The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990/08/09 - Agenda Packet - Adj WorkshopC~~CA.Lf fl,'~ ~~.' Q7'1' ~ ~ /RA~N7~~p /C~L/KyArM~OyN'+[~;TA l r l.ll 1 IJW l`A~il. LL T FIT ,Tye O ~' ? ~1J1 \ 4 1 1977 AdinnYn4d WO YI(9hOD August 9, 1990 - 7:00 p. m. Council ChrmhPYa 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call: Buquet _, Alexander _, Stout _, Brorm _, Wright B. Itao of Diaeuwlon 1. DL ee'o f H liial Pem'1 De el i - The purpose of this meeting ie to die ca se multi-family development in general throughout the Ciiy. There will be no discussion regarding spec if lc project e. C. Corwication frost Lhs Public This is ihs tiu aaa pLes for the general public to addnu the Citt Cowcil. State law prohibits tbs Citf Cowell iron addruaieg ae~ Suua sot pnviouall iaeludsd oo the agsnM. The CiL7 Cowell r7 rsesivs tsatiwa7 sad sa! !hs satLr fora subsequent rstiag. Corsets era to Ds liaitsd to ties sieulss per iadividwl . I, Debra J. adaaa, Citf Clerk o[ the CiLf of Baeeho Cucawaga, bsnbT csrtitf Lhat • LNS, accurate cop? of the foregoiaq agenda was posted w August 3, 1990, savsntf-two (7Z) hours prior to tDe r~tieg per oogsare! Cods 3931 at 10300 Civic Gebr Driw. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development TABLE OF CONTENTS ^ Part I - INTRODUCTION ••~••• •~~•~~ OI ~M A~AADY rari 11 - CIICVV I I V C vvw~~r~r~~ i~ ^ Part III - ACREAGE & UNIT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS ^ Part IV - EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ^ Part V - GENERAL PLAN & LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ^ Part VI - EFFECTS ON HOUSING POLICIES & GOALS ^ Part VII - EFFECTS ON SERVICES 8~ ANTICIPATED REVENUES ® Part VIII - LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part INTRODUCTION Dart II ..., . ~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~: * Executive Summary * Acreage & Unit Count Adjustments * Existing Multi-Family Development * General Plan and Land Use Con sideraticns * Effects on Housing Policies and Goals * CCF~C t$ Cn 5<r Vite'a Ain ,ad i.- ard `iCipa` "c Ve riuei * Legal Considerations PART II - EXECUTIVE 5UMM11RY From the information included in this study and the analysis provided by City staff and other agencies, certain conclusions can be assumed. Staff believes the following statements provide a comprehensive summary of the issues discussed in this report: I. That the 65 percent SFR/35 percent MFR, 70 percent/30 percent, and 15 percent/25 percent ratios can be obtained by "across the board" acreage adjustments within the residential land use designations. 9 TM• ..rnL .J to ~,.n....*. ..... L.. ... J.. ...:~Ll .. ., i.. •-J ,_-J .. _. ...... '-_.. .-. ..... ~... .... ~~ .... ......... ... ..~.~ y. ~.~.. ~~ ~.. ..r.c.. ~"~~.. mac relat ionships.V 3. That implementation of low income housing pollc ies and programs will be significantly more difficult, but not necessarily impossible. 4. That the existing Terra Vista Development Agreement does not allow for the implementation of "across the board" density reduction within the boundaries of the community plan area. 5. That the negati•te effects on services anC re•renue seeas to be minor and should not greatly affect the ability of the City to adequately serve the public. -2- w z w a z ~+ O a a E 4.F LNl xoUU ~ WH N W> ma W W N N E H W + . N U D 4 W ax M + a .C E + N Y a W aw N w w ~ i yR V Z V N H ~ F N vNi .`~, c Ro a ~ I I U' W I 1 a in x i ow oa I x W U ~_ U W WO > E wa way N~ ow s zi3-I ~ ~~»=w a as°w I w" N x :J .^ zz W ~ U' 4~ N n + z I W ~ a 17. r--1 3 E I MCA'! I I I ~ W :; '~ z .~ _ ~ U W ~ N ~ H I ~ w '~ ~ u~~1 ~--1 ~ C7 z ~ ~ ~ L.i x z c µ1 C F ~ I ~ a G K 4x1 F I w w a z ~ ? ~1 6+ H + O a z O m a N > mF ++ ~". ro UO t'JH ++ H i xa > U~ ' ~ Oq x c° U t7 G ~z r •+ m ~y ~ o 0. w G m ~ \ ~ b U O t~ Y~ b C -A- l:(lx v[ nHlV l:nv i, ~,, ei,ravivvn STAFF REPORT DATE: August 9, 1990 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Brad Buller. City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner Alan Warren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON MULTI-FAMILY UNIT REDUCTION PART I - INTRODUCTION RECOMMENOAT ION: It is recommended that the City Council review the information provided in this report and take public testimony regarding this matter. This report is intended only to be the first step in providing the Ccuncil with information it may need to formulate alternative residential development policies. It is requested that the Council provide staff with general/specific direction in regards to additional analysis which may 6e needed to help the Council in its del Thera tians. oar vrnnnun , n,erucc rou. na ;.. u.-.. < +nnn ,..,.:.,., a.. r+.,, r,.~~.,..;t reviewed an update on the progress of multi-family development in the City. After reviewing staff forecasts for a citywide build-out residential ratio, the City Council directed staff to formulate scenarios to adjust the land use policies to result in towering the anticipated amount of multi-family units. Because of the large amount of potential issues involved, the City Council determined that a special meeting date should be reserved Just to discuss this matter. This workshop packet contains information on specific issues requested by the City Dountil tC be studied as part of the xorkshop discussions. Specif?tally. the Council expressed interest in determining what land use polities needed to be changed in order to ensure single family/multi-family unit ratios at build- out of 75/25 percent, 70/30 percent, and 65/35 percent. The information is divided into the following sections: -1.