HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-057REL:nr
4-30-75
RESOLUTION NO. 75- 57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the State of California has required all cities
to prepare a Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana adopted a Housing Element as
part of the General Plan of 1966; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Housing Element requires revision and
updating; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared an amendment
to the adopted Housing Element in accordance with the applicable
guidelines and mandates of the State; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared for said amend-
ment to the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana
held two public hearings on April 28, 1975 and by its Resolution
6070 has recommended to the City Council approval of the said
amendment of the Housing Element of the General Plan, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and acceptance of the Negative
Declaration prepared therefor, which is attached hereto as Ex-
hibit B"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council gave due notice of a hearing by
publication as required by the Santa Ana Municipal Code and said
public hearing was held at the time and place so published;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana hereby adopts the recommendation of the Santa
Ana Planning Commission as contained in its Resolution 6070, and
does adopt the amendment of the Housing Element of the General
Plan which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and by this reference
incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 27-17
of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, said amendment to the Housing
Element is hereby adopted as the Housing Element of the General
Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Negative Declaration pre-
pared for the said amendment to the Housing Element, attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein
as though fully set forth, is hereby accepted.
RESOLUTION NO. 75- 57
PAGE TWO
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa
Ana at its regular meeting held on the 5th day
of May , 1975.
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THC COUNCIL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF SANTA ANA )
I, FLORENCE I. MALONE, do hereby certify that I am the Clerk
of the Council of the City of Santa Ana; that the foregoing Reso-
lution was introduced to said Council at its regular
meeting held on the 5th day of
, 1975 and was at said meeting passed
and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES,
NOES,
ABSENT,
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
COUNCILMEN:
Evans, Yamamoto, Bricken, Ortiz,
Garthe, Brandt, Ward
None
None
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CHARLES
PROPOSED
HOUSING
ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
(AN ~ENDMENT TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN)
PREPARED BY THE
SANTA AHA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APRIL, 1975
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Planning Commission~ DATE:
FROM: Qffice of ~the City Attorney
SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element
April 25, 1975
This office has reviewed the draft Housing Element dated
April 25, 1975, and in our opinion, it demonstrates con-
formity with the guidelines of the California Council on
Intergovernmental Relations and satisfies the legal re-
quirements of the State of California with respect to
sufficiency and adequacy.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Charles
Acting
C~,t~y Attorney
REL/mS
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
C~APTER V
CHApTeR VI
CHAPTER VII
CHAPTER VIII
CHAPTER IX
CHAPTER X
TABLE,.OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Summary of Housing and Socio-economic Conditions
Related studies
Economy of the Housing Market Area
Housing Market. Condition and De~and
Analysis of S%ate and Federal Legislation
Areas of Housing Problems
Multiple Unit Survey
Citizen .Participation
Housing Program
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES OF THE HOUSING
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
To provide an objective, practical basis to fully develop a Housing
Element as required by California State Law.
To establish needed data and discuss strategies necessary to ensure
an adequate and balanced housing program for the City of Santa Ana.
To provide the necessary background information to determine the
appropriate mix of program activities and implementation techniques
which may be proposed to implement the Housing Element.
To provide data and findings which will assist in the preparation
of applications for State or Federal Housing or Co~muunity Development
Funds.
To develop and interpret housing data and to determine the housing
demand and needs for all levels of income housing.
To identify specific obstacles, both public amxi private, which con-
strain equal opportunity in housing.
To identify major existing and potential housing problems in the City,
their relationship to public safety concerns, educational and other
goverm~ental responsibilities.
To develop a listing of target areas within the City (identification
of residential blight and deterioration within the scope of the
'~/orkable Program for Codm~ulityDevelopment").
To provide analysis of pertinent state and national legislation.
To provide a statement of housing goals and policies designed to
guide public and private resources towards the improvement of housing
conditions in SantaAna.
O1
Solvin~ Housin~ Problems
Basically, there are two types of resources available to deal with
housing needs: private and gove~-~,,ental. Private resources include the
manpower and financing of business, industry and general citizenry; while
governmental resources comprise local, state and federal plans and alloca-
tions. It is apparent from past endeavors, however, that the best approach
to housing problems involves a cooperative effort of both private and
goverrauental resources.
Another essential ingredient in any approach to housing needs must
necessarily be intergover~,,ental coordination. The City of Santa Aha is
only one of twenty-six cities in Orange County. Because of the nature of
the region and the interdependency of many of its jurisdictions, housing
problems initiated in one city may have a significant impact on another.
Hence, any planned solutions for housing problems in Santa Ana ~3~st be
developed with regard to their possible regional effect.
Finally, it must be realized that no housing program ~ no matter
how well planned - can succeed without genuine citizen support and parti-
cipation. Therefore, a proposed housing program should involve close com-
munication with the citizenry of Santa Aha. In this way, citizen input
can ensure that proposed housing programs do not upset the desired struc~
ture of comm]nity life.
State Law and the Housin~ and Comm]nit~z Development Act
State Law, the State of California Council on Intergove~ental
Relations, Housing Element ~uidelines, applicable requirements of the City's
'Workable Program," and the Housing and Ommunity Development Act of 1974
place a variety of requirements on this doct~ent. The research and analysis
has been organized to address the three areas of concern incorporated in
the State Housing Element Law, plus additional material to satisfy FHA
guidelines, the needs of the '5~orkable Program," and the Housing and
Corammnity Development Act.
Six years ago, the California legislature made it mandatory for
each city and county general plan to include a "housing element." Section
65302(c) of the Govemm~ent Code now states that: .
"A housing element consisting of standards and plans
for the improvement of housing and for the pro-
vision of adequate sites for housing"
O2
shall be included in a general plan and that:
"This element of the plan shall make adequate provision for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the c~,u,~nity."
Thus, the State Law indicates that local conmunities, through their housing
elements, ~ course of action dealing with three primary areas of
concern. These are as follows:
o standards and plans for the provision of adequate housing sites,
o adequate provision for the housing needs of all econemic segments,
o standards and plans for the improvement of housing.
In 1971, th.e State Commission of Housing .and C~,,.unity Development
adopted a set of guidelines for the preparation of local housing elements.
According to these guidelines, a housing element must include statements or
descriptions on the following subject areas:
o housing problems and obstacles,
o housing goals,
o a housing plan and program,
o a housing element review and update process,
o relationship of the hausing element to other general
plan elements.
This element contains a discussion of outstanding problems and obstacles
in the three areas of concern identified in the State Law. However, in
addition to problems and obstacles, one other important factor is discussed -
prevailing constraints.
In the context of this doc~ent, the tern housing problem~_ refers to
the effects of unrealized housing needs. These effects can~ve ~n impact
on the users of housing and the co,m~mity at large. The guidelines also
suggest that communities investigate obstacles to satisfying local housing
needs and to solving housing related problems.
O3
The tern obstacles refers to those factors which /,~.ede ~he satis-
faction of housing ne---6-e~and the solution of housing-related problems.
The term constraints refers to those factors which, at least in the short
run, are relati'9~l~ "fixed" or "given" f~-o,, the standpoint of what the
City of Santa Aha can actually do about resolving outstanding problems
and obstacles. In essence, constraints establish the parmmeters within
· which City housing-related actions can be initiated.
A~roach to the Housh/ ]~lement
As previously mentioned, housing in Santa ha and throughout the
nation is in trouble. The symptoms may be cited under three general cate-
gories:
1. inadeqnate supply of housing for low and moderate
income facilities,
2. unequml opportunities - lack of housing choice and
mobility,
3. deteriorating housing quality.
This Housing Element addresses these problems, both in terms of identifi-
cation of the problems and action programs (including City-wide goals and
policies), to assit in alleviating each of thom. Thus, this report deals
with one of the most enduring sources of controversy and misunderstanding
in urban affairs - the issue of housing needs and what to do about it.
At the very minimum, housing needs are, at any moment of time, the
needs of the families and other households who do not have what the Congress
in the Housing Act of 1949 called "a decent home and a suitable living en-
viror~ent." Overwhelmingly, these households are among the poor, the near
poor and the lower economic middle class.
Much of the controversy comes on two points: (1) In more concrete
terms, what is a "decent" home and what is a "suitable" living environ-
ment? (2) What of needs beyond those of the present physical environment
and the present moment? How many more households will be formed over the
coming five, ten or twenty-five years? ~nat will they be able to spend on
housing? Where will they want to live? Will internal migration of our
04.
physically mobile population result in surpluses of decent housing in some
localities and serious shortages inothers? How many presently acceptable
houses will slide into maintenance and repair and shifting land uses in
our growing and ever-changing urban area?
The approach to the above stated problems and issues has been
developed in light of the fact that housing is more than structures and en-
closed space. It includes all of the immediate physical envirorment, both
within and outside of buildings, in which families and households live,
grow and decline. It is largely manmade. Its primary functions are three:
1. to provide comfortable shelter,
to Provide a proper setting, both within the structure
and in its neighborhood, for the day-to-day activities
of families and households, of small, infomal groups
of children and adults who make them up; and
to provide the locus or location o£ families and other
groups within the larger physcial pattern of the
locality.
The revised Santa Arm Housing Element presents a view of needs and
problems, primarily in quantitative terms, for housing, looking at the pre-
sent and estimating the future in light of the i~nediate past. The approach
to the study has been to objectively identify and analyze the pertinent
problems and issues and the pros and cons of alternative courses of action
in light of those political, social and economic considerations which
characterize the City. In analyzing and recomnending goals, policies and
actions for housing, the City of Santa Arm has kept in mind the fundamental
rights sought to be preserved by our constitutional system. The Housing
Element is not intended to fit each individual into an appropriate place
in a planned society, but rather to promote the best living and working
conditions in an orderly environment that will ensure the greatest pos-
sible freedom for all. This is simply saying a little more explicitly ?
a decent home and a suitable living enviror~ent.
Area Delineation for the Housing; Anal)sis
Prior to undertaking the study, it was determined that a broad City-
wide approach would be required, in addition to an examination of critical
O5
target areas, so that the housing probl~as and needs of subareas and com-
munities within the City coula be umlerstood within the context of problems
and needs of the City as a whole, within this City-wide framework, separ-
ate and related attention is given to the specific problems and needs of
smaller areas within the City, i.e., census tracts and target areas.
It was decided that a County-~ride perspective ~ould also be pro-
vided so that the City and its census tracts a~i target areas could be
readily compared to overall housing market conditions.
Limitations of Data
All relevant socio-economic and housing data contained in the 1970
Census of Population and Housing was used during the preparation of this
doct, aent. In addition, many items of recent data were collected, analyzed,
and synthesized to determine 1974 social, economic and housing conditions.
Where current data items relevant to the study were not available and could
not be collected due to limitations in time and the cost of data collection,
the most up-to-date "state of the art" methodology for estimating these items
was used, i.e., income, unemployment.
A general inspection of the entire City was conducted, followed by
a more intensive field survey of housing and other physical conditions of
specific '~roblem" target areas. The inventory followed the techniques of
the American Public Health Association as modified by the Environmental
Health Division of the Orange County Health Department and constituted a
'~indshield" survey of housing units and physical conditions of the target
areas. The inventory did not include the level of detailed house-by-house
inspection required to determine the cost of bringing a deteriorating or
dilapidated housingunit up to standards of the Building Code.
Despite these limitations, the order of magnitude of housing con-
ditions indicated by the survey is valid for the purpose of reaching im-
portant conclusions as to the type, magrlitude and character of the City's
housing problems.
CHAPTER II. SUMMARY OF HOUSING
AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
HOUSEHOLD, CHARACTERISTICS
TENURE
57% of the households in Santa Aha own their own
home as compared with 65~ in Orange County.
Only 43% of black households and of Spanish-
American households in Santa Aha own their
own home.
Elderly households have higher homeownershtp
rates than other households in Santa Anao
HOUSEH~LD SIZE
Two, three, and four person households are a majority
of all households and they are growing in numbers
faster than all larger household sizes. However,
a majority of persons live in households with four
or more members.
Currently, there are approximately 3.06 persons per
household in Santa Aha, a decrease from the 1970
level of 3.26 persons per household.
Renter households tend to be smaller than
homeowner households.
Blacks and, especially, Spanish-Americans have
larger households than average households. More
than a third of all families with six or more
members are either black or Spanish-American.
Almost 70% of all households are husband-
wife families and approximately 9% of the
O7
households are headed by females. Almost 20% of the
households were composed of single individ~als or one
person households. Female head households were most
common among blacks, and only 61% of black households
were husband-wife families.
- Heads of primary individual households tend to be
either young or elderly.
- Black and especially Spanish-American household heads
tend to be younger than all household heads.
Large households are most common among households with
a head age 30-44 and these households tend to have the
most children. Female head families more commonly
contain children than any other household type.
Elderly households rarely include children.
INCOME
The estimated 1974 median families and unrelated
individuals income (household income) of residents
in Santa Ana was $10,110, an increase of 18% over
the census reported median of $8,547 in 1969.
The 1974 median families and unrelated individuals
income of resi~ents in Orange County was $12,981.
The County's median was $2,871 (28%) more than the
Cityts median. In 1970 the County's median was only
$2,007 (23%) more than the City's. While the City's
median has increased, it has actually lost ground in
achieving parity with the County.
In 1974 approximately 7.3% of the families in Santa
Aha earned less than $3,000, compared to only 4.2%
of the families in Orange County.
The 1970 Census classified 3,120 (8.1%) families in
Santa Aha as receiving income below the poverty level,
compared with 18,608 (5.2%) families in Orange County.
The 1970 Census classified a total of 15,808 (10.2%)
persons in Santa Aha as receiving income below the
poverty level, compared with 90,484 (6.5%) persons
in Orange County.
Approximately 3,120 families (8.2%) in
Santa Aha earned income below the poverty
level. Approximately 24% of these
families received public assistance
in 1970.
Spanish-Americans and, especially, blacks had
'lower incomes than other households.
The 1974 median family income of families in
Santa Aha was $12,037 as compared with $15,061
for the entire County.
Renters had markedly lower incomes than homeowners.
Between 1969 and 1974 the median family income of
· Santa Ana residents increased by 19% while the
median of Orange County increased by 23%.
One person households had far lower incomes than other
households. Two person households also had signifi-
cantly lower incomes than all larger household sizes.
Busband-wife households with heads age 30 to 64 were
the household type with the highest incomes. Pri-
mary individual households had the lowest incomes.
Female head households had median incomes less than
half of those of households with a male head.
In 1970 the City had 17.5% of the County's total
population receiving incomes below the poverty level,
but only ll.0~of the County's population. This
situation appears to have worsened since 1970.
MOBILITY
The most recent information from the 1970 Census in-
dicates that 43% of the dwelling units in Santa Ana
were occupied by persons within the previous two
years. The mobility of residents of the entire
county was 44% during the same period.
Approximately 6% of Santa Ana's households and 2%
of the County's resided in the same dwelling unit
since 1949.
The census information indicated that young adults
are highly mobile. Mobility decreases significantly
with age until about the age of 45.
More than 94% of households in Santa Aha had moved
since 1950; almost one-half in the
last three years.
ooo00
Renters are much more mobile than homeowners. More than
half of renters had moved in the last 12 months compared
to approximately one-eighth of owners.
One person households have the highest levels of long
residence because the proportion of elderly households
is highest in that household size.
Among homeowners, low income households are the least
mobile, which again reflects the proportion of elderly
households among the lowest income homeowners. Mobility
patterns are not markedly different among renters of
various income levels.
The occupants of housing with low rent are less mobile
than those with high rent. Similarly, low
valued homes are associated with less mo-
bility than high valued homes.
' MTRUC~JRAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
I~EAR S~'RUCTURE BUILT
In Santa Ana, ~ousing built in the 1970's constituted
more than one-fifth (21%) of the housing stock, but
housing more than 34 years old is also an important
part (14%) of the 1974 housing stock.
From April 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974 there were 321
demolitions and 10,646 new units constructed in Santa
Aha, for an overall increase of 10,325 (21%) dwelling
un,ts.
There were 2,087 single family dwelling units constructed
and 321 demolished since 1970, representing increase
of 1,766.
Of the 10,325 increase, only 1,766 (17%) were single
family units, 6,865 (66%) were multiple units and 1,694
(16%) were mobile homes.
Almost 80% (1,665) of the 2,087 single family dwelling
units constructed since 1970 are located, to the south
of Warner avenue.
More than one-half (52%) of the 6,865 mul,
tiple family dwelling units constructed
since 1970 are located to the south of
Warner avenue.
00001.
- One person households are more commonly found in the
oldest housing; two person households in the newest.
Blacks and Spanish-Americans occupied older housing
much more frequently than other households.
Husband-wife families, except among the elderly, tend
to live in newer housing than other households. Elderly
husband-wife households and primary individuals had the
greatest tendency to live in the oldest housing.
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
The single family home is still the dominant housing
type in Sant~ Ana and Orange County, but the proportion
of multi-unit structures and mobile homesafe both inc-
.reasing.
In Santa Aha, single family houses represent 59% and
mobile homes represent 6% of the housing stock in 1974.
Single unit structures are primarily owner-occupied, but
the percentage of renters increases as the age of the
housing increases. Multi-unit housing is overwhelmingly
renter-occupied, regardless of age.
One and two person households are overrepresented among
multi-unit housing and mobllehomes. Four or more per-
son households are overrepresented among single units.
Primary individuals and the elderly are much more
common among mobilehome and multi-unit structure resid-
ents than in single units. Primary individuals were
especially dominant among the renters in the largest
apartment structures.
Mobile home owners had much lower incomes than other
homeowners. Owneroccupants of units in multi-unit stru-
ctures had higher incomes than mobilehome owners, but
much lower incomes than single unit owners. Renters
had similar income distributions regardless of the type
of structure they occupied.
KITCHEN FACILITIES
Approximately 628 units lacked complete
kitchen facilities in 1970.
Another 27 units had access to kitchen
facilities only through the living quarters
of another household
00001 .!
HEATING E~UIPMENT
Seventeen percent Of th~ housing units in Santa Aha
lacked heating equipment in 1970, The proportion in
Orange County. was 13%.
Renter households lacked adequate heating more fre-
quently than homeowner households.
Most units with inadequate heating equipment have all
plumbing facilities.
Approximately 85% of the d~elling units occupied by
Whites had heating equipment, compared with 81% for
Negro and 73% of the White Spanish Language or Spanish
surname dwelling units.
PLUMBING FACILITIES
Units lacking plumbing facilities totaled 580 in 1970,
approximately 1.2% of the housing stock.
Higher than average proportions of inadequate plumbing
facilities occSr among minority households, low income
households, and renters, and among occupants of housing
with the lowest values and the lowest rents.
- Three hundred eighty-two of the 580 units lacking
plumbing facilities were occupied by renters.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Mobile homes and mobile home parks are both showing
growth rates higher than other components of the
housing market. Mobile homes more than doubled from
1970 to 1974, accounting for about §.6% of the Santa
Aha housing stock.
Most mobile homes are owned and, compared to other
housing, are relatively new. Mobile home parks are
used for both residential and recreational purposes.
About 1% of mobile home park spaces in
Santa Aha can be expected to be vacant
as long as the high costs of housing
and population growth continue in Orange
County.
O0001Z
OVERCROI~D!NG
One-fifth (20%) of the City's dwelling units had three
or fewer rooms in 1970.
There were an average of 4.8 rooms per dwelling unit
in Santa Aha and 5.2 rooms in Orange County.
Renters, blacks, Spanish-Americans, and low income areas
all have significantly above average incidences of
overcrowding.
Overcrowding is primarily associated with large households.
Over 60% of six or more person households were overcrow-
ded (1.01 or more persons per room).
There were an average of 3.2 persons per room in owner
occupied units and 2.4 persons per room in renters
occupied units.
The household types with the largest average size had
the highest levels of overcrowding. These were husband-
wife households in the prime child bearing years.
Overcrowding was highest among units with the fewest
rooms, and the lowest home values or rents.
The income groups with the highest overcrowding rates
were those between $5,000 and. S15,000 annual income.
One person per room is not a fully adequate measure of
overcrowding. No more than two persons per bedrooms is
also a useful standard. A combination of these two
standards is a better indicator of the social functiona-
lity of a housing unit than either taken alone. Mea-
suring overcrowding by use of a two person per bed-
room standard results in higher levels of overcrowding.
With the exception of rental units large enough for
seven or more person households, there are enough large
housing units in the housing stock to house all large
households without overcrowding. However, since the
largest units tend to be above average in value or rent,
a majority of large households are unable to compete
successfully in the housing markets for them.
There are few suitably large vacant units,
regardless of price, that large overcro-
wded households could have moved into.
0000113
ABILITY TO. AFFORD HOUSING
BOUSING COSTS
Housing costs have gone up rapidly both during the
1960's and since then.
Home prices have increased more rapidly than incomes.
Consequently, the 1974 single family home market is
now at levels associated with higher incomes than the
purchasing range of the 1970 market.
Since 1970, rents have gone up 21% in Santa Ana.
Between 1970 and 1974, the average FHA insured new home
had slightly decreased in square feet and lot size, but
construction cost, sales price, and especially square
foot land cost had gone up substantially.
Other factors in housing price increases included interim
financing costs, wage costs, materials costs, community
facilities costs, and delays caused bM governmental
regulations. ~
Apartment construction costs increased approximately
as rapidly as single unit construction costs.
No new single family tract homes have been marketed in
Santa Aha for less than $30,000 since 1973.
Comparison data from the 1960 and 1970 Census show a
strong price and quality disparity in the County's
housing distribution. This discrepancy appears to
have intensified by 1974, suggesting that where a great
amount of low-income housing is found there will not be
counterbalancing amounts of high-valued units.
The cost of.home ownership rose more than 55% from 1960
to 1970 and more than 85% from 1960 to 1974. The
"Consumer Price Index" for the Los Angeles and Orange
Counties registered an increase from 79.6 in 1960 to
147.1 in May 1974. (Includes home purchase, interest,
insurance, taxes, home maintenance and repairs.)
Data from 1960 Census indicate that five
cities - Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton,
Garden Grove and Santa Aha - contained more
than half of all owner occupied units in
the County valued under $10,000, by 1960
standards. By 1970 these same five cities
000014
increased their share of the County's low-priced units
to 60%. However, by 1970 the standard for low-pri~ed
dwelling units had shifted from $10,000 to $20,000;
virtually no new dwelling units under $10,000 were built
between 1960 and 1970. The upward shift in the standards
from 1960 to 1970 is due to two factors; an overall up-
ward shift of the distribution and an increase in the
Home Ownership Component of the Consumer. Price Index for
the Los Angeles - Orange County area.
While there has been a shift in the distribution of the
lower valued homes, there have also been changes in
the expensive and middle valued units. These ranges
were $20,000 and over and $10,000 - $20,000 respectively
in 1960. Due to the shift in the price distribution the
1970 standards were moved to $35,000 plus and $20,000 -
$35,000 respectively. As of 1974 the cities of Laguna
Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Villa Park, Irvine and
the unincorporated area of Tustin-Foothills held a
disproportionately large share of the most expensive
homes with regard to their percentage share of the County's
total housing stock. While this pattern was evident in
1970, the 1974 data show that there was a strong shift
to these areas from 1960-1974 with regard to the construc-
tion of expensive'units.
While this movement was underway, the five cities of
Anaheim, Buena Park, FullertSn, Garden Grove and Santa
Aha underwent a considerable downward shift from 1960
to 1974 in their proportion of the County's highest-
valued units. This decline from 37% to approximately
17% had the effect of widening the gap between their
housing composition and that of neighboring cities and
areas with high proportions of expensive dwellings,
The average selling price of a completed or under con-
struction single family detached home in Orange County
during the second quarter of 1974 Was approximately
$55,000.
Nearly 94% of all single family detached homes completed
or under construction during the second quarter of 1974.
had a selling price in excess of $40,000.
Average selling price of a completed or under construc-
tion PUD residential unit during the second quarter of
1974 was approximately $39,300.
ABILITY TO,AFFORD HOMEO~NERSHIP
Besides prices, factors important in deter-
mining the affordability of housing in-
clude interest rates, terms, and accept-
000015
ability for credit.
In 1974, FHA interest rates were raised to historic
high levels. C0nventidffal loan interest rates are also
high. 1974 has been marked by considerable adjustments
in the relationships between FHA and conventional loans,
These adjustments can be expected to continue since
further changes in FHA programs are pending.
· Until 1974, as a general rule lenders would finance a
home valued at 2.5 times the yearly income of a family.
Recently some lenders have reduced this ratio to 1.5.
1974 median family income was $12,037, which means that
more than 50% of the families in Santa Aha could not
afford a house with value over $30,093 (using an income
multiplier of 2.5) or a house with value over $21,666
(using an income multiplier of 1.8).
Based on the sales market of second quarter 1974 single
family (detached) homes in Orange County there were no
new single family (detached) homes for sale for less than
$31,950. The average base price of the 257 different
models in the South and East Orange County Market area
(includes Santa Aha) was $65,552 containing 2,038 square
feet with a value ratio (price per square feet) of $32.16
and averaging'3.7 bedrooms and 2.4 baths. This means
that there were no homes afford in the price range of
atleast 50% Of the families in Santa Aha.
Based on second quarter 1974 PUD residential unit con-
struction, 61~ of the homes built in Orange County
could be afforded by at most 40% of the families in
Santa Ans.
Only one of the 57 single family projects surveyed in
the South and East Orange County Marketing a~ea in the
second quarter of 1974 offered VA financing while all
had Conventional financing available.
It is considerably less expensive for a homeowner to
remain in his present home than for a. renter to become
an owner of a comparable home. This is true because
most existing homeowners purchased their homes at lower
than current interest rates and at former prices. Un-
like renters who have to make a down payment to become
owners, existing owners do not have to make a substantial
cash outlay to remain homeowners.
Homeownership is less common among low-
income groups than higher. Many low in-
come households can afford to be homeown-
ers despite current low income because
they became owners when they were in a
higher income group. They bought at
O000J
former prices and former interest rates, so their
monthly ownership obligations are relatively low,
especially in relation to their alternatives in the
housing market.
Not all households which could afford to own their
own homes chose to do so. Mobility, residential
location, .transportation, asset conversion, number
of dependents, and other factors contribute to
· decisions to rent completely apart from income.
Homeownership rates are generally higher among older
and larger households and among husband-wife families
than among other household types. Among the elderly,
however, homeownership rates are substantial at all
income levels and all household sizes.
ABILITY TO AFFORD RENTAL ROUSING
Few rental units rented for less than $50 in 1970.
The median gross rent was $133 in Santa Aha and
$150 in Orange County.
From 1970 to 1974, mean rents rose from approximately
$133 to $190 per month in Santa Aha, an increase of
43%. Multiple units (apartments) in Santa Aha rented
for an average'monthly rent of $161 in 1974.
Almost all very low income renter households pay more
than 35% of their incomes for rent. As income in-
creases, the percentage of renters paying substantial
percentages of their incomes for rent decreases.
Among high income renters, most pay less than 10% of
their incomes for,rent.
While only minimum estimates can be made by gross
rent category of how many additional low rent units
are needed, the need clearly is very large.
The lower the value or gross rent, the more likely
the housing unit is occupied by a low income house-
hold, a non-high school graduate, or a person
receiving old age or aid to dependent children
assistance.
00001'7
TARGET AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Urban Futures conducted a Housing Stock Condition
Survey on a parcel by parcel basis of areas indicated
by this study and analysis to be of intense housing
or socio-economic concern.
Eleven housing target areas were identified consisting
'of 4,018 households. All but one of the target areas
had suffered loss of units and population since the
1970 Census.
More than sixty-four percent of the housing units
were built prior to 1945 and approximately one out
of six units had a life expectancy of less than ten
years. Units rated as "poor" regarding Quality of
Maintenance constituted 17.6% of the total and those
with a Premise Rating of "poor", 18%.
The Central Corridor Area of Santa Aha, aligned with
First Street in an east-west direction between Grand
Avenue and Fairview Street, contains six target areas
with the bulk of the poorest-rated units in terms of
overall housing stock condition. The six Central
Corridor target areas are within the seven worst
housing areas of Santa Aha and represent 60.7% of
the total units in the eleven target areas.
Of the eleven, the worst rated target area was located
north of First Street on the east and west sides of
Grand Avenue between McClay Street and the Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad up to Fourth Street. It
was followed by the Logan Street Area and Progresso
Area in second and third worst ratings respectively.
Each target area had both lower values for owner
occupied units and lower contract rents than their
respective census tracts based on the 1970 Census
Block Statistics. In each target area the percentage
of units with 1.01 persons or more per room exceeded
the percentage for the census tracts in which they were
located.
On the relative rating of the severity of the identi-
fied areas of housing problems, the areas west of the
Santa Aha River achieved the best overall housing
condition rating and constituted the
neighborhoods known as Santa Anita and
Silver Acres. These locations were
followed by the Southeast[Delhi ~arget
Area as the next least severe.
000018
In general, areas ~denti~,ed as'Potential Problem
Areas for the C~ty of Santa Aha clustered eroun~
rec0gn~zable target are& locations. Even though
these areas are presently not ss critical ss the
target areas, these locations could prove to be
the more serious end substantial housing problems
face~ by the City in the future due to their ex-
pansive area and large number of units.
SOCIO~Eq~01~0MIC C~RACTERISTIC~
Santa Ana is a central city of the Anaheim-Santa Aha-Garden Grove
S~andar~ Metropolitan Statistical Area (Orange County). In April
1970, there were 156, 448 persons living in Santa Ans. This number
reflects the population enumerated during the 1970 Census of Popula-
tion and Housing. The June 30, 1974 estimated population of the City
is 183,768 persons. Both the 1970 and 1974 City's population repre-
sented 11% of the total population of Orange County.
There were 146,247 white persons livlng in the City, or 93.4 percent
of the total populatlon in 1970. White persons represented 97.5 per-
cent of the population of the County. There were 6,729 (4.3~) Blacks
living in the City in 1970.
O00O19
Also living in the City were 40, 169 persons of Spanish Language or Spanish
Surname representing 25.7% of the City*s population. It is.estimated that
these percentages have been maintained since 1970..The 20.7% increase
in dwelling units of Santa Ana since 1970 have been predominately occupied
by whites; while minority groups have tended to move into older housing areas
of the City.
In August 1974 unemployment reached approximately ~, 270 (7. 1%) of the
civilian labor force in Santa Ana and a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate
of 6.0% for the entire county. Santa Ana's unemployment is typically greater
than the County's.
The median income of families and unrelated individuals in the City was
$10, 110 in 1974, an increase of 18.2% over 1969. The median income of
families and unrelated individuals in the County was $12, 981 in 1974, an
increase of 23.0% over 1969. The incomes of families and unrelated individuals
in Santa Ana are not keeping pace with the County.
There were 47, 824 persons 3 to '34 years old enrolled in schools within the
City,' this includes 4, 161 children in nursery school and kindergarten, 27, 592
children in grades 1 through 8, and 10, 788 in high school. Of the population
25 years old and over in Santa Ana Aha, 23.7 percent had.a grade school
education or less, 55.2 percent were high school graduates; including 22.7
percent who had completed some years of college. For Orange County, the
figures were 13.1% who had completed eight or fewer years of school, 70.5%
who had completed at least high school, and 35.6% who had completed one or
more years of college. The median school years completed for persons 25
years oldand over was 12.2 years in Santa Ana, as compared to 12.6 years
for Orange County as a whole. About 8.0 percent of the population 25 years old
and over in the City had completed four years of college or more, compared
with 15.8 percent for Orange County. As illustrated by these statistics the
Countyfs population was better educated than the City's.
.About 59. 5% of the 139, 977 persons 5 years and over in the City moved
between 1965 and 1970. Of these movers, 50.0% moved within Orange County,
and 17.5% moved from a different County within the state. The remainder
of the movers came from states other than California. The number of movers
Who were persons of Spanish Language or Spanish Surname in the City was
20, 903, representing 60.5% of the 34, 558 persons of Spanish Language or
Spanish Surname 5 years of age and older.. About 1,681 of these persons moved
from states other than California, 52.3% coming from tile west, 3.5% from
the northeast, 14.5% from the north central, and 29. 7% from
the south.
· 0000 l
CHAPTER, III.
