... <Xl .,. 0 ... ... '" :7 on CD ....
Ee.> ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
'0
o
z
0Cf.l
...z
fooO
foo :S&1
t)
< :;)c.:Ifoo
~ """"...
~"'~ IlJ ..., '"
... co .... 3
. '" ~ ....
Z Q"'OO: ..., IlJ ~
0 ~Z~
...
foo ~f!;
:s ... ...
:;) fooCl
"" Cf.l
0 c.:I
""
00:
...
~
foo
Q
Z
<
Cf.l
c.:I ClQ
... ~~
foo
... ..:10
Cf.l ..:1..:1
Z ~~
c.:I
Q Q 3 ~ CO
Cf.l CD 0> 3
Cl ..:Ifoo 3 IlJ '"
Z <... .... '" ...,
... fooZ
Cf.l 0:;)
:;) foo OJ
0 ::l
:I: l:
0
f!; ,.Q
... >>
foo ....
< ....
&1 OJ
l:
~ t)
'tl
..:I
< ""
IlJ
Cf.l '"
foo
'" .... III
~l:! IlJ
c.:I . IlO
..:I t) CD 3 ~ l:
CD Cl< ... .... ....
< z E
foo ....00: .... ::l
..:Ic.:I OJ
..:I"" OJ
~ <
Q ...
II
o
o
'0
t>
1lO
III
""
:r
CD
0>
...
~
1:
o
...
8
<I:l
f-o
....
~
Cl
Z
....
<I:l
::>
o
:<:
>-
..:I
....
s:
<
loo
I
~
..:I
Cl
Z
....
<I:l
loo
o
>-
~
::>
<I:l
..,
!j
III
<
f-o
gl~1
.
~~I
0''''
<I:l
Q
Z
<
tl ~I
....N
po;
""
:1
~
f-o
;j
....
f-o
<I:l..:l
f-o::>
....
~
ClQ
Z..:l
....0
:Hl
~::>
Q
I
po;~1
~o
~<I:l
Z
!3
....
::>
III
f-o
z
l:;~
11.
~o
:0:..:1
<'"
z>
t.:l
Q
w
~
.
o
<I:l
<I:l
<
:1
...
..,
t>
....
...
...
G>'...
>..:1
....
~...~
.... c:
...... .-16..,
.... III III
Ill"''''
"'c:c:
c: G> :I
G>:'<:O
:'<:_:0:
N
CD
(f)
o
'"
c:
o
tJ
o
o
o
-
...
CD
o
o
'"
-
..,
...
N
...
..,
...
..,
..,
...
c:
....
III
""...
~ c:
III :I
11.0
s:
c:
.... G>
Ill....~
......G>
c: ... >
:I........
O..:l~
S:_Q
o
'"
'"
Q
po;
""
....
01/)
o
OCD
-..,
CD'"
0>...
0....
01/)
o
-N
0'"
"'0>
...
:r
N
...
c:
....
III
...
c:
G> :l
llOO
illS:
....
.... G>
........~
>"'G>
... >
....".rt
,C..:I~
f-o_Q
CD
"
Q
po;
""
....
01/)
o
0'"
_'"
...N
......
0....
01/)
o
-0
...'"
"'...
...
o
...
...
...
, ...
CD
...
""
~
to
.,
bD
G>~
.......
.....,
o .,
tJ~
...
...'"
...
G>,C
~...
~CD
Ill"
Ill_
N
...
N
o
...
N
...
N
I/)
...
c:
.,~
J: >,
...."
~....
lUl
< :l
'"
G>
1/)",
....-
~ >
58
"'-
o
...
...
...
...
Ul
t>...~
Su1:
:J:..... ctl
~""
.,...
~u'c
.....,...
~i:a
~-z
"
o
o
o
-
'"
'"
...
(f)
>,
,.r(
'W
...
~
....
~
Q,
Q,
<
-
CD
:t
CD
:r
~
>,
III III
.,,~
o
1 t
... G>
~....
0'"
z_
" II
o
'"
N
...
...
..,
..,
p::
....
01/)
o
0"
-0
..,..,
......
....
01/)
o
ON
-:t
CD ...
..,...
CD
o
...
o
...
CD
en
CD
o
...
""
~
III
""
>,
i
~
....
{!
~
'0
11,ll I'
.
o
o
o
REFERENCES CITED
1.
Riverside Press-Enterprise, "Panel's
Reactions vary on Affordable
Housing," 5/26/83, B-7.
2.
Riverside PresS-Ent;nrise, "New
Moreno Valley fordable' Housing
in Doubt," 11/13/83, B-4.
3.
Riverside Press-Enterprise, "Affordable
Housing Hiking Housing Costs in
Orange County," 12/16/82. B-6.
4.
Construction Industry Association of
Sonoma County v. The City of Petaluma.
522 F .2d 897 (9th Cir. 1975).
5.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas.
416 U.S. 1. 94 S. Ct. 1536. 39 L.
Ed. 2d 797 (1974).