- 6. That the predominance of condominium maps on existing apartment complexes can indicate that future rental stock in the City could be sf gnf ficantly reduced in the future when apartment complex units are offered indivfdual ownership, This situation would be more Significant if the City reduced the potential amount of multi-family units, If the Lity rauncil notes additional consequences of the adjustments to the single £arr~ily/mufti-family ratio which it believes should be further investigated, please advise s±aff. Figure ::-7, Summary of Effects on City Serv+ces and Revenue, provides a visual summary of the above mentioned issues. -3- CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part III ACREAGE AND UNIT ant ANT ADJUSTMENTS "Across the board" redo ctionsl for each scenario in each planning area results in the folloNing acreage adjustments in each land use designation: CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT LAND UNCOMMITTED REVISED FOR 75/25 REVISED FOR 70/30 AREA USE ACREAGE* 75/25 RATIO DIFFERENCE 70/30 RATIO DIFFERENCE A L 54,3 54.3 -- 85.3 + 31.0 LM 1.8 94.8 + 93.0 32.R + 31.0 M 93.0 14.0 - 19.0 31.0 - 62.0 MH I4.0 0.0 - 14.0 14.0 -- H 0.0 -- -- 0.0 -- B L A7.A A7.R -- 168.3 + 80.5 LM 264.8 506.2 +241.4 345.3 + 8U.5 M 241.4 0.0 -241.4 80.5 -161.0 MH 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 -- H 0.0 -- -- 0.0 -- C L 0.0 0.0 -- 17.3 + 17.3 LM 26.2 78.0 + 51.8 43.5 + 17,3 M 51.8 40.5 - 11.3 17.3 - 34.6 MH 40.5 29.7 - 10.8 40.5 -- H 29.7 -- - 29.7 29.7 -- 0 L 0.0 0.0 ^- 58.6 + 58.6 LM 41.0 218.6 +177.6 99.6 + 58.6 M 111.6 25.0 -152.3 58.6 -117.2 MN 7F n 1n 7 ,n o _- H 14.2 -- - 14.2 14,2 -- T L 142.1 142.1 -- 329.5 +187.4 LM 333.8 896.4 +562.6 521.2 +187.4 M 563.4 19.5 -483.9 181.4 -376.0 MH 79.5 43.9 - 35.6 79.5 -- H 43.9 -- - 43.9 43.9 -- A-General City, B-EtiManda, C-Terra Vista, D-Victoria, T-Totals * Locations indicated on Exhibit tII-I. -6- PART III - ACREAGE 8 UNIT COUNT ADJUSTMENTS Planning staff has developed two scenarios for the significant reduction of multi-family units for Council consideration. Each scenario provides figures to reduce the number of build-out multi-family units by reducing the amount of uncom~ai tted land (vacant land without apDl ication submittals nor approvals) within the Medium (M), Medium-High (MH), and High (H) Districts. The unit densities used were 50 to 75 percent of each land use category's allowable range. To provide the most current picture, all uncommitted acreages used in the calculations were updated to June 1, 1990. These scenarios assume that the majority of land use adjustments will be within the residential categories, and, for the purposes of this study, no consideration was given to adjusting acreage to commercial, professional, industrial, or other General Plan designations. Also, all the unit figures used to attain the percentages in each sc ena rfo include a 5,000 single family unit estimation for the unincorporated county sphere area. 15 Percent SFR/25 Percent MFR katio: This scenario eliminates the "H" (24-30 du/ac) and "steps down" the uncommitted acreage of each of the districts to the next lowest until Low Mea ium (Lmj is reacnea. finis scenario adjm a each parcel's land use intensity to the next tower level, rather than "jumping" more than one step down and thereby reducing the possibility of creating greater use conflicts with adjacent developments. Under this scenario total units at build-out is anticipated to be between 55,600 and 57,300. without including the estimated 5,000 Sphere Area units, the ratio adjusts to 73 percent SFR/27 percent MFR. 70 Percent SFR/30 Percent MFR Ratio: This was reached by reducing the uncommitted "M" acreage by 2/3 and increasing the uncommitted "LM" and Low (L) acreages by 1/3 of the original "M" total. This scenario is abie to spread the increased single family acreage to a lower density than the Low-Medium designation and creates a more balanced approach to the increased single family development. Under this scenario total units at build-out is anticipated to be between 56,900 and 58,700. Nithout including the estimated Sphere Area units, the ratio adjusts to 67.6 percent SFR/32.4 percent MFR. -5- The following chart compares the anticipated units on current uncommitted multi-family land with reduced unit figures required to meet the 75/25 percent and 10/30 percent single family/multi-family build-out ratios: CURRENT 15/25 CURRENT 70/30 CURRENT ANTICIPA TED REVISED 75/25 REVISED 70/30 AREA UNITS UNITS DIFFERENCE UNITS CIFFE REN CE A S'r.. . 503- 697 1061-1348 +( 558- 651) 762-1023 +( 279- 326) M F.. .1288- 1463 153- 114 -(1135-1299) 606- 688 -( 682- 775) B SF.. .2475- 3095 3923-4184 +(1448-1669) 3199-3940 +( 124- 845) M F.. .2655- 3017 0 -(2655-3017) 855-1005 -(1800-2012) C SF.. . 157- 183 486- 546 +( 329- 363) 312- 364 +( 155- 181) M F.. .2129- 2364 1010-1145 -(1119-1219) 1761-1933 -( 368- 431) D SF. . . 239- 287 1311-1530 +(1072-1243) 778- 908 +( 539- 621) M F.. .2811- 3161 544- 617 -(2261-2544) 1508-1681 -(1303-1480) T SF. . .3314- 4262 6781-8208 +(3407-3946) 5071-6235 +(1697-1973) MF.. .8883-10005 1707-1936 -(7176-8069) 4730-5307 -(4153-4698) A-Gene raj City, B-Etiwa nda, GTerra Vista, G-Victoria, T-Totals Bold - corrected since calculations 65/35 Percent Ratio: At present, the City is on a course for a 64 percent SF/36 percent MF housing unit ratio. Using reduced versions of the two previous scenarios, a 65/35 percent should not be difficult to attain. Exhih its III-2, 3, and 4 show the relationship between unit ratios and anticipated populations with each scenario. Exhibits III-5 and 6 show distribution of uncommitted vacant land within each scenarios Staff also investigated the reduction in the multi-family density ranges as to aaompiish the requested unit adjustments. This method, however, did not appreciably reduce the percentages.2 Staff believes this method would only achieve significant results if the series of range adjustments would equal the "stepping down" of whale categories to the next range. This method, then, would provide the same results as rezoning the molts-family acreages to the next lowest designation. -7- Exhibit III-7 provides a comparison of Rancho Cucamonga with some of the neighboring cities in relation to their single family/multi-family density ratios. DETERMINATION: If the Council believes it is appropriate to reduce multi- family build-out units, staff requests that the Council determine which ratio, „s presented, is preferred. If none of the scenarios provides sufficient detail for the Council to provide direction, please ind ita to what additional information the Council would like to consider. I Terra Vista acreage and unit ad,lustments were estimated in a manner consistent with the methods used for the rest of the City for the purpose of achieving "across the board' citvwtde haasing ratios, These figures were not adjusted in consideration of the unit figures contained fn the Terra Vista development agreement. 2 Staff adJusted the ranges to "H"19-25, "MH"9-19, and an unworkable "M"8_9 du/ac which resulted in only a 67/33 percent mix. Other, more workable ad,lustments, resulted in rattos slightly above 65/35 percent. _g. Housing Unit Estimates a Build Out• (includes eattmatea for Sphere Area) 8lnpla Famlly essx , u,otW asst i cwao.rtow~ew,a..» ~. ./ e.ax >sus Aearheanb•. 