RELATED STUDIES
Introduction
In order to place the extensive amount of data generated by the
Housing Element into proper perspective, this chapter will analyze and
draw conclusions concerning the relationship between the Housing ~lement
and the following past policies, adopted doc~nents or draft proposals of
the City of Santa Ana. These text will concentrate on:
1. General Plan of the City of Santa Ana prepared by Ruth and
Krushkhov, Arthur D. Little, Inc. and D. Jackson Faustman and Associates
and adopted in August of 1965.
2. The Santa Aha Zoning Ordinance, excerpts from Municipal Code
Chapter 41.
3. The Santa Ana "Growth Policy Report" dated October 25, 1974.
4. The Capital Improvements Program for the City of Santa Aha.
S. The application, Housing Assistance Program, and three-year
Development Plan drafts developed in accordance .with the 1974 Housing and
Conmunity Development-Act by City staff.
6. Other general observations concerning this Element and the City
of Santa Ana.
General Plan
The 1965 General Plan provided an analysis of housing conditions in
the City of Santa Ana. Although at that time the Housing Element of the
General Plan was not a mandatory element under State Law, the 196S General
Plan does contain much of the analysis presently required. Housing was
addressed under the work contained within Technical Workbook No. 4, pp. 97-99,
which represented the respective areas of Basic Studies, Citizens Studies/
Conmunity Goals, Facilities Plans/Implementation Proposals. The information
was based on the 1960 federal census and staff observations. The problem
of housing was at that time not viewed as serious in Santa Ana and the
phrase "The City Without Slwas" was viewed as a potential if code enforcement
000021
activities were pursued upon ten percent or less of the residential blocks
in the City. However, the General Plan did distinctly locate seventeen
areas under a three-stage priority system for cede enforcement. The fol-
lowing excerpt from the General Plan describes both the areas and the
activities proposed:
Priority 1 Areas: These areas are the areas of the most severe
conditions of blight and deterioration and should be in receipt of the
first measures of code enforcement and con~nL~ity facilities programs.
1. The five-block area bounded on the north by Washington Place,
on the south by Fruit Street, on the west by the Southern Pacific tracks
and on the east at the A.T. ~ S.F. tracks.
2. The thirteen-block area bounded on the west by Maple, on the
east by Cedar, on the south by (hestnut and on the north by Third Street.
5. The extreme western section of the City of Santa Ana north of
First Street and west of Euclid.
4. The downtown area betwee~ Omstnut and Fourth Streets and
Ross and French Streets.
S. The extreme western corner of the City of Santa Arm bounded by
Euclid on the west and Seventeenth Street on the north.
6. The te~-block area bounded on the north by the Pacific Electric
tracks, on the east by Townsend and Daisy Streets, on the south by First
and (hestnut Streets, with the eastern boundary being Artesia Street.
7. The block bounded by Fifth Street on the north, Forry Lane on
the west and Missouri on the east.
Priority 2 Areas: Areas of less concentrated deterioration where
there are deteriorating structures mixed with sound structures.
1. The area south and east of the Warner Street Yard, bounded by
Dyer Road on the south, Main Street on the west and Evergreen on the east.
2. The two-block area south of Fifth Street, north of First Street
between Jackson and Harper Streets. The three-block area bounded by Hazard
000022
on the north, Fifth on the south, Euclid on the west and Rosita Avenue on
the east.
3. The area in southeast Santa Am, east of the Edison School be-
tween Madison School on the north and the Warner :City Yard on the south.
4. The twelve-block area west of Main and east of Ross between
Bishop Street on the north and Beverly on the south.
5. The general area east of Daisy and west of Bristol between Ninth
Street on the north and Fifth Street on the south.
6. The central belt of Santa Ana between Fifth Street and Bishop
Street extending from Raitt Street on the west to Ross Street on the east.
7. The area in southwest Santa Aha to the north of Santa Arm Valley
High School and the west of Smedley Jtmior High in the vicinity of St. Andrew
and Greenville Streets.
In comparing those identified areas with the ones designated as Target
Areas by this Element, it can be clearly seen that basically the seven pri-
ority "one" areas match up with the Target Areas across the board. Devia-
tions over the last decade have been caused by an expansion of blight into
fringe areas and the re~val of substandard residential structures for such
projects as the widening of First Street and the expansion of the Civic
Center area with its accompanying recycling of adjacent residential land to
associated office-professional uses. The priority "two" areas o£ less con-
centrated structural deterioration also match with Target Areas. It includes
the neighborhoods con, only known as Santa Anita, Silver Acres and Delhi.
Priority "two" areas numbered two and three duplicate a tw~-block portion of
the Santa Anita neighborhood. The seven priority "three" areas of spot
deterioration whthin sound areas (as of 1964) match in two cases with Target
Areas, in three with portions of Target Areas am~ areas identified by this
study as Potential Problem Area, and in two cases match only with the category
of Potential Problem Area. The Progresso and Logan areas both were in a
priority one ranking, as was a portion of the Southwest Area (the bulk of
which was a priority three .rating). The fifth area of the priority "three"
category was rather expansive in nature and so duplicated a number of the
areas enumerated previously.
It appears clear that the basic location of substandard housing condi-
tions has not extensively changed since 196S. It has, in fact, been primarily
00002
a process of spreading blight to encompass additional blocks and portions of
adjacen~ neighborhoods or subdivisions.' The General Plan recommendations of
converting the deteriorating residential area in the vicinity of Washington
and Custer Streets to industrial use were not implemented and the Logan Area
has continued to be a major problem of substandard housing and intensely
compatible uses. The recon~endation that the areas between First and Fifth
Streets have increased residential densities applied to stimulate conversion
of use has not mterialized. In both these areas the development of new and
improved circulation facilities as recomuended by the General Plan has accom-
plished little, except for structural removal for a specific project to elimi-
rmte the extensive housing deterioration. In the Progresso and Santa Anita
neighborhoods, it was suggested that the development of new commmity facili-
ties and the improvement of street standards would provide an impetus for
local activities improving the quality of housing. In retrospect, these
recomuendations have either not been implemented or unaggresively pursued
based on the current status and condition of the subject areas.
A further and the most emphatic recon~nendation of the General Plan
was that there be a uniformily enforced application of building and other
City codes pertaining to housing, and the enforcement of the California
Housing Code in relation to the occupancy and physical characteristics of
the structures in all the areas of deterioration based on the priority system
as previously discussed. According to the Office of the City Attorney, there
have been no prosecutions under the Housing and Dangerous Buildings Code in
the past except on a complaint basis. Even though the Department of Building
Safety and Housing at present has the knowledge and sophistication to pursue
such a program, the history since the General Plan recoramendations of 1965
indicates that such enforcement has not been effectuated based on the current
status of the blighted housing areas.
The information contained within Technical Workbook No. 2, Citizens
Studies/C~,.,~nity Goals concernir~g the problems, potentials and coments
upon the areas of housing and con~m~ity relations is in part a predated
version of some findings revealed in this document. It recon~uended, under
cc~m~u~ity Relations, that purchase of substandard housing marring the City
should be made and such units revamped to modera standards (similar to
federal programs now available under the Ho~sing and Conm~nity Development
A~t of 1974). It ~urther stated that proper zoning should be enacted to
protect residential areas in all categories. The potential for secondary
programs of education, recreation, youth programs, human relations council,
and similar measures were pointed out for the beneficial effect they could
have on the populations in areas of substandard housing. Such programs are
000024
an early version of the more sophisticated and some established programs
recommended or described by this study in relation to enhancing equal
opportunity. The common demoninator that substandard housing areas consist
of vicinities with intense land use incompatibilities was pointed out by
the General Plan. The tools to co,hence an attack on housing problems were
available in 1965; the problems and locations were defined at that time; and
the fact that these deteriorating areas were indicative of the complex inter-
relationship of economic, social and physical environments was made clear.
The continuing lack of cc~mniment on the part of the City of Santa Arm
to solve housing problems, as documented by the findings of this study, has
in part been responsible for the deteriorated condition of much of its
existing housing stock.
General Plan Element Relation.ships
To some degree, all elements of the General Plan are related and inter-
dependent. The Housing Element is closely related to the remaining seven
State mandated general plan elements. The most direct linkages are to the
Land Use, Circulation, Safety, Noise, Open Space and Conservation. The
most important relationships are between the Housing and Land Use Elements
and the Housing and Safety Elements.
Land Use Blement
The Housing Element has a stronger interface with the Land Use Element
than with any other element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Policies of the
Housing Element will provide for additional guidance in allocating the types
of land uses complimentary to residential areas. Significant portions of
the Land Use Blement will require re-evaluation and amendment as a result of
fids element and its on-going refinement.
Circulation Element
Circulation includes those systems thatmeve people, materials, goods
or services ,(e.g., water, sewer, jet fuel lines, petroleum products, energy,
etc.) by any means. The location of new housing and its necessary access
routes will have an impact on the Circulation Element. Some existing road-
ways may need to be modified to provide for new housing developments.
000025
The Santa Aha Zoning Ordinance is conventional in nature with little
in the way of special provisions concerning low income housing. There are
no specific zoning or design provisions pertaining to unit design parking or
amenities for the elderly or handicapped. The ordinance proves ambivalent
in the residential use district regulations. The standards are deficient at
both ends of the spectrum in that they neither encourage the provision of
low income housing units nor require high quality amenities producing a stock
of high quality, higher priced units or rentals. Whether by design or acci-
dent, t~e residential district regulations are geared for development under
the "lowest comnon denominator" theory of residential quality. Even though
this would add to the stock of lower priced or lower cost rental units, it
does not ensure that those households with the greatest need for housing
occupy such units and still does not make any special provisions for low or
fixed income groups.
~hile many cities in Orange County and California as a whole are up-
grading and intensifying residential development standards, Santa Ana re-
quirements still reflect the development attitudes of the 1960 era of resi~
dential development. Of notable exception are the Planned Community and
Planned Residential Development sections of the ordinance. The R 1, Single
Family Residence, District may address the issue of new single {amily sub-
divisions; however, it does not reflect that the majority of R 1 development
has already been accomplished and the needs of this district now concern
room additions, garage conversions, expansion for growing families, patios
or other romedial or additive homeowner activities. As with the other resi-
dential districts, no provisions are imposed regarding the maintenance of
the physical housing unit or grounds to certain minimal levels for the life-
time of the residence. The R 1 District pemits day care nurseries by con-
ditional use permit, however, does not make clear provisions concerning
{oster home activities for children, the ambulatory elderly or the physically
or mentally handicapped.
The multiple unit residential use districts range from the R 2
District at one unit per each 3,000 square feet of lot area to the R 4 at
one unit per S00 square feet of lot area for projects of four stories or
more. Other densities include one unit for 1,000 or 1,200 square feet of
area in the R 3 and R 3H, and one unit for 1,S00 in the R 4 for projects
under four stories. Parking standards require only one garage or carport
space per unit for one, two or three-family units. In multiple-family
projects, the ~mximum required is only one and one-half spaces per unit
(one space for bachelor units). Even in the multiple-unit survey, owners
and man~gers conmented on the lack of adequate parking facilities creatin~
000026
circulation and conjestion problems. The ordinance is minimal in that in
no cases does it require the installation of enclosed garage facilities for
residential units as most other zoning ordinances mandate, with carports
permitted only under special circtm~stances and conditions.
The minim~n unit sizes required by the R $ and R 4 Districts are
only the most absolute of minimums. The R 5 requires 300 square feet for
a bachelor unit; S00 for a one bedroom, and 750 for a two-bedroom. The R 4
standards indicated minimums of 450 square feet for a bachelor, 650 square
feet for a one bedroom, and 800 square feet for a two-bedroom. Oddly enough
senior citizens' developments are only permitted in the R 4 with a conditional
use permit, the residential district which has the higher unit minimum sizes.
The lower unit sizes would be more appropriate for the development of housing
projects for the elderly.
Publications have been distribured by such organizations as the
American Society of Planning Officials dealing with such issues as zoning
standards for housing of the elderly concerning occupant and structural
characteristics, occupancy guarantees, safety features, density, area per
room and other development standards which may be used as guidelines in
revamping the Santa Aha ordinance. For low income housing in general, the
concept of housing density bonuses and impact zoning have already been dis-
cussed in other sections of this study, and similar publications have been
released by ASPO and the American Institute of Planners concerning criteria
and guidelines. Standardized guidelines and criteria for the design of
private, as well as public, facilities accu..,odating the handicapped can be
obtained from the federal goven,,~ent (Housing and Urban Develo~ent or
Health, F~ducation and Welfare}. Of more general importance is the necessity
for the City of Santa Ana to comprehensively revise its zoning ordinance to:
(a) upgrade the overall quality of design and mmenities supplied for future
new residential units; (b) modify residential land use districts to more
appropriately reflect the problems of modifying or enhancing existing units;
and (c) develop standards for the long term maintenance of units and ameni-
ties to stem potential deterioration and spread of blight.
The eleven target areas, even though substantially single family in
character, were mixed zoning districts and predominantly R 2 and R 3. The
area west of the Santa Ana River consisting of four target areas was pre-
dominantly R 2 and R ZB (parking modification), with C 1 and C 2 strip com-
mercial along the arterial highways. R 1 zoning was found only in the
Silver Acres target area. A 1, General Agricultural, zoning was applied to
the mobile home parks and areas of former dairy operations. The six target
areas in the Central Corridor Area of the City had the most mixed zoning
000027
pattern of the target areas with R Z, R 3, R 3H, R 4, C 1, C 2, nP, P, CD,
HD II, R 1, ]4 1, M 2 and 0 zonings. The Logan Area was zoned c~pletely
M 1 and M 2 and showed the highest degree of incompatibility between zoning
ar~ existing use. It appears as though a theoretical concept of zoning
deteriorating housing to a higher use to stimulate conversion was pursued
in ntnnerous cases in the Central Corridor Area. The Southeast/Delhi Target
Area was zoned R 2 for the residential areas, with a C 1, Neighborhood Com-
mercial corner at Central and Hallady, and strip coll,~ercial zoning on M~in
Street and Warner Avenue. There is some M 1 zoning on Orange Avenue south
of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, but only seven residential
units are affected. Depending upon the selection of action programs for
the various target areas, some rezoning may be necessary in order to dis~
courage speculation and absentee ownership if the areas are to be retained
as low density residential. The Potential Problem Areas identified in
Chapter VII are primarily zoned R 1 with some R 2. These areas in particular
would need modification of the residential districts to reflect the problems
of expanding and enhancing existing uses and the need for standards of long
term maintenance.
Santa Ana Growth Policy
The Santo Arm Growth Policy is an att,,pt to create an equilibriom
between growth trends and service capacity by using cost-benefit analysis.
Only in this case are we concerned with the entire City of Santa Ana rather
than a parcel of land or particular project. For that reason, it has to be
hypothetical in construction and will need modification as actual conditions
change or evolve over time. Estimates of absorption capacity, recycling to
higher intensity residential use, loss of residential use to other uses,
development phasing and revenue projections are subject to influence by in-
dependent variables over which the local governmental structure does not have
control. Therefore, the docoment is one of "polic~' rather than one of pre-
diction. It attempts to establish desirable growth levels within which the
City can feasibly serve new residents and businesses in the most economic
fashion.
The population allocation model contained in this revised Housing
Element does not foresee the same intensity of growth anticipated by the
Growth Policy Report. Santa Ana is forecasted to reach a population of
206,800 persons in 1990 by the Urban Puture's model, while the adopted
"growth policy" stipulates a limit of 255,000 persons in 1990. The alloca-
tion model was based on a statistical analysis of the desirability factors
of all the census tracts in Orange County and used as its source the
00002
population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments,
the Orange County Forecast and Analysis Centez and the Orange County General
Plan of Land Use for 1983. There is a distinction between an allocation and
a policy limitation of population that does not make these two figures
inha~nonious. The allocation model does show that the gro~rth policy should
be achievable by the City of Santa Ana.
Ho_ nsing and Co~nunity Development Plan
The Housing and Cam.unity Development Plan and Housing Assistance
Plan required by the provisions of the 1974 Housing and Commmity Development
Act for receipt o£ entitlements used the definitions of the 1970 census, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the criteria and definitions
used in the preparation of this Housing P. lement. The following analysis pro-
ceeds through the major points of the three-year plan, the Housing Assistance
Plan, the survey questionnaire and, finally, the citizen input element.
H/CD Three-Year Plan: Basically, the text, findings and recuJi~,enda-
tions are in conformance with the Housing Element. The Central Corridor
Area referenced by this document conforms to the programs of senior citizen
housing, redevelopment activity, development of detailed neighborhood plans,
acquisition, clearance, packaging, demolition and relocation programs pro-
posed. The Central Corridor Area did represent the bulk of the City's de~
teriorated and substandard areas. However, the bulk 'of the activity is pro-
posed for the Redevelopment Project Area, ~hile the worst Central Corridor
Target Areas are found in the eastern sector of the downtown area (First
Street and Grand Avenue and the Logan Area). The programs do, however,
address numerically the bulk of Central Corridor substandard units.
The special emphasis on public improvements for the area west of
the Santa Aha River appears justified as long as the installation of stom
drains is aggressively followed by the installation and upgrading of streets,
curbs and gutters, street lights, street trees and other public facilities.
The program of code enforcement and rehabilitation must be simultaneously
pursued to ensure upgrading of the physical housing units themselves, as the
installation of public wnrks does not guarantee a multiplier or "cloud-
seeding" effect upon the substandard condition of the housing stock.
The ~ater system project proposed for the area west of Greenville
Street to King Street between F. dinger on the north and St. Andrew Street
on the south is an area designated by this El~nent as a Potential Problem
Area. The area has some severely depressed pockets within its boundaries;
000029
however, overall was not considered substantive enough for Target Area status.
Ass~ing the water quality and service to be of such deficient standards as
to present a potential health problem and a clear safety problem due to in-
adequate pressure and volnme for fire fighting, the extensive expenditure re-
quired should be accompanied by mere irmnediate efforts to upgrade and stem
deterioration of existing stock to safeguard that investment.
Extensive utilization of the Redevelopment Agency is in line with many
of the action program options presented by this report. The consolidation of
an eighteen-acre site within the exsting Project Area and development of new
housing units can have a substantial impact on housing conditions in the central
City area and prove to be a prototype for further such actions in other target
areas. The senior citizens' project on Second Street between Birch and Ross
does accomplish a partial fulfilling of the need of what this report has re-
ferred to as the often "forgotten" minority, and its location appears excellent
for centrality of health, shopping and transportation services. The "housing
replacement" (spot clearance with replacement) program to eliminate designated
target area structures should commence with those locations having the poorest
Housing Stock Condition Rating indicated by Chapter IX.
Realizing the tremendous time constraints placed upon the City of
Santa Ana by the Housing and C~,n,,anity Development Ant application preparation,
citizen input required, doctmentation, public hearings and A-gs review, the
primary emphasis of the H/CD application was placed on planning and public works
facilities for the first year of the grant period.
Housing Assistance Plan: The Housing Assistance Plan identified the
nmmber o~ ho'ds~n~ units to be rehabilitated and/or constructed and the recom-
mendation for funding for the senior citizens' housing project already ap-
proved and in the preliminary phases of planning and design. The Housing
Authority of Santa Ana has also applied for additional leased housing facili-
ties to fulfill the needs of population groups requiring assistance over and
above the senior citizens. It is the intention of the Housing Plan to more
fully elaborate the details of a Housing Assistance Plan for Santa Ana. This
would be the responsibility of the Planning Department along with the re-
quested H/CD programs for "Neighborhood Plans" during the first year entitle-
ment. It would also be anticipated that more exacting environmental impact
reports may be required for activities relating to the Housing Assistance Plan,
and these reports should address the broad scope of the housing issue, in-
cluding the social and economic ramifications as well as the physical factors.
000030
Capital Improvements Pro,ram
The Capital Improv~nents Program (CIP) and budgetary process for
such projects has remained a line system budget with some modifications.
There has been little analysis from the General Plan recu,~,nended Capital
Improvement Program and Budget of 1965 through the present 1974-75 annual
budget capital improvement allocations of the impact of expenditures on
program areas such as housing. There appears to have been no attempt to
weigh or determine the actual impact of capital improvement projects upon
the economic or social envirooment of the City. It is extremely difficult
to evaluate the CIP with regard to subsidiary benefits except on a subjec-
tive basis. Whether or not a street improvement or storm drain installation
improved business conditions in the area, enhanced the City's tax base,
caused homeowner upgrading of a residence, or bettered the overall quality
of housing has not been pre- or post-analyzed based on actual allocations
and expenditures. There may have been untested assumptions that a now
library or fire station would have some degree of benefit upon the desir-
ability of an adjacent residential neighborhood and, in the case of a
deteriorating residential area, create an atmosphere conducive to regen-
eration and improvement; however, the validity of such assumptions have
been open to serious question.
with the major fiscal crisis facing municipalities which has been
pointed out to be even more crucial for Santa Ana due to its declining
commercial and industrial prominence {or declining tax base) with an influx
of lo~er income groups necessitating a greater level of governmental ser-
vices, the relative degree of impact of capital improvement expenditures on
problem areas, other than just the physical absence of such facilities, has
become mandatory. This is to ensure that for the expenditures made the
greatest secondary benefits are achieved. In what area, for example, would
the installation of new street lights accomplish the greatest impact on
soaring crime rates or upgrade the overall neighborhood quality? No longer
should guessed or assumed secondary benefits of the CIP be used, but rather
the best available analytic techniques implemented to ascertain more defini-
tive impacts expected.
Another area of concern to the CIP is that of the desires of the
actual residents and businessmen of an affected area. The budgetary process
is one of the most important actions of the lecal legislative body affecting
its citizens. Unfortunately, it is also one of the driest, most coml~licated
and least understood functions to the bulk of the citizenry. An aggressive
attempt should be made to involve meaningful citizen participation in the
000031
allocation of dollars to capital improvements projects, both on an annual
and long range basis, P/ith the obvious restraint upon available revenues,
expenditures must be made on the basis of the most far reaching impact upon
all problem areas of the City.
Crime Prevention C~uission Report
The data presented in relation to the overall findings and recom-
mendations of the citizen's coranission did show some interesting, yet anti-
cipated, relationships with the results of this housing study. The Crime/
Calls-For-Service Density Map, even though using a different geographical
basis than this study for depicting infomation, showed a relationship be-
tween target areas and census tracts with either housing or socio-economic
problems. The quarter mile square grids indicated that target area locations
had greater incidence of police service calls, crime reports and arrests
than surrounding grids. The areas of mast concentrated activity roughly
simulated the pattern shown for Housing Problem Areas and Target Areas
identified by this document. There did appear to be a greater spill-over
into adjacent areas where the analysis had not indicated the existence of
physical housing blight. Even though this information is not sufficiently
exacting to allow a concrete statement of relationship between poor housing
and crime rates, it does support the findings of the interrelated nature
of social, econe~ic and physical deterioration problems. The Commission
Report Map again showed the pattern of greater intensity of problems in the
central portions of Santa Ana, with the relative lesser problem areas on the
perimeter o£ the City.
The continual interrelated nature of social and economic problems
with substandard living environments shows that no singular solution will
ultimately be effective. Crime prevention programs and intensification of
activities are indicated in the interest of protection to people and property.
However, its effectiveness alone is only a stop-gap measure until further
population pressures, decaying social and economic conditions and deteriora-
tion of the physical c~,,aonity once again make prevention measures inadequate
for increases in the crime rate.
00003
CHAPTER IV. ECONOMY OF THE
HOUSING MARKET AREA
The analysis of local housing market conditions and prospective demand
for additional housing is dependent, basically, on an analysis of the economy
of the market area. Before any analytical work can be done on other facets of
the market analysis, therefore, the economy of the area must be analyzed with
the objective of projecting economic prospects in terms of employment. This
dependence is inherent in the simplified relationship of the major quantitative
forces leading to demand for additional increments of housing; i. e., employ-
ment opportunities are the principal determinants of population growth; popu-
lation growth; population is translated into households; and households are the
units of demand for housing. VWnether additional housing is economically
feasible to meet this demand depends, of course, on the quantitative and
qualitative adequacy of the existing supply of housing and the capacity of the
households to pay for the increments required.
Housing market analysis may be described briefly as a process of
determini~g present and prospective housing demand-supply relationships in
a local housing market, subject to change because of unforseen developments.
Its principal objective is the estimation of housing demand in quantitative and
qualitative terms for the housing market as a whole or for major geographical
subrnarkets. It entails an evaluation of the ascertainable current and pro-
spective dynamic forces affecting economic, demographic, and housialg con-
ditions and inventory trends. It proceeds in a systematic fashion, embracing
thc collection, recordation, processing, analysis, and interpretation of data
and inforllnation pertinent to, and the presentation in a documented report of
findings and conclusions concerning, past and prospective economic, population,
and housing conditions and trends in the local market; and it requires the
derivation of current estimates of employment, family incomes, population,
households, residential construction, and vacancies. The estimates of demand
derived by the study are not to be construed as forecasts of building activity.
Itl addition to these local factors, external influences--state, regional, national
and international--also affect the economic life of a community and must be
taken into account. Furthermore, short-term variations between estimated
demand and actual production can always be accommodated within a housing
market, especially in larger communities, by adjustment of holding or
absorption, periods causing a variation of existing vacancy ratios. Sustained
differences between demand and production must eventually lead to significant
changes in vacancy levels (either up or down) and corresponding impact on
rents and prices, on employment, and on housing production
and marketing.
In broad terms, housing market analysis is concerned
with the following subject matter:
1. Delineation of the .m,,,arket area--thc area within which dwelling units
are competitive with one another. (Chapter IV)
The area's ,economy--pri0cipal economic activities, basic resources,
economic trends. (Chapter IV)
Demand factors--population, employment, incomes. (Chapter IV)
Supply factors--residential construction activity, housing inventory,
demolitions. (Chapter V)
Cur,r. en!,,,,market conditions--vacancies, unsold inventory, marketability
of sales and rental units, prices, rents, building costs, disposition
o£ acquired properties. (Chapter V)
(~uantitative and qualitative demand--prospective number of dwelling
units that can be absorbed economically at various price and rent
levels under conditions existing on the "as of" date. (Chapter V)
CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATIONS
HOUSING: For purposes of housing market analysis, housing is considered
as a commodity in.the physics,1 sense; it is identified and measured in terms
of the dwelling unit or housing unit (house or apartment), which is also the
entity envisionvd in transactions consummated for the purchase or rental
of housing. In this sense, it is distinguished from, although inclusive of,
the legalistic concept (i. e., rights to the use of the commodity) and the
service concept (i. e., services rendered by the commodity), both of which
are not susceptible to convenient unit identification and measurement for
market analysis purposes.
HOUSING MARKET: In simple terms, the housing market is the composite of
negotiations between buyers and sellers (including lessees and lessors) in
free communication for the acquisition or disposition of individual dwelling
units which are in some degree of competition with each other. The units
may be regarded as linked in a chain of substitutability in varying degrees of
closeness depending on qualitative considerations and buyer preference, and
the market may be considered as consisting of clusters of substitutes cross-
linked in complex patterns.
IIOUSING MARKET AREA: A housing market area is the geographic area
"within which all dwelling units are linked together in a
chain of substitution"; or, in other words, the units are in
competition with one another as alternatives for the users
of housing. A housing market area is restricted to local
dimensions.
000o
HOUSING SUBMARKETS AND SUB~aaRKET AREAS: Within the framework described
above, a housing market and a housing market area as whole entities are
divisible into component parts. In individual market analyses, they may
be segmented in varying degree to serve more effectively the purpose(s)
for which each analysis is undertaken. For example, an analysis with a
single conclusion that there is a prospective demand for "~' number of
additional dwelling units in the subject locality has only general and
very limited usefulness; but, if the analysis is developed to segment the
demand, e.g., qualitatively and geographically, its value and usefulness
are greatly enhanced.
DELINEATION OF THE HOUSING MARKET
A housing market area is defined as the geographic entity within
which nonfarm dwelling units are in mutual competition. Ideally, this
definition implies a preciseness in area delineation which cannot be
achieved. A technique is not available to determine the exact points at
which specific dwelling units are just beyond the range of competition with
other units so that the precise limits can be established for delineating
the housing market area. Moreover, if such a technique were available, the
limitations of available data ~ould preclude its application.
Thus, a c~promise is made between the idealistic and the practical
aspects of delineating the housing market area with a view to determining
the boundaries which will constitute the most reasonable and useful market
area from the standpoint of tl~e availability of data consistent with the
analytical requirements, having due regard for adjustments that can be made
in available data to serve this objective most satisfactorily. Within this
framework and the available tools, together with careful firsthand observa-
tion throughout the area, the analyst can cumply substantially with the
criterion of dwelling unit competition in delineating the housing market area.
For the purposes of this study, the City of Santa Aha is identified
as a housing submarket of the larger Orange County Housing Market Area.
These areas were identified as housing submarket and market areas because of
the available transportation facilities that link Santa Ana with the entire
C~unty, principal locations of nonagricultural ~ployment, local con~nuting
habits and preferences of the citizens of Santa Aha as reflected by the 1970
Federal Census of Population, trends in residential developments, topography
and the limitations of statistical information relative to subgeographical
areas within Orange County.
Observations made in the course of field work for
the Santa Ana Housing Element, together with the study of
various maps and data available locally, provided the re-
quired perspective on the extent and structure or urban de-
velopment, its direction of growth and the pattern of its major
00003
residential sectors to aid in the delineation of the overall housing market
area and, as necessary, the Santa Ana Submarket Area.
This approach is consistent with FHA techniques of housing market
analysis which advocates that the actual delineation of a housing market area
and submarket areas be determined primarily by census area definitions.
For practical purposes, the FHA guidelines recommend that Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas be delineated as the housing market area in those
cases where a SMSA has been established. In the case of Orange County, a
SMSA has been established and the County is known as the Anaheim-Santa Arm-
(]arden Grove SMSA.
THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING MARKET AREA: The County lies along 40
miles of Southern California coast between Los Angeles and San Diego counties
and extends some 25 miles inland. The market area covers nearly 800 square
miles, three-fourths of which is privately owned. The eastern mountain range
is largely uninhabited, and the population is mostly contained within the 342
square miles of incorporated cities in the northeast corner of the County,
stretching south along the coast. Most of this urbanization has occurred on the
relatively smooth lowland plain stretching northwesterly from the vicinity of
Irvine, past Santa Aha, Garden Grove, and Buena Park into neighboring Los
Angeles County. Hills and mountains bound this central lowland on the north,
east, and south, while the Pacific Ocean limits the land to the south and
southwest.
Development in Orange County has followed a pattern uniform with the
Southern California region. The 'rapidity with which it has occurred is the
only variation. This pattern, established in Orange County during the major
period of growth, 1950, 1970, ha~ been one of the development along major
transportation networks. As minor networks are constructed, this develop-
ment expands to the land between the highways. This pattern of d~velopment
began in the early 1950s as a result of people seeking residence in Orange
County while maintaining their place of work in Los Angeles County.
'&naheiu~, (~'ran~Ke and Santa Ana incorporated between x'Bb~:ah~ 19~(~
As the first cities, they set a ti:eSa'£or c~.~t~ size Which was-bro'~em.~.~e
before 1950. Statistics on city size reveal that rather than expand city
boundaries by annexation, people immigrating into Orange County formed
their own cities. This is shown by the fact that between 1900 and 1950 Orange
County experienced 10 in'corporations, and that by 1950 only one city of the
total 13 existing jurisdictions had appreciably expanded its boundaries. This
was Santa Ana, which increased from 1.9 square miles to 10. 8. In fact, in
1950 only three of the County's cities were over five square miles in size
and of these, Santa Aha was the only one that had expanded its boundaries
since i~xcorporation.
The next ten years from 1950 to 1960 brought about
major changes in the land patterns of the County cities. The
tremendous immigration into the County brought about nine
00008 .
