Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Inventory - Phase I of the Housing Element to the Ge 1 1 sso u HOUSING INVOMTORY 1 1 t 1 1 � PHASE' I OF THE HOUSMG EhEMENT 1 TO THE GEMRAh MAN � city olhuntington beach, cafifornia HOUSING INVENTORY ' PHASE I OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT tTO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' Marcus M. Porter, Chairman Robert D. Bazil Edward H. Kerins Joseph P. Boyle Katherine L. Wallin ' Frank P. Higgins ' Study Prepared By: HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Kenneth A. Reynolds , Planning Director ' Participating Staff Maureen C. Wild ' Ronald E. Slade ' December 1972 1 i ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Pam I . PREFACE i ' II . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 ' III . PRELIMINARY POLICIES 6 IV. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND PROBLEMS 7 ' A. Housing Constraints 7 1 . Housing Industry Constraints 7 ' a) State of the technology 7 b) Union resistance to technological ' change 8 c) Distribution and delivery channels 8 d) Research and development 8 ' 2 . Financing Constraints 8 a) Current money market shortage ' conditions 8 b) Institutional constraints 9 c) Insufficient insurance coverage 9 ' d) Unavailability of private venture capital 9 (e) Inflation ' 3 . Legal Constraints 10 a) Building codes 10 ' b) Zoning and subdivision regulations 10 c) Property taxes 10 ' 4 . Market Constraints 11 a) Housing choice and mobility factors 11 ' b) Ineffective uses of existing housing inventories 11 c) Consumer preference for ' single-family dwellings 12 d) Existing bias against mobile homes 12 e) Cost and availability of land 12 S . Socio-economic Constraints 13 a) Income generation 13 b) Racial and ethnic prejudices 13 Page 1 c) Demographic considerations 13 d) Housing of special groups 13 ' e) County-wide growth policies for 13 Orange County 6 . Political Constraints 14 ' a) Political motivation 14 b) Community attitude or public ' acceptance of housing for low income families 14 B. Housing Problems 15 1 V. INTRODUCTION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH 17 VI . HOUSING SURVEYS 18 , A. Survey and Its Findings 20 1 B . Future Housing Problems 20 VII . SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA 21 1 A. Racial Distribution and Household Composition 21 B . Employment Indicators 21 1 C . Income Levels 21 D. Poverty Income Households and Welfare Recipients 31 ' VIII . COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES 34 A. Public Facilities 34 ' 1) Schools 34 2) Recreation Facilities 35 3) Public Transportation 37 ' 4) Utilities 38 5) Libraries 38 B . Quasi-public Facilities and Services 39 1 IX. MARKET ANALYSIS 40 A. Supply Characteristics 40 1 1) Income and its relation to home value and rent 40 ' 2) Residential marketability of new houses 46 3) Quality of housing 46 4) Age of housing 49 ' 5) Number of units in the structure 49 B. Occupancy Characteristics 49 1 1) Occupancy by tenure 49 2) Vacancy status 51 ' 3) Persons-per-room ratio 53 ' Page C . Demand Characteristics 55 ' 1) Population projections 55 2) Removal of housing 57 ' 3) Projected housing demand 57 a) Poverty level income group 59 b) Low income groups S9 ' MECHANISMS TO LOWER THE COST OF HOUSING 61 ' A. Private Sector 61 1) Construction industry 61 ' 2) Private sponsors of housing projects 63 B. Public Sector 63 ' 1) Local Housing Authorities 63 2) HUD-FHA Programs 64 ' XI . APPENDIX 74 ' A. Community Survey and Analysis Program by Orange County Health Department 78 B . Definitions 81 ' C . Footnotes 85 ' D. Bibliography 86 t T OF TABLES 'LIST page Summary Table 1 Statistical Summary of ' Findings 4 1 . Racial Distribution and Household Composition 22 ' 2 . Employment Status 23 3 . Occupation of Employed Persons 16 Years Old and Over 24 , 4 . Income Distribution of Families and Unrelated Individuals 26 S . Percent Distribution of Household Income 1975-1985 28 6 . Household Composition for Owner and Renter t Occupied Housing Units , 1970 29 7 . Indicators of the Elderly 30 8 . Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons 32 , 9 . Effect of Income Level on Shelter Budget 42 10 . Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units 43 11 . Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Housing Units 44 ' . 12 . House Value and Gross Rent : 1960 Compared to 1970 45 13 . Residential Marketability for New Housing, Huntington Beach-