4e.Tx Population Estimates p Build Out• (includes estimates }or Sphere Area) 9lnala Fanny ~4.rx 87,644 ConaoaJTown~ouaw» e.ax fs,Fas AnarLaanb•• 4o.sx •uw~liro a«+loomant • e4.ex ranw ••tgaad on eurrsnt 40x ratla of aon6oal ta.mnouaaa In nwltl-faellF Ala Cl1Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: tAaki-Fun4r DerdaomaaWukrtap TTnE:uy~r j P~itxJ4T141/ 6uroo N EXFiT817':LI•Z SCALE: -9- Housing Units Estimates w 75%/26% Ratio (Includes eatlmatea for Sphere Area) 9MpN F~mlly 76.44 i 4Y,fV0e Condo/TawnAouu••- 8.3Y 1D;4P4 Apttrtaonto•• >a.o4 Population Estimates a 75%/2596 Ratio- (includes estimates for Sphsro Area) et.wi conAOO/rownlrouooo•• 4.64 tlflnNnL•• fae4 •eow~nw dm~r}eptewt a eB,eS nnpo ••eYM on aurnnt I64 ntb of oondM/ bwnfwuooo In n1ulfHrtiolh ela C11Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: MuW~FunOy Dereiupnanwadulpo TCIlE:UU?'/~i4xRT7aV-75/3o N EXI~IT:1Q-3 SCALE: -10- Housing Unit Estimates w 70%/30% Ratio (includes estimates for Sphere Area) BMON Femlly 70.411 40.796 Condos/To.neoueae•• 7.4% 16,a9t Apartn»nte•- ¢a.s11 Population Estimates a 70%/30% Ratio (includes estimates for Sphere Arse) 8NON Frnlty n.es 149,66a Condos/Torrnlwuaee•• 6.611 98766 AperN~Mta•• 76.611 •eseunlee de~1wlopmant * 6$A11 range ..ayad On OOffMf 716{ fatty Of OMdOe/ brrnfquNa In nlulfHaaly telx 11EM: Muei-Femilr OevdopnsuWorkfhw CITY OF I2ANCH0 CUCAMONGA 'rmE,vuir)wPrxt7se1V-7o/3o N PLANNING DMSION e~rr:3r-¢ scA~: _11_ Existing Residential Land DlstrNwtlon of Uncommitted Acreage aefN eoo eoo 400 200 0 7blb/2616 Ratb DlatrlGutlon of Uncommltted Acreage aCEN aoo esa eoo s00 700 0 lafld UN DNgnatFon HRIERlYL L~ L ~ LM 1~ M ~ MM ® N e•e ewr a-. ..e a-~. a•a u•eo CI'I'y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ffEM: Muhi•FemO Dove mtWafte ~~oo~~ffM /SOAP e t R / 7'1'1'L.E:EUMO0T6 7Sft5 19CREr N EXHBR':1~ 5 SCALE: -12- wn«.i a.r •n.ene. wrr. vMe vrorm Land Uea Daelanatlan CJ HR/ER/VL LPL ®lM ®M ~MH ®H o•e biw a-. .-• •-u a•u ..-eo aMbY 011r niwrw wne Ylw YNY.N Existing Residential Land DbtrlDutlon of Uncommitted Acreage ~6lN BOC 600 400 200 0 70%/30% Ratlo Dbtrltwtlon of Uncommitted Acrspe W!N eoc eoo soo 2ao 0 WM UN DMIynYkn LJ IIR/!R/Vl ~ L ~ LM ® M ~ MN ® N OH ~MM r•1 1.r 1.11 t1•// f1•al ITEM: MWU•Fra Nvdamrwwatnoc CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c~7 0 ~P'sR13T~vt PLANNING DMSION ~'E'°''~`'OOtm~ ~O~" '~ e ~ N EXF®lT:j¢6 SCALE: -13- N~.r.i onr ni..M. rwrl rroa rrorm LuW UN DNWnNkM O NR/Bi/VL DL ®LM ®M ®MN ®N a1 .v.. w-• ..1 ~•.. a-u •.- • ~~- wq ~~~• fm rror rNYrN ~ t o~ =o e a - P ~ i ~~ C O O ., ] V o w ~ _ •~ ~ ;~ r ~ ~ m O S ++ fn ,,AA ~_ V/ •~ .N ~ ~ m U , W v ~ ~ ~ ~ .. C~ f/~ 'c y ~ ''AA C vJ C h _ Q ~ C fA A~ ~ m ~ ~ E U o m N h ~Q,\ r DF Q O q T - V v = O ~ I ~ a } C a - V 3 ~ V ~ w o _° Q O 4 ~ O ~. C ~ ; a r-- J ~ o N ~ w 6 ~ :~: a o 2 w V « (7 h ® O LL J ° w ~ e ~ ~~ u w a c e J $a n - Z O p ~ `w i c u as c ~; 0 ~; .o v~ ~6 2 ow w„ • ~w C ~ ~e w~ ~;o cw sa X E 3 U pyy V^ T~ H ~ n LL S ~ L F O ~o U~ xQ z a U -19- t~ O N ~ CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part IV EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY I~FVFI (~PMFNT PART 1V - EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY OEYELOPMENT Staff has plotted all existing multi-family developments on the enclosed map, Exhibit III-1. This exhibit provides the Council with a visual determination of the groupings of multi-family projects throughout the City with notations identffying units and condominium ownership where available. A summary of existing and proposed multi-family development is as follows: TOTALS AREA CON00/TOWNHOUSE APARTMENTS Existing (Aaoroved}3 A 2,028 (28%) 5,27.3 (72%) ',251 (1,180) B 0 328"(100%) 328 (46) C 128 (11%) 1,046 ( 89%) 1,174 (2,469) D 0 0 0 (S 91) T 2,156 (25%) 6,597 (75X) 8,753 (4,286) A-General City, B-Etiwanda, C-Terra Vista, 0.Victoria, T-Totals * Gu rrently under Condominium Conversion application. The largest numbers (8,431) of existing and approved multi-family units is in the General City section with concentrations centered near ij an area uu, uc~cv by Vineyard, Arrow, 8a ker, and Foothill streets; 2) an approximate t/2 mile area around the intersection of Arrow Highway and Hermosa Avenue; 3) an approximate 1/4 mile around the railroad crossing north of Base Line Road on Archibald Avenue, and 4) along 19th Street between Ca rnel tan and Hermosa streets. Another area of concentration is in Terra Vista (3515). Nhile Victoria currently has very few multi-family units, the extensive multi- family designated land around the future Victoria Lakes and Regional Mall area mill, upon development, create another sf gnificant concentration of multi- family units (600-1500 units). -15- DETERMINATION: Staff requests that the City Council determine if it believes certain areas of the community exhibit over-concentrations of apartment/condominium/townhouse development. If staff is directed to begin a program to reduce multi-family units, staff will take the Council's concerns into account when providing site specific recommendations for acreage adjustments. 3 Difficult to differentiate between apartment and condominium proposals as the current trend is for apartment developers to record condominium maps on nearly all multi-family proposals. -16- CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part V GENERAL PLAN & ~ n non i i~~ nr1NIC+InCt7 nTl/'1NIC+ ~.n~ ~~ vv~ vvi vviv`nn i ivi vv PART V - GENERAL PLAN LANG USE CONSIOERATIONs As mentioned briefly in Part 2, certain accepted land use considerations were used in formulating the scenarios, These considerations are as follows: 1. The adjustment of multi-family acreage was kept within the . es id ential categories. This appea rod tc be the most logical method to use with the assumption that the existing multi-family parcels were so designated because their locations and surrounding land use relationships resulted in residential uses being the most correct _=:'. g.^.a ti or.. Ii the Cuunc ii directs that a program to reduce multi- family density be initiated, consideration to change individual sites to categories other than residential will be reviewed on a site-by- site basis. If surrounding land use relationships warrant review of non-residential categories, such alternatives will 6e presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration. Staff believes, however, that such situations will be in the minority. 