E[[R J] DVl:IVH D' DI]A[OINIO D~
· polaad arI1 ~u!.anp sai!ua aaenbs a '6I paxauu~
· az!s uI polqnop errV ~lueSpue o~uea0 oi!qa~ %uav.lod OOg
· s~oa~ puli o*!ss~tu paxauue ~u¥ elu~S pu~ ,aau~.~0
.zaPlo aq.l. 'po!aad aql ~u!..~np paleaodaovu!, peq qo!q~
l~u!pnlou!. 'uoD~xauu~ ao.~euz e a~tmu o% pail~~ pzq
pus aql ,iq '~ uI 'suo!lo$psl.~n.t l~u!.lslxa ~o uolsu~dxa
tll~oal~ pld~-' aq% 'saaa£ sno!,:oad a~!Iun lnq 'euo~.Iz.~odao~u!.
and retail trade have all experienced high rates of growth. This growth is
illustrated by the expansion of dwelling units and taxable sales during the
period. Dwelling units expanded from 79, 158 units in 1950 to 550, 576 units
in 1973, while taxable sales increased more than 2 1/2 times between 1960 and
1973. These indicators are conducive of the rapid ascent of the County from
a rural environment to one of increasing urbanization.
The change in the County's job composition over the past 20 years pro-
vides an immediate example of the massive movement toward urbanization.
.Between 1950 and 1970, manufacturing employment increased from 11.7 per-
cent to 28.0 percent of the labor force. Although substantial growth occurred
in ~.oth the services and construction industries, the trade sector reflected the
greatest expansion, moving from 13,800 to 101, 300 employees. This increase
contributed greatly to the overall expansion of the total labor force; it jumped
from 66, 600 workers in 1950 to 482,000 in 1970.
A further demonstration of the County's massive industrial and
commercial growth since 1950 is illustrated by the relative decline of
agriculture as a viable factor in the local economy. In 1950 agriculture
accounted for 9.2 percent of the County's jobs; by 1970 this percentage has
dropped to 1.3 percent, In addition to losing importance as a major employer,
agriculture also lost status in terms of the land area devoted to production.
Whereas in 1950 agriculture accounted for 150, 523 acres, by 1972 this dropped
to 49, 712 acres, but increased to 51,386 acres in 1973. However, this loss
of acreage and relative importance as an employer was not followed by a loss
in financial importance, ss crop values rose from $79, 233, 550 in 1950 to
to $85,323, 600 in 1970 and $131,104,900 in 1973. Employment on farms
· in Orange County reached an annual peak of 11,100 in June 1974o up 900 or
8.8 percent from the year before.
The recreation and tourism industry is basic to the economy of Orange
County. Millions of dollars flow into the area annually as Californians,
residents of other states, and foreigners enjoy the County's leisure-time
activities. Two of the nation's most well-known amusement parks, Disneyland
and Knott*s Berry Farm, provide family entertainment. Hiking, camping and
riding are available in the local mountains, while miles of beaches are
available for swimmers, sunbathers, and surfers.
Orange County ranks as one of the top consumer markets in the United
States. Retailers in the County recorded total retail sales of $3.9 billion in
1972, an increase of 20 percent from 1971. ]Per capita taxable sales reached
$2, 197, advancing almost 13 percent over 1971.
With population and employment registering substantial
increases and inflation running at high levels, it should not
be surprising that total personal income in Orange County has
also been advancing sharply during each of the past two years
of economic expansion. Retail trade, as measured by total
00003[
taxable retail sales, rose to historically high levels in 1972 and 1973. The
increase in sales exceeded the risc in personal income, as people paid for
many expenditures by drawing down personal savings and increasing their
consumer debt. The present, economic sluggishness, however, which became
evident in the third and fourth quarters of last year, will }lave a dampening
effect on virtually all areas of the County's economy. Thus, while total income
and retail sales in the County will be greater this year than in 1973, the rates
of increase will be somewhat leSs than in the two previous years, and a large
part of the gains sill be accounted fei- by inflation.
Total building in Orange County has recently been registering trends
very similar to those of the Southland aa a whole-buoyant activity during 1971
and 1972, followed by a major slowdown in 1973 and into 1974. The key factor
in the sharp rise and decline has been housing. Housing shortages in 1971 and
1972 (vis-a-vis demand) were met by high levels of building, and in mid-1973
a somewhat overbuilt situation and historically high mortgage interest rates
caused housing construction to slow dramatically. An underlying trend has
been that, while the cycle in fluctuating rates of building activity in the County
paralleled to a certain extent those of the entire region, rapid population
inflows into Orange County have necessitated a generally higher level of
growth.
The outlook for the future (after 1975) is bright, barring another major
U.S. economic recession or ~epression. Continuing urbanization will domi-
nate the growth pattern of Orange County during the next thirty years; the
southern portion of the County will absorb the major share of the population
growth of the next three decades. Orange County will continue to be a
recipient of the urban-economic dispersion pressures in Southern California
since it will maintain a comparative advantage in environmental conditions
vis-a-vis Los Angeles County. Orange County residents will subscribe in
the main to a single family dwelling mode of residence.
The 1983 Land Use Element of the Unincorporated area, one of the
major residential growth areas of the County, will provide a positive and
controlling influence in creating a less fragmented pattern of development
(the total community development concept). However, while the general
plan and the County's growth policy and development strategy will be
moderately successful in managing the configuration of growth, it is likely
to fail as a controller of the rate timing and ultimate magnitude of growth.
The growth rate of the southern portion of the County will be influenced more
by the actions of the City of Irvine in its attempt to control growth and
decisions to lo~ate a major manufacturing or governmental employment
complex in the south than by the general plan.
Santa Ana will continue to grow as the County's
governmental, financial, and professional office center.
Retail outlets supportive of the office center will prosper,
but the City's downtown area is not likely to become a
000031.
major retail shopping complex. Retail stores on the outskirts of the City will
be more likely to prosper as retail outlets and continue to attract residtuts
from adjacent cities.
Unquestionably, the subregion projected to have the greatest economic
Rrowth in Orange County and the greatest indirect impact on Santa Ann is
western Irvine, which represents that part of the Irvine Ranch Planned
Development between the Santa Aha and San Diego Freeways. The western
Irvine area is projected to contain 7% of the single-family acreage, 18% of
the multiple-family acreage° 11% of the commercial acreage and 18% of the
industrial acreage to be developed in Orange County between 1974 and 1990.
This projected development for western Irvine0 of course, implies that it will
lead in population and employment growth as well, with 14% of Orange County's
population growth, and 9% of its growth in employment over the period from
1974 to 1990.
Approximately 66% of the popula..tion ~rowth is projected to take place
in Yorba Linda and Huntington Beach and the south portion of the County
including the subregions of Tustin.east, Irvine, E1 Toro, Mission Viejo,
Dana Point, and Newport Beach east.
The projected growth in employment is much less concentrated than
population growth. The high-growth population areas account for only 31%
of the total projected increase.in employment for the County (as compared
to 66% for population). While'the large planned developments will dominate
the employment grm~-th picture, some subregions in the urbanized areas of
the County are projected to experience substantial employment growth.
These are principally Costa Mesa, Plaeentia, west Orange, east Huntington
Beach, Anaheim, west Westminster. west Huntington Beach, north and south
Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley. The planned developments are not projected
to dominate the total employment picture, however. Employment will remain
concentrated in the presently urbanized areas of the County, where it is
estimated that about 65% of Orange County employment will be located in
approximately 15 to 20 years.
Table IV-1 presents projected number of employees at place of
employment for Orange County and Santa Ann. It is expected that Orange
County will continue to interact with Los Angeles County, and many Orange
County residents will be employed in Los Angeles. But, the Orange County
economy is expected to continue to mature, becoming increasingly indepen-
dent of Los Angeles County. This fact, together with the common national
trends discussed above, will increase the Orange County employment
participation rate to levels more comparable with the
national levels of the 1970's. This means that more resi-
dents of Orange County will be employed in the County.
The past and projected future employment participation
rates and resultant employment projections are also
presented in Table IV-1.
00004...:
000041
The orange County participation rate increases are expected to slow
between 1980 and 1990 as net in-migration starts to diminish and the economy
matures. By 2000, thc participation rate should be stabilized, Corre-
spondingly, the growth in total employment w/Il begin to diminish by 1980.
However, by thc 2000, total employment will more than double, but,
population will expand by only /~1°/o. Much of this differential growth ia due
to the increased participation rate of women in the labor force.
The Orange County participation rate has been below that of Los Angeles
County because of its historical position as a bedroom contmunity dependent
upon Los Angeles County for many of its goods, scrviccs and employment.
The increase in Orange County's participation rate is due to the County's
transition from a relatively independent agricultural economy in 1950 to a
bedroom community with strong links to Los Angeles County in 1960 and its
subsequent growing independence from Los Angeles County by 1970.
As previously explained, total County employment is expected to
expand continuously through 1990. However, toward the end of the projected
period, theCounty growth rate will diminish significantly. All industries,
except extractive, are expected to expand. Of the major individual land use
categories, the most rapid growth sectors are Commercial and Public
employment, the slowest is Industrial. This behavior pattern follows the
national trend of an increasing proportion of the labor force in the services-
related industries, with a corresponding decreasing proportion in the goods
producing industries.
SANTA ANA ,HOU,SING AREA: The economy of Santa Aha will continue to
grow in terms of employment, and commercial and industrial development.
However, the City's growth in these areas will not keep pace with the County.
The industrial land uses in Santa Ana totaled approximately 1,735 acres
in 1973 and are expected to increase to 2,180 acres in 1990. Commercial
land uses approached 1,670 acres and are expected to rise to 1,930 acres in
1990. Table IV-2 presents the acreage estimates and projection for both
Santa Aha and Orange County.
Comparing Tables IV-l, 2 and 4 it is clear that Santa Ana~s employment,
industrial and commercial Land use base will be expanding faster than the
City's population. For example, while employment is forecast to grow
from 68,050 to 94, 100 from 1970 to 1990 (an increase of 38%), population
is projected to grow from 156, 601 to 206, 800 persons (an increase of only
32%). In 1990, employment in Santa Ana is expected to
represent 10~0 of the total employees at place of employment
in Orange County, and population in the City is expected
to represent 8% of the total population of Orange County.
Thus, Santa Aha will be in a favorable situation in terms
of the ratio of persons per number of jobs available within
0000
00004,:"
the City. The major problem for thc present and likely future residents
of Santa Aha is that a disproportionate percentage of the population will not
be qualified for the jobs that are likely to be available. This means a
continuation of the existing situation; the more skilled and better paid
workers coming into Santa Aha from more desirable adjacent residential
areas.
DEMAND FACTORS
POPULATION: There are two components of population growth: natural
increase and migration. Natural increase is the net added population result-
ing from the number of births minus the number of deaths.
As illustrated in Table IV-3 the County's rate of natural increase in
1960 was 20 per 1,000 persons. In the last few years, the rate has droppedto
9 per 1,000 persons, resulting in an average annual increase of 14, 535
persons. Variation in the birth rate is the critical component of natural
increase. The national birth rate has dropped from 2.4 in 1960, to 1.8 in
1973. The trend toward a lower birth rate can be expected to continue for
the near future. The probable range of the natural increase for Orange
County in the next five years is between 14, 000 and 15,000 per year.
The City of Santa Ana's rate of natural increase in 1960 was 22 per
1,000 persons. As in the case of the County, Santa Ana's rate has dropped,
but not nearly as much. The trend toward a lower birth rate has reduced the
City's birth rate to 23 per 1,000 persons in 1973, as compared to 31 per 1,000
persons in 1960. The reduction in birth rates have resulted in an overall
reduction in the number of persons per household in Santa Aha as well as
the County.
Will this trend toward lower birth rates persist ? Some believe that this
is a temporary dip caused by the sudden impact of new birth control techniques.
They hypothesize that marriage and child rearing are only being postponed to
later ages, and that in a few years the dip will be over and a new cycle of
later child bearing will continue with a moderate birth rate of around 2.6.
Others contend that the low birth rate will persist and that it is a very
significant indicator of a rapidly changing life style. This new life style is
often referred to as the "new urban life style." The new urban life style is
characterized by small family size, single adults, childless couples, and
one-parent-one child families. It is also highly mobile
and fluid, living and working around the clock.
Migration is the major component of the County's
net increase.
0000
SANTA ANA
1960
1970
1973
.TABLE IV-3
VITAL STATISTICS
Natural
Birth Death Natural Increase
Population Births Rate Deaths Rate Increase Rate
100,350 3, 072 (30.61) 888 (8. 85) 2, 184 (21.78)
156, 601 3, 892 (24.85) 1,098 (7.01) 2, 794 (17.84)
168,205 3,"/99 (22.59) 1,191 (7.08) 2,608 (15.50)
ORANGE COUNTY
1960 703, 925 18, 604 (26.43) 4, 413 (6. 27) 14. 190 (20.16)
1970 1,420, 386 25, 506 ' (1% 96) 7, 949 (5.60) 17, 557 (12.36)
1973 1,605, 700 23, 285 (14.50) 9, 544 (5.94) 13, 741 (8.56)
00004b
For every four persons moving into the County. approximately three
move out. The net migration flow from Los Angeles County is the only
significantly positive migration into Orange County. For every five 'persons
moving here from Los Angeles, only two persons move to Los Angeles.
All of the counties in the State and the total of all other states have close '
to zero or a negative migration into the County. The three major points of
origin of people moving into the County are: Los Angeles, 56. 3 percent;
out-of-state, 23.1 percent; and San Diego, 3.9 percent. Thc five major
destinations.of persons moving out of the County are: out-of-state, 31.2
percent; Los Angeles, 30. 8 percent; San Diego, 7.5 percent; Riverside,
6.5 percent; and San Bernardino, 3.9 percent.
The County's migration flow is dependent on the state and national
natural net increases and on interstate migration flows. There has been a
downward trend in both natural increase and migration into California. This
produces a smaller reservoir of new population available for migration into
new areas. Assuming that massive areas of the already urbanized regions
of the state do not become deserted, there will be between 300, 000 and
350, 000 potential migrants per year in the state during the next five years.
If the past migration trends remain the same for the next five years, this
would create between 25, 000 and 35,000 net annual average in-migrants int°
Orange County.
There are, however, several major trends which could alter this trend.
One major factor is the relative attractiveness of Orange County, It is
conceivable that as the problems of other urban concentrations increase,
Orange County and other new areas will become even more desirable, and
thus cause many urban areas to lose population. In small amounts, this loss
could be balanced by a reduction in the fam'~ly size and fewer persons per
dwelling unit in this areas; in large amounts, the loss would result in
abandoment of sections of the older cities.
Both of these results can already be seen in many cities. On the other
hand, Orange County's image of newness could be tarnished by the occurence
of many of the problems of fast growth and a denser urban environment. In
this case, migration into the County would level off. If Orange County begins
to develop the problems associated with older urban areas, it could conceiva-
bly lose population at some time in the future.
Another limiting factor of migration is housing avail-
ability. Orange County could remain highly attractive, but
become economically unavailable to most people so that the
potentially-.available migrants cannot relocate here.
000046
A lack of jobs can slow in-migration into an area drastically. Orange
County has an increasing employment base which is continually decreasing its
reliance on Los Angeles County employment. Currently, the type of employ-
ment is largely professional or upper "white collar." The impact of this
skewed employment distribution on job availability for thc potential migrant
is open to question.
PROJECTIONS: Recently, Urban Futures, prepared a report for the Orange
County Administrative Office projecting aha allocating population to small
geographic units in Orange County for the years 1975, 1980~ 1985 and 1990.
The r~port determined the probable timing, location, and relative amounts of
future population growth in Orange County, based on four alternative projected
populations developed by the Forecast and Analysis Center of the County
Administrative Office, the Southern California Association of Government
(SCAG), the Orange County Planning Department, the California State Depart-
ment of Finance, the Southern California Edison Company and the planning
consulting firm of Urban Futuves, Inc. The County Administrative Office
recommends that the population allocations prepared by Urban Futures, based
on Southern California Edison Company projections, be used as a basis for
policy decisions and budgeting regarding future growth and services.
To carry out the project, a variety of primary data were generated and
many advanced techniques were employed, including the development of a
computer model The Urban Futures Population Allocation Model was
prepared and was used to sirn-ulate the future population distribution and timing
of devel0pment which are likely to result from the interplay of different key
growth-variables. Five key growth attraction variables and three growth
constraint factors were identified from work previously completed by the
County's Growth Policy and Development Strategy Team. The key growth
attraction variables are: (1) distance to employment centers and size of
employment at destination points, (2) quality of physical environment,
(3) socio-economic status, (4) abundance of local recreation land, and
adequacy of transportation facilities. These variables were forecast in the
future for the years 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990, based on general plans
and other relevant information. Operational definitions were developed for
each growth attraction variable. Each census tract or split tract in Orange
County was measured and scored according to the operational definitions
for each variable. A weighting of the importance of each variable in relation
to housing and population trends was determined from regression constants
between the variable and population trends in the census tract or split tract.
The regression constants for each key growth attraction variable were used
as a~ "attraction multiplier". The attraction multiplier was .independently
applied to each of the variable scores for each of the five
variables. These scores were aggregated for each census
tract or split tract. The aggregate score for each census
tract represented the relative portion of the population the
000047
geographic area should receive in relation to the projected population for
entire county for a given year. The population for each small geographic area
was aggregated to larger geographic areas such as Regional Statistical
Areas and Community Analysis Areas.
Three items were considered as population constraint factors: (1) the
Residential Saturation Point of each census tract--the amount of undeveloped
land available for residential development in each census tract, (2) the
availability of public utilities, and (3) where the information could be obtained
the intent of major landowners and developers to make housing available
at different points in time.
The Urban Futures Population Allocation Model also incorporated such
data as present and forecasted persons per household, composition of the
housing stock (multiple and single family dwelling units), vacancies, popula-
tion in group quarters, etc. Manipulation of the data in the Urban Futures
Population Allocation Model was based on the following assumptions:
1. Practically all potentially developable land will be urbanized.
Local government will accommodate as rapid a rate of populatio~
growth as migration, natural increase and economic conditions
produce.
3. No major socio-economic events will disrupt the growth of the
Southern California region over the forecast period.
Transportation and electrical energy supply problems will
retard economic growth.
0
As Orange County continues to grow in population, the urbanized
portion will experience greater congestion, degration of air
quality, increased housing deterioration, etc,, similar to that
experienced in Log Angeles.
Growth in the southern portion of the County will not be con-
strained by water and sewer restrictions.
The automobile fuel energy shortage will tend to concentrate
population increases closer to employment centers than would
have ordinarily occurred. However, the opportunity for long
home-work trips will not be drastically limited.
The employment base of the County will increase
and diversify, thus reducing the need for longer
inter-county home-work trips.
00004.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The current growth areas will remain the growth areas for the
nex~ few years with no new isolated growth centers developing.
Changes in major accessibility patterns will occur to the
extent that they will substantially alter location decisions
for development from those that would be made in the presence
of the existing system of freeways and major arterials.
The lines of any rapid transit system in the County will either
be along existing transportation corridors or located to serve
presently identified planned communities and centers of economic
and social activity.
Multiple family rental housing will continue to be in strong
demand in the presently urbanized areas of the County. It
will begin to appear in presently unurbanized areas only
after new employment centers are established.
Single family residence life styles will continue to be the
preferred life style in Orange County during this time period.
There will be an increase preference for clustered housing
as opposed to tract subdivision as land prices and construction
costs rise.
Residential recycling of older residential areas to new residential
uses or other uses will not be significant.
All major utility services will be available to support the
projected growth for Orange County.
There will be continued reduction of the County's role as a
"bedroom community". This will result from the interaction
of two forces~ increasing economic independence and maturity
and the development of the South County below the Newport
Freeway.
As the South County population grows there will be proportionately
fewer Orange County residents employed outside the County, as
the South County represents a major time and distance barrier
for the commuter to Los Angeles County. Orange County will
continue to interact with Los Angeles County, and many Orange
County residents will be employed in Los Angeles County and
other adjacent counties. It is assumed that residents of Orange
County employed outside of the County will drop
from 23.6 percent in 1975, 17 percent in 1980,
16 percent in1985, and 15 percent in 1990.
00004.9
TABLE IV - 4
POPULATION
Orange C ount.y
.Population
Percent
Increase
Santa Ana
Population
1950 216, 220 NA 44, 280
1960 703, 925 226% 100, 350
1970 1,420, 386 10270 156, 601
1974~ 1, 655, 076 1770 183, 768
1980 2,101,500 27% 193, 500
1990 2,516, 000 2070 206, 800
Percent
Increase
NA
58%
17%
7%
* Population as of July 1, 1974
Source: Urban Futures Population Allocation Model
Table. IV - 4 presents estimates and projections for Orange County
and Santa Aha. Orange County is forecast to reach a population of
2,516, 000 persons in 1990. Santa Aha is forecast to reach 206, 800 persons
in 1990, well below the city's recently adopted growth limit of 235, 000
persons. Figures IV -1 and IV -2 illustrate the 1975 and 1990 population
densities for Community Analysis Areas. Community Analysis Areas
35, 36, 37 and 38 correspond basically to the City of Santa Ans.
Comparing Santa Ana with the other areas in the County, population
in the presently unurbanized area will expand rapidly throughout the
projected period. These growth areas are expected to attract higher income
families. The persons per total acre in Santa Aha is expected to stay within
the range of 9 to 12 persons. Community Analysis Areas 39, 40, 42, 43 and
45 (Tustin~Irvine areas) are forecast to expand rapidly, attracting a greater
portion of the county's higher income families than Santa Ans.
EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT: The total civilian labor force
residing in Orange County expanded to a record level of 728, 900 in December
1974, for a twelve-month growth rate of 7.4 percent. The labor force was
comprised of 676, 300 employed workers and 52, 600
unemployed. (All labor force figures in this report are
computed using the new methodology instituded January 1,
1974, and are based on place of residence rather than
place of work. )
00005O
00003.!
Orange County has been classified by the U.S. Department of Labor as
an area of substantial unemployment. The unemployed total rose sharply
over the year from 37, 200 in June 1973 to 45, 000 in June 1974 to 52, 600 in
December 1974, and was just belbwthe peak of 52,800 recorded in 1971 at
the height of the aerospace layoffs. The seasonally adjusted unemployment
rate reached a three-year low of 5.1 percent in June 1973, and then rose
almost without interruption to 6. 1 percent in May 1974 and 7.4 percent in
December 1974. The fiscal year closed with a temporary drop to 5.8 percent
in the adjusted rate, but in July 1974, the rate was again at 6.1 percent. The
high unemployment rate was caused by the following factors:
1. A construction industry strike which caused secondary
layoffs in related industries;
2. A slow down in the rate of residential construction;
3. The resident labor force is growing at a faster rate than the
number of people being employed.
The number of Orange County residents with jobs also increased in
December primarily because of thc availability of part-time and temporary
Christmas jobs.
The resident labor force in Orange County shrank by 2, 000 in September
as full-time students returned to school and agricultural activities declined
seasonally. Total employment dropped 1,100 over August to 675, 800 and
unemployment fell from 44,700 to 43, 800. Thc decrease in unemployment
was considerably less than usual for a September, however, and the
seasonally adjusted rate jumped from 6.0 percent in August to a thirty-month
high of 6.5 percent. The volume of long-term unemployed who exhausted
their claims for unemployment insurance rose rapidly since the first of
the year.
The annual average unemployment rate for women in 1973 was estimated
to be 6.9 percent (16, 650 women) of the female labor force, while their male
counterparts showed a rate of 5.4 percent (19, 350 men) of the male labor
force. *
The desire to buy a house and/or the inflationary trends has caused many
married women to continue their premarital jobs or has caused them to enter
the job market.. These increasing trends have resulted in fewer job openings
for new job seekers in the former case or more
competition for job openings in thc latter case.
State of California, Employment Development
Department
00008
In 1970, thirty percent of the employed population commuted to work
outside Orange County. Although many large firms have opened new plants
or relocated to Orange County, the number of outward commuters still
remains high, especially from the cities closest to Los Angeles County.
The unemployment rate is expected to hold close to the 7.0 percent
level for the remainder of 1975. The actual jobless total will generally be
below the June count which was inflated with new graduates and summer job
seekers. Resident employment is expected to expand by 17, 100 workers or
2.5 percent over the six-month forecast period, bringing the total civilian
labor force to a new high of 735. 600.
Job opportunities in Orange County are expected to continue to rise at
an annual rate in excess of 6.0 percent through the end of 1974. l~actory
payrolls will increase by several thousand by the end of 1975, with the largest
number of accessions expected in the machinery and electronics industries.
Layoffs are anticipated, however, in ordnance and in boat and trailer building.
Many firms forecast continuing layoffs until orders pick up. The first quarter
is generally the weakest time of the year in the job market, as post-holiday
layoffs in retail trade and the winter slowdown in construction inflate the
jobless rolls. These factors coupled with a continuing loss of factory jobs
will boost unemployment to even higher levels during the first half of 1975,
but the Orange County unemployment rate is expected to remain v~ll below the
rate for California.
Recent changes in employment estin~ating procedures shed some light
on the magnitude of the number of workers living in Orange County and com-
muting to Los Angeles County for employment. Under the old methodology,
it was reported that there were 574,000 workers in Orange County, by
estimating the number of jobs. However, revised estimates reported a
figure of 646, 800 by a count of the number of workers by place of residence.
This comparison indicates that Orange County has considerably more workers
than it has jobs and that the major portion of the difference in the two esti-
mates is accounted for by workers who live in Orange, hut are actually
employed in neighboring Los Angeles County.
Some of the major firms which are relocating from Los Angeles County
to Orange County are expressing concern over the lack of lower-priced
(U. nder $33,,,000.) housing in Orange County, especially near the location of
the ir new sites.
Employment, by phce of residence, increased from 591, 000 in 1972 to
627,000 in 1973. On July 31, 1974, the number of residents employed was
estimated to be 650, 300.
O000,%v;
Manufacturing employment was up 21,600 workers from 127, 600 in
1972 to 149, 200 in July 1974. The aerospace industry and related firms
account for 42 percent (62,500) of the workers employed in the manufacturing
sector. Declines in aerospace employment, like in 1970 and part of 1971,
can have a major impact on the demand for housing.
Retail trade, wholesale trade, finance, insurance, real estate, services,
and government employment have all been increasing because of the supportive
roles they play to the employment in thc manufacturing sector. Retail employ-
ment has increased 8.2 percent, from 98, 200 in July 1973 to 106, 300 in July
1974, because of the opening of regional size shopping centers and large
convenience centers.
As illustrated in Table IV - 1, employment opportunities in Orange
County are expected to increase to 958, 600 in 1990, an increase of more than
double over 1970. This employment growth will stimulate considerable
demand for housing in Santa Aha as well as the entire county.
SANTA ANA: As of June 1974, Santa Ana's unemployment rate was estimated
at 7.1 percent. The 1970 Census estimated the City's unemployment rate at
6. 2 percent as of April 1, 1970.
The most recent detailed information for Santa Ana from the State of
California Employment Development Department is for the year ending July
1972. As of that dar e, total employment in Santa Ana advanced by 6. 3 percent
during the year to 87,800. The 5, 200 increase in jobs was the largest for
any city in Orange County.
Manufacturin~ ~ayrolls moved ahead in Santa Ana by 1, 100 to a total of
23, 500. Ail categories in the aerospace group posted increases; the mid-1972
aerospace total of 7,400 was up 700 from the year before, but was still 300
shy of the mid-1969 peak. Mixed changes occurred in non-defense durable
goods manufacturing during 1972. A firm in the machinery group closed down
for a net loss of 200 jobs, and layoffs also took place in lumber and sporting
goods firms. Metals and transportation equipment, however, increased by
300 and 200, respectively. Of the 1, 200 employees in the miscellaneous
transportation group approximately 200 produced motor vehicles, 400 made
boats, and 600 built campers and mobile homes. In the soft goods division,
food processing, publishing, and textile-apparel firms all registered gains.
Nonmanufacturing gro:vth was centered itt trade, services, and govern-
ment--each of these divisions added 900 workers over the year. Over one-
fourth of the 16,000 workers in trade worked in the wholesale sector.
The ,whole,sale jobs w(~e concentrated in distribution
of machinery and grocery products, while restaurants and
autodealers-service stations were the leading sources of
jobs in the retail division.
0000§5
B~usiness service firms and hospitals accounted for nearly half of tile
service jobs in Santa Aha. Gains in government employment in 1972 were
confined to the local level--City, County, and public schools. Construction
activity proceeded at a brisk pace in 1972 requiring 400 more workers thsn
the total for 1971.
The insurance industry comprised well over half of thc 7,000 jobs in
the finance-insurance-real estate complex in July 1072, but all three
components experienced substantial gains from 1971.
.INCOME: The median family income in the Orange County Housing Market
Areawas estimated to be $15, 061 on August 1, 1974, a twenty-three percent
increase over the 1969 median family income of $12,244. This median
income will probably increase at a faster rate than in the previous few years
because over 50 percent of the new housing units are in the $50, 000 plus
range. This means that a selection process is occurring--only families with
high incomes will be able to buy homes and reside in Orange County.
The income of renter hOUseholds in Orange County was estimated to
be $9, ?38 on August 1, 1974, approximately $5, 323 less than the 1974
income for all families (owner and renter families). The median income
of households (families and unrelated individuals) was estimated to be
$12,981.
The median family income in the Santa Ana Housing Submarket Area
was estimated to be $12,037, a nineteen percent increase over the 1969
median family income of $10, 115. The median family income of Santa Aha
residents appears to be lagging behind Orange County for a number of
reasons. First, there is a higher ratio of low cost housing in Santa Aha.
This housing tends to attract low income people. Second, approximately
four times as many apartment units than single family homes have been
constructed in Santa Aha since 1970. These units have attracted more renters
than owners. Renter units tend to be occupied more by lower income people
as compared with owner or single family units. Third, there has been an
increase in minority groups in the southwestern portion of the city. These
groups, Black and Chicano, are usually members of the working class and
earn lower incomes. Finally, the current high unemployment throughout the
County has struck Santa Ana's families harder than other County residents.
There is a higher ratio of families with presently unemployed wage earners
in Santa Ana than in the County as a whole.
The lower income group in Santa Ana is being hit hardest by unemploy-
ment. As reflected in Table IV- 6, the percentage dis-
tribution'of family income before taxes reflects a higher
percentage of unemployed families making under $4, 000
than in 1969. The table also reflects a movement of
higher income families, those making more than $15, 000,
000056
outside the city, These higher income people appear to have been drawn from
residential areas in Santa Ana and similar, cities by the attraction,of new
residential developments in other parts of the County.
000057
~o ~oo ~ooooo
O000,~X,,,
0000~9
CHAPTER V. HOUSING MARKET!,
CONDITION' AND DEMAND!
This chapter of the housing study discusses housing
supply factors, current market conditions, and need and demand
for housing.
A basic feature of any urban community is that of its
housing composition. This is so commonly understood that people
often make general inferences about the community and its
inhabitants by examining its stock of housing. .For example,
it is recognized that the homeowners and renters living in
diverse areas in the community lead considerably different
lives. The controlling factor in living arrangements is that
of family finance~, for the amount of shelter a household can
afford impacts the size, quality and location of the unit they
may seek to purchase or rent.
Santa'Ana's housing composition reflects the above-listed
housing factors. The City is increasingly experiencing a series
of housing problems which take their root in inadequate levels
of income to purchase the necessary shelter commodity. These
problems fall into several categories. The first is that of
a growing disparity in terms of the location of high- and low-
valued dwellings. It appears that Santa Aha, with a sizable
portion of its housing, is in fact increasing its percentage
share of the County's low-valued units. It is also not receiv-
ing counterbalancing increases in units to the higher side of
the price spectrum. There'is, thus, an increasing rift with
Santa Aha and other communities in Orange County in terms of
housing valuation.
The second problem being faced'here is that of an
increase in the number of overcrowded dwellings. Often families
with low shelter budgets cannot find adequately-sized units in
the£r price range. This situation results in many of them being
forced into cramped and overcrowded living conditions. In
Santa Ana,'it is interesting and important to note that the
City, with the largest percentage distribution of the County's
overcrowded units also holds one of the largest proportions of
low-valued units in the County. This situation has also tended
to intensify existing disparities between cities in more than
Just the field of housing.
Another important condition to consider, but
concerns new home construction, is that of a
rising gap between household income and the price
of new housing~ The median selling price of a
new single-family tract home rose nearly 90
one that
000060
percent from 1960 to 1970, while median household income rose by
only 48 percent in Orange County. Worse yet, the median selling
price of a new single-family tract home rose more than 64
percent from 1970 to 1974, while median household income rose
by only 21 percent from 1970 to 1974. This disproportionate
rise has served to price many families out of the market for
new housing. In response to this condition, some developers
have been constructing lower-cost condominiums. These are
constructed at lower prices by reducing lot sizes and interior
square footage, thus, achieving considerable savings. However,
due to a variety of overall building~cost increases, many fami-
lies still cannot afford these units and must seek other avenues
for housing.
SUPPLY F~CTORS AND MARKET cONDITIONS
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING MARKET AREA:
The housing inventory in the Orange County Housing
Market Area totaled approximately 589,307 units on July l, 1974,
a gain of about 29,760 units annually since April 1, 1970.
The net addition to the inventory (126,504 units) resulted from
the completion of about 118,004 new units, the addition of
12,100 mobile homes, and 3,400 demolitions and other causes.
The number of building permits issued in the housing market
area decreased 20.7 ~ercent from 35,664 in 1972 to 28,271 in
1973. The largest decline was 28.3 percent (from 17,779 in
1972 to 12,756 in 1973) in multiple dwelling unit permits.
The trend in 1974 permits indicates that the decline in total
residential building permits will continue into 1975.
However, comparative figures indicate that, despite the housing'
slow-down in recent months, the year 1974, with 202 tracts
comprising 8,687 lots, surpassed three other years in sub-
division development during the past 10 years~
The peak year was 1972, when 351 tracts containing
~8,305 lots were recorded in the County. Development reached
its lowest point in 1970, with 143 tracts having 7,805 lots.
Other low years were 1966, with 138 subdivisions containing
8,412 lots and 1967, when 147 tracts containing 8,045 lots
were recorded.
Because of the increasing concentration of condominium
and planned unit developments in the past five years, the num-
ber of such units must be considered in comparing Previous
years. Of the tracts recorded since October 1,1969, 224 have
been of the condominium variety. In these devel-
opments, 820 lots have been used for 21,890 dweI-
ling units.
000061
0
0
Table V-1 compares the growth of the housing stock in
relation to population. While the population of Santa Aha was
increasing by 56 percent from'1960 to 1970, the housing stock
increased by only 50 percent. This population growth created
considerable pressure for new housing. Between 1970 and 1974,
the population increased by 17 percent, and housing units
increased by 21 percent. However, to a large degree, this
fluctuation in the ratio of housing to population growth is
the effect of a decline in the City's birth rate. As reflected
in Table V-2, the birth rate of residents in Santa Ana dropped
from 30.61 births per 1,000 persons in 1960 to 21.42 births
i~ 1973. This had the effect of lowering the persons per house-
hold from 3.18 in 1960 to 3.06 in 1974.
;
Data from the 1960 Census referred to earlier, indicate
that five cities--Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove,
and Santa Ana--contain~d more than half of all owner-occupied
units in the County valued under $10,000, by 1960 standards.
By 1970, these same five cities increased their share of the
County's low-priced units to 60 percent. However, by 1970,
the standard for Iow-priced dwelling units had shifted from
$10,000 to $20,000; virtually no new dwelling units under
$10,000 were built between 1960 and 1970. The upward shift in
the s.tandards from 1960 to 1970 is due to two factors: an
overall, upward shift of the distribution and an increase in
the Home Ownership Component of the Consumer Price Index for
the Los Angeles-Orange County area.
While there has been a shift in the distribution Of the
lower-valued homes, there have also been changes in the
expensive and middle-valued units. These ranges were $20,000
and over and $10,000-$20,000, respectively, in 1960. Due to
the shift in the price distribution, the 1970 standards were
moved to $35,000 plus and $20,000-$35,000, respectively. As
of 174, the cities of Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Seal Beach,
Villa Park, Irvine and the unincorporated area of Tustin-
Foothills held a disproportionately large share of the most
e~pensive homes with regard to their percentage share of the
County's total housing stock. While this pattern was evident
in 1960 and 1970, the 1974 data show that there was a strong
shift to these areas from 1960-1974 with regard to the construc-
tion of expensive units.
While this.moVement was under way, the five cities of
Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton, Garden Grove and Santa Aha
underwent a considerable downward shift from 1960 to 1974 in
their proportion of the. County's highest-valued units. This
decline from 37 percent to approximately 17 percent had the '
effect of widening the gap between their housing
composition and that of neighboring cities and
areas with high proportions of expensive dwellings.
000065
There also was a change in the~distribution of the
middle-valued units from 1960 to 1970. The communities of
Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Cypress gained greatly
in terms of their proportion of these units Countywide from
1960-1970. This is related to the fact they were the three
most explosive cities in the County in terms of numeric and!
or percentage growth. In contrast to their~percentage loss
of high-valued units, the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park,
Fullerton, Garden Grove and Santa Aha retained their percent-
age share of these middle-valued units. This may be due to:
(1) what new home construction that took place was probably
on the lower end of the price spectrum, and (2) the average
value of dwellings in these cities did not increase quite as
quickly as that of other neighboring areas undergoing more
'rapid growth.
Available data from the 1960 and 1970 Census and current
market data appear to show a strong price and.qualitY disparity
in the County's housing distribution. This discrepancy inten-
sified by 1970, suggesting that where a great amount of low-
income housing is found, there will not be counterbalancing
amounts of high-valued unite.
While this has been discussed above, the following
Housing Valuation Tables clarify this shift in the housing dis-
tribution. It can be seen, for example, that Newport Beach
and Laguna Beach typify cities with a high proportion of the
County's high-valued homes and a small proportion of low-
valued units, while Santa Ana and Garden Grove are diametrically
opposite examples; i.e., small percent of high-valued and
high percent of low-valued.
The five cities previously mentioned as owning the
largest proportion of low-valued owner-occupied units by
both 1960 and 1970 standards also showed a great number of
dwellings termed as overcrowded by the Census Bureau. However,
due to a lack of cross tabulations'between low-valued units
.and overcrowding, it is presently not possible to test for
any relationship between these two housing variables. Nearly
19,000 dwelling units were termed as overcrowded in 1960 due
to having more than one person per room, as per census clas-
sification. This was about 10 percent of the County's
entire housing supply. Over half of these dwellings were
located in the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton,
Garden Grove and Santa Aha. TwO other cities, Huntington
Beach and Westminster, held relatively minor numbers of these
units in 1960. However, by 1970, they increased their hold-
ings substantially, due possibly to the rapid aging' of much
of their housing stocks in parts of their older
neighborhoods.
000065
Table V-4. Orange County Single Family .D. welling UnitsI
· - Completed or Under C°nsiructlon
~ during Second Quarter-1974 f
'PRICE RANGE
$25,000 - $29,999 1
$30,000 - $34,999 63
$35,000 - $39,999 225
$40,000 - $44,999 601
$45,000 - $49,999 985
$50,000 - $59,999 1,284
$60,000 1,523
4,682
PERCENT OF CUMULATIVE
NUMBER .TOTAL PERCENT
· O2% . O2%
1.3 % 1.3 %
4.8 % 6.1% ,
12.8 % 18.9 %
21.0 % 39.9 %
27.4 % 67.3 %
~ 32.5 % .99.8 %
Average Price = $55.,500
Table V-5. Orange County Planned Unit Developments':
Completed or Under Construction ~
during Second Quarter 1974 ~
P~ICE,,RANGE
< $25,000
$25,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $39,999
$40,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $59,999
> $60,000
NUMBER
644
1,605
2,359
1,132
931
579
1,259
843
9,~52
Average Price =$39,300
'PERCENT oF,
TOTAL
6.9%
17.2%
25.2%
12.1%
lO.0%
6.2%
13.55
" ,9.o%
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT
6.95
24.1%
49.3%
61.4%
71.4%
77.6%
91.1%
lOO.1~
NNNNR7
During the decade, there was an increase in the number
of overcrowded units in the County reaching almost 27,000 by
April 1970. Applying an average Countywide single-family size
of about S.81 persons times this figure of 27,000, it can be
seen that theoretically iOS,O00 people Were living in crowded
quarters in 1970. Since virtually no new units were being
offered for sale under $20,000 during the decade, it is prob-
able that the numeric growth from 1960 to 1970 created even
more pressure on other older and less expensive units in the
County, and especially in these cities. In 1970, Anaheim and
Santa Aha alone accounted for 32.3 percent of all overcrowded
units. The following illustrative table indicates that while
there has been numeric growth in the number of overcrowded
units, their percentage distribution within the County has
· shifted from 1960 to 1970.
~LES TRENDS:
Sales trends in Orange County indicate the average sel-
ling price of. a completed or under-construction single-family
detached home during the second quarter of 1974 was approxi-
mately $55,000. Nearly 94 percent of all single-family detached
homes completed or under construction during the second quarter
of 1974 had a selling price in excess of $40,000. Virtually
no single-family detached homes completed or under construction
had'a selling price less than'$30,O00.
Average selling ~rice of a completed or under-construc-
tion PUD residential unit during the second quarter of 19~4
was approximately $39,000. Only seven percent of all PUD
residential units had a selling price less than $25,000.
Only 89 out of 1,452 (i.e.', 6.1%) available new single-
family detached homes at the end of the second, quarter of 1974
had a selling price of at most $40,000. None was available
for less than $30,000. About 2,227 (53.2%) out of 4,189
available new single-family PUD/condOminium homes at the end
of the second quarter of 1974 had a selling price of at most
$40,000. Only 19.6 percent were available for less than
$30,000. As cited in the "Interim Progress Report of the
Orange County Cost of Housing Committee," demand is increasing
for detached homes at least 2,000 square feet in size and hav-
ing at least four bedrooms. De,and is increasing for~attached
homes at most.l,200 square feet in Size and having at most
three bedrooms. ''.
CPST OF HOUSING VERSUS FAMILY I'NCOME:
Another aspect of the housing composition
and its impact on Santa Ana as.part.of the
Orange County Housing Market Area concerns the
increasing cost of acquiring housing; For
00006 '
Table V-6. Orange County Summary of New Home
Unsold Inventory as of June 30, 19741
Under $30,000 "0 819
$30,000 - $4~,000 89 1,408
$40,000' Over 1~363 1~962
TOTAL 1,452 '4,189
819
1,497
3~325
5,641
example, between 1960 and 1974, the median selling price of new
single-family tract homes rose dramatically. From a figure of
$17,900 in 1960 to $33,800 in 1970 to $55,500 in 1974, the
median selling price rose 210 percent from 1960 to 1974. This
rise considerably surpassed the average price increase regis-
tered by the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Orange
County area. In fact, housing costs have been outdistancing
all other expenses combined.
Not only did the median price rapidly increase during
thi~ period, there was also an upward shift in the entire pric-
ing distribution of new single-iamily tract housing. In 1960,
6,304 homes in the under-$20,000 price range were offered for
sale, representing 65.8 percent of all new tract housing in
the County. By 1965, only 126 were offered and none in 1970
and thereafter. Worse yet, as previously stated, virtually
no single-family detached homes completed or under construction
during 1974 had a selling price of less than $30,000.
This substantial price hike in the median-
and in the entire price range has had its effects.
According to the general standard of limiting
the monthly housing payment of one-fourth of
monthly income, many families are being priced
000069
X e='
I.U
~,) ~,) r
000 0
000 ~
Table V-8. Orange County DiStribution of Family Income~
Family Income Class
Under $2,000
. $2,000 - $2,999
$3,000 - $3,999
$4,O00 - $4,999
$$,0o0 z $5;999
$6,000 - $6,999
$7,000 - $9,.999
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 -$24,999
$25,000 or More
Percentage Distribution
1960 1970 1974
6.45 3.15 2.85
4.7 2.1 ' 1.4
5.8 2.7 1.7
7.7 3.1 . 2.3
10.9 3.7 2.4
12.1 4,2 3.0
28.3 i6.2 10.7
17.4 31.2 .25.3
5.O 26.5 30.O
1.7 7.2 20.0
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table V-9. 1960.Orange County Family Income
Versus Home Prices*
Approximate
New Number Percent Required Income Percentage o:
~ingle Family Of Units Dtstri- Needed For Families in
Home Price Offered bution Pnrchase of This Income
Range For Sale of Units Units Range
Jnder $12,000 - - $4,560 20.8%
~12,000-$13,999 267 2.8% $4,561-$5,320 7.3
~14,000-$15,999 1,477 15.4 $5,321-$6,080 7.5
~16,000-$17,999 3,234 33.7 $6,081-$6,840 9~4
~18,000-$19,999 1,326 13.8' $6,841-$7,600 10.7'
~20,000-$24,999 1,820 19.0 $7,601-$9,500 12.7
~25,000 & Over 1,463 15.3 $ $9,501+ 31.6
000071
nnnn~n
out of the new housing market due to a variety of increased
housing costs'.
By 1970 standards, it would have taken a family income
of $15,010 to purchase a home selling at $33,800,~the median
price of a new single family home offered for sale that year.
Since median family income that year was $12,800, approximately
50 percent of the County's families would have met this annual
wage requirement and would have qualified for a new home pur-
chase. In 1974, the median price for a new home had risen to
$55,500, ~hile median income rose to about $15,061. In 1974,
an income of about $27,651 was needed to qualify for this new
$55,500 home, an income considerably above the median. Accord-
ing to the tables in this 6hapter, it is estimated that les.s
than 20 percent of the County's households earn that much
annually.
Th~ previous discussion indicates that people are being
priced out of. the housing market due'to the unequal rise in
median income versus that of the rise in cost of acquiring a
median-priced new home. The price range of new single-family
tract housing has also moved upward, removing those with
previously middle incomes from the group of prospective buyers.
As illustrated by the data in Chapter V, no new homes
were being constructed in 1960 for the group annually earning
$4,560 and under. ' V~ry few units were offered to families in
the $4,561 to $5,320 income group. Therefore, even if those
in this income bracket, about 30 percent of all families,
wished to buy new homes, there were none in their price range
unless they chose to pay an extraordinarily large proportion
of their incomes for housing. They did, however, have alterna-
tives: (1) looking for a cheaper used home, (2) renting a
dwelling, (3) saving for higher than the standard ten percent
down payment, or (4) continuing in'their present abode. With
a low family income, the third possibility was undoubtedly
remote, thus forcing these families into older, cheaper units
which were probably on the downward turn toward deterioration.
This situation intensified by 1974 when only one new home for
under $30,000 was built, and about half the households in
Orange County had difficulty in finding a new home in their
price range. This situation had a direct bearing on the
increase in the number of overcrowded units found in the
County between 1960 and 1974. Many low-income families could
not find adequately-sized shelters in their affordable price
ranges and were, therefore, forced to live in cramped, less
expensive quarters.
Because of the high monthly cost of home
ownership and the declining buyer market, the
building trade has responded by increasing the
number of relatively low-cost PUD units being
000074.
offered for sale in Orange County. In 1974, as illustrated in
Table V-4, there were 9,352 at an average price of $39,300.
However, on1¥ 2,249 (24%) of these units were in the $20,000-
$29,999 range. Purchase of these units in this price range
requires an income of approximately $10i000 to $15,000. This
assumes a 30-year mortgage at 9.0 percent interest and 10
percent down payment. This price range is considered by the
report to be in the marketable range for those renters paying
from $170 to $250 per month. While this price range of $20,000
to $29,999 is still relatively low in comparison to the pre-
~ailing median of $55,500 for single-family homes and $39,300
for planned unit developments, it is, however, still expensive
for many families with'children trying to live on incomes
below the County average. This group represents a very large..
proportion of those seeking shelter.
The fact that builders are offering these lower-priced
condominium~and townhouse units in spite of considerable price
increases in building costs may indicate that they are feeling
the push of.an ever-decreasing market for.their dwellings and
are now producing lower-priced units in order to accommodate
.the demand. The "Marketability by Price Range" data for
planned unit developments tends to confirm that the consumer
has been responsive to the availability of these lower-priced
Units. The.fact that the unsold percentage seems to increase
by price of unit may be indicative of the. fact that people
seeking shelter in thi~ range also have many single-family
units from which to choose.
Several factors give the planned unit developments a
strongly competitive marketing edge against conventional single-
family home ownership. They are the factors of no necessary
exterior maintenance, the attraction of recreational facilities,
average lower acquisition cost and monthly payra~nts, and an
attitudinal shift toward fuller utilization of leisure time.
In
shi~ts in
from 1960
general, it can be said that several significant
the housing composition took place in Orange County
to 1970 and are continuing into 1975:
O
Overcrowded conditions increased from nearly 19,000
dwelling units affecting 60,000 people in 1960 to
about 27,000 dwelling units and about 103,000 people
in 1970 in Orange County.
O
Disparity in housing valuation by city increased
from 1960 to 1970 with a widening of the gap between
cities with large proportions of high-
and low-valued dwellings.
The prices of new housing have increased
conside'rably beyond that of consumer
000075
income. Fewer and fewer .households are now able to
afford new housing than in any other time period
since the housing shortage at the end of ~¥orld %¥ar II.
0
Due to the several factors of increased housing costs,
a younger population and its accompanying higher
rates of.mobility and a general attitude toward fuller
utilization of leisure time, the County is experienc-
ing a rapid increase in the number of multiple units
built and rented.
The impact of these four main changes in the housing
~tructure should have a considerable effect on future County.
growth and the housing conditions in Santa Aha. Increased
reliance on multiple units t~ satisfy housing needs of the
residents of both the County and Santa Aha will have the effect
of considerably raising the overall density based on present
building trends. A population growth of eve~ 74,400 per year
until 1980 would give the County about 2,000,000 people by that
date. ~ven.this level of growth, substantially lower than that
required to produce the projected 1980 population figure of
2,101,500, would necessitate the urbanization of much of the
southern County area. This population growth into newer areas
would occur while the older, more mature, cities such as Santa
Ana would probably find themselves housing a high proportion of
the financially constrained..
~ANTA ANA HOUSING ~K.E?....ARE~:
The City contained 59,992 dwelling units as of July
1974. The housing stock was composed of 20,971 (35.0%)
multiple family dwelling units, 35,645 (59.4%) single-family
dwelling units, and 3,376 (5.6%) mobile homes.
The housing stock increased from 50,059 in April 1970
to 59,992 in July 1974, in increase of 20 percent. During this
period, 321 housing units were demolished.
As reported in Residential Sales Survey, during mid-1974
there were three new condominiums'and one plaDned unit develop-
ment, composed of 826 dwelling units, in the process of being
occupied or sold in Santa Aha. Prices ranged from a $25,990
(1,056 square feet, two bedroom, two bath) unit at Main
Attraction (a condominium) to a $38,900 (1,650 square feet~
three bedroom, two bath) unit at South Coast Shores (a PUD).
All the projects had conventional financing only.
Comparing manta'Aha with the south and
east Orange County area, the completed housing.
units numbered 7,339, or 54 percent of the pro-
posed total unsold completed houses numbered
280, or 4 percent of the completed homes. Only ..
000076'
Table V-12. Planned Unit Developments[
'TOTAL
PROPOSED BUILT/SOLD UNDER
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL UNITS JUNE 1974 ~ONS~/SOLD
.653 653/645 0/0
42 42/37 0/0
183 ?6/?0 36/15
255 55/51 88/10
~, 13--~ ~ 124725
Bradford Place
Condominium
Main Attraction
Condominium
South Coast Shores
P.U.D.
Village Walk,
Condominium
TOTAL
Of the 826 units built in the four developments, 803 were
sold, leaving a very low unsold inventory of 23 units. During
the same time period, constructed, complete~ units in the South
and East Orange County Market Area (including Santa Ana).numbered
6,018. Unsold completed units numbered 1,299, or 22% of the
completed units.
There were four single family dwelling units (detached)
developments on sale in ~anta Ana in mid-1974:
Table V-13. Single Family DwellingsI'
TOTAL
PROPOSED BUILT/SOLD
DEVELOPMENT TOTAL UNI.TS JUNE 1974
UNDER
CQNST./SOLD
Classic Homes
12o- o/o 51/ll,
Greenbrook 360 353/349 7/5
Morning Sun 350 .0/0 74/19
Sherwood Estates
"TOTAL
44 4/3. 40/32
..
Prices ranged from a $42,990 (1,~69 square-feet, three
bedroom, two bath) unit at Morning Sun to a $70,650 (3,504
square-feet, four bedroom, three bath) unit at Sher-
wood Estates. Ail the developments had conventional
financing only;, Of the 357 units built, 352 were
sold.
000077
one of the §? projects surveyed offered VA financing, while all
had conventional financing available. Prices ranged from a
$S1,950 (927 square feet, two bedroom, one bath) home at
Countryside-Lake Forest to a $265,000 (S,400 square feet, four
bedroom, S½ bath) home at Promentory Bay in Newport Beach.
The average base price of the single-family (detached)
dwelling units was $55,176 in Santa Ann and. $65,5~2 in the
south and east Orange County area (includes Santa Ann). The
average base price of condominium and planned unit development
dwelling units was $S4,?0S in Santa Ann and $§2,2S9 in the
south and east Orange County area. As illustrated in Tables
V-4, V-§, and V-6,. the averag$ selling price of a new single-
family (detached) dwelling Unit in 0range County was approxiz
mately $55,500 and the average selling price of a new condo-
minium unit was approximately
These facts illustrate that Santa Aha tends to have a
lower unsold inventory of new dwelling units, and that new units
sell for less than in the County as ~ whole. If these trends
persist, Santa Aha will continue to capture a larger portion of
the relatively low-priced housing stock in the County and. tend
to concentrate a larger portion of lower-income groups in the
City.'
Comparing Table IV-6 (Percentage Distribution of Income
Before Taxes in the ~anta Ann Housing Submarket Area) and
Table V~7 (Orange County Itemized Housing Expenditures Based on
Median Housing Prices and Monthly Costs), approximately 96
percent of the families presently living in Santa Aha were
unable to afford the average priced new single family dwelling
unit offered for sale in O~ange County during 1974. Regarding
planned unit developments, comparing Tables IV-6 and V-5,
approximately 81 percent of the families presently living in
Santa Aha were unable to afford the average-priced new PUD
dwelling unit offered for sale in the County during 1974.
As illustrated by the data, the Orange County housing
market conditions and incomes of residents of Santa Aha combine
to (1) constrain low-income families in Santa Aha, and (2)
relocate presently non-Santa Aha, low-income residents in
Santa Aha. Since low-income families have a smaller amount of
money to spendon maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of'
units, the present, worsening conditions tend to accelerate
deterioration of Santa Ann's housing stock.
HOUSING NEEDS
As indicated earlier, When a household
acquires a home or apartment, it obtains much
more than a dwelling. The household obtains
· 0'00078
also a host of services and facilities, including schools, parks,
garbage collection, ~olice and fire protection, etc. In the
market place, the household does not express a demand for a
dwelling, per se, but also for the neighborhood in which that
dwelling is located. Even though this is true, for clarifica-
tion purposes, it is useful to distinguish those needs which the
user requires and Which housing is to provide. The following is
'a list of user needs, some of which have been mentioned before.
STANDARD SHELTER:
Shelter is perhaps the most basic need that housing pro-
vides. But shelter should be more than a fortress from the
wind and rain-nit should be decent; safe, and s~nitary.1 It
has been a goal of the public sector for many years to enable ..
every family to live in standard shelter.
SEPARATESHELTEH:'
Because separate shelter provides privacy, it is a very
essential need. Almost every country has .norms concerning the
social groupings that should live under the same roof. In
this country', one dwelling for one family is the norm. However,
a certain amount of home-sharing does occur even on a voluntary
basis.
.ADEQUATE SIZE/SPACE:.
Just as a family'cannot live properly without certain
facilities (hot water), its living patterns are also hampered
if there is inadequate space or if it is poorly arranged. A
dwelling's adequacy with respect to size or space is usually.
related to the number of persons living in it. Sufficient
space is a basic housing need, and it is a d6minant reason why
families move from one home or apartment to'another.
~EASONABLE HOUSING EXPENDITURES:
Because of the necessity t9 allocate household income
on other consumption items, households are restricted in the
amount they can spend on housing. Every household faces a .
decision on h~w much it can reasonably e~pend on housing.
Sometimes households allocate more on housing than seems rea-
sonable, although this can be a forced circumstance or done
voluntarily. The latter is often based on the fact that cur-
rent income is not always permanent income in that increases
in income are anticipated by the household.
RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY AND, ,HOUSING CHOICE:
Households also require the ability to move
geographically, which often also means in terms
of economically. Frequently, owing to a lack of
00007 . ...
local housing diversity, households that are mobile must move
to another community. In addition, assuming value or rent in
relationship to income remains constant, households also need
· a choice of housing, particularly in terms of building types
and location.
Housing need,, or underhousing, is reflected in Santa Ana
o Substandard housing available at relatively high costs.
0
Adequate housing available only at prices or.rentals
which greatly exceed the capability of low-income
lamilies to pay fo~ such shelter.
Total inability of low-income· families to buy or
rent newly constructed housing at costs within their
capability.
o Overcrowding of existing stock and deficient services
and facilities provided to the immediate neighborhood.
o Rapidly expanding number of low-income families, and
virtually no expansion of low-cost housing stock.
There are many ways oi quantifying housing needs add
demand. Below are some of the most dommonly accepted measures.
OVERCROWDING:
Density of occupancy of over 1,01 persons per room
results in the classification of a given family in a given
unit as "inadequate housing." Approximatley 11.6 percent of
the households in Santa Ana are overcrowded, and' approximately
4.1 percent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.51 persons
per room). In Orange County, approximately 6.5 percent of the
households are overcrowded, and approximately 1.5 percent are
severely overcrowded.
CONDITION OF STRUCTURES:
Dilapidated and unsafe units are not considered to be
adequate housing; they should be replaced. En 1970, approxi-
mately.2.4 percent of the City's dwelling units were lacking
complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. In Orange County
(including Santa Ana) only about 1.4 percent were lacking such
facilities. In addition, approximately 750 (1.3%) dwelling
units in Santa Ana have a life expectancy of less than 10 years.
LOCATION OF THE UNIT:
Is it near employment, shopping, 'schOols, ..
and services? If not, it can be regarded as
000080
inadequate to the needs of many families. Does the housing unit
satisfy the need, or desire, of the occupant to reside near
families with similar aspirations and life styles? If not, the
housing may be regarded as inadequate.
These are some of the ways housing need is measured.
The question remain~ why it is measured. Again, for many
reasons:
0
It is often stated that housing need is measured so
that programs can be shaped to meet the total identi-
fied level of need.
o Next, it is pointed out that graphic documentation of
the level of overall need;is required to help in
enlisting the support of those who choose to attach
' themselves only to major causes. This report pro-
vides that kind of documentation.
o Third, it is felt that such docUmentation must be
provided to begi~ to change the minds of those who
feel that "there is no housing problem in Santa Aha
that requires local government action." This report
provides that information, also.
More realistically, th$ outlining of total housing
need, and-its various components, provides a frame-
work within Which those seeking to bring about change
can begin to measure the effec%iveness of their
efforts.
0
GROUPS IN
Finally, such an analysis permits the'identification
of specific target populations and problems and pro-
rides a focus for those whose efforts might otherwise
remain overly fragmented and minimally effective.
NE. ED OF .ADEQUATE HOUSING:
The analysis of need tells us who, specifically,
need of housing. The categories and hUmbers include:
is in
The .Elderly:
Over 19,680 (10.7%) of the City's 183,768 residents
received Old Age and Survivor's Benefits in .1973. As indicated
by the statistics presented in Chapters VI and VII, the elderly
who were receiving aid'were concentrated in areas of:older hous-
ing stock and multiple dwelling units.
Black and' Mex'ic'~n~Am$~qan PopUlations:
These groups tend to be concentrated in
areas of older substandard dwelling units and
000081
have lower incomes, higher rates of aid to families with depen-
dent children, higher rates of overcrowding, and higher rates
of unemployment.
~amilieS With Dependent Children:
Approximately 20 percent of the families in the City
receive aid to families with dependent children. In some census
tracts, the percentage of families receiving AFDC is more than
60 percent. There is a strong correlation between families
~eceiving such aid and poor housing conditions (See Chapters
VI and VII).
Low-Income Segment:
Obviously, the above-listed categories contain 'a high
percentage of low-income persons. Comparing Tables IV-6
(Percentage Distribution of Income Before Taxes in the Santa
Aha Housing Market Area) with Tables V-4 and V-5, approximately
68 percent of the families residing in Santa Aha were unable to
afford the lowest-priced new single-family dwelling units offered
for sale inOrange County, and approximately 52 percent of the
families were unable to afford the lowest-priced new homes.in
planned unit developments offered for sale in. Orange Counay.
Moderate- and Hiah-Income Segments:
All economic s~ments of the City's'current population
are constrained in the Orange County Housing Market Area. As
previously illustrated, approximately 96 percent of the families
living in Santa Aha were unable to afford the average-priced
new single-family dwelling unit offered for sale in Orange
County during 1974. Thus, there is a ne~d to. increase the free-
dom to move from the City to other'locations, possibly closer
to a person's place of employment, within the County. In
addition, in order to extend the same degree of mobility to
the moderate- and high-income segments of the Orange County
Housing Market Area, a greater percentage of higher-valued new
dwelling units would have to be honstructed in the City than is
presently being offered. While at first glance, these state-
ments may seem contradictory, they are simply expressing the
facts that (1) the City's current price range of housing stock
is OUt of balance with the larger Orange County Housing Market
Area; and (2).this sizable inequity'prevents the low-income
segment of Santa Ana's population from moving out of the Cit~
and constrains the. moderate-and high-income segments from find-
lng suitable housing opportunities (in relation to the income)
from moving into the City.
000082
~UANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVe. DEMAND
The demand for housing denotes the people side of the
housing market. It refers to the characteristics and behavior
of the more than 183,000 persons who occupy the Santa Aha hous-
ing stock. About 86 percent of our people in Santa Ana and
89 percent in Orange'County are conventional families consist-
ing of married people and their offspring. The rest are com-
posed of single persons, unmarried adults, divorced and
widowed people, and a currently small but growing number of
individuals who are members of primary groups like communes
which do not fit the standard categories of thepast. In their
countless diversity, these households and the persons attracted
to Santa Aha in the future produce.the demand for dwellings.
Conventionally, the housing market is divided into sub-
markets according to certain key characteristics on the demand
side. Three of these dominate all discussion: income, size
of the household group, and tenure. .(Actually, the last cham-
acteristic which separates people into renters and homeowners
separates equally sharply the housing stock into owned and rented
dwellings, so perhaps it is more accurately an aspect of the
latter.) Other dimensions used in discussing demand include
such things as social class and life-cycle (people's housing
needs and preferences change as they become adults, convention-
ally marry, have children, see them grow up, then themselves-
age and die).
This section of Chapter V defines some of the satisfac-
tions sought by the multifarious consumers of housing and
focuses attention on their preferences and behavior and on
the forces which shape them. At the aggregate level, the demand
for housing in Santa Aha has obediently followed the extra-
ordinary demographic changes which have flowed across older
cities in Orange County like a series of tidal Waves.
The crisis in the Santa Aha and Orange County Housing -
Market Areas has passed beyond a mere matter of the number of
available units. It has become a social and economic crisis,
as well as a numbers problem.
ProsPects for the future are dim. Homeownership is
becoming a luxury available to a smaller and smaller segment of
the residents of both Santa Aha and Orange County. As illus-
trated by previous statistics, approximately S0 percent of the
families presently living in Santa Aha are unable to afford
to purchase a $30,000 home under present housing expenditures
and conventional finance requirements. At the
same time, rents rise higher and higher, so
that adequately-sized rental units are less
likely to be a financially-favorable alternative
to home ownershiB.
O0008t
In 1968, when Congress pledged to the nation 26 million
units of housing, including 6 million for low- and moderate-
income families,, it was both an acknowledgement of this country's
housing problems and a commitment to solve them. Yet seven years
later, the housing crisis is more severe, enveloping middle-
income familes, as well as low- and moderate-income households.
Workers frequently.find themselves caught in the middle with
incomes that are slightly too high to enable them to get govern-
ment assistance, but too low to obtain housing in the private
market.
The basic problem is that only a limited.supply of ade-
quate housing is available at a reasonable cost and in a suit-
able living environment. The.cost of new housing continues to
rise, while ~he Supply of existing housing dimihishes in rela-~
tion to the growing population. Low- and moderate-income
· households find fewer opportunities for decent housing in
older cities such. as Santa Aha, but continue to be restricted
in the newer, cities SUch as Irvine with their newer housing
stock and higher-~ncome families. Middle class households
presently enjoy greater options, but rising costs threaten to
eliminate many of these choices.