2. within the residential categories, it was assumed that the majority of the changes would be adjusted down one step from the existing residential category. This concept is mast evident in the 75/25 percent scenario where the acreage of each multi-family category was "stepped down" to the next lower density range. Again, it is assumed that the current land use designations represent the most correct determination based upon General Plan policies and accepted land use relationships. Therefore, it would seem logical that the next lowest land use category would generally provide the next most appropriate land use category for each parcel in questions. In the 10/30 percent scenario, 1/3 of the 2/0 reduction in "M" acreage was adjusted to the "L" designation. within the residential category, this two step adjustment is passible and would be within accepted land planning principles, but again, a site-by-site analysts would be required prior to such a change. Also a potential route would be to change the 2/3 of the "M' acreage to "LM" and step down -17- 1/3 of added acreage from "LM" to "L." This would involve significantly more acreage to make the final adjustment to 70/30 percent, but it is a viable option in order to provide appropriate land use relationships in keeping with General Plan policies. One side effect of the 75/25 percent scenario is the large oa rtion of shall single-family lot development which would result from the significant increase of 56?.6 acres (+169.5 percent) in uncommitted vacant Low Medium (4-8 dwelting units/acre) acreage. The 70/30 percent scenarios offer a much more balanced ..: ---~~~- ~~~~~ u -!= ~e..~~~~~„ i.. roea mm acreage dtv ided evenly between the LowyMed ium and Low (2-4 dwelling units/acre) designations. Of further note, in January, 1989, the City approved the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EI R) for the General Plan Technical Update. If the scope of land use changes result in significant adjustments to the single family/multi-family mix, an amendment to the MEA will be necessary. Therefore, a complete EIR Amendment evaluation will need to be included in the work program, depending on the directf or. taken. OETERM (NATION: Staff requests that the City Council determine if the above mentioned assumptions and implements tf on measures are in keeping with its views on General Plan land use issues. -18- CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part VI EFFECTS ON HOUSING rno~ ~ R pni iri~c PART VI - EFFECTS ON NOIISIN6 POLICIES, 60ALS, AND OBJECTIVES The overall goal of the City's Housing Element states the following: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing types for ail economic cagmnnts wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group. This goal is a reflect ion of the Sta se's requirement with regard to housing and has been in the City's guide in development of its standards and policies since the Housing Element was adopted in February, 1981. It is the task then, to determine if this goal will be maintained in light of the proposed adoption of a multi-family zoning reduction. The two areas of concern involve the City's Housing Element and the proposed Affordable Housing Strategy recently developed through the Redevelopment Agency for use of their 20 percent set aside funds. The Housing Element: The results of the various strategies proposed by staff to achieve a 75 percent SF/25 percent MF split at build-out have ramifications on cne overall prgduction of housing. As a result, the total number of housing units expected will decrease. This reduction will primarily affect the multi-family density ranges by decreasing the number of higher density units (8du/ac+) that can be prgdu ced. This in turn has an impact en the City's ability to meet its fair share of lower income housing. According to SCAG, the City is cu rrentiy far below the regional average with respect to meeting its fair share of lower income housing. As of December 1988, approximately 19.1 percent (5,891) of the households were lower income, of which 10.2 percent (3069) were hardened. This is in comparison with the regional average Dercentage of lower income households of 40.2 percent. Therefore, the City's fair share of lower income households for 1994 has been adjusted upward to 24.8 percent fn order to bring it closer to Lhe regional average. Nilifams Kuebelbeck, in the Draft Affordable Housing Strategy prepared for the Redevelopment Agency, has indicated that all of the future -19- lower income households will be burdened; and that because of the high cost of housing it is likely that all will be renters. Therefore, a proposal to reduce the number of multi-family housing in the City may have an impact on the City's ability to meet its need. Given the prediction that there will be 21,524 MF units at build-out with the current zoning at a 62.5 percent density, the two prupo sod "F redo ctivn strategies coo id result in a significant decrease in t.".e amount of potential affordable housing. The two strategies result in MF unit counts at build-out of hetween 13,895 and 17,108 units, again using a 62.5 percent density capacity. This is a reduction of between 4,416 and 7,629 MF units. if the assumption is made that the City's overall number of burdened households, (those paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing), is near 12,4004 at build-out and that the majority of these people will be renters, theoretically, the City will have enough multi-family housing in a worst case scenario (13,895) to meet the need. However, to do so almost all of this MF housing will have to be available to lower income households. This amount can be reduced by considering that some of the ROA set aside will be used to produce ar assist SF housing, but this will account for a small snare ui file or call ~~~w Ord ::111 -._ '!~ °_ ~~^^^ amount of the fund. !n addition to the units to be provided with the Redevelopment Funds, there already exf sts a small amount of reserved lower and moderate income units. The City currently has 798 units reserved for lower and moderate income households. Add to these the 161 units reserved through the Section 6 voucher and scattered site programs and the total number of affordable units available is 959. However, in many cases the term that these units is reserved for will expire in the next 3 to 5 years. Approximately 355 of these units could revert to non-affordable status by 1995. Therefore, it is clear that without a more aggressive effort Rancho Cucamonga will not be able to meet Sts fair share of need. Although currently cities are expected to make only a best effort toward meeting this need, this could change and it may become a requirement for cities to meet a specified amount. -20- The Affordable Housing Stratea v: The necessity for the development of the Affordable Housing Strategy is a result of a settlement reached between the City and the Western Center for Law and Poverty in 1989 regarding the use of the Redevelopment Agency's (RDA) 20 percent set aside funds. The Settlement in conjunction with State Law sets criteria for type of assistance and for the income levels which are to be assisted by the fund. The settlement established four income groups which are to be assisted, all earning less than 90 nercen*_ of ±he ,., .,. .,,edian in,,,,...,.. ^ddi.~..r~a" .y, a stipulates the number of units in each category which are-to he assisted. The settlement requires that 50 percent of the units assisted must be for households earning less than 45 percent of the area median income. Of this 50 percent, 1/3 shall be for households earning less than 35 percent of the area median income and 2/3 shall be for households earning between 35 and 45 percent of the area median. Of the remaining 50 percent of the units, 42 percent must be for households earning between 46 and 60 percent of the area median, and the remaining 58 percent shall be for families earning between 61 and 90 percent of the area median income.5 ine pol uses contained in the Affordable Housing Strategy area result of the requirements of the Western Center for Law and Poverty Agreement. The strategy itself is composed of a number of components including a needs assessment, affordability gap analysis, and program recommendations. The needs assessment developed by a consulting team for the RDA indicates that through the year 2000 the Lity will have between 6,721 and 12,408 very low and law income households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing. It is also assumed by the team that due to the high cost of housing in Rancho Cucamonga, that the ma,lority of these households will be renters, Asa result, the gap ana iysis focused prima rity on production of Multi-family rental product type. Staff analyzed the Agency's affordable housing programs as indicated below: -21- As shown in the following chart, reduction in density generally produces higher per unit land costs, resulting in higher development costs. Parcel Total Density Total Size Price Per Purchase (Units/ Number Land Cost Increase in acres Square Foot Price Acre of Units Per Unit Land Cost 5.00 $6.50 $1,415,700 26 130 $10,890 5.00 E6.50 $1,415,700 21 106 $13 ,35E 225 5.00 $6.50 $1,415,700 17 85 $16,655 53% 5.00 $6.50 $1,415,700 14 10 $20,224 86% 5.00 $6.50 $1,415,700 13 65 $21,780 100% S.OC $5.50 $1,425;700 10 50 $28,314 160% 5.00 $6.50 $1,415,700 9 454 $'s i,v6G 189% As shown in the next chart, an increase in development costs requires higher capital subsidy from the Agency's Housing Fund, reducing the total number of units which the Agency can construct, This chart assumes a land price of 56.50 per square foot, and a hard construction cost of $58,345 per unit. Density Land Cost Total Cost Housing Fund Reduction in (Units/Acre} Per Unit Per Unit Total Units Tctal Units 26 $10,890 $68,345 2,300 21 ii3,3Su •': '^' r•-. a 7aF 7.17% i7 516,655 $75,000 1,965 15.69% 14 $20,224 $78,569 1,782 26.36% 13 $21,780 $80,125 1,730 31,99% 10 $28,314 $86,659 1,545 43,64% 9 $31,460 $89,805 1,395 58,58% A reduction in the number of units which the Housing Fund is able to develop will negatively affect the Rgency's ability to assist in meeting the RHNA goals for the City, _22_ Summar In summary, it appears that the net result of reducing the number of possible multi-family units will he a reduction in the amount of affordable housing available in the City. As a result, the City may not be able to house its fair share of lower income households. A reduction in available affordable housing cnntd fnen have repercession=_ of future c..,..,.,...ial and industr;ai development as there will not be adequate housing available in close proximity to house the service and lower wage earning households in the City. t)ETERM[NATICN: Staff requests that the City Council determine the relative importance of being able to provide sufficient numbers of low income haws ing in support of local industrial and commercial development. Also, it is requested that the Council discuss its concerns regarding the possibility of providing significant numbers of low income housing in single-family rather than multi-family pro,iects. A This number obtained from the needs assessment prepared 6y Milliams Kuebelbeck as part of the Ora ft Affordable Housing Strategy. S These proportions are based upon the requirements set forth in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHHA) as stipulated in the Western Center far Law and Poverty Agreement. -23- CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part VII EFFECTS ON SERVICES & ~nITIrIP~TFII RF\/FNIIF PART VII - EFFECTS ON SERVICES AND ANTICIPATED REVENNES FINANCE: Most revenue (property taxes, sales taxes, gas and electric franchise fees, vehicle code fines, motor vehicle in-lieu fees, off-highway license fees, and gas tax) distributed to the City is based on population. Therefore, a population adjustment was determined for each Scenario. Staff applied a population per household of 3.535 for single family units and 2.4 for multi-family." the overall Sta to population per hou sehoid is 3.2. the net effect on anticipated City revenue for one year (based on '91-'92 levels) from adjustments of the two scenarios is as follows: 75%/25% Ratio 70X/30% Ratio -$180,185 (-1.13X) -$148,928 (-0.93%) These figures represent yearly losses if the Lity were presently near build- out and one of the adjustment scenarios were acted upon. The losses are from future an ticiaated revenue, from existing land use designations only. It appears, therefore, that effects on future revenues would be minimal. ENGINEERING: It is Engineering staff's opinion that the change in the .~- .,...one not r:ahly effort thn traffic patterns or volume in-the various planning areas. This view is based upon recent traffic analysis throughout the City. Since the cast of improvements (roads, traffic facilities, storm drains, etc.) changes very little with the type of development, the same costs will be born by the developers for those improvements. Nhat will change, however, will be the costs per unit which can vary significantly as the unit densitfes change. Increased unit cost for single-family units versus multi-family units will simply be added to the purchase price or rental fees. The fnc rea sed 'd "^t h , th r,~,. . ~~i f ink ii i nrn e h ising gall s. pr 1CEa wcu~ .w e~p C ~., ..