QUANTITATIVE DEMAND
Estimates'of the projected demand for new.housing are
concerned with both fhe~quantitative andqualitative aspects
of demand. These estimates necessarily must be made in sequence
since they cannot be made simultaneously in one operation; the
quantitative estimates necessarily precede Zhe estimates of
qualitative distribution.
In the sense used in' housing economics, demand is pri-
marily a functioh of growth. In conventional economic terms,
it woUld, refer to all units entering into exchange. Analysts
of housing markets, however, are concerned primarily with the
new units entering the market and only secondarily with
exchanges in the existing stock. Although they reflect the
market, the transactions in the existing stock are studied
primarily for their controlling'effect upon the incremental
rate of new supply. Thus, when housing market analysts speak
of demand, the term generally is restricted to the demand fox
new' construction.
· The quantitative demand for new residential units, is
derived from conclusions respecting the rate of household
formation, modified by adjustments originating
in other factors operating in the market. The
number of additional households anticipated
during the forecast period is premised, of
course, upon an analysis of prospective
00008,1
population growth from net natural increase and net migration
and of projected household size changes; in the analytical pro-
cess, the economic considerations promoting population and
household growth had been incorporated in the forecast. Since
each additional household represents a demand for a dwelling
unit, in either new or existing structures, the household forma-
tion anticipated during the forecast period, plus required
replacements, is held to be equivalent to' ~'ro'ss quantitative
demand for housing financed at market rates for owner or ten-
ant occupancy. The projected gross demand is subject to
adjustments obtained from pertinent market factors to derive
adjusted new 'qu~ntita't'tve demand. In the case of Santa Aha,
these adjustments include: (1) positive or negative altera-.
tions in the exist'ing stock resulting from demolitions,
version, and other factors associated with components of
inventory changes; (2) an excess or ~ack of stock of existing
housing, derived by a comparison of current available vacancy
with the stimated vacancy requirement; and (3) an excess rate
or lack of new construction as of th~-most recent survey date,
derived by comparison with a.desirable rate considered adequate
during the forecast period.
In the present state of analytical science, these
adjustments may be possible only with considerable margins of
error. In the absence of reliable data, conservative judgement
in estimation is desirable for the derivation of the permanent
net quantitative demand for non-subsidized new sales and rental
housing. ~
Table V-14 presents the projected gross demand for hous-'
ing in Santa Aha. There are now more than 58,082 households in
Santa Ana requiring 60,502 dwelling units to satisfy their
housing needs, assuming.a healthy four percent vacancy. Currently
these households are occupying only 59,992 units. By mid-1980,
it is expected that there will be as many as 62,468 households.
By 1990, there will be as many as 68,150 households, which will
require 70,989 dwellings. Net increase.between 1974 and 1990
is therefore, estimated at 10,997, an increase of 18.3%. Such
a' large growth in the number of households of all income levels
will pose tremendous pressures for creation of sufficient hous-
ing at costs that can be afforded by these households. If
Santa Ana continues its defacto policy of capturing a dispro-
portionate share of the Orange County Housing Market Area's'
low-income households, substantial numbers of low-cost units
will'have to be built or substantial numbers of households will
have to be income subsidized to satisfy existing a.nd new demand
and to house those low-income households which are at present
underhoused.
O00n8, :
~vailabilit~ .qf Vacant .Land and Adequate Sites
There are currently 1,676 acres of vacant land in parcels of five
acres or more within the City of Santa Arm. O~ that acreage, 424 acres
are currently zoned for residential use or in less restrictive categories
{primarily A 1). The General Plan proposes that of that vacant land area
502 acres be ultimately used for new housing stock. Current estimates of
possible rezonings and amendments to the General Plan indicate that S3
acres will be zoned from more intensive zoning to residential and 37 acres
from residential to more intensive, resulting in a net gain of 16 acres,
for a total of 440 acres usable to increase the supply of housing stock.
It should be pointed out that approximately forty percent of that 440 acres
is under a single ownership in the southwest portion of the City. The
r~naining parcels are scattered throughout the area west of the Santa Arm
River, in the southwest sector, and a few parcels in the eastern fringe of
the City near the Tustin boundary. None of the identified parcels are within
any of the housing target areas identified by this study.
The 440 acres are allocated as follows: Single family, detached
housing (approximately S d.u. per acre} would have 149.5 acres available
for development. ~edit~n density housing areas (R 2 zoning with 14.5 d.u.
per acre} would constitute 163.5 acres, and high density (R 4 zoning with
24 d.u. per acre} would be 127 acres. This would generate so~e 6,170
dwelling ualits which, based on 1974 people per unit figures generated by
this study, would house approximately 16,250 people. In General Plan amend-
ment considerations, the 1,236 acres of land allocated for other than resi-
dential uses should be closely scruitinized to ensure that those land areas
are clearly more appropriate for other than housing. The Santa Aha Planning
Department should also pursue a survey of all vacant lands, including
parcels of less than five acres, to ascertain the full cumulative effect
of such smaller parcels.
000086
Table V-14. Projected GroSs H.ousing. Demand
Households
(Families
and Unrelated Housing Units
P0pul~t.ion* ''Individuals) Gross Demand**
1974 183,76~ 58,082 60,502
(59,992 Existing)
1975 185,390 58,813 61,264
1980 193,500 62,468 65,069
1985 200,150 · 65,308 68~027
1990 206,800 68,I50 70,989
Includes persons in group quarters.
Assuming a 4% yacancy of dwelling units.
~UAL~TATIVE DEMAND
Qualitative demand rela~es to the distribution of the
net quantitative demand for new single family sales housing
and multiple unit housing by price and rent classes. The
qual'itative aspects o~ new construction demand also relate to
location factors, and determinable preference for structural
typesj design, and amenities. If the new additions to'inven-
tory are to be economically sound over the long term, they
must be guided into the submarket channels indicated by the
current market and fitted into the concepts of urban growth
revealed by the analysis. For purposes of this analysis it
is assumed that new housing that is qualitatively unsuited to
'Santa Ana's market demand forces that are operative during the
forecast period under consideration will not be absorbed
readily unless resort is made to saor.ifice pricing. Although
-'the incremental'supply built annumlly in Santa Aha is relatively
small, its magnitude in relation to the total volume of hous-
ing, new and existing, offered in the market during that
period may be predominant. Of course, the satis-
faction of qualitative demand can assist in
maintaining an orderly market; the introduc-
tion of disequilibria in the form of differen-
tially unacceptable housing creates instability.
Available evidence strongly supports the view
O00087
that disequilibria in market forces, created by new construc-
tion differentially unsuited to market demand, tend to magnify
the amplitude of both short and lone cyclical phenomena in the
construction industry. Although building cycles are rooted
firmly in variations of employment, income, demographic pheno-
mena, and psychological and sociological trends, cyclical
amplitudes may be lessened appreciably by the consistent
translation of differential demand into a qualitatively accep-
table supply.
Since some of the families and unrelated individuals
included in gross household formation are unable to afford the
cost of newly constructed housing and the filtering process
.is not adequately supplying t~is part of the total need in
Santa Aha, various programs may be necessary to subsidy
assistance to housing production or assistance to families.
Until recent decades only an insignificant volume of new con-
struction was produced under subsidy, arrangements. Virtually
all of the incremental additions necessary for growth were
produced for sale or rent in the competitive 'market. Since
these increments can be produced only under prevailing costs
of land, labor, and materials, there is at all times a minimum
economic price or rent for new construction provided for the
competitive market.
The
summarizes
0
following statements regarding qualitative demand
the statistics presented throughout this report:
Approximately 750 dwelling units in Santa Aha
currently h~ve~a life ~ectancp of less than
10 years.
0
0
ApproximaTely 7,000 units are'overcrowded. Many
of these households have more than one family
living in the unit. To correct this overcrowded
situation would requir? relocation (either within
the City or adjacent communities) of these house-
holds into larger units, and/or encouraging the
split of households with more than two families
into two adequately sized units per. existing
household.
Assuming that rental conditions in' relation to
household income have not improved since 1970,.
there is a shortage of 2,398 rental, units in the
range of under $40 per month, approx-
imately 1,286 units in the range of
$40 to $59 per month, and a shortage
of approximately 480 units in the
range of $60 to $80 per month.
00'0088
Since it is unlikely that adequate housing can be
provided in Santa Ana within these gross rent
ranges, rent subsidies would be necessary to
households currently paying ~ore than 25% of their
· income for rent (see Tables V-16 and V-17).
o
Using the County's 64.6% homeownership as a standard
for Santa Ana (assuming the objective of bringing
the City into balance with the County), the City
would need to add approximately 15,263 owner occupied
dwelling units to the City by 1990. Since the pro-
~ross housing demand~&s--o~.an additional
(12,082~l~elling un~ts,.from(58,082~.households
· ~14~4-~6 70,989 dwelling units-in-i990 (See Table
V-14), to meet this objective would require that
all new dwelling units be constructed for owner
occupancy, and, in addition, Would require the
conversion of approximately 3;181 units currently
renter Occupied to owner.occupied status.
o Approximately 11,000 families and unrelated indivi-
duals receiving incomes of less than $4,800 (18.4%
of the households in the City) are paying more than
$1,200 annually (more than 25% of their incomes) for
housing. Subsidy.programs would be necessary
order to bring'housing coats in line with their
incomes or to upgrade their housing conditions·
This last point is illustrated in Table V-15 (Percentage
Distributions of Rent or Housing Expenditure Versus Income of
Families and Unrelated Individuals). Approximately 3.5% of
the housing units in the City are valued at less than $9,600
or rent for less than $1,200 (including utilities). Unfor-
tunately, approximately 21.9% of the families, and ~nrelated
individuals in the City earn annual incomes below ~4,800. .
Thus, there'is a d'ifference of 18.4 percentage points between
the rent and value of housing and. the ability of this segment
of the population to pay for such housing in this income
range, indicating that a sizable, portion of these households
are paying more than 25% of their annual incomes for housing.
In addition, in 1974 the low-income segment (families
and unrelate~ individuals with-incomes of less than $7,200) . -
represented 34.8% of the households.. However, only 19.0%
of the housing stock was in this income range (under $2,400
annual rent or housing expenditure), indicating that more
than ~ of these households'were paying more than 25% of their
annual income for housing.
facts:
Table V~15 also reflects the following
(1) most of the housing stock offered to
households for less than $1,200 were
apartments and mobile homes;
· 0000.90
(2),
units rent±ng for $1,200 to $1,799 per year
or owner occupied units valued at less than
$9,600 are predominately located in areas
identified as target areas or potential problem
areas;
(3)
the major'ity of single family (detached) dwelling
units and planned unit development units constructed
and sold since 1970 are included in housing expen-
diture ranges above $3,600 annually (units valued
at more than $28,800); and
(4)
multiple units constructed and rented sin6e 1970
are usually .conta±ned.in rental ranges of $2,400
or more per year (including expenditures for
utilities).
OPTIMUM HOMEOWNERSHIP LEVELS:
The table which show th~ relationship between income and
housing expenditures (Tables V-15) strongly suggest that
homeownership is not suitable for everyone, at least not at~
a given moment in time, and at least not as long as condominium
or cooperative housing is not a readily available alternative.
In addition, the position in'the life cycle is a relevant, ·
consideration. Since there is always a distribution of persons
at different points'in the life cycle, there is always a
reservoir of persons n6t desiring to undertake the obligations
involved in homeownership. Students and military households
are examples of highly mobile households which are not usually
interested in homeownership.
In addition to'groups which are readily identifiable
as having high incidences of mobility, there are many other
households where mobility strongly influences their housing
decisions. It is generally agreed that it is not financially
advantageous to purchase a home if the home must be soldin.
a relatively short period of time, such as two years, except in
time periods or locations characterized by high inflation rates
in property values.
There are a number of other factors influencing the
decision to buy or to rent. THe akailability of suitable
accommodations in appropriate locations is especially relevant.
Taking the ca~e of the elderly Will illustrate this. Among
the elderly there are many persons whose physical mobility
has become limited. Because they'may no longer be able to or
wish to drive a car, they may choose to locate themselves
conveniently to public transportation and community
services. The only housing avail~ble in suit-
able locations is commonly apartments, rather
than single family homes. Ownership of units
in multifamily structures is still virtually
unavailable as an option in these circumstances.
000092
Another factor, governing homeownership decisions is
the desire to have no Obligations for upkeep, maintenance,
and operations, or the possession of furniture. Consequently,
.some of the decisions to rent among those who can fully afford
to own homes can be accounted for by a decision to spend money
on the convenience.involved in renting.
Our society tends to value homeownership and govern-
mental policy has generally been supportive of homeownership.
Despite this, in 1970, only 56.6% of Santa Aha households
· owned their own.homes. To many persons this would be considered
a significant, problem. How significant the problem is depends
upom two factors, however. .One'is how importantis home-
ownership in terms of any benefit to society or individual
households which result from homeownership? Secondly, against
what standards should the 56.6% figure be measured: Orange
County's 6A.6% or some lesser figure?
The value which our-society has placed ~pon home-
ownership reflects the values which have traditionally been
· placed on self-reliance and independence and controlling one's
own destiny. The desire to promote homeownership frequently
stems also from the view that homeownership results in a
feeling of pride and positive self-image and a feeling of
having a stake in the community, These attitudes which
homeownership are ~aid to engender.are considered to result
in a desire to conserve housing in'order to protect one's
investment. These views of the positive benefits o~ home-
ownership to society have substantial merit. They do not
apply to everyone, however. Where the home is too costly
to'maintain, a budget squeeze Can and frequently does result
in lack of maintenance even among those who would be pre-
disposed to maintain the home if they could afford to. Many
elderly homeowners, since they have expectations of living
indefinitely on low fixed incomes,' are forced to pursue
policies of minimal, if any, maintenance.
Now let's turn to the question of "what is a desirable
homeownership rate in Santa Ann?" While there is no ob-
jective answer to this question, the answer clearly is not 100%.
Mobility and life style factovs as well as Rersonal preferences
limit the desirable level of homeownership to a figure far
below'lO0% in the absence of institutions permitting fast,
easy, and inexpensive conversion of heusing assets.
It is unrealistic, within'the institutional framework'
of the current housing market, to consider an optimum level
of homeownership to be higher than the homeownership rates
among those who can afford to exercise their pre-
ference between ownership and renting., If this
is taken as the $15,000 to $25,000 income group
in the.1970 Census of Population~ this would
mean an optimum homeownership rate of almost
80%, with homeownership rates of about 85% for
0000
households with four or more members, 35% for one persoo.
households, and 70% for two person households. If the $10,000
to $15,000 income group.were used as ~ point of reference
'instead, an optimum City level of homeownership would be
about two-thirds, with homeownership rates of 75% among four
o'r more person households, 30% among one person households,
and 60% among two person households.
'ABILITY OF RENTERS TO AFFORD RE. NTA~ HOUSING
In this section the ability of renters to afford rental
housing will be discussed. As has been shown above, at any
given time, most renters are unable to afford homeownership.
They, consequently, must seek to find suitable housing which
they can afford in the rental market. Many are not able to
do so. The extent to which this is true represents an unmet
need for adequate housing.
Census data is available on the interrelationship be- .
tween gross rent and income, including the percentage of
income spent for gross rent. This data is analyzed in order
to show the extent of "over-paying" for rental housing.
Rents of occupied and vacant anits are also compared with"
incomes of renters to show the deficit in low rent units.
Since conditions appear to have increased since 1970, the
statistics presented in-this section will tend to under-
estimate the severity of the current situation in Santa Aha.
The relationships between gross rent and the percentage
of income spent for rent are shown in Table V-16. The percen-
tage of households which pay a substantial percentage of
their income for gross rent increases as gross'rent increases.
This is true regardless of whether 20%, 25%, or' 35% is used
as the cut-off point for "paying a substantial percentage of
income for rent". These relationships are not strong ones,
however, except at the very lowest rental prices.
Since higher income households tended to rent more
expensive units than lower income households, the above
relationships might suggest that low income households paid
a lower percentage of their income for rent th~n did higher
income households. However, this was.not true at all. There
is a very strong negative relationship between percentage
of income spent for rent and income. This.relationship is
shown in Table V-16.
Among renters with incomes of under $2~000,
98.7% in Orange County and 97.9% in'Santa Aha
paid 35% or more of their incomes for rent. The
reason for a greater percentage of income spent
for rent by households in Orange County than in
Santa Aha is that the City had a relatively
000094
o.0 ooo ,-, c;oc;
000095
greater stock of low-cost rental housi'ng. In other words,
there were more low-cost rental units per low-income renter
household in Santa Aha than in Orange County.
In the lowest income brackets, almost all households
(for which percentage of income spent for rent is computed)
pay more than 35% of'~heir incomes for rent. The percentage
paying 35% or more for rent rapidly declines as income in-
creases. In 1970, 56~ of households in Santa Ana with incomes
between $3,000 and $5,000 paid35% or more of their income
for rent. This figure fell to 16.3% in the $5,000 to $7,000·
~ncome group, to 2% in 'the $7,00Oto $10,000 group, and to
less than.0.1%'among households with $10,000 or more income..
'The reverse is true at the low end of the scale. In
1970, the proportion of households paying less than 20% of
their incomes for rent was negligible for households below
$3,000 income. Even in the $2,000 ~ $5,000 income bracket, only
28.2% of households in the $7,000 - $9,999 income group
paid less than 20% of income for .rent. ' '
COMPARISON OF RENTER INCOMES AND AVAILABLE RENTAL...UNI.TS:
· There is a substantial deficit in the number of rental
units in the lower rental brackets. The data for the City for
1970 is shown in Table V-17. This table, is based on converting
income data into affordable gross rents. This conversion was
made based on a standard of "25% of gross income affordable
for gross rent" by one and two person households and "20% of
gross income affordable for gross rent" by three or more
person households. The "affordable gross rent" figures (the
figures in the "Renter Households" sections of the table) are
'estimates since some parts o~ the income distributions had
to be estimated in making the conversion of income data to
affordable rent 'data.
The "Renter Households" section of Table V-17 is based
on converting renter household income data into affordable
gross rents with allowances made, by income group and house-
hold size, for the existence of no cash rent units, The
"Rental Units" section of the table contains data both for.
occupied units, by room·size, and for vacant units. The
vacant unit data is based on conversion of asking rents1 for
vacant units to estimated gross rents. In computing the
"Comparison" section, in each rent category, the total for
all occupied and vacant rental units was subtracted from the.
total renter households. The resulting figures are shown in
the '!Difference" line. That line in turn is converted into
the "Cumulative Deficit" line. It should be noted
'lAsking' rents are similar to contr~t rents
rather than gross rents, since they may or may
not include payment for utilities.'
· O000.qe
that the"Cumulative Deficit'i'line has its own gross rent
head%ngs - each figure represents a deficit in all units with
.rents less than a given rent.
The figure~ in Table V-17 represent a theoretical
picture of need based on the assumption that all renter house-
holds will pay the "standard" percentage of income for rent
and none will pay less than that. 9~0 o~ c6ur~, l~ ·
· highly unrealistic picture of what happens in a free market
where households compete for units. As is clearly shown in
Table V-16, upper income renter.households customarily pay
substantially less than the "standard" pencentages of'twenty
or twenty-five percent of income for rent. If units needed
to reduce "overpaying" are t~ be made available without
displacing households paying less than the "standard" per-
centage of income for rent - and having them move to a higher
rent unit - then allowance must be made for the renter house-
holds which pay less than the percentage~ of income on which
Table V-17 is bas. ed.
Careful interpretation'of the "Difference" and "Cumui~- :.
tire Deficit" lines in Table V-17 with "Comparison" sections
is necessary. For example, in Santa Ana the "Difference"
lines show surpluses in the units in each rental bracket
between $80 - $99 and $150 - $199 and deficits in the Under
$40, $40-$59, $60-$79, and $200 or More rent categories. The
fact that there were fewer $200 or More units in 1970 than
there were renters who.could "afford" such units does not
mean there was a shortage of high rent units. All households
can be considered to want to spend as low a percentage of
their income for rent as.they can while still obtaining the-
type of housing they desire. These two goals are incompatible,
but higher income households in resolving this problem can and
normally do spend less for rent than the percentages of income
on which the tables are based. Supply and demand factors are
normally in relative balance in the highest priced rental
housing and Table V-17 cannot be cited as a basis for saying
there is an unmet need for units renting ~or more than $200.
In the lower rental Categories which in the "Difference"
line show surpluses, such as between $80 and $120 gross rents,
the apparent surpluses are also illusory as can be seen in
the cnmulat~ve deficit figures below them. Thgs? surpluses would
exist only ~f the specified needed lower rent un~ts'existed.
In Santa Ana, since there were only about 69 instead of about
2,467 units renting for under $40, and also a large shortage
of ~40-59 units, there in fact was also a shortage of middle
rent units in the sense that there were many households whose
need for lower rental units could be partially met
by the availability of more units renting for $60
to $120. For example, to the household that
was paying $100 a month.for rent but needed a
$50 unit, the availability of a suitable $70 unit
would have been a substantiai benefit. In other
000097
words, to say that this household needed a $50 rent is not to
say that it did not need a $70 unit. In fact, it "needed" a
lower rent - any lower rent down to $50. Above $50, only
part'of its need would be met; while at $50, its full need
would be met according to the.percentage of income standard
used.
It is thus true that the "Difference'' line should
only-be interpreted in the context of the "Cumulative Deficit"
line. Before discussing that line, however, it should be
noted that in Table V-17 which compares affordable gross
r~nts and available rental units, the total number of house-
holds in the "Renter Households" section is larger than the
total occupied units. By.defSnition, the two figures are
the same. The fact that they are not the.same in the table
resul%s from the fact that in the census tabulations gross
.rent data is not tabulated for all occupied rental units
while income data is tabulated for all renter'households.
In preparing Table V-17, the gross rent data for occupied
units was not adjusted up to compensate for ~his. The 195
difference between the two figures is about a 1% difference.
There is no allowance made in the needed units ("Renter
Households") figures or in the difference or cumulative
deficit figures for a needed vacancy rate. However, not
compensating for the 1% difference between renter households
and occupied rental units, has the effect of allowing'for a
1~ vacancy rate.
' O00ng.o.
.... ' 00009:).
CHAPTER VI. ANALYSIS OF STATE AND
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
August 22, 1974 marked the signing of one of the more significant pieces
of legislation affectin~ community development adopted in the last decade·
The adopted legislation is on eight-title omnibus bill of about 120 pages,
encompassing subject matter ranging from a comprehensive community
development program and major reforms in federally-assisted housing and
comprehensive planning to new standards for mobile home construction and
new flexibility in housing credit. The dollar figure for the new authorizations
under the act totals 11.9 billion dollars.
Basically speaking the primary purpose of the act is the "development
of viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living
environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons
of low and moderate-incomes. This objective is to be achieved through the
elimination of slums and blight and detrimental living conditions, conserva-
tion and expansion of housing and housing opportunities, increased public
services, improvide use of land, increased neighborhood diversity, and
preserva'tion of property with special values." In addition, of primary
importance of the new act will'be the further development of a national
growth policy h3 consolidating certain programs into a system which
(1) provides assistance annually with maximum certainty and minimum delay.
(2) encourages community development activities consistent with local and
areawide planning, (3) furthers a6hievement of the national housing goal.
and (4) provides for coordinated and mutually supportive housing and
community development activities."
The new act as passed contains eight titles as follows:
Community Development
Assisted Housing
Mortgage Credit Assistance
Comprehensive Planning
Rural Housing
Mobile Home Construction and
Safety Standards
Consumer Home Mortgage
Assistance
and Miscellaneous
(Title I)
(Title II)
(Title III)
(Title IV)
(Title V)
(Title VI)
(Title VII)
(Title VIII)
000100
ANALYSIS OF TITLE I OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACT OF 1974
This primary objective oI Title I is the development of viable urban
communities, to be achieved by providing decent housing and a suitable
living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally
for persons of low and moderate income. Consistant with this primary
objective, the federal assistance provided by this progrsm is for the support
of activities directed toward the following specific objectives:
- The elimination of slums and blight and the prevention of blighting
influences and the determination of property and neighborhood and
community facilities of importance to the welfare of the community,
principally to persons of low and moderate income;
the elimination of conditions detrimental to health, safety, and
public welfare, through code enforcement, demolition, interim
rehabilitation assistance, and related activities;
the conservation and expansion of the nation's housing stock in
order to provide a decent home and a suitable living environment
for all persons, but principally those of low and moderate income;
- the expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of
community services, principally for persons of iow and moderate
income, which are essential for sound community development and
for the development of viable urban communities;
- a more rational utilization of land and other natural resources and the
betteL- arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, recre-
ational, and other needed activity centers;
- the reduction of the isolation of income groups within communities
and geographical areas and the promotion of an increase in the
diversity and vitality of neighborhoods through the spatial deconcen-
tration of housing opportunities for persons of lower income and the
revialization of deteriorating or deteriorated neighborhoods to attract
persons of higher income; and
the restoration and preservation of properties of special value for
historic, architectural, or esthetic reasons.
It is the intent of Congress that the federal assistance made available
through this program ~not be utilized to reduce substantially the amount of
local financial support for community development activities below the level
of such support prior to availability of such assistance.
PROGRAMS TO BE CONSOLIDATED: urban renewal (all Title I activities
including NDP, code enforcement, rehabilitation grants, etc.);
model cities; neighborhood facilities; open space; water and
sewer; public facility loans.
000101
The Section 312 program is retained as a separate program and extended
fo~ one year after enactment of the statute. Loan funds received will not be
deducted from a localityts community development block grant entitlement.
Section 312 funds are, however, used in computing hold-harmless levels.
Use of Section 312 is confined to community development or urban home-
steading program areas.
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES: Only the following activities are eligible for
assistance:
Acquisition of real property that is (1) blighted, deteriorated,
deteriorating, undeveloped, or inappropriately developed;
(2) appropriate for rehabilitation or conservation; (3) appropriate
for the preservation or restoration of historic sites; the beautifica-
tion of urban land; the .conservation of urban land; the conservation
of open spaces, natural resources, and scenic areas; the provision
of recreational opportunities; or the guidance of urban development;
(4) to be used for the provision of public works, facilities, and
improvements; or (5) to be used for other public purposes.
Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or installation of public
works, facilities, and site or other improvements in cases where
assistance for such facilities under other federal programs is
determined to be unavailable.
Parking facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, and fire protection
services and facilities located in or designated to serve community
development areas.
Code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorating areas.
Special projects directed toward the removal of material and
architectural barriers that restrict the mobility and accessibility
of elderly and handicapped persons.
Payments to housing owners for losses of rental income incurred
in holding for temporary periods housing units to be utilized for
the relocation of individuals and families displaced by program
activities.
Disposition of acquired property (no reference to "fair value") or
retention for public purposes.
Provision of public services not otherwise available in community
development areas, if such services are determined to be necessary
or appropriate to support other assisted activities and if assistance
in providing or securing such services under other applicable
federal laws or programs has been applied for and denied or not
made available within a reasonable period of time, and
if such services are directed toward (1) improving
the community's public services and facilities and
(2) coordinating public and private development
00010
programs (while no specific limitation is carried in the statute, the
confereuce report states that the conferences expect that not more than
20 percent of any community's grant will be used to finance such services).
Payment of the nonfederal share required in connection with a
federal grant-in-aid program undertaken as part of the Community
Development Program.
Payment of the cost of completing a project funded under Title I
of the Housing Act of 1949 (urban renewal).
Relocation payments and assistance for lndividuals~ families~
businesses, organizations, and farm.,,operations displaced by
assisted activities.
Activities. necessary (11 to develop a Comprehen. si~e community
development plan.and (2) to develop a policy-planning-management
capacity so that the recipient of assistance may more rationally
and effectively (a) determine its need..s~ (bI set long-term goals and
s.hort-term objectives~..(c) devise progratns and activities t_o meet
these goals and o..bjectives; (d) evaluate the progress of such programs
in accomplishin~ these ~oals.. an.d objectives~ and (e) carry out manage-
ment, co.ord.ina..tion~ and monitoring of activitie.s necessary for
effective planning implementation,
Payment of reasonable administrative costs and carrying charges
r.elated, to the plau. ning and execution. .of community development and
h, ousing activities.
Clearance, demolition, removal, and, rehabilitation, of buildings and
improyemen, ts (including interim assistance and finan, cing reh,abilita-
tion of privately-owned properties when incidental to,other assisted
activities). The Secretary of ltUD may agree to perform administra-
tive services on a reimbursable basis on behalf of a recipient in con-
nection with loans or grants for the rehabilitation of properties.
TYPE OF GRANT
FEDERAL/LOCAL SHARE: Federal share would be equal to 100 percent of
COSt.
ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS: All units of general purpose
local government would be eligible for direct entitlements or to seek block
grant funding directly from HUD on a discretionary basis. The total national
appropriation for community development would be divided as follows: 80
percent for activities to be undertaken in metropolitan (SMSA) areas; 20 per-
cent for activities to be undertaken in non-SMSA) areas;
BASIC GRANT ENTITLEMENT: Each metropolitan city, urban
county, and eligible "town" would bc eligible for a basic grant
entitlement equal to the greater of its formula or bold-
harmless allocation.
000108
METROPOLITAN CITIES, URBAN COUNTI, ES~ AND,TOWNS: A three-factor
formula - the city or county's ratio of population, poverty double counted
and regionalized), and housing overcrowding - would be used to determine
a "basic grant entitlement". Also each city or county would have a "hold-
harmless" calculated for it, with the formula phased in and hold-harmless
phased out. First year, the community would receive the higher of its hold-
harmless or one-third of formula; second year, higher of hold-harmless or
two thirds of formula; third year, higher of hold-harmless or formula: fouz~h
year, higher of formula or two-thirds of hold-harmless; fifth year, higher
or formula or one-third of hold-harmless; and sixth year, formula only.
AUTHDRIZATIONS
The Housing and Community Development Act will become effective on
January 1, 19'/5, with 2.5 billion authorized for the first year, 2.95 billion
dollars for fiscal year 1976, and 2.95 billion dollars in fiscal year 1977. In
addition, 50 million dollars is available in fiscal years 1975-1976, and not
to exceed 100 million dollars in fiscal year 1977 for use by communities with
urgent needs that cannot be met by the allocation provisions of the bill. HUD
may apply up to 20% of any community's grant (after local consultation) towards
repayment of temporary loans from existing projects if additional capital grants
are required for completion.
HUD may advance to hold-harmless cities up to 10% of their first year
entitlement for continuing projects or for preparing for block grant implemen-
tat ion.
ANALYSIS OF TITLE II OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACT 1974
Of primary importance in the new legislation is the development of a
new "housing assistance payments program for lower income families".
Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as contained in the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974; formerly called Section 23 program
for "Housing in Private Accomodations".
The primary purpose of Section B is to aid lower-income families in
obtaining a decent place to live and of promoting economically mixed housing.
Assistance payments may be made with respect to existing, newly-constructed
and substantially-rehabilitated housing.
The Secretary of HUD is authorized to contract with public housing
agencies and these agen?ies may contract with owners of existing
dwelling units. In areas where no public housing agency has
been organized or where the Secretary of HUD determines
that a public housing agency is unable to implement the
progt.am, the Secretary may enter into contracts directly
O001C",
'with owners and per' 'm other functions otherwise
housing agency by tk~ statute.
'igned to a public
The contract for assistance payments shall be for a term of not less
than one month or more than 180 months (15 years).
The, selection of tenants shall be the function of the owner~ subject
to the D,ro. visions of the annual contributions contract between the
Secretary and the public housing agency.
The public housing agency shall have the sole right to give notice
to vacate, with the owner having the right to make representation
to the agency for termination of tenancy.
Maintenance and replacement (including redecoration) shall be in
accordance with the standard practice for the buildh~g concerned,
as established by the owner and agreed to by the public housing
agency.
The public housing agency and the owner shall carry out such other
appropriate terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed to by
them.
The Secretary of HUD is authorized to make assistance payments
contracts directly with owners of prospective owners who agree to construct
or substantially rehabilitate housing in which some or all of the units shall be
available for occupancy by "lower income families'~ q,r the Secretary re. ay,, also
enter into annual contribution contracts wit.h public housing agencies pqrsuant
.t° which such agen. cies may,. enter into contracts to make assistance... . . ~ pay,ments
to such .owners or prospective owners.