^. 5--.5.y ... S ew 1..__m_ O1_ Overall street maintenance costs would be expected to increase because single- family developments have significantly more public street miles than multi- family development of similar size (area). Extensive on-site interior roadway _pq_ and walkway systems are provided within multi-family developments while with single family developments, nearly all such improvements are within the public right-of-way and therefore, the responsibility of the City. An estimate of how much maintenance costs will increase was not developed for this meeting, because of the difficulty in forecasting the differing development proposals in each scenario. pcroEAT: DtI: Chanaina ±i.e nc^bsr of mul ci-family residences anticipated in the City will affect both the number of acres required in developed parkland at City build-out, as well as the amount of money paid into the Park Development Fund at the time building permits are issued. First, in considering the number of park acres required as goals of the General Plan it appears that a decrease of 15 acres (2 percent) would result because of a net loss in anticipated build-out population. Current General Plan standards require 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. the second major item to consf der is the impact on anticipated parkland development fees. While it appears there will oniy be a 2 percent decrease in required parkland, the proposed scenarios, calculated using the current n nnarip" frr ",c ~,-,~," wm k iee represent a decrease of between $612,000 to $706,000 (between 13-15 percent). Looking at the big picture, the area of main concern would be the undeveloped Etiwanda section of the City. Terra Vista and Victoria are covered under Development Agreements as to the number of acres of parkland being provided. The "General City" does not have that much vacant land left from which to collect fees. The hardest hit area appears to be Etiwanda. Further studies will have to be done tc evaluate the full impact on parks. SCHOOLS; The common ity'S school districts were asked to comment on how the proposed adjustments Lo residential unit counts might affect their ability to provide services to each district's residents. Chaffey Joint Union High School District Indicated that the changes in the anticipated student -25- generation resulting from the differences in the unit counts are insignificant to the operations of the district. This conclusion was based upon student generation factors of .15/SF unit and .09/MF unit. No specific revenue figures were provided. The Superintendent of the Alta Loma School District stated that the potential adjustments within its boundaries should not Significantly affect the district's abii icy co provide service nor its aniic ipated revenue. Central Sc hoo] District, which has about 40 percent of the General City uncommitted multi-family land and the western portion of Terra V;cta u;rw:~ its boundaries, indicated that the potential unit reductions within its district could result in losses of anticipated revenue of between b365 ,000 to E550,000. These figures were based on the fewer anticipated students resulting from fewer total housing units within the district. These estimates were based upon a .4252/unit generation factor and approximately ES ,032 per student mitigation fee. As of the drafting of this report, the Etiwanda and Cucamonga School Districts had not replied to our request for Tnforma tion. Refer to Exhibit V[I-1 for SCh001 UiStriCt boundaries. LAW F.N FORCEMENT: The Police Department has no statistical information regarding the incidence of crime in multi-family housing projects as compared to single-family tracts in the City. Based on past experience, however, the Department has indicated that they have not encountered a significant difference in the number of calls for services received between single-family versus multi-family dwellings. The only difference that is significant fs in the type of multi-family development. They have experienced a greater number of service calls from government-subsidized Section B housing than they have received from any other type of multi-family development. The Police Department has indicated that their manpower is allocated by the number of calls for service based on past history; it is not based on population. -26- ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS: As of the writing of this report, figures on the effects on Assessment Districts were not Completed. When this information is available it will be forwarded to the Council. DETERMINATION: City Council should determine if the effects on services and potential revenue is sianifictnt. if so, please advise staff to what donree the effects should be avoided. Staff would then be able to adjust the scenarios to compensate for excess effects. S The single-family figure was used by the State fn its determination of a total popuiation per household for the 1990 Poputatton Estimate. The multf-family figure was estimated by staff based upon several State figures for various multi-family housfng types. _ZT_ SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WITHIN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ALTA LOMA ETIWANDA Bee• Lln• CENTRAL Arrow Route ~ v • A 0 q CUCAMONGA ; Foothill City Limits School District Boundaries L'/\\IT 11 •1 VI• 191~L1 Note: Entire city is within Chatfey Joint Union High School District CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: MWti•Fr11Jv Dawbwnaltwoltahw TITLE.5U1__oa~ plST1Hd~ r( E7a[IBIT: NI-I SCALE: -28- CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Multi-Family Development Part VIII LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS PART YIII - LE6A1 CONSIDEMTIONS The City Attorney's staff analyzed the potential legal issues which should be cans idered regarding implementation of multi-family unit reduction. The legal opinfons for Councfl consideration are contained in the enclosed correspondence. _yg_ 3... e~ ea J1M[O L. MAIIM1MAN AN OII[W V. hRC IY Nf nI II.vLRN D. NANfON /. f~LIOT GOLOMAN J[/I11[Y MINE O. CRMO !On N n1.TNA G[I[L611 /Lii[IIfoN WILLIAM t. GUI. L[Y 9 .'~ww cyl'°°,.