The contract for assistance payments shall not be for a term of less
than one month or more than 240 months (20 years), except in the
case of a project owned by, or financed by a loan or loan guarantee
of a state or local agency, the term may not exceed 480 months
(40 years).
The prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act apply to
all housing constructed or rehabilitated with nine or more units.
All ownership, management, and maintenance responsibilities
including the selection of tenants and the termination of tenancy,
shall be assumed by the owner, except that the owner may contract
for the performance of such responsibilities, with any entity,
including a public housing agency, approved by the Secretary.
Eligible sponsors (owners) shall include private builder-developers,
cooperatives, and public agencies. The construction or substantial
rehabilitation of dwelling units assisted shall be eligible for financing
with mortgages insured under the National Housing Act. In addition
,to the sponsora..alread,y eligib, le. for , mortgage insurance,
public housing agencies, for the purposes of this new
program, are made eligible for mortgage insurance
~under Sec;!0n' 2,,2~i!d)(3) of thc National~ Housing Act,
with the interest taxable under federal income tax.
00010
Assistance shall not be withheld under the new program or made
subject to preferences if the mortgage insurance does not involve
"co-insurance" (the new 1974 provision, Section 244 of the National
Housing Act) or by reason of the tax-exempt status of the bonds or
other obligations to be used to finance such construction or sub-
stantial rehabilitation. In addition, nothing in the act shall prohibit
an owner frown offering, as security for any loan or obligation, a
federal contract for assistance payments, if the terms of the
financing or any refinancing have been approved by the Secretary.
Bond obliga%io.ns,.issued by local housing authorities shall not
carr~the full faith and credit guarantee of the federal government.
Obligations of qualified state housing finance and development
agencies shall ca, try such federal guarantee only if they are
incurred in connection with slum revitalization. ~Preliminary loan
contracts are not provided, but public housing agencies are made
eligible for 80 percent interest free loans for pre-construction
activity (Section
In relationship to contracts entered into by the Secretary with a
public housing agency, such agency may purchase any structure
for the purpose of reselling the structure to the tenant or tenants
occupying units aggregating in value at lease 80 percent of the
structure's total value. Any such resale shall include such terms
and conditions as the public housing agency may determine, without
affecting the Secretary's commitment to pay annual contributions
not exceeding debt service on the outstanding bonds.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (apply to both existing housing and new construction
or s{~bs~antial rehabilitation).
FAMILY ELIGIBILITY AND OCCUPANCY
Initial occupancy is restricted to those families defined as "lower
income" - those whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the
median income of the area, as determined by the Secretary, with
adjustments for smaller and larger families, except that the
Secretary may establish income ceilings higher or lower than
80 percent because of ~is findings th~ such variations are
necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs,
unusually high or Iow family incomes, or other factors, "Income"
means income from all sources of each member of the family,
as defined by the Secretary. Reviews of family income shall
be made at least annually, except in the case of the
elderly, which may be at two-year intervals.
000106
At least 30 percent of the families assisted with annual allocations
of contract authority, on a national basis, at the time of initial rent-
ing, shall be "very-low income families" - families whose incomes
do not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the area, with
adjustments for larger or smaller families. Assistance under the
new program may also bc combined with assistance under the Sec-
tion 202 direct loan program for the elederly0 in order to reach
lower-income families.
RENTA,L,. REQUIRE MEN TS
Family rental payments shall be no less than 15 percent or more than
25 percent of the family's income, taking into consideration the
number of minor children in the household and the extent of medical
and unusual expenses. The 15 percent applies to large families and
those with exceptional expenses.
The housing assistance contract with the owner shall establish the
"maximum monthly rent" (including utilities and all maintenance
and management charges) that the owner is entitled to receive.
This maximum monthly rent shall not exceed by more than 10 per-
cent the "fair market rent" established by the Secretary for the
local market area, except that it may exceed this fair market rent
by up to 20 percent where the Secretary determines special
circumstances warrant it, or that such higher rent is necessary
to implement the "local housing assistance plan" required under the
Housh~g ~::d Community Development Act of 1974. "Fair market
rents" are established at least annually for existing or newly-
constructed rental dwellings of various sizes and types in the
market area suitable for occupancy by persons assisted; these
rentals shall be published in the Federal Register with a reasonable
time for public comment and shall become effective on publication
in the Register in final form.
In establishing fair market rents the HUD Secretary is expected to take
into accouot factual data and analysis and recommendations from community
sources familiar with prevailing rents and costs in various market areas;
and the need to provide housing with suitable amenities and sound architectural
design,
Maximum monthly rents to be charged by the owner may be adjusted
annually or more frequently to reflect changes in fair market rents
or on the basis of a reasonable formula, set by the
Secretary. Additional adjustments shall be made by
the Secretary to the extent he determines increases
000107
in the actual and necessary expenses (real property taxes, utility
rates, or similar costs) of owning and maintaining housing units are
not adequately compensated for in the method just described. Rental
adjustments shall not result in material differences between rents
charged for assisted and comparable unassisted units.
FAMILY HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
The amount of the family's monthly housing assistance payment shall
be the difference between the rents required to be paid by thc family
and the maximum monthly rent that the contract provides the owner
is to receive for the unit.
Such family assistance payments shall be made for occupied units,
except that they may be made with respect to unoccupied units for a
period not exceeding 60 days in the event that a family vacates a
'dwelling unit before the expiration of the lease or where a good faith
effort is being made to fill an unoccupied unit.
Family assistance payments may be made with respect to up to 100
percent of the dwelling units in any structure. For projects contain-
ing more than 50 units or designed for use primarily by non~elderly
and non-handicapped persons, the Secretary may give preference
to applications for assistance involving not more than 20 percent of
the dwelling units. In accordance with such preference, the Secretary
shall compare applications received during distinct time periods
not exceeding 60 days in duration.
The Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to assure
that family assistance payments are increased on a timely basis to
cover increases in maximum monthly rents or decreases in family
income. Such steps may include amending assistance payments
contracts to reflect increases, reservation of annual contribution
authority, and allocation of a portion of new authorizations to amend
contracts.
Title II of the Housing and Community Development simplifies and
consolidates certain programs set fourth in the United States Itousing Act of
1937. Section 235 homeownership and Section 236 multi-family rental
housing as well as certain other selected programs have been consolidated and
modified. Sections 235 and 236 are only briefly summarized herein as the
primary ~mphasis is being placed on Section 8 by Housing and Urban Develop-
ment and Sections 235 and 236 have extended authority to only June 30, 1976.
Summarized below are all the new provisions and programs
as presented in the new act.
Public Housing, Title II Section .201 changes and revisions
are as follows:
000108
Eliminates the requirement for a 20 percent gap between admission
limits in public housing and the income necessary to afford private
housing in substantial supply in tl~e community.
Eliminates the statutory provision requiring continued occupancy
limits.
Specifically cites "security personnel" as an eligible operating cost.
Requires that public housing agencies establish tenant selection
criteria designed to assure that, in a reasonable time period, the
project will include families with a broad range of incomes and will
avoid concentrations of Iow-income and deprived families with serious
social problems (Section 6(c)(4)). At least 20 percent of dwelling units
in any new development shall be for very low-income families, i. e.,
with incomes below 50 percent of median income in the area.
Requires the establishment of a minimum rent not less, than the
higher of (a) 5 percent of gross family income or (b), ff a family is
receiving welfare assistance from a public agency and a part of the
payment is specifically designated by such agency to meet the
family's housing costs, the portion of such payment which is so
designated - adjusted to actual payment, if welfare assistance pay-
ment as a whole has been adjusted, (This amendment eliminates
the Brooke III Welfar~ amendment of 1971). The average rent-income
· ratio char~ed tenants in a local housing program in any year must be
at least 20 percent of gross income.
Adjusts the definition of income to eliminate double deductions,
clarifies deductions for dependents, eleminates deductions for
heads of households or their spouses, and adds a deduction for
foster child care payments.
Adjusts the definition of elderly or handicapped family to include two
or more elderly, disabled, or handicapped individuals living together
or one or more such individuals living with another person who is
determined to be a person essential to their care or well-being.
Provides for a separation of annual contributions contracts for "debt
service" and for "operations" - that is, operating subsidies.
IncreaSes annual contributions contract authority by 1. 225 billion
dollars and earmarks 150 billion dollars and earmarks
150 million dollars per year for new development of
· housing to be owned by public housing agencies, not
more titan 50 percent of which development shall be
00010
under the new HAP (housing Assistance Payments) program
authorized by Section 8 of the act. Also earmarks at least 15
million dollars in fiscal year 1975, and not less than an additional
15 million dollars in fiscal year 1976, for Indian housing° using
traditional public housing development approaches. Also authorizes
the Secretary of HUD to enter into contracts for operating subsidy
aggregating not more than 500 million dollars in fiscal year 1975
and 560 million dollars in fiscal year 1976. (The HUD appropriations
act for fiscal year 1975 sets a minimum of 450 million dollars for
operating subsidy. )
Pr0vi, d~s for annual contributions for operating subsid,ie
Secretary determines are r.equired (11 to assure the low-income
character of the projects inv01ved and (2) to achieve and maintain
adequate operating services and. r~serve funds. The Secretary shall
establish standards for costs of operation and reasonable projection
of income, taking into account the character and location of the
project and characteristics of the families served, or the costs of
providing comparable services as determined in accordance with
criteria or a formula representing the operations of prototype
well-managed projects.
Provides an optional method of financing public housing developments
utilizing taxable instead of t, ax-exempt bonds.
~ ._Requit-es +.hat ~uhlic housing agencies assure sound management
pract~cc:-~ through: (I) the establishment of satisfactory procedures
designed to assure the prompt payment and collection of rents
and the prompt processing of evictions in the case of nonpayment
of rent; (2) the establishment of effective tenant management relation-
ships designed to assure that satisfactory standards of tenant security
and project maintenance are formulated and that the public housing
agency (together with tenant councils where they exist) enforces
those standards fully and effectively; (3) the development by
local housing authorities of viable homeownership opportunity pro-
grams for low-income families capable of assuming the responsi-
bilities of homeownership.
- Authorizes the Secretary qf HU, D,,to uti!,ize an. pual contributions to
modify obsolete housing developments or to close out such develop-
m,ents when they,cannot be restored to a useful life. if mutually
agreed uponbetween,th, epu, blic housin~ agency and the Secretar~y.
Authorizes as Section 8 of the 1937 act a new program
of 'Lo'er IncOme itousing'' A~sistance' utilizing
housing assistance payments. This new program
00011U
replaces t~e Section 2:{ leasing program. I,luD is prohibited
from applying the revised policies and procedures to Section 23
1,eases with owners eutered into prior to the issuance of the new
regulations.
Requires the Secretary~ of HUD to consult with the Secretary of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and insure that
projects for the elderly and handicapped provide quality of services
and management considered appropriate to thc needs of the
occupants,
Authorizes the use of annual contributions in connection with war
housing projects owned by public housing agencies and permits
funds received from sale of such projects to be used by local
agencies to repair projects held by them.
Permits the use of local housing authority bonds with flexible
maturities and balloon payments to finance public housing projects.
SECTION 235 HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM'
Title Il, Section 211
Extends the authority to insure projects until June 30, 1976.
Authorizes the use of. existing contract authority, estimated at
220 million dollars, for new contracts entered into within one
year a£Le; ~he passage of the 1974 act; new contracts after this
date will require appropriations by appropriations acts.
Increases the maximum statutory mortgage limits by approximately
20 percent over current levels.
Establishes income limits for initial occupancy at 80 percent of
median income for the area, with adjustments for smaller or
larger families, with authority to the Secretary of HUD to adjust
these limits because of prevailing levels of construction costs,
unusually low or high median incomes, or other factors.
Authorizes homeownership counseling financed out of appropriated
funds and requires mandatcd counseling for purchasers deemed to
be special ,credit risks.
Makes permanent the authority of the Secretary to
use up to 30 percent of contract authority for
existing units and raises from 10 to 20 percent
the percentage of contract authority that can be
used for substantial rehabilitation.
000111
- Authorizes insurance of advances of mortgage proceeds for self-
help housing programs.
Provides for a minimum downpayment of 3 percent of acquisition
cost.
SECTION 236 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL PROGRAM
Title II, Section 212
- Extends the authority to insure projects until June 30, 1976.
Authorizes the use of existing contract authority estimated at
145 million dollars and adds an additional 75 million dollars
to bring total available contract authority to 220 million dollars.
New authority can be used when a community has identified its
special housing needs and demonstrated that these needs cannot
be met under the new Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) program
of the 1974 act. (The HUD appropriations act for fiscal year 1975
mandates the release of Section 236 authority concurrently with
the authorizations for the new HAP).
Increases the maximum statutory mortgage limits by approximately
20 percent over current levels.
Consolidates ,the 'ren, t supplement" program. within the Section 236
program by requiring additiona!assi. stance f, or .2,0 percent of families
in all, new developments who cannot afford to pay the basic rentals
within 25 percent of their incomes.
- Establishes a minimum rental equal to utility costs.
Establishes the income limits at initial occupancy at 80 percent
of median income for the area, with adjustments for smaller
or larger families, with authority to the Secretary of HUD to
adjust these limits because of prevailing levels of construction
costs, unusually low or high median incomes, or other factors.
Provides for additional federal assistance payments to a project
owner based on increases in taxes and utility costs, not in excess
of amounts necessary to maintain basic rentals for any units not
in excess of 30 percent of family income.
&
Autho. rizes the use of not less than 10 percent
of total cont,r, act amounts for ne,w, development
or rehabilitated housing.
000112
Authorizes the use of not less than 20 percent of total contract
amounts for new development planned for use in whole or in
part for elderly or handicapped families.
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with state or
local agencies to provide for monitoring and supervision of
privately-sponsored 23~ developments.
SECTION 202 DIR,ECT LOAN PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY AND
.HANDI'CApPED
Title II, Section 210
Established a revolving loan fund under the Secretary of the
Treasury in the amount of 800 million dollars, separate from
the budget of the United States, plus approximately 100 million
dollars in unused loan funds.
Establishes the rate of interest ,.to eligible housing sponsors at
the current average market yield on outstanding marketable
obligations of the federal government (currently about 8.5
percent).
Expands the definition Of ,elderly and handicapped families.
Authorizes the Secr~t~ry to seek to assure that housing built under
the 202 program shall be in support of, and supported by, applicable
state and local plans for such housing, responding to federal pro-
gram requirements for facilities and services,
Requires that 202 projects serve both low- and moderate-income
families in a mix determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
For the purpose of serving low-income families, housing assistance,
payments under the new Section 8 program of the housing act of 1937
may be used for families in 202 projects.
Analysis of the Title Viii - Section 802 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 addresses itself to the recently awakened interests
of those state government who have or are contemplating creating housing
financing agencies (HFA~s).
Section 80.2 encourages the formation and effective operation of state
housing finance agencies and state development agencies with authority to
finance, to assist in carrying out, or to carry out activities
designed to (1) provide housing and related facilities through
land acquisition, constmJction, or rehabilitation, for persons
and families of low, moderate, and middle income; (2) pro-
mote the sound growth and development of neighborhoods
00011
through the revitalization of slums and blighted areas; (3) increase and
imp~'ove employment opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed
through the development and redevelopment of industrial, manufacturing,
and commercial facilities; or (4) implement the development aspects of state
land-use and preservation policies, including the advance acquisition of land
where it is consistent with such policies.
The Secretary of HUD is charged to encourage maximum participation
of private and nonprofit developers in connection with these activities.
A state housing finance or state development agency is defined as any
public body or agency, publicly-sponsored corporation, or instrumentality
of one or more states designated by the governor (or governors) for the
purposes of carrying out the activities set forth.
The HUD Secretary is authorized to guarantee, and enter into commit-
ments to guarantee, the bonds, debentures, notes, and other taxable obliga-
tions issued by state agencies, as defined, but only to finance activities
determined by him to be in furtherance of the development of low-, moderate-,
or middle-income housing or the revitalization of slums or blighted areas.
Housing development must be in co0nection w~/th revitalization of sluras or
blighted areas under federally-assisted community development or sJ.milar
endeavor. The full faith and credit of the federal government is pledged in
payment of these guarantees. The aggregate principal amount of state
obligations that may be guaranteed shall not exceed 500 million dollars.
The HUD Secretary is authorized to make, and to contract to make
grants to or on behalf of a state agency, as defined, to cover not to exceed
33-1/3 percent of interest payable on taxable obligations issued in connection
with prescribed activities. There is authorized to be appropriated up to 50
million dollars prior to July 1, 1975 and an additional 60 million dollars on
July 1, 1975 to make interest payments up to 33-1/3 percent.
The HUD Secretary is authorized to provide, either directly, or by con-
tract, or through other arrangements, technical assistance to state agencies,
as defined, to assist them in planning and carrying out the prescribed develop-
ment activities,
The minimum wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon act apply to any
development carried out with assistance under this section, except that, in
the case of residential development0 the project must involve eight or more
families.
000114
STATE LEGISLATION
The State of California is probably better recognized for the lack of
rather' than the existence of aggressive housing legislation. The state offers
no supplemental or alternative source of financing for housing programs to
the already noted federal funding vehicles. Two areas which have already
been discussed are the permissive provisions of the California Health and
Safety Code allowing cities and counties to utilize the California Redevelop-
ment Act and the Housing Authorities Law. The requirements of Title 7 of
the Government Code, Planning and Zoning Law which mandates consideration
of local housing problems and potential solutions as previously noted
accomplishes little in the way of being of assistance to local jurisdictions.
Recent actions of the California Legislature at the end of the last session
did not better the situation even though a number of important housing bills
were introduced. Some of the bills were held over until 1975 and the change
in administration may have some influence on legislative action and produce
both new and reintroduced legislation concerning housing. The following
summary indicates the status and content of the most recent legislation
considered by the California Assembly and Senate.
- Assembly Bill 2090 (Kapiloff) was unsuccessful in establishing
authority for cities to adopt ordinances requiring the inclusion
of low and moderate income housing constructed as part of resi-
dential projects of ten units or more to implement an adopted
housing element of the general plan.
- Assembly Bill 2144 (Bagley) was unsuccessful Cited as the
California Housing. Act of 1974, it would have abolished the Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development and established a
Housing Board empowered with subsidized lending terms for low
and moderate income households. The loan bond proposed could
have financed sale or rehabilitation of housing and particular
attention was to be granted elderly low income persons.
- Assembly Bill 2966 (Chacon et. al. ) also was defeated which would
have created a California Housing Finance Corporation which would
receive and allocate federal assistance funds and had its own
financing structure and could issue its own bonds.
- Assemb'ly Bill 2967 (Chacon et. al.), Senate Bill
1634 (Zenovich) was the funding vehicle of general
obligation bonds for $500 million for the Housing
Finance Corporation proposed under A.B. 2966
and was also unsuccessful A. t3. 2968 and S. B.
O0011b
1635 suffered the same fate authorizing the Corporation to issue
$200 million in revenue bonds.
- Assembly Bill 352 (McCarthy et. al. ) was held over for consider-
ation in 1975 and proposes the establishment of a Itousing Rehabilita-
tion Fund with an appropriation of $20 million for loans and grants
(3-1/2 percent interest rate on loans) to rehabilitate low and moderate
income housing. The bill established eligibility requirements, loan
limitations, rent restrictions, and non-discrimination provisions.
- Assembly Bill 4286 (Kapiloff) was held over for the next session.
It provided that for low rent housing projects for the elderly
financed in whole or part by state or federal assistance funds,
only one building permit would be required and the fee limited to
no more than $25.00 per unit.
- Assembly Bill 475 (Brown et. alL.) requiring notification of the
State Franchise Tax Board by local agency when substandard housing
is in a condition of non-compliance to local and state law after
notifying the taxpayer and providing for an appeal was also held
in abeyance.
Basically all pieces of legislation including S.B. 2093 ttome Manage-
ment Training, A.B. 4416 Mutual Self-Help Housing Law, and S.B. 2396
Disposition of Surplus State Property for Housing suffered similar fates due
to lack of actio,, or postponement. Already the legislation concerning a
housing finance corporation has been revived and new legislation concerning
property tax reductions for low income elderly introduced as the legislative
session has resumed.
As pointed out in other sections, the City of Santa Ana should monitor
the various pieces of legislation and work through the California League
of Cities as well as independently in supporting or recommending concerning
pending legislative acts.
000116
CHAPTER VII. AREAS OF HOUSING
PROBLEMS
In determining the geographical confines of the areas of housing
concern to the City of Santa Ana, three definitions or classifications of
housing were used. The three classifications were: [1) Sound, (2) Poten-
tial Problem Areas, and (5) Target Areas. Neighborhoods classified as
Sound were defined as being predc~ainantly free of negative housing char-
acteristics and unencumbered with undesirable social-economic conditions.
Potential Problem Areas of housing were locations which showed either:
(a) moderate severity of both housing and social-economic problems, or
(b) severely depressed social-economic conditions with only minor or first
stage negative housing characteristics. The third classification of
Target Area constituted those locations having major problems with poor
housing conditions and moderate to severe social-economic conditions.
Since areas of sound housing constitute the majority of the City's resi-
dential areas, for purposes of more precise definition of the areas of
housing concern they are neither discussed nor graphically depicted.
Specific items of data to establish those areas requiring in-depth
attention through a parcel-by-parcel analysis of housing stock condition
include:
1. The 1970 Census of Housing (D~tailed Housing Characteristics)
and the 1970 Census of Population (General Social and Economic Character-
istics), both issued in April of 1972 by the United States Department o£
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
2. The 1970 Census: Characteristics of Housing Units and Popu-
lation, bM Blocks, also issued by the Bureau of the Census.
3. The Rehabilitation Areas i~iicated by the City of Santa Arm's
'q~orkable Program for Conmmity Improvement" of 1971.
4. General Plan Program Technical Workbooks prepared by Ruth and
Krushldaov for the City of Santa Ana in 1965.
S. '~est Santa AnaHousing Deficiency Analysis," prepared by
Land Use Classification Systems in 1972.
6. "Greater Logan Area Study," Haworth, Anderson an~ Lafer, 1975.
000117
7. '~ltiple-Unit Survey," Urban Futures, Inc., November, 1974
(Chapter VIII of this study.)
8. The detailed compilation and co~ater analysis of current
data on Housing Stock Characteristics and Socio-Econemic Conditions
developed by Urban Futures, Inc. and contained within Chapters VI and VII
of this study respectively.
Housing Stock Condition Survey
A survey of housing stock conditions in Santa Ana was conducted
by Urban Futures, Inc. An in-depth description of survey methodology is
contained in Chapter IX of the Housing Technical Background Report.
000118
Analysis of SurveyResults
Gener,al ~indings: The "factor analysis" of housing characteristics
and socio-econ~mlc conditions (Chapters VI and VII of Technical Background
Report) establishing the zelative degree of problems by census tract and the
results of the parcel-by-parcel survey showed a high degree of correlation.
Three major subregions of the City distinctly predominate the concentration
'of major housing and socio-economic problems.
1. The area west of the Santa Aaa River between Seventeenth Street
on the north and First (Bolsa) Street on the south to the western City
limits has four separate target areas consisting of the Progresso, Silver
Acres and Santa Anita (two locations) neighborhoods.
2. The Central Corridor Area of the City running east-west from
approximately Grand Avenue to Fairview Street and a combination of Civic
Center Drive, Seventeenth Street, and the Santa Aha Freeway on the north
and Chestnut Avenue on the south contains six distinct target area locations.
3. The singular Delhi Area in the southeast portion of the City
bounded by Warner Avenue on the north, the Southern Pacific Railroad on the
east, the l)yer-Halladay industrial area on the south, and Main Street on
the west constitutes a target area.
Upon looking at the target areas in comparison to previous studies
by the City of Santa Ana concerning locations of housing problems and the
Potential Problem Areas identified by this study, certain directional or
associative conclusions may be drawn. There appears to be a growing and
accelerating trend in deteriorating housing and socio-economic conditions
covering expansive areas from Seventeenth Street on the north to Warner
Avenue/Delhi Area on the south stretching between the east and west City
limits. The areas of potential housing probl~ns identified appear to
originate from Target Area boundaries, except in the areas at Greenville
south of ~dinger and at Main Street and the Santiago Creek. Potential
Problem Areas in the Central Corridor and Santa Ana River West areas cluster
around First Street on both the north and south between Seventeenth Street
and F~linger Avenue. From the Delhi Area, the location of potential housing
problems run from Warner Avenue north between Main Street and Standard
Avenue until reaching the Central Corridor Area, or vice versa, creating
a connection between two target areas almost a mile and one-half apart.
A total of 4,018 of the units surveyed were allocated to some eleven
Target Areas. Of the total units, 2,595 (64.6%) were built
before 1945 and 645 (16.1%) had a life expectancy of ten years
of less.
000119
With regard to quality of maintenance; 913 (22.7%) were rated
good, 2400 (59.7%) as fair, and 705 (17.6%) were classified as
poor. Units rated as good under premise rating constituted 1014
(25.2%) of the total; fair, 2281 (56.8%); and 723 (18~) poor.
Using the assigned scores for each of the various categories,
multiplying by the number of units in that category, and then
dividing by the total of 4018 units we can obtain the average
or mean score for the major factors of Age, Life Expectancy,
Quality of Maintenance, and Premise Rating. The average score
in each major factor was age at 1235, life expectancy at 1.84,
maintenance quality at 1.95, and premise rating at 1.93. In
order to state something overall about the problems of housing
aea whole for the entire number of units surveyed regardless
of geographical location or distribution, we may use the math-
ematical method discussed under SURVEY CRITERIA to make some
generalizations.
Longevity (combination of Age and Life Expectancy) would
be a score of 3.19 indicating a low mid-range longevity expect-
ation. The Overall Parcel Rating score (combination of Main-
tenance and Premise Rating) would be 3.88 or fair category.
Hypothetically this would result in an overall Housing Stock
Condition Rating of fair. Even though remembering that these
areas were initially surveyed because of indicated severity of
housing and socio-economic problems, the overall results would
indicate that the majority of the units can be suitable for ade-
quate human habitation." This is not meant to downplay or dis-
tort the fact that numerous units could not meet the minimum
visual standards of housing quality with approximately one out of
six falling into the categories of ten years or less life expec-
tancy and poor in quality of maintenance and premise rating. Fur-
ther the surveys were based on relative housing quality and the
rating of minimum standards for habitation.
Except for one target area (Delhi Area in the Southeast),
all showed a decrease in the number of units and population. The
comparison of target area owner occupied unit values and contract
rents with the census tract(s) averages in which each target area
was located showed results which were initially anticipated.
Each target area had both lower values and lower rents than their
respective census tract(s). In each target area the percentage
of units with 1.01 persons or more per room exceeded the per-
centage for the census tracts in which they were located, a mea-
sure of the extent of overcrowding. In general, the population
per household was relatively stable for target areas with only
minor decreases. The bulk of target area units were single
family homes with most multiple unit structures confined to du-
plexes and some trip~exes. Larger families or
more persons per ho~-ehold were the rule for most
target areas with some exceptions in the central
corridor area where homes had been converted to
multiple units or boarding houses.
000120
The survey also indicated to the field operatives that, in n~nerous
cases, the lower rated units had a distinct correlation with the closeness
of a residence to major arterial highways and incompatible uses. Often
a cursory examination from nearby roadways or adjacent areas would give
one a m~ch more detrimental impression than a full survey of each block
and parcel within the entire neighborhood. Interior blocks often showed
· more substantial improvement activity than periphery blocks or block faces
adjacent to incc~npatible uses. The relationship to such an observed phenomena
and the percentage of absentee ownership, possibly due to speculative forces
in such areas, was not ascertainable as the Orange County Assessor's Office
would not readily make such information available during the short duration
of this study.
0001 ,!
~OTENT!AL PROBLEM AREAS
The areas ~ndicated as Potential Problem Areas are based
on both the factor analysis conducted as described in Chapters
VI and VII concerning Housing Stock Characteristics and Socio-
Economic Conditions and an abbreviated windshield survey of the
most deleterious census tracts or areas indicated by the 1970
Block Statistics to be potential housing problem areas. In the
majority of cases these areas were characterized by major prob-
lems of a socio-economic nature including low income, unemploy-
ment, extensive use of federal assistance programs, household
overcrowding, low education level, high probation rates, or
similar factors. The quality of housing characteristics had not
on an overall basis deteriorated to the level allowing for clear
visual assessment. However, the Urban Futures calculation of
residential improvement rates, dwelling unit vacancies, building
permit valuations, code enforcement violations, and similar data
did allow for some picture of the stability of various residential
neighborhoods. The random windshield survey of such areas indi-
cated substantial first indicators of housing deterioration in-
cluding problems of abandoned homes, extensive for sale and for
rent units, inoperative vehicles, poorly maintained yards and
parkways, spot examples of extensive deterioration, graffiti and
vandalism, weathered paint, spot accumulation of trash and debris,
and similar early signs of a declining neighborhood.
The areas indicated are rather expansive in nature due to
the fact that major development of residential units in Santa
Aha happened during an accelerated spurt during a brief span of
time. The majority of units in the Single family category are
similar in size, number of rooms, lot area, amenities, appear-
ance, and valuation. There was not a significant diversification
of residential type to stem or block the spread of blight and
deterioration. Many of these areas would also be suitable for
application of the housing programs discussed in Chapter X. The
Potential Problem Areas have not reached the critical level of
housing problems found in the Target Areas.
Due to the extensive and deteriorating nature of these
housing areas, they could prove to be the more serious and sub-
stantial housing problem faced by the City of Santa Aha over the
long range time period. Approximately just over 9700 dweiling
units are contained within the areas designated as potential
problem ar~as, over two and one-third times as many units as in
the target areas. If unchecked these areas could relatively
quickly turn into future target areas. In addition to the target
area strategies, close attention to conservation
and code enforcemen must be applied to these areas.
Of course, the stemming of the physical housing
blight of these areas is closely tied to the solv-
ing of the socio-economic conditions detrimental
to the human plight found associated with poor
O00 P2
housing conditions.
Tar~etArea.S}rnopsis; The Target Areas depicted in Figure VII-1
and statistically described in Chart VII-1 are individually summarized in
the following narrative. ~ach Target Area includes particular character-
istics which differentiate them one from the other and will necessitate,
under the consideration of action programs, an analysis of the appro-
priateness of specific programs for each area's peculiar circumstances.
AREA ~.ST OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER TO THE CITY LIMITS
A. The first Target Area is contained within Census Tract 891.03
and bounded by Harbor Boulevard, Hazard Avenue, Jackson Street, Seventh
Street, Harper Street, Fifth Street, the residential area east of Harper
to First Street, and First Street moving in a clockwise direction from the
intersection of Harbor and First. A total of 540 units were surveyed and
approximately 13 percent were classified as poor in both quality of main-
tenance and premise rating. The Target Area constitutes the majority of
the neighborhood commonly known as Santa Anita. The majority of the units
have been built since 1945 and only 7 percent have a life expectancy of
less than ten years. Overall the area has potential for long range stability,
however is currently only fair in overall parcel rating. The housing stock
condition would be rated generally good.
The Multiple-Unit Survey conducted byUrban Futures and the Planning
Deparment generated responses concerning only seven units in this particu-
lar censusltract, insufficient to reach any conclusions. The 1970 Block
Statistics indicate a total of 551 units, of which 205 (57%) were owner-
occupied and 322 (58%) rentals. Only five mits were indicated as lacking
some or all plmbing facilities. The average owner value of mits was
$15,660.00 for the Target Area blocks c~aredwith $20,S00.00 for the census
tract and the average Target Area contract rent of $94.50 compared with
$116.00 for the census tract. Single person households numbered 51 and
female head of households were 80 total. The Target Area population of
2,594 in 1970would be currently estimated at approximately 2,520. Forty-
one percent of the units were sho~n to have 1.01 or more persons per room.
1The 1970 Bureau of the Census Block Statistic infomation for the
number of owner and renterunits usually fails to be cmnulative
to the total number of units as the status of some units was un-
ascertainable. Percentage figures are based on total mits
and therefore do not always total one hundred percent.
000
B. The second Target Area, also part of the area commonly
known as Santa Anita, includes residential units in Census Tract
890.02 north of First Street between Harbor Boulevard on the east
and Newhope on the west on Mountain View Street, Fifth Street,
Huylars Ln., and the Forry and Missouri Lane area. The area has
been substantially reduced from the boundaries indicated by the
Workable Program for Community Improvement in light of the mobile-
home park developed abutting First Street in 1974. A total of
116 units were surveyed, 43 (37%) were constructed prior to 1945
and 12 (10%) anticipated to have a life expectancy of less than
ten years. Twenty units were rated poor in quality of mainten-
ance and 13 poor in premise rating. The target area is similar
to the first with indications of longer range stability and
only fair overall parcel rating. The housing stock condition
would be rated as generally good.
The Multiple Unit Survey responses covered 32 two bedroom
rental units having a monthly rent of $160.00, which were all in
the target area. The 1970 Block Statistics showed an average rent
of $113.00 for the target area with the average for the census
trac% being $134.00 per month. In 1970 the average home value
was $19,870.00 in the target area and $22,400.00 for the census
tract. There were 160 units according to the Census (again show-
ing a decrease since 1970 in total units) with 41 owner occupied
and 117 rentals. A total of five units were indicated as lacking
all or some plumbing facilities, seven as being single person
households, and 31 with female householdheads. The 1970 target
area population of 622 would be estimated at 560 in 1974. Fifty-
six (35%) of the units were indicated as having 1.01 or more
persons per room.
C. The area commonly known as Progresso consisting of two
blocks on the southeast corner of Euclid Avenue and Seventeenth
Street (Westminster Boulevard) in Census Tract 890.01 is the
third Target Area in the area west of the Santa Aha River. It is
a small, isolated area on the edge of the City of Santa Aha abut-
ting Garden Grove. There is only a total of 98 units however
60 percent are over 30 years old and 41 percent have a life ex-
pectancy of less than ten years. Almost half of the units were
classified poor regarding the quality of maintenance and over four
out of ten were rated poor concerning the premise. Overall the
target area had a mid range longevity rating and a fair parcel
rating. This would place it in the worst condition of the four
target areas in the area west of the river, however numerically
it is one of the Smallest and most compact of the survey locations-
As wifh the next target area there were no responses from
this location to the Multiple Unit Survey questionnaire. The
1970 Block Statistic: showed an almost even split
between owner occupied and rental units. This
was the highest percentage for owner occupa~cy of
the four target areas east of the Santa Aha River.
The total units in 1970 was just three less than
the current survey indicating relatively little
physical change. Only one unit was listed as lack-
ing plumbing facilities, six single person house-
OONl .a
holds, and thirteen female headed households. The target area
home value was $17,770.00 compared to the census tract value of
$22,200.00 and the contract rent for target area rental units
was only $78.00 compared to the census tract average of $123.00.
The current population is estimated to be 382, eleven less than
1970, and this lower figure is based on an overall slight decrease
in the persons per household. The percentage of units with 1.01
persons or more per room was thirty-five.
D. The area generally referred to as Silver Acres basic-
ally located on both the east and west sides of Euclid Avenue
between Bolsa (First Street) Avenue and Hazard Avenue constitutes
the fourth Target Area and covers portions of Census Tracts 890.01
and 889.03 about 11 blocks in area. This area is also reduced
from the rehabilitation area indicated by the Workable Progra~
because of two~ recent mobilehome park developments. The survey
of 395 units indicated 95 (24%) built before 1945, 55 (14%) with
a life expectancy of less than ten years, 91 (23%) with a poor
quality of maintenance, and 100 (25%) poor in premise rating.
The area on the east side of Euclid Avenue was more severely im-
pac;~d with older units, shorter life expectancy, and poor main-
tenance and premise ratings. The area showed a degree of longer
term stability and fair parcel rating sufficient to classify the
housing stock condition as generally good.
No responses to the Multiple Unit Survey questionnaire
were received from this area. The 1970 Block Statistics indicated
445 units (50 more than the survey). Owner occupied units in
1970 were 182 (41%) and 251 (56%) rentals. The average value of
a target area unit was $20,500.00 with the average of the census
tracts being $22,500.00 and the average contract rent as $111.00
compares to the census tracts' average of $128.00. Seven units
were conducted as lacking some or all plumbing facilities, 54
listed as single person households, and 38 households having a
female head. The 1970 population of 1734 would be estimated as
of 1974 to be 1658 persons. Approximately twenty-eight percent
of the units had 1.01 or more persons per room.
II. CENTRAL CORRIDOR AREA
A. The first target area in the central corridor is within
Census Tract 744.01 and bounded by McClay Street on the east,
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad on the west, First Street
on the south, and Fourth Street on the north. The area consists
of nine blocks and 89 residential units were surveyed. Ninety
percent of the units are 30 years old or older and 38 units have
a life expectancy of less than ten years. Slightly over one out
of three were clas,~ ¢ied as poor in the quality of
maintenance and just under one out of two receiv-
ed a poor premise rating. A mid-range longevity
factor resulted from the survey and the overall
parcel rating was distinctly in the poor category.
00012,
The housing stock condition measured for the entire target area
as the lowest for all target areas. It should be pointed out that
the number of units constituted this as the smallest survey area
and portions or blocks of the larger target areas if considered
separately could receive similar ratings.
The Multiple Unit Survey questionnaire recieved 308 unit
responses from this census tract which contains three target
areas and 157 units were in target areas, 140 in one block
fringe areas around target areas, and only 11 distinctly separate
from target areas. The average rent was $127.00 for all units
with one bedrooms averaging $121.00 per month; two bedrooms,
$150.00; and three bedrooms, $1980.00. One out of three units
were 20 years older and about one-third of the tenants moved
within one year.
The 1970 Block Statistics showed a total of 132 units with
52 (39%) being owner occupied and 75 (57%) rentals. The average
value of an owner unit for the census tract was $19,200.O0. Un-
fortunately the number of owner units in the target area were
in&ufficient to allow release of valuation information. The aver-
age contract rent for the target area was $84.50 compared with
$]04.00 for the census tract. Five units were indicated as lack-
ing some or all plumbing facilities, 13 were listed as single
person households, and 13 units having a female head of household.
Twenty-nine percent of the units in 1970 were listed as having
1.01 or more persons per room. The 1970 population of 474 would
be estimated in 1974 to be 320.
B. This target area consists of twenty-six blocks in por-
tions of Census Tracts 744.01, 750.02, 746.02, and 745.01 bounded
generally by Chestnut Avenue on the south, Fourth Street on the
north, Cypress Avenue on the west, and Minnie and Garfield Streets
on the east. A total of 525 residential units were parcel-by-
parcel surveyed as to housing conditon. Units built before 1945
constituted 74.5 percent of the total (391 units) and one out of
six units could be anticipated for termination of use within
ten years. Approximately one-sixth of the units were also rated
poor in both quality of maintenance and premise rating. The
entire target area would generally be of mid-range longevity and
fair in premise rating giving rise to a fair rating of the overall
housing stock condition.
The questionnaire eliciting information concerning multiple
unit rentals showed an average contract rent of $119.00 for the
general area. This included a total of 673 units of which forty-
nine percent were within target areas within the various census
tracts and twenty-five percent were located in abutting fringe
or potential problem areas. Thirty percent of the units were
twenty years or olde~' and about one-third of the
units have a change f tenure within one year.
00012
The Census Block Statistics listed 583 units existing in
1970, §S less than found in the 1974 survey. In 1970, owner
units were 137 (23.5%) and rentals 420 (72%). The 1970 total
population of 1744 would now be estimated to be 15S0. The aver-
age value for an owner unit in the target area was $10,050.00
compared with a $20,300.00 censu~ tract average and the average
target area contract rent was $89.00 compared with $103.00 for
the census tracts. Units with 1.01 or more persons per room
numbered IlS or twenty percent. Twenty-one units lacked some
or all plumbing facilities, 182 units were one person house-
holds, and 49 units had female heads of household.
C. This target area is commonly known as the Logan Area
and consists of seven blocks in Census Tract 744.01 situated north
of Fruit Street between Santiago Avenue and the railroad right
of way to the Santa Aha Freeway. One hundred and thirty units
were surveyed within this mixed use area of residential and in-
dustrial use. This area was the topic of an lndepth study pre-
pared for the City of Santa Aha by the firm of Haworth, Anderson,
and Lafer in 1973. The basic research and data produced by their
report was confirmed by the parcel by parcel survey c~nd~cted by
Urban Futures. ~ ~-+~r.~ ~ ~o_Q]~ ~ t-tre target
extremely old, ~Ow~ver the majority (95%) could have a life
expectancy of a minimum of ten years, r, ~b~ ~ategories
quality of maintenance and premise ra~n~ 0~iy-B ~
received good ratings while 58 units (44.6%) were rated as poo~.
A mid-range longevity factor was established and an overall poo~
parcel rating for the target area, The Overall Parcel Rating
was the lowest of all the target areas. The housing stock con-
dition factor was the second poorest of the eleven target areas.
The factors pointed out regarding the Multiple Unit Survey'
concerning Central Corridor Target Area "A" would also hold true
for this target area as it is one of the four target areas or
portions of target areas found within Census Tract 744.01. The
1970 Block Statistics indicate an overcrowding factor of 1.01
persons or more per room for 46 (33%) of the then total of 138
units. Thirty-three percent of the units were owner occupied
and sixty-two percent rentals. The average unit value of the
target area was $15,950 and the average contract rent $63.50
compared with census tract averages of $19,200 and $104.00 re-
spectively. Twenty-five units were one person households,
twenty-three had female heads of households, and twenty-seven
units were listed as lacking some or all plumbing facilities.
The 1970 population of 507 would be estimated to be 455 as of
1974.
D. Immediately west of the Logan Area is a
target area of 218 _,its bounded by the Southern
Pacific Railroad on ~he east, Stafford Street on
the north, French Street on the west, and Sixth
Street on the south. There were 190 units (87%)
built prior to 1945 and approximately one out of
four units has an anticipated life expectancy of
less than ten years. Both the quality of mainte-
nance and premise rating was in the poor category for about
eleven percent of the units. The target area overall was in
the middle range for the factors of longevity, overall parcel
rating, and housing stock condition.
This target area is also within Census Tract 744,01 and
the apartment information for the entire area has been previously
summarized from the Multiple Unit Survey. The Block Statistics
indicate that within this fifteen block area there was a total
of 227 units in 1970 with 34 (15%) owner occupied and 174
(70.6%) rentals. The average value and rent for the target area
were $14,800 and $83.00 respectively compared with $19,200 and
$104.00 for the census tract. There were 12 units lacking
some or all plumbing facilities, 70 one person households° and
27 units having a female head of household. The 1970 popula-
tion of 636 would be estimated as of 1974 to be 587.
E. The. fifth target area is part of a large band of det-
eriorating and substandard housing conditions clustering along
F~r~t Street. This area generally lies east of Bristol Street,
south of Sixth and Fourth Streets, west of Broadway, and north
of First and Walnut'Streets. Numerically it is the second largest
target area and lies immediately adjacent to the largest target
area just west of Bristol. A total of 611 units were surveyed.
The overall housing stock condition was rated as fair based on
a fair parcel rating and mid-range longevity factor. The units
are rather old as 91.3 percent were pre 1945, however life
expectancy is rather good with only 15.9 percent having less than
ten years utilization anticipated. The quality of maintenance
was rated as poor for 103 units (16.9%) and poor for premise
rating on 123 units (20%). The area consists of 31 blocks with
14 blocks in Census Tract 750.02, 16 blocks in Census Tract 749,
and one block in Census Tract 751.
The Multiple Unit Survey showed the average rent for Census
Tract 749 to be $125 and Census Tract 750.02 to be $110 (C.T. 751
was not considered applicable as only one block of the target area
was within its boundaries). Of the 464 units responding concern-~
lng rent structure in the two major census tracts, 207 units were
in the target area and had an average rent of $104.50 (below the'
average of both census tracts). The population breakdown among
rental residents showed of the 1035 total that 19 percent were
under 18 years old, 73.5 percent between 18 and 65, and 7.5 per-
cent older than 65 years. Forty-seven percent of the units
were twenty years or older and slightly more than one out of four
households in rental units.move within one year. ~
The 1970 Bleak Statistics showed a total of
762 units (151 un~:s less than found by the survey)
of which 570 (almost 75%) were rental units. Over-
crowded units with 1.01 persons or more per room
numbered 184 (24%) while there were 214 (28%) were
one person households. Thirty-nine units lacked
some or all plumbing facilities and one out of ten
units had a female head of household. The average
000.I 8
valuation of owner units and average contract rent of the census
tracts were $18,500 and $96.00 respectively compared with the
target area averages of $15,850 and $84.50. The 1970 population
of 2257 would be estimated as of 1974 to be 1904 people.
F. The last target area in the central corridor is numer-
ically the largest with 869 units surveyed and is commonly refer-
red to as the Southwest Area. It consists of 47 blocks in Cen-
sus Tracts 748.01, 748.02~ 752.01, and 752.02. It is bounded on
the east by Bristol Street; Civic Center Drive (Eighth street)
on the north; English, Townsend, and Daisy on the west; and
Myrtle and First Streets on the south. Over eighty percent
(698 units) were 30 years old or older. The life expectancy
was ten years or less for 109 units (12.5%). Approximately four-
teen Percent of the units were rated as poor in both the cate-
gories of quality of maintenance and premise rating. This target
area was very similar overall to the one immediately east of
Bristol Street with a fair housing stock condition rating based
on a mid-range longevity and fair overall parcel rating.
The Multiple Unit Survey did not receive extensive res-
pon~:~ from this area or the involved census tracts. No responses
were made to the questionnaire from Census Tract 752.02. There
were responses on 123 units indicating an average rent of $113.00,
seventy-four percent of the units were 20 years old or older, and
about sixty percent of the occupants remained three years or
longer.
The 1970 Block statistics indicated a total of 1022 units
showing a decrease in the intervening four years of 153 units.
In 1970 forty-five percent (462 units) were owner occupied with
fifty percent (513 units) renter occupied. Only twelve units
were indicated as lacking some or all plumbing facilities. The
1970 population of 3557 would be estimated to be 2950 people in
1974. The average owner unit value and average contract rent of
the affected census tracts were $20,100 and $114.00 respectively
compared to $17,350 and $90.00 for the target area. Overcrowded
units with 1.01 persons or more per room numbered 254 (25%).
There were 175 one person households and 152 units with female
heads of household.
III. SOUTHEAST
The target area in this portion of the City of Santa Aha
is more isolated from the majority of the substandard housing
stock conditions in the central corridor and the area west of
the Santa Aha River. It consists of a single housing target
area commonly know~: ~s the Delhi Area or Neighbor-
hood. The prime ar~,~, of residential concern is
bounded by Warner Avenue on the north, Main Street
and Cypress Avenue on the west, the Southern Pac-
ific Railroad right of way and Emmett Street resi-
dential area on the south, and the extended align-
ment of Standard Avenue on the east. It is wholly
O0012.q
contained within Census Tract 740.01. The parcel by parcel eur-
vey indicated the housing stock conditions in Delhi to be rela-
tive good. A mid-range longevity factor and fair overall parcel
rating were derived for the target area. There was a total of
427 units surveyed of which 352 units (82.4%) were built before
1945. About one out of four units have a life expectancy curren-
tly of less than ten years. Only 49 units (11.5%) were rated poor
regarding the quality of maintenance and premise rating.
Out of the seventy-seven rental units in this census tract
responding to the multiple unit survey only seven units were in
the target area. The survey indicated an average rent for the
census tract $202.00, however the seven target area units did not
respond to this item and it would be expected that there is a
marked difference between target area rents and the overall cen-
sus tract.
The 1970 Block Statistics for the sixteen blocks in the tar-
get area indicated a total of 348 units, fewer than found in the
current survey. This was an exception to the findings for other
survey and target areas which suffered a loss of units since
1970. A number of new multiple unit structures were noted as
well as move-in single family structures of recent vintage. Field
operatives noted an extensive amount of public improvement being
conducted to Central Avenue and also a scattered amount of home
improvements being conducted (new fences, roofing, and other
minor construction) not found in other target areas.
In 1970, 132 units (38%) were owner occupied and 203 units
(58%) were rentals with the status of the remaining units unknown.
Within the target area the average owner occupied unit was worth
$15,700 compared with $28,000 for the census tract in 1970 and
the target area contract rent was $93.00 compared with the census
tract average of $123.00. Eleven units lacked some or all plumb-
ing facilities and units with 1.01 persons or more per unit
numbered 142 (40.8%). Thirty-four units were one person house-
holds and 40 units had female heads of household. The 1970 pop-
ulation of 1520 would be estimated to be 1835 people in 1974.
00013O
ooo:t;~.i ' '
,, J
ol
IX-23
'000132
I I · I
0001~
*Target Areas West of the San,a Aha i~iver ,,
HARPE
B
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
RATING BY BLOCK FACE /~
D GOOD POOR
FAIR [~] NON
RESIDENTIAL
Target Areas .,, West of the Santa Ana~
C~
AVE.
VENTH
ST,
THIR
17 16
.ous,.~ s.oc~ co..,;,o.
.^'n.~ ~,~.oc~ ~^c~ ~
~ooo~ .°o.
FAIR [::] NON
~ RESIDENTIAL
~[~0 s ~I'A ST
TENTf
B
~ arget Areas -- Central Corridor
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
RESIDENTIAL
Target Area Central Corridor
{
~00~.
mr"l
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
RATING ~Y BLOCK FACE
D GOOD POOR
FAIR r"] NON
RESIDENTIAL
Target Area -- Central Corridor ~
CIV
C HESTN
HOUSING STOCK CONDITION
RATING I~y BLOCK FACE
~ GOOD POOR
FAIR D NON
RESIDENTIAL
F
CHAPTER VIII.
MULTIPLE UNIT SURVEY
Introduction
Urban Futures prepared a survey questionnaire to elicit more
specific data concerning the current situation of multiple-unit rentals
in the City. The questionnaire was distributed bymil to multiple-unit
owners based on business license records by the Planning Deparment during
the first weeks of October, 1974, and responses were tabulated tkrough
November. There were 316 respondents accounting for ownership or manage-
ment of 5,757 multiple units which is 27.5 percent of Santa Ana's total
stock of~antiple-unit rentals.
The subject matter consisted of seven major areas: (1) the n~nber,
type, occupied or vacant status, and respective rental price of each unit
was requested; (2) a breakdown of total occupant population was solicited
by age for those under 18 years old, between 18 and 65 years old, and over
65 years of age; (5) the survey inquired as to the utilities which were
included as part of the rent; (4) respondents were asked to specify the
type of recreation facilities provided; (5) the estimated age of the struc-
ture in five-year intervals was requested; (6) an indication of the rate of
turnover in occupancy was solicited; (7) general comments were invited to
be submitted. The amount of information requested was extensive and the
questionnaire designed as a prototype for use by the Planning Department on
an annual basis to observe changes and the beginnings of possible trends in
the multiple-unit market.
The results of the survey served primarily as a further data source
and control check on 1974 original generation data concerning housing
characteristics. Some of the data was not directly applicable to the
Housing Element. It was designed for continued use as part of an overall
program to ensure distribution of updated housing information.
Sukwe¥, S~mar~
Population: Of the 5,757 units from which data was generated, 4,526
responded to questions concerning population distribution and make-up.
There was no particular pattern to the responses geographically, other than
few responses were received from the portion of Santa Ana west of the
NO01. 9
Santa Aha River. The total population for the responding units was 9,918
persons, resulting in an overall 2.29 persons per unit. There appeared to
be a distinct dividing line between the areas of highest and lowest popu-
lation per dwelling unit in mltiples. Of the ten lowest census tracts
(1.80 persons per unit or less), ali were east of Bristol Street. The
lowest persons per unit was 1.36 for Census Tract No. 754.02. Of the ten
census tracts with the highest population per unit, nine of them were west
of Bristol Street with 4.40 persons per unit being the highest in Census
Tract No. 741.01. This pattern is based on responses from 32 of the total
46 census tracts within the City of Santa Aria.
Information concerning tenant turnover showed a relationship with
age of structures. The fringe census tracts in the south and eastern por-
tions of the City, where much of the newer apartment development has taken
place, showed a greater percentage of tenures of less than one year. Also,
the three census tracts with the highest percentage of population above 65
years of age were among those census tracts with the lower turnoever per-
centages. In general, the areas of longer tenure were the older and more
centralized portions of the City.
The breakdown of population by the categories of under 18 years old,
18-65 years old and 65 years old or older showed a few discemible patterns.
The multiple units having the highest percentage of residents over 65 years
ran in a north-south ali~m,ent on either side of Main Street from the Santa
Arm Freeway on the north to Warner Avenue on the south. Census Tract No. 742
had 78 residents in multiples [72%) who were over the age of 65. The units
having more numerous residents under the age of 18 and those having the
largest percentage of residents between 18 and 65 years old did not have
specific cluster patterns; however, in general, were found between the Santa
Ana River and the eastern City limits and First Street on the north and
Warner Avenue on the south.
Unit Characteristics: Unit vacancies ranged from a high of 12.8
percent to a low of no vacancies for six census tracts with an overall
vacancy rate of 5.4 percent for the survey rates. This compared favorably
with the Postal Vacancy Survey finding of $. 5 percent for Santa Ana and
would lend some credence to the representativeness of the survey. The rate
of 12.8 percent found in Census Tract No. 753.01 was investigated by dis-
cussions with two of the managers of larger projects indicating unusually
high rates in the survey. It was discovered during the interviews that, at
the time of the survey, the apartment projects in question had been undergoing
a change in professional managenmnt and a weeding out of problem tenants
NNN14
combined with a rent increase, had contributed to the rate at that time.
It was anticipated that their vacancy problems would be rectified in short
order bY the managers of both complexes,
The vacancy rate by unit type breakdown shows bachelor units to
the highest at 11.6 percent with 42 units vacant out of 363. One bedroom
units were close to the overall City average with 5.2 percent vacant (1,57
out of 2,642 units). Two-bedroc~ units had the lowest vacancy, with the
110 vacant units out of 2,394 total producing a 4.6 percent rate. The
three-bedroom or more category had a vacancy rate of 5.9 percent, with 21
of 358 units vacant. The total of ,510 vacancies for 5,757 units resulted
in the overall City rate of 5.4 percent.
The curve of units by type was slightly skewed toward the smaller
unit categories. One bedro~n units (45.9%) were predominant. Bachelor and
three-plus-bedroom units were almost equivalent with 565 and 558 units re~
spectively. The bulk of three-bedroom units were found in a single census
tract; 741.05 had 19Z of the 5S8 or 54 percent. The structural age of units
showed the newer units to be on the southern and eastern frings of the City,
and the units over 20 years old concentrated in the Central Corridor Area
and the northern and southwestern areas along the eastern boundary of the
Santa Ana River.
Rent Structure: Rents ranged from a high average of $202.00 per
month to a low of $85.00 for Census Tracts 740.01 and 742.00 respectively.
The areas of lowest average monthly rents were located in the central body
of the City between Edinger Avenue and Seventeenth Street on the .north and
south and the Santa Aha Freeway on the west and east. The high average
rent value areas were in the south part of Santa Aha or more recent multiple-
unit developments and in the northeast sector of the City, north of the
Santa Ana Freeway and Santiago Creek. The average rent for bachelor units
was $1,51.00/mo., one bedroom units, $155.00/mo.; two bedroom units, $170.00/mo.
three or more bedrooms, $194.00/mo. The average rent for all survey units
throughout the City of Santa Arm was $161.00. This would indicate an approxi-
mate increase in rent of 21 percent from the $135.00 (median rent) ~igure of
the 1970 census.
Target Areas: Of the 5,757 units for which information was gener-
ated, 469 (§%) were units within target areas as discussed in C~apterVII.
There were 101 bachelor units with an average rent of $95.50, 227 one bedroom
units at $108.50, 151 two-bedroomunits at $128.00, and 9 three-plus-bedroom
units at $116.00 per month. The average target area monthly rent, regardless
000141.
of unit type would be $111.00. The persons per houshold within multiples
in the target areas was 2.3S. Of the 98S people for which age information
was supplied, 8.5 percent were over the age of 65, 20.9 percent under the age
of 18, and the remaining between 18 and 65, or 70.6 percent. The £ollowing
compares the survey results for the entire City with the results drawn from
the survey for tmrgot area multiple units only.
Ail Surve}~ Units
Target Ar.e~ Survey .Units
Percent of Units
Bachelor 6.3% 21.5%
One Bedroom 45.9% 48.4%
Two-Bedroom 41.9% 28.0%
Three - Bedreom 6.2% 2.1%
Persons per Unit 2.29 2.35
Bachelor $131.00 $ 93.50
One Bedrocm 153.00 108.00
Two-Bedroom 170.00 128.00
Three-Bedroom 194.00 116.00
All Units 161. O0 111.00
Percent of Population
Under 18 13% 21%
18-65 77% 71%
Over 65 10% 8%
The target areas shown a predominance of smaller units in compari-
son to the overall survey. Seventy percent of the units are bachelors or
one bedrooms in the target areas with only ten units shown in the three-
bedroom or larger class (This created a difficulty in applying much credence
to the average rent computed for these mits.). The rent structure for the
target area units was substantially lower than for all survey units (approxi-
mtely 50 percent). There was a substantially greater precentage of persons
under the age of eighteen in the target areas. The population per unit was
only 2.5 percent higher in the target areas than for the general survey mits
which is not sufficient to allow any meaningful generalizations about house-
hold size.
General Findings: Except in the target areas and centralized,
older sections of the City of Santa Aha, the n~ltiple rental market is not
equipped to meet the needs of those households in mere serious need of
adequate housing. ~ven though in many census tracts the rental rates are
lower in comparison to the overall monthly rates for Orange County, the
supply is insufficient to fulfill demand in Santa Aha. Lower rental rates
prove an attraction to low income households; however, the supply of such
units is relatively fixed and the newer construction in the south and east
sections of Santa Ana represents the higher rental costs. The multiple-
unit market cannot fulfill demand except for single persons or small house-
h~lds due to the orientation toward smaller units, especially within the
target areas. The housing for large, low income families appears to be
single family rentals which are not subject to business license require-
ments and, therefore, were not a part of this survey.
The most n~merous open ended comments from the survey questionnaire
often represented opposing viewpoints. Responses from the higher rate
rental units often cited the lack of adequate parking for tenants required
by City zoning provisions, while the responses from owners or managers
stipulating an orientation to low income or senior citizen rentals com-
plained of excessive requirements such as parking, which were unneeded and
put rental prices out of the reach of such groups. New and higher rate
units c~,l~ented on the lack of neighborhood parks or children's play facili-
ties, especially from fourplex units in the south part of Santa Aha and
also complained of traffic problems and abandoned automobiles. Target areas
and central City rental units conmented upon such items as the need for better
street cleaning, overcrowding and lack of maintenance on adjacent units,
making rentals more difficult for responsible owners, and the lack of atten-
tion to the needs of low income and senior citizen tenants. Other more
general co~nents focused upon problems of graffiti, vandalism and the need
for more police protection.
Survey Charts
The following charts aggregate the survey results by census tract
as has been done throughout this report. Comparison with the Census Tract
Base Map and the infomation provided in Chapter II concerning housing
stock characteristics and socio-economic conditions showed strong verifi-
cation of data derived from other than direct sources concerning current
conditions among rmltiple units. The generation of muntiple unit or apart-
ment data should be an on-going function of the City of Santa Ana. Improved
mailing procedures a~l soliciation of support from owners and managers of
NNNI
multiple-unit projects should create greater participation in the future and
provide a growing clarity to the picture of condition, quality and trends for
rental units in Santa Ana.
Apartment house living has achieved greater acceptability and is
rapidly becoming a way of life for an increasing segment of the Santa Ana
population. It will continue to assume greater significance in Santa Ana's
housing market. With the increasing scarcity of vacant land and continued
pressure of population growth, the City must careully monitor not only the
multiple-unit sector but also the balance of residential housing unit types
including single family, planned residential developments, mobile homes and
hoarding facilities, as well as the apartment or mltiple unit. For the
initial effort to survey Santa Ana's multiple-mit segment of the housing
stock, the following results were considered highly satisfactory.
00014
Census Tract.
TABLE VIII - 1
No. of Responses.
No. of Units.
740.01 13 77
740.02 11 548
741.01 7 54
741.02 7 139
741.03 2 22
741.04 2 105
741.05 48 630
742.00 2 64
744.01 26 308
575
~44.02 10 196
745.01 9
745.02 3 38
746.01 22 138
9 63
746.02 7 120
747.01 2 57
747.02 68
748.01 4 14
748.02 1
748.03 6 32
748.04 6 112
749.00 23 221
750.01 12 161
750.02 26 265
751.00 12 140
752.01 4 41
753.01 6 812
753.03 3 42
754.02 2 162
754.03 6 382
757.01 17 332
890.02 1 32
891.03 1 7
316
5,757
Percent of
Total Units.
9
22
20
100
48
30
36
22
25
57
21
6
28
17
39
27
67
7
20
14
21
17
25
32
18
40
54
11
39
89
23
4
27.5
000145
TABLE VIII - 2
Censu~
Tract
740.01
740.02
741.01
741.02
741.03
741.04
741.05
742.00
744.01
744.02
745.01
745.02
746.01
746.02
747.01
747.02
748.01
748.02
748.03
748.04
749.00
750.01
750.02
751.00
752.01
753.01
753.03
754.02
754.03
757.01
890.02
891.03
Units Furnishing
Population Data
77
308
53
49
21
48
589
64
220
545
178
38
135
63
85
52
63
14
30
107
201
146
245
140
16
219
39
99
115
329
31
7
Number of
Residents
169
714
233
161
31
99
1,742
108
404
1,201
467
161
218
109'
193
172
231
49
97
314
571
253
494
215
30
444
55
135
207
516
112
13
Persons
Per Unit
2.19
2.32
4.40
3.29
1.48
2.06
2.97
1.69
1.84
2.20
2.62
4.24
1.61
1.73
2.27
3.31
3.67
3.50
3.23
2.93
2.57
1.73
2.02
1.54
1.88
2.03
1.41
1.36
1.80
1.57
3.61
1.86
Vacancy
Rate
0%
9.2%
1.9%
6.5%
4.5%
0%
4.6%
0%
3.2%
5.2%
4.1%
0%
2.2%
0%
.5%
8.8%
7.4%
0%
6.3%
4.5%
.5%
.5%
4.9%
0%
7.3%
12.8%
7.1%
2.5%
6.3%
.9%
3.1%
0%
4,326
9.918
2.29
5.4%
000146
TABLE VIII - 5
Tract
'740.01
740.02
741.01
741.02
741.03
741.04
741.05
?42.00
744.01
?44.02
745.01
745.02
746.01
746.02
747.01
747.02
748.01
748.02
748.03
748.04
749.00
750.01
750.02
751.00
752.01
753.01
753.03
754.02
754.03
757.01
890.02
891.03
Number
of Units
77
348
54
139
22
105
630
64
308
575
196
38
138
63
120
57
68
14
32
112
221
140
265
140
41
812
42
162
382
332
32
7
Bachelor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
34
1
0
0
14
13
0
0
7
0
0
0
10
6
67
6
S
59
10
0
101
0
0
0
Bedroom
21
109
6
54
17
58
40
38
208
403
184
0
72
42
120
57
12
2
0
0
128
67
160
67
20
210
25
56
203
161
0
7
Two
Bedroom
38
237
12
85
5
47
398
25
53
171
12
38
52
8
0
0
41
11
32
44
71
67
37
67
15
486
7
106
78
155
52
0
Three +
Bedroom
18
2
36
0
0
0
192
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
0
0
12
0
1
0
1
57
0
0
0
16
0
0
5,757
363
(6.3%)
2,642
(45.9%)
2,394
(41.6%)
358
(6.2%)
O0014v
TABLE VIII - 4
Census One Two Three + All
Tract Bachelor Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Units
740.01 n/a 160 192 259 202
740.02 n/a 150 185 240 179
741.01 n/a 136 178 205 191
741.02 n/a 167 168 n/a 168
741,03 n/a 125 1S0 n/a 150
741.04 n/a n/a 170 n/a 170
741.05 n/a 181 206 263 195
742.00 45 79 95 n/a 85
744.01 113 121 150 198 127
744.02 130 156 193 n/a 167
745.01 n/a 141 140 n/a 141
745.02 n/a n/a 152 n/a 152
746.01 131 120 124 n/a 123
746.02 99 128 152 n/a 125
747.01 n/a 135 n/a n/a 135
747.02 n/a 139 n/a n/a 139
748.01 80 117 111 110 111
748.02 n/a 97 97 n/a 98
748.03 n/a 138 166 n/a 150
748.04 n/a 138 166 n/a 149
749.00 65 117 148 169 125
750.01 139 144 159 140 146
750.02 96 111 132 165 110
751.00 115 123 134 n/a 128
752.0] 60 120 141 275 123
755.01 155 168 197 254 191
753.03 110 138 151 n/a 133
754.02 n/a 186 208 n/a 200
754.03 170 148 178 n/a 160
757.01 n/a 158 199 260 179
890.02 n/a n/a 160 n/a 160
89].03 n/a 110 n/a n/a 110
Survey
Average* 131 153 170 194 161
*A total of 5,337 units (25.5% of the City's total multiple units) had
information concerning actual rental amounts.
000148
000.149
CHAPTER IX. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The recent signing by President Ford of the Community Development
Act of 1974 marked the first major United States housing and co,~m~unity
development legislation since 1968. The Act proposes that local govern-
ments significantly expand their endeavors in housing planning and community
programming as a prerequisit to the receipt of community development grants.
In conjunction with the preparation of the City's Conmunity Develop-
ment {CD) Application, a Go,,,,l~nity Participation Plan was developed and im-
plemented on three district levels. The first level of implementation was
aimed at the City at large. The second was the neighborhood and target area
level and the third was the public input during the official review and
adoption of the CD application. The purpose of the Plan was to measure
citizen opinion on proposed CD projects and to generate a policy direction
for fnture housing and co~m~nity needs.
The first level, which was aimed at the City at large, required a
full measure of assistance from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of
the City of Santa Ana. A special edition of the newsletter was printed on
the CD Law in that issue and delivered to every house in the City. The
Law was explained; potential target areas and possible projects w~re identi-
fied. Finally, the issue provided for a postage free questionnaire that
asked people to identify needs in the following categories: neighborhood
needs, City needs, public/social service needs and housing needs. The CD
issue and questionnairewereprinted in both Spanish and English to insure
reaching as many people as possible (See Appendix 1.).
Three radio interviews from the local radio station were broadcasted
by the PIO and CD coordinator. Each interview was fifteen minutes long and
was broadcasted six times over a one week period, for a total of one and
one-half hours air time per interview. The first broadcast, aired during
the week of December 9-14, 1974, explained the CD Imw in broad, general
terms. The second broadcast aired during the week of December 16-21, 1974,
explained the effects of the CD Law on Santa Ana, identified possible target
areas, and the potential money allocations were explained. The third and
final broadcast, aired during the week of December 23-28, 1974, focused on
the co, m,iunity meetings that had been held; what people in the co~m~nity were
saying and what they would like to see acco~lplished in their area. People
were encouraged to attend and participate in the remaining cu~lunity meetings.
It was e~hasized hew vital cu~lanity participation ~as to the development of
the CD Plan (See Appendix 2. ).
000lB0
The second level involved the CD Team working with Community Center
Directors, Conmmmity Action Agencies and other interested groups. The team
held public meetings (See Appendix 3A.), both in City Council Chambers and
in the various Ccemunity Centers. Each of these meetings was preceded by
a special notification by the PIO designed to maximize public attendance.
Flyers were distributed prior to a meeting announcing the time, place and
subject matter of the meeting. These flyers were distributed in Spanish
and English {See Appendix 3B.). The centers were also utilized in making
telephone calls informing local people of an impending meeting in their
neighborhood, The meetings were held in the Commmity Centers because of
their central location within each target area a~ the familiarity of the
co~r~nity with them. The meetings were attended by several members of the
Human Relations Cc~mission.
At each meeting a presentation was made by the CD Coordinator ex-
plaining the Act and possible effects on Santa Aaa. Questions and opinions
were welcemed and solicited. Priority lists were distributed and asked to
be ranked and returned. All of the meetings held were presented bilingually.
All the priority lists were distributed in both English and Spanish. A
sign-in sheet was distributed at all meetings so that people could be noti-
fied of all future meetings. Surveys were taken in selected sections of the
City soliciting people's ideas and opinions on what they would like to see
done in their area.
The third and final level is the public input and comment during the
official review process. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Conmission,
Redevelopment Agency and the Human Relations Co~mission at separate public
meetings. These meetings were preceded by a special announcement by the
PI0. Public participation at the meetings was welcomed and encouraged. The
final public participation opportunity was at the City Council plan meeting
where the CD Plan was finally approved and adopted.
000151'
Analysis o£ Overall ~uestionnaire Results
I. NeighborhOOd Needs: A clear plurality of surveyees agreed that
the City shoUld i~prove and construct store and sanitary sewers. The next
two priorities chosen, i~prove streets and rehabilitate houses, were ranked
fairly close together, Beautifying streets and improving the downtovrn
business area ~ere felt by the surveyees to be unimportant as is seen by
the low priority rank given them.
II. City-wide Needs: Su.rveyees clearly felt that there should be
more low income housing. Street h~provements and rehabilitation of housing
were the other two priorities chosen. Preservation of historic sites was of
very low interest, follewedby improvement of the downtown business district.
City-wide needs were basically the same as neighborhood needs.
III. Public/Social Service Needs: The number one priority in this
category was crime prevention, followed by job training and employment pro-
grams. The Con~nanity Centers have job placement programs that have a high
placement rate. Does this indicate that people are not aware of these
programs or that jobs are just not available? The third priority chosen,
elderly programs and services, indicates a lack of services for the elderly
in Santa Ana.
IV. Housing Needs: Surveyees felt that elderly handicapped, large
families and Mexican-Americans do not have adequate housing opportunities.
Single family homes ~ere chosen as the most suitable type of housing for
the groups needing more housing. This is contradictory because elderly
handicapped are not usually capable of keeping their owa homes. Perhaps
the physchological feeling of having one's own home influenced the decision
on this priority.
Townhouses were the seco~ type of housing chosen as most suitable.
This correlates with the elderly need for housing. To~mhouses are far more
feasible for elderly than single family homes. The choice of single family
homes correlates with the need for more housing for large families and
Mexican-Americans. High rise aparments received very little support.
The vast majority (75%) of surveyees felt that housing conditions
in their neighborhood were inadequate. Eighty-five percent of the surveyees
felt that the City should expand its housing code enforcement program.
Eighty-seven percent of the surveyees felt that Iow income housing should
0001 4
be scattered throughout the City rather than in concentrated project areas.
Surveyees felt that the elderly handicapped, large families and N~xican-
Americans have the most difficulty finding housing.
The priorities of the surveyees strongly indicate they are more interested
in basic needs than they are in recreation, City beautification and other
non-essentials. Basic hlmmn needs: food, shelter, sanitary conditions and
'other basic essential needs must be met before aesthetic needs can be taken
care of. If they are not met, everything else is of low priority as is seen
in the questionnaire's priority rankings.
Planning Department Housin~ questionnaire
A housing questionnaire suitable for comparison to the survey
questionnaire utilized by the Santa Arm task force in charge of preparation
of proposed projects and budget estimates under the 1974 Housing and Com-
munity Development (H/CD) Act was submitted to homeowners' associations
and citizens groups. The sample was limited, however structured to elicit
a response from middle and high income groups. Elected officers and board
members were asked to respond on behalf of their respective organizations
in a manner more reflective of the group rather than the individual respondent.
A total of nineteen responses were obtained from such groups as the
Bradford Place Homeowners' Association, Mabury Homeowners' Association,
South Coast Shores, Citizens for Fair Zoning, Sandpointe Homeowners'
Association, Segerstrom-Republic Homeowners' Association and the Santa Aha
Property Owners' Protective League. There was no method by which to weigh
the responses, so the primary comparison basis had to be on a one-to-one
basis of the various subject categories in each of the questionnaires.
The following represents a comparison between the Housing and
Ommmmity Development questionnaires and those solicited by the Planning
Department.
O0015b
Neighb0rhpod Needs
.,HIND
Beautify Streets 35
Improve Streets 66
Improve Storm and 81
Sanitary Sewers
Develop & Improve 58
Parks and Rec.
Expand Code Enforce- 52
ment
Rehabiliation of 65
Housing
Improve Business 49
Area
Rank Rank
No. Planning ,N°.
7 5 3
2 2 7
4 12 1
5 3 6
3 4 5
6 5 3
..T, oral
4O
68
70
$9
54
Rank
.No.
?
4
1
3
City Wide Needs
Preserve and Restore 29
Historic Sites
Improve and Construct 63
Streets
Develop and Improve 50
Parks
Suppo.rt Low Income 71
Housing
Rehab. Housing 57
Promote Economic 55
Development
Remove Physical Barriers 40
to Mobility of Elderly
and Handicapped
Improve Downtown Area 49
8 5 4 34
2 3 7 66
5 16 1 66
1 6 3 77
3 4 5 61
4 8 2 63
? 4 6 44
6 6 3 55 6
8
2(tie)
2(tie)
1
5
4
Housing Nee,ds, (Most affected group)
Elderly and Handicapped 78
Large Families 53
Single Parent Families 30
Single Person Households 36
Mexican-Ameriqans 37
Blacks 38
Other 27
1 8 1 86 '1
2 5 2 58 2
6 l(tie) 5 31 6
5 l(tie) 5 37 5
4 3(tie) 3 40 4
3 3(tie) 3 41 3
7 0 7 27 7
(Five respondents to the Planning Department questionnaire indicated
that housing opportunities were adequate for all groups.
00015c
Most Suitable
Housing Type
High Rise Multiple
Medium Rise Multiple
Townhouses or Garden
Apartments
Single Family Homes
Adequacy of Housing
Conditions in Neigh-
borhood
Adequate
Inadequate
-Demolition or
-Rahabilitation
Should Code Enforce-
ment Be Expanded
Yes
Should Low Inco~ue
Housing Be Dis-
persed vs. Con-
centrated
Yes
No
Should City Continue
To Encourage Low
Income Housing ,.
Yes
No
.H/CD
$
23
31
71
99
54
(33)
(21)
117
28
130
28
128
17
Rank
,,,No%
4
3
2
1
2
1
2
planning
0
1
13
6
15
4
(0)
(4)
16
0
12
5
16
2
Rank
No.
2
1
2
b
&
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
24
44
??
114
58
(33)
(25)
133
28
142
33
144
19
Rank
.No:
4
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
000157
Some results were not co~arable from the Planning Department survey
to the H/CD proposal task force questionnaire. The Planning survey had two
questions concerning the group faced with the most critical housing problem
and the group faced with the most difficulty in finding housing. Since the
questions were not clearly differentiated, tho responses were combined in
order to rank the various groups according to the perceived housing diffi-
culties of each. The rank order and score was as follows:
1. Elderly and handicapped 16
2. Large f~milies 8
3. Ail groups in general S
4. Black 2
$. Non-welfare recipient, working
families with low incomes 2
6. Single parent 'families 1
7. Fixed income groups 1
8. Mexican-American 0
9. Single person household 0
Additional cu~m,ents on the Planning questionnaire relating to housing
and perceived co~aunity needs included three requests for installation of
store drain improvc~ments on Segerstrom Avenue and singular conmments con-
cerning the need for better long range planning, that the survey was biased
toward low income housing needs, and the need for municipal regulation of
maintenance of residential properties by tenants or renters as the law is
now structured to the disadvantage of a landlord faced with tenants who mis-
use or neglect units.
It was neither the purpose nor within the capacity of the Planning
Department questionnaire to be used for review or examination of the survey
results obtained during preparation of Santa Ana's H/CD entitlement appli-
cation. Tentative generalizations may be suggested by the Planning Depart~
ment survey; however, they should not be interpreted as final conclusions
except as regard the actual survey of a limited and structured segment of
the overall population. It would be hoped that the 196 responses to the
H/CD questionnaire based on a random survey would be more representative of
the general cu,,,~nity, even though it is an extremely small sample (less
than one-half of one percent). Many questionnaires were incomplete and
there was some evidence of coaching or duplicate questionnaires in certain
community areas.
The Planning Defmrtment survey respondents indicated an emphasis on
the development of parks and recreation facilities on both a neighborhood
00015
and City-~ide basis, They also had a pronounced desire to improve the economic
picture of the co~nity, both on a neighborhood and City-wide basis, through
improvements to general business and the downtown co,,~ercial core, as well as
through promotion of economic develol~ent. Except for improvements to the
storm drain and sanitary sewer system, respondents perceived public improve-
ments (streets) as being low on the list of needs on the neighborhood as well
as the City-wide basis. Housing programs of code enforcement, rehabilitation
mud low income housing assistance were in the middle and lower priority ranges.
The H/CD survey indicated an almost reversed set of priorities, with public
works projects being the highest, closely accomganied by housing programs,
parks and recreation facilities at a mid and low range, and commercial in~rove-
ments low on the needs listing. If the two surveys were combined, the
Planning survey would have a pronounced impact in the area of parks and
recreation, raising it from a fourth to a second priority under neighborhood
needs and from fifth to second (tie) under City-wide needs, with street im-
provements and housing rehabilitation being reduced in priority respectively.
Concerning groups in the community having the greatest housing need,
there was agreement between the surveys with the elderly and handicapped and
large families having the least opportunity and single person households and
single parent families being the least affected by inadequate housing. The
Planning sample showed greater acceptance of the towrthouse and garden apartment
housing types than the H/CD respondents, who distinctly preferred single family
homes. The answers to both surveys indicate a feeling of adequacy concerning
neighborhood housing conditions; however, the Planning respondents showed a
lesser desire to use clearance or demolition if housing were inadequate and
a preference for rehabilitation. The results of both surveys were affirmative
to expanding code enforcement activities, dispersing low income housing units
throughout the City, and a continuation of the programs to encourage low in-
come housing.
Conclusion
The citizen participation pursued by the City of Santa Arm to date
appears to have complied with the intent of the 1974 Housing and Community
Development Act and the State requirements contained in the Council on
Intergovernmental Relations {CIR} guidelines. The proposed goals and policies
contained in Chapter X of this doct~nent are based upon those citizens' de-
sires conveyed by the Planning and Human Resources Commissions; expressed
throughout the CD Application process, and derived from analysis of the
Planning Department's housing questionnaire and apartment survey. Additional
citizen input will be sought throughout the adoption and approval process for
this Housing Element.
00015'
CHAPTER X. HOUSING GOALS,
POLICIES AND PLANS
The preceeding pages have dealt with current and future housing
needs, and the problems facing Santa Am. The following text offers
a set of goals, supplemental policies and programs to-aid in attempts
to deal with housing needs.
HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIBS
Before implementation programs can be fonmlated and presented
a series of goals and policies mst be prepared and agreed upon. A
~--the end to which a Plan strives and a policy--the settled course
ted to achieve that end--interact to fora the cornerstone of the
planning process.
The goals and policies stated in this Chapter are predicated upon
the citizen input obtained from the Community Development Applications
process, the Planning Commission, the Planning Department Housing
Questionnaire and the Multiple-unit Survey. Regional goals developed
by the State of California, the Southern California Association of
Governments and the County of Orange were also considered.
i~ousing Goals
The following list of housing goals is presented as an interim
guide for housing policies and programs. It should be the responsibility
of citizen groups such as the Planning Commission, the Human Relations
Commission, and the Project Area Co~lnittee to review and modify these
goals, if necessary, to more accurately reflect public sentiments. Until
that time, however, the following statements may serve as steps in the
direction of improving housing conditions in Santa Ana.
Goals
To promote and insure the provision of adequate housing
for all persons regardless of income, age, race or etknic
background.
2. To promote and insure the provision of housing
selection by location, type, price and tenure.
000160
3. To promote and insure open and free choice of housing
for all.
To act as a guide for municipal decisions and how these
decisions affect the quality of the housing stock and
inventory.
· Policies
The following policy statements are offered as guidelines in
the development of programs to achieve City-wide housing goals.
Support local, state and federal actions which serve to
improve the climate for housing which meets the needs of
all groups and which serves to upgrade the corm~nity as
well.
o Maintain uniform minimum standards for housing.
o Encourage the construction of high quality new housing
that will attract the moderate and high income segments.
o Promote higher standards of housing design, construction
and amenity in new housing.
o Pursue an aggressive rehabilitation, demolition and re-
placement program to upgrade the existing housing stock.
o Provide adequate housing for the current low income seg-
ment of the City.
o Assure that housing concerns and needs become an integral
part o£ the City planning and management process.
Promote the creation of public and private mechanisms to
stimulate and guide private initiative in meeting housing
needs.
Provide a decent residential environment throughout the
City by ensuring that all housing receives a proper and
equitable delivery of public services.
o Promote excellent and equitable facilities and
services in all residential conmunities.
000161
Assure the fairness aha adequacy of compensation and re-
location assistance to persons and families displaced by
public improvements.
Encourage the preservation of a range of housing types
and housing prices within the existing housing stock of
the City.
o Establish and maintain a comprehensive housing strategy:
Develop, implement and annually review a General
Plan Housing Element to provide goals and policies
for the planning, development and maintenance of
housing and housing-related activities in Santa Aha.
bo
Coordinate the implementation of the Housing Element
with the implementation of the housing strategies of
adjacent cities, Orange County, SCAG and such other
goverm,ental jurisdictions as may be affected by the
housing plans and policies of the City of Santa Ana.
Establish and maintain formal means for coordinating the
various interests and agencies concerned with housing
in Santa Arm.
Encourage development of procedures for coordinating
the housing activities of the City of Santa Ana,
adjacent cities, Orange County and SCAG.
Strengthen existing conmunications linkages between
the various public agencies dealing with housing or
housing-related matters in the Orange County Housing
Market Area.
Investigate aspects of housing discrimination in the City
and support investigation in the Orange County Housing
Market Area.
ao
Maintain and update a record of violations of fair
housing laws and ordinances and detemine, as
possible, the cause, extent and circumstances of
such violations.
00016
Develop and implement plans and programs to eliminate
such discrimination in housing as is determined to
exist in Santa Aha and support such plans and programs
in the Orange County Housing Market Area that will
allow the residential mobility of residents of Santa Ana.
o Maintain or increase the current level of activities of the
Santa Ana Housing Authority.
Obstacles. to Implementation
The following discussion relates to obstacles and conflicts that
may be encountered throughout the implementation of the Housing Element.
GOVEPANENT PARTICIPATION V. INDEPBNI)t~qT PRIVATB RNTBRPRISB: The conflict
between government participation in the housing market and an independent
private enterprise system present one of the major issues for Santa Aha.
With the growing concern for the plight of the homo building industry and
the national economy, the discussion over housing is nevertheless replete
with expressions of fear concerning government participation in increasing
housing supply, increasing housing opportunities for all economic segments,
and improving the stock of housing.
This conflict of goals still presents an issue in most new program
proposals being considered. With respect to any proposal, the position
taken by an individual within the range of these goals is directly related
to his political and economic philosophy. Production incentives are often
tempered with protection to "private enterprise,,' meaning those similar
operations handled without the benefits of the new program. The degree
of federal, state and local participation is weighed against the urgency
of the need and the extent of pressure for the proposal from constituents
or private or public special interest groups.
PROGRAM GOALS V. BUDGET GOALS: Normally, the breadth or authorized
volume of any program using appropriated funds must be modified by goals
of the City's budget. This is true of any program involving grants,
loans or other forms of expenditure.
In addition to dollar controls, budget goals may determine the very
nature of the program. Budget officials historically have opposed direct
loan programs, without regard to the administration in power at any given
time, because of their initial budget impact.
000163
I~ODUC'FION GOALS V. CONSIIMF~ PROTECTIONS OR BENEFITS: Normally, consumer
protections involve some additional burden on the lender, builder or manager
of the housing. For example, builders may object to the existing require-
ment that they prepare Environmental Impact Reports, various provisions of
the building code, and requirements of the zoning ordinance. Such items
may be objected to because they involve red tape and may involve real
financial loss to builders. These and many other requirements determine
whether a sponsor decides to develop residential units in Santa Ana. To
the degree that a builder chooses not to construct in Santa Ana, the addi-
tional consumer protection results in the curtailment of housing production.
P~ODUCTION GOALS V. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY GOALS: Equal opportunity regulations
presemt a good example of conflicting goals in housing policies: the major
purpose of subsidy housing programs -- to make more adequate housing avail-
able for low or lower income families -- sometimes conflicts with equal
opportunity objectives. This is true where equal opportunity guidelines
prohibit the location of assisted housing in areas of low income or racial
concentrations, even though those concentrated areas might be the ones where
there is the greatest need for low and moderate-income housing and might
also be the areas where the colm~nity is most willing to accept such
assisted housing. As a result of equal opportunity objectives, particularly
where implemented by project selection criteria that requires dispersal of
low-cost housing, total volt,ne production may be reduced in some areas of
Santa Ana.
Moreover, if equal opportunity guidelines and regulations should apply
only to assisted housing and those regulations add to the red tape already
associated with such programs, this is likely to result in costing lenders
and builders more time and more money to use the program. As a result,
lenders and builders may opt to construct privately financed housing, thereby
reducing the volume of housing built in the supported low and moderate-income
ranges.
PRODUCTION GOALS V. ENVIRON~NTAL QUALITY GOALS: Just as there is a tension
between equal opportunity objectives and housing production objectives, so is
there tension between environmental quality objectives and housing production
objectives. The California ~nvironmental Quality Act of 1970 requires the
city to evaluate the environmental impact of all major actions affecting the
quality of the environment. To implement the Act, Santa Ana has established
rules and regulations for environmental review of all residential projects.
As in the case of equal opportunity guidelines, the environmental rules and
regulations tend to increase the cost of housing.
000.16
MIBLIC AND POLITICAL ACCEVrANCE V. EFFICIENCY AND COST SAVINGS: In choosing
the pregram technique for an established objective, it is not unusual for
the choice to be made on the basis of what the affected private sector or
what public opinion may accept. This is done even though that may not neces-
sarily be the most equitable, efficient or least expensive operation in
either the short or long term.
For example, ever since 1950, direct federal loan programs for a
broad range of housing have been introduced in the Congress and rejected or
ignored, a paramount reason being the adverse reaction of private lending
institutions. Alternatives that are used include the indirect and more
complicated procedures of the government's secondary marketing operations
which provide the subsidy but, in addition, a financial yield to private
lenders. The highlight of this approach, of course, was the Section 221(d)($)
program, where the lender's profit was chiefly through servicing privileges
and construction financing opportunities with virtually no private risk.
For example, the forms of subsidy which are less overt and visible
have often been preferred to direct and identified subsidy payments. Examples
include the disguised subsidy provided through the below market mortgage rates
uader Section 221(d)(3) and the Government National Mortgage Association
Tandem Plans, and the similar subsidy provided by the FHA through its
financing arrangements in which the subsidy finally surfaces in the form of
an appropriation for restoration of losses incurred by the Rural Housing
Insurance Fund.
POLITICAL ~RHALITY V. CONSISTENCY: Major inconsistencies in housing legis-
lation flow from the known position of the Congress toward benefiting certain
groups as compared to others. Direct loans at low interest rates to famers
were accepted and non-controversial at an early time when such assistance to
low-income families generally was extremely controversial. Similarly, the
absence of premiom charges for veterans, plus other benefits, under the VA
loan guarantee program represented a special approach for one group only.
Implementation
The housing problems of Santa Aha will not be solved in the next few
years nor will the housing needs of today's population be taken care of over-
night. As preceding pages have revealed, housing is a complicated and com-
plex set of inter-related matters. To meet the housing demands of the future,
the City - in addition to the County, State and Federal government - must
prepare long comprehensive programs to deal with construction, employment,
NNNI~
poverty, education and the host of other supplemental factors that influence
the housing situation.
Short Term Plans
To help alleviate the imnediate symptoms of the City's housing pro-
blems, the following short-term plans are presented.
1. Increase utilization of the Planning Commi.ssion~ the Human
~esources Commission, the ProjectArea Committee and any other housing
related citizen's body in dealing with the City's housing needs. Citizen
committees are an important part of the planning process in that they act
as liaison between citizens and governmental agencies.
~e above mentioned committees shou/d, in addition to their other
duties, identify and recomuend to homeowners and local agencies the existing
State and Federal programs best suited for local com~anity improvement. A
further elaboration of citizen committees' responsibilities is contained in
Phase I of the Long Range Program section.
2. _At least 5,617. hop. sing units should be con..structed and/or
.r.~habilitated by 1980. Table V-14 indicates a total usable supply in the
santa lure market of 59,992 units. The same table indicates a total esti-
mated need of 65,069. The difference between these two numbers, 5,617,
represents the number of units that should be made available by 1980.
Fiscal year ]975-76 guidelines for the rehabilitation and construction of
220 units are contained in the City's Housing Assistance Plan. First-year
plans call for the provision of 300 units under the Revised Section 25
Leased Housing Program. Future housing assistance plans will be developed
to distribute the Comn~nity Development funds available to the City under
the recent ttousing and Community Development Act. In addition, the City
will make every effort to entice private developers to construct and/or
rehabilitate those housing units in Santa Aha needed to meet the 1980 demand.
3. Institute an effective system for code enforcement, conservation
and relocation. The efficient removal of dilapidated' units requires an
effective system of relocation and a means to their rights and responsi-
bilities. Code enforcement and conservation programs should be. concentrated
in those target areas and potential problem areas identified in ~apter VII
of this document.
000166
4. Coordinate housin~..-oriented groups and institutions in Santa Aha
and Orange County. A coordinated effort on the part of Santa Ama Housing
Authority, the Orange County Housing Authority, the Council on Fair Housing
and other housing-related agencies will mean achieving goals more rapidly,
increasing service to citizens, better use of funds, and a stronger base
from which to apply for additional programs. These groups should reply, to
a great extent, upon the information contained in this document and the up-
' coming Community Programs for guidance.
Long Range Plans
These short-term plans cannot stand alone. They must be expanded to
provide ho~es for the new households that will be created in the City in the
coming decades, as well as those facing future deterioration. The following
implementation plans establish a phased assault on the housing preble~ns .in
the City. The most important aspect of implementation, however, is citizen
participation. It not only provides the necessary impetus and support for
housing programs but directs those programs in response to citizen needs as
well. The implementation plans also recognize the need for both private and
public efforts to combat housing problems if the situation is to be improved.
Therefore, these phased plans are an attempt to integrate and coordinate the
private and public resources at work in the housing market.
Phase I
Continued Citizen Involvement
Because housing so directly affects individual lives, it is imperative
that citizens play a vital role in this planning process. The continued in-
volvement of housing-related citizen committees such as the Planning Commis-
sion, the Human Resources Commission, the Project Area Con~ittee, etc. will
be sought by the City in their attempts to meet housing and con~nunityneeds.
The primary responsibilities of these committees will be:
1. to provide information on federal housing grants, financing
and distribution programs to those who need it;
2. to keep abreast of City housing conditions;
5. to act as clearinghouses for complaints in regard to sub-
standard housing and discriminatory practices;
4. to represent City housing needs to the City Council, Planning
Commission and County Board of Supervisors;
000167
S. to contact government and private groups with housing concerns
and, when possible, to coordinate their activities;
6. to actively promote their programs and encourage gover~m~ent to
seek federal grants to apply to housing needs.
Besides these activities, these comnittees should consider overseeing
and participating in surveys of housing conditions and establishing working
standards for sound, adequate housing.
Phase II
Conmmity Programs
To further ensure that housing concerns and needs become an integral
part of the City Planning and management process, the City proposes the
development of Commmity Programs based upon those factors that directly
affect the quality, type and location of housing in the particular c~,anity
under study.
The overall objective of the Core, miry Programs will be to achieve a
statement of planning guidelines, policies and programs that will result in
a well-integrated program of development for the particular district under
consideration. The programs will emphasize housing revitalization and seek
to create a cc~,m~nity environment conducive to stable housing.
This phase of the Housing Plan is to be carried out by the Planning
Department task force. Close citizen contact will be maintained throughout
the development of each C~ity Program.
Phase III
The Removal of Dilapidated Units and
Rehabilitation of Deteriorating Units
Each Community Program will identify those dwelling units in need of
rehabilitation and those that are unfit for human occupancy. Because those
units determined to be unsuitable for continued hmmn habitation cannot be
demolished until they are vacant, an effective program of relocation will
be necessary for any plan of total code enforcement to be successful. After
the program is well underway and decent housing is available at affordable
rates, fewer households will accept substandard units, leaving them vacant
and more readily improved or destroyed.
Because of the sometimes controversial nature of this program, it is
imperative that the various housing groups and agencies in the City of
000168
Santa Aha make every effort to inform residents of their right to decent
housing and the means available to them to acquire improved living con-
ditions.
Phase IV
New Construction and Distribution
qbe projections of estimated housing need in Table V-14 reveals 10,997
units must be added to the available housing supply if the nmeds of the 1990
population are to be adequately fulfilled. Hopefully, mnch of this need will
automatically be taken care of as increased capital accompanies the increasing
City population. The needs of lower income groups and residents with
specialized housing problems, however, may challenge the productive resources
of the market. In adopting this Housing Plan, the City acknowledges respon-
sibility for making adequate housing available to all families regardless of
any dysfunction of the housing market.
Existing citizen conmittees and the Santa Ana Housing Authority can be
of great help in securing needed housing. The Housing Authority has the
organization and resources necessary to make available needed low income
housing. Citizens' groups, such as the Planning Comuission, Human Relations
Coumission, the Project Area Conmittee, etc., should inform residents of
their rights and opportunities and appeal to developers and housing sponsors
to undertake needed projects.
Phase V
_Updating the Housing Element
To keep the housing plans responsive to the needs of City residents,
it will be necessary to amend the Housing P. lement periodically. Only in
that way will it continue to be a viable document which the City of Santa Aha,
various housing agencies and the County can rely upon for guidance and coordi-
nation. To accomplish such updating, those established citizen comittees
concemted with housing in Santa AUa should submit periodic reports to the
City Council and the general public. The City Planning Department and other
agencies, having access to housing data, can provide assistance in preparing
these reports. The reports would be accompanied by proposed additions and
changes to the Housing Plan and would be officially recognized by amending
the Housing Element of the Santa Ana General Plan.
Conclusion
Comparing Santa Ana's housing demand and need projections (contained
in Chapter V) with the adopted GrowtJt Policy, the Land Use Element and other
000169
elements of the General Plan, shows that the goals and preliminary programs
stated above can be accomplished within the parameters of current City policy
direction and growth potential.
This Housing Plan is not intended as the final word of the City on
housing policy. On the contrary, it is a suggested series of actions designed
to improve housing conditions and is meant to be continually reviewed and
revised as citizen input increases and the housing situation changes. In
any case, it is expected that plans such as these presented here will often
meet resistance from people who feel that others are receiving favors at
their expense. It must be kept in mind, however, that, unless conditions
are improved and needs met, the quality of life in each co~rmlnity will
deteriorate for everyone.
00017O
INITIAL STUDY (ENAF) NUMBER: ,75-45 DATE: April 17075
PREPARED BY:, _~ITY OF SAI~A ANA PLANNING .DEPARTMENT
20 CIVIC CENTER PLA~A, SARMA ANA, CALIFORNIA
COPIES AVAILABLE AT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
20. Civic Center Plaza
Santa Aha, CA 92701
Telephonec 834-4164
PROJECT TITLE/DESCRIPTION= The Housing Element of the General Plan of
: the City of Santa Ana, an A~endment ts the Housing Element
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS: Ctt~ of Santa Ana~ California.
PROJECT AmsE~oR's PARCEL NO. (IF KNOWN):
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Planning
In accordance with the City of Santa Ane's policies regarding
tlaplementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (specifically Section 21151 of the ·Public Resources Code),
the Environmental Impact Evaluator for this department has
reviewed the EnviFonmental Assessment Form submitted in
guest for Negative Declaration status for the above described
project and hereby finds that the proposed project cannot, or
will not, have a significant effect on the environment. Neg-
, ative Declaratio~ st, ergs is ,therefore ,qr~gted for this pro-
~ect and the submittal of an. Environmental Impact.Re.sort is
.thereby not necessary.
The granting of Negative Declaration sZatus is based upon the
SEE ATTACHED SILENT.
%~NDP 2-74
~ f~o~, ~U~u T0R
EXHIBIT "B"