~ ~~:»~~ August 2, 1990 NVNf{II ON[ CIVIC C[Nl[.1 CI[CL[ t O. f0[ 1019 fN[A~ [ALI IORNI.a YlOli-10[f Ilia) f90•o901 1[L[tNON[ 1!1]16f 1-a411 {II] IOOlNILI [OVL[V1Ro fV It[ !00 MNC NO CUUMONO•~ULIIORNIA flf a0 r blal OEO•ivN '!S[°NON[L vl•1 afl•ouf Larry Henderson Principal Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-0907 Denr Larry: 1N RVIV tLGf[ R[I[R e0: eras Re: potential legal issues regardinq implementation of multiple lamily unit reduction Tha lollowing ie to memorialize ous previous telephone convorsationm concerning the above-ralaranoed matter. As we discussed, thin information Se to expand upon the staff report to be prepared for the Council worxshop and not necaasarlly as an addendum toz the City Council. Based upon your previous correepondance, the several areas of conoern era basically summarized as follows: L99[ S11G9IDfl 2LnY@ln4 B1m13[9reliiiis• As you era no doubt nwara, the CalitoYhia Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Salety Code Sections 33000 of seq.) requires radavelopment agencies to participate in produotion of aifordabla low and moderate inoome housing by requiring ageneiea to eat aside 2oi of ell tax inaremsnt generated from the project areas !or the purpose of "increasing and improving the communityle supply of low and moderate inooma housing (H i 8 Coda eaotion 33334.2). As part of that general requixemant, the California Radovslopment Law Rem tat certain apeoiiia porcentages of Lunde to be allocated to various income categories for replaoement housing (H i S Coda Baotlon 33334.5) and pro9eat area housing production (N i S Code Section 33413j. -30- fIUG- 2-90 THU l4 lorry Nenderaon August 2, 1990 Page Two 42 MRRKMgN a-I GiRC2Y'N SKr P.03i0'3 None of the foregoing requirements apecitlcally speak in terms of housing density or number of units provides; simply that available funds be expended to provide housing for oat percentages of income groups. Accordingly, any reduction in density etander¢• of the City of Rancho Cucamonga would not, in itself, violate these provisions. However, what cnn be said is that such a reduction in overall density would tend to make the production of rental housingg more difficult and would correspondingly make more dittioult th• Agency's ability to foasibly arrange to meet the requirements for certain income groups (particularly "very low'^ income persona >nd tdmiii*;=). Finally, it should be remembered that Aa part of the Battlement of the school district litigation against the Redevelopment Agency, the Agency has committed to expenditure of 203 funds for certain income groups beyond that normally required by state law (particularly expanded for the low end vary low income groups). Terra VSata Development Agreement No. 1, adopted in June o1 1984, included within St its provisions a guarant0e8 number of dwelling units which may be oonetruotad. This number of dwelling unite Mee caloulstad by the proposed housing mix anO Cna danaii.y si.a,iusi.:b ~`~._ ~ (a _... can•Inn 7 of Development Agreement No. 1).~ Because n development agreement is binding upon the City, It would control if an Overall reduction in eensity standards would otherwise cause e reduction Sn the potential units which coulfl ba developed under the Terra Viate community Plan. Accordingly, the only way to reduce density within the Terra Viote Community Plan would be a mutual amendment to the Terra Vista Development Agreement and related Planned Community documents. g, ~~~~ y~,b State Plennina i~a1dJ Pair Shalt gg}a@jpq Raauiremants. The major Seaua which a reduction in the overall density could impact is the required consistency batwoen th• Ganoral Plan and Sea Element density standards and tho Housing Element provisions, policies and procedures. AB you era no doubt awes, Calitornia ciovarnment Colo Saotion 65682 roquira• that a housing element contain policie^ end procedures for the mainlanance, lsprovemant end/or development oL housing for all ~~ yyjg, together with programs to implement Lhe policies and achieve tho goals anA ob~aotive of the Drovieion of housing to all income levels. As part of eha housing •lament, Saotion -31- q U a. - 2- 9 0 T M U 1 4 9 3 M g R K M q N a g R C Z Y N 5 K I P 0 9 i 0 ~J Larry Henderson August 2, 1990 Page Three 65584 requires that cities incorporate into their analysis oL housing needs the local council of governments' "Lair chars" housing requirements for ell income housing groups. Again, as with requirements under the Celilorn is Redevelopment Law (see Section 1, above) these provisions do n^t eg^_ek cf ~^-^datory density levels but rather availability for persona and remilies of certain income levels. Accordingly, a mere reduction in density should not, on its Laos, prove absolutely invalids however, in practical terms it will aeaume that the City, ae part of its programs and policiRS.. _ ,..,t re the 1afe:,lon of large amounts of public funds (i.e.,wthe 20t set-aside Lunde) to make teasible the Qevelopment and availability of units for very low income persons within projects at a lower overall density. The difficulties with this analysis Se (1) having the rousing Element reviewed and approved by the Celifornie Department of Housing and Community Davalopaent (dovernment code section 65585)1 and, (2) the possibility that an activist group would immediately seek to attack the validity o! the General Plan (much like the recent litigation against the Redevelopment Plan). While at present this may only be a remote possibility, 11 in practice over time the City falls behind on the production o! housing for the lower Income categorise (usually high density rental projects) the likelihood of attack would inereeAe. Please note, in the event Of Rt1nC.e awful iuR{n{wl rwvluv nw1{I,.rnt• nw_._..-ti ~..~ n_~w Section 65775 provies• the courts with extensive powers including the suspension of the ability to issue permits, the prohibition of any development entitlement permits including all categories of zone changes, ana the euepeneion of authority to grant subdivision map approvals. 6. Precedence ~ )~y~ gQplpq= Inverse condemnation. Prior to 1987, all judicial review oP coning decieiona was limited in scope to a review of the record to determine it the legislative body took an action which advanced the legitimate governmental purpose and did not sot in en arbitrary and capricious manner. Under pravioue judicial Snterpretatlons, even iP the zoning action use overturned, there was no recourse on the part of the property owner to seek monetary damages. Consequently, given the standard (still applicable today) and the lack of any overall remeAyy to the property owner, the vest majority of cases On rezonings have upheld the ability to "down none" property. However, in 1987, the United stater supreme Court overturned pravioue California law 1n the ease of ~S, E1t91.1)h Evendal icsl jeep h ~ -32- AUG- 2-90 TNU 1.13 MPRKMHN a gRC2YN5Ki PO-J/0O Larry HendBrson August 2, 1990 page Four ~~~ y~ county ft1 isa ynstelsp, !1997) aaz u.s. aoa ens allowed the imposition oL monetary damages for en invalid "taking" of property rights. While the etandexds o! what o0-~^titut_a a n«•yin^.x .7e aEi11 nwing developed under subsequent judicial opinions, basically a local rngulntion whsnlthenaetlonndeniesoan)ownerdaneeconjomicallymvinbleyusemolea land based upon investment •Ypeetations. In the situation o! n ontwneial reduction of under end coning, this problem should ba reasonably remote glnce (1) it still remeina ditticuit co overturn the legitimate and recognised legislative authority oL the Council in determining density standards: and (1) a mere reduction in overall density should not deny a viable use of property but would only reduce the options in production or housing typo. Nevertheless, the City should be suers that this form of erqument is likely to be alleged on virtually every situation oL down sonlnq. IL you have anpi questions or comaenta vlth regard Co hesitntehtomcontaot theaundersl9nad etayour~convani naenot f'7~i ~ i~~.1/ / . 'u/~'""„~ Ral D. Hanson Deputy city Attorney Cily o! Rancho Cueamonga RDH/ljl L\1J1\LHENDADN\AC 6.1 ces Alan Warren, Associate planner .i -33- CITY OF RANCHO CLJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ~~ DATE: August 9, 1990 " T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FRDM: Brad Buller, `ty Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal Planner .41an Har ren, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO MULTI-FAMILY NORNSHOP REPORT In response to cance rns that the Multi-Family unit reduction scenarios included the 5,000 single family unit estimate for the Sphere Area, staff has run alternate numbers for 75%/25% and 70X/30% ratios without including Sphere Rrea estimates. For the 75%/25% ratio, this was accomplished by adjusting all Medium-High (14-24 dwe111ng units per acre) and Medium (D-14 dwelling units per acre) acreages down to the Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) level and dropping the High (24-30 dwelling units per acre) acreages down to the Medium level (refer to attached alternate 75X/25% "STEP-DONN" SCENARIO chart). A revised 70%/30% ratio without the Sphere was achieved by "stepping down" 75X of the acreage of each multi-family designation to the next lowest designation, stopping at the LM level (refer to attached d:te rnaLe /UF/!U1 SiEr-itiNri riirinniu ~i,ar L). iim oi. i.o ~i,c~ t ._., .. ~~~.. reflect changes to reach the alternative 75X/25% and 70%/30X (Step Down) scenarios, correspond to the acreage adjustment and unit adjustment tables contained in Part [Ii of the Mo rks hap Report. Also attached are charts which graphically depict the report's original 75X/25% "STEP DOwN" SCENARIO and the 70X/30% SCENARIO. RespP ly submltte , Rr ler G City fanner BB:LH/jfs Attachments ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ W W I ~ 4 J rnl '"' J Z ~ ~ E ~ O N _ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ a a r w ~, v~ ~ °' u~ ~ ~ ~ aT° U Q ~ ~ A ~v V w ,\ W a Q W J Q > > 9 O r m I r m ~ J N o ~ % % • > 7 7 > 9 d 9 9 ~ N ~ O l +l f • aD ~~. N .r. ~ ,_ = ~ J ~n ~ E e m x m W `a 0 m 0 e °n ~ Q ~ ~ . ~ .. ~• ~ LL W •,~ L.. ° ~ ~ R '+'m ~frS W ~,,, ~ _ O , W ' Q _, Rf'1i ~ Q w ~~~~ / V~ z ~ ~ a ~ M ~ o ~ ;; -~ .~ : : _ . > > > e o a o o + s m : : m « ~ _ , b N 0 << X W n e m v + 0 0 ~ * m ,. ~ "Across the board: reductions for each scenario in each planning area results in the following acreage adjustments in each land use designation: N0. SPHERE N0. SPHERE CURRENT CURRENT CURRENT !AND !~NCOMMT??ED REVISEC F0.°. 75/25 RE:':SEO FCR :0/30 AREA USE ACREAGE* 75/25 RATIO DI FFERENLE 70/30 RATIO DIFFERENCE A L 54.3 54.3 -- 54.3 + 31.0 LM 1.8 108.8 +107.0 71.6 + 69.6 M 93 .C 14.0 - 93.0 33.8 - 59.3 MH 14.0 0,0 - 14.0 3.5 - 10.5 H 0.0 -- -- 0.0 -- B L 67.6 87.8 -- 87.8 + 80.5 LM 264.8 506.2 +241.4 445.8 +161.0 M 241.4 0.0 -241.4 60.4 -181.0 MH 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 -- H 0.0 -- -- 0.0 -- C L 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 + 17.3 LM 26.2 118.5 + 92,3 65.1 + 38.9 M 51.8 29.7 - 22.1 43.3 - 8.5 MH 40.5 29.7 - 40.5 32.4 - 8.1 H 29.7 -- - 29.7 7.4 - 22.3 0 L 0.0 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 LM 41.0 243.6 +202.6 174.2 +133.2 M 171.6 14.2 -163.4 63.2 -114.4 MH 25.0 14.2 - 25.0 16.9 - 8.1 H 14.2 -- - 14.2 3.6 - 10.6 T L 142.1 142.1 -- 142.1 +187.4 LM 333.8 977.1 +642.9 756.8 +423.0 M 563.4 43.9 -519.5 200.7 -362.7 MH 79.5 43.9 - 79.5 52.8 - 26.7 H 43.9 -- - 43,9 11.0 - 32.9 A-General City, B-Etiwanda, C-Terra vista, 0-Victoria. T-TOtais * Locations indicated on Exhibit III-1. bold adjusted figures from corresponding report table which included Sphere Area estimates. f:, N0. SPHERE N0. SPHERE CURREN T 75/25 CURRENT 70/30 CURRENT ANTICIPA TED REVISED 75/25 REVISED 70/30 AREA UNITS UNITS DIFFE RENCF UNITS DIFFERENCE A SF. .. 503- 697 1145-1446 +( 642- 749) 992_7186 +{ 414- 489) MF.. .1288- 1453 0- 0 -(1288-1463) 437- q97 -( 851- %6) 8 SF...2475- 3095 3923-4784 +(1448-1689) 3560.4340 +(1085-1245) M F..,2655- 3011 0 -(2655-3017) 644- 755 -(2011-2262) C SF. .. 157- 183 711- 829 +( 554- 646) 390- 455 +( 233- 272) MF.. .2129- 2364 326- 371 -(1802-1993) 1290-1448 -( 839- 916) D SF... 239- 287 1461-1705 +(1222-1418) 1045-1219 +( Sp6_ gg2) MF...2811- 3161 156- 177 -(2655-2984) 1113-1255 -(1698-1906) T SF...3374- 4262 7240-8764 +(3782-4404) 5917-7200 +(2543-2938) MF...8883-1 0005 482- 548 -(8248-9283) 34&1-3955 -(5399-6050) A-General City, B-Eti Wanda, C-Terra Vista, D-Victoria, T-Totals bold - adjusted figures from corresponding report tables which included Sphere Area estimates. R F 1 _7 ~ e T1 f ~ ~ V a v v W ~ ao L `• ~ ~ ~ ~ I J L O O a `'' J ~ A~ ~ h W .? ~ -~ I Q '" - -' ^` W _~ /~~ T {V ~ M ~ ~' ¢ L Q ~ c ~ ~ ~ x c w L > > /~~ O O O O /y O f ~ 4 V1 ~ N ~ L K f _-~ _ ~ J S ~ u • O Y Y V a Y Y ~ I V Y O > V a N > a Y a •\~ ~ .J oao 1 ' V '~ O + ~ N N ~ ~ ~ V N 2 I ~ 7 J ~ J 66J IWY I M L Q A o ~ °~ y ~ ~ i a E ~ ~ E ~ • ~ Q 0 < ~ J rn w a ~' a, N ~ N L7 Q , Y Y S Y Y :YY ~x e 3 a 3 3 3BB W + e e a o aa+ O ~! ~ N r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~pN V ~ r r ~ ~ J =CJ W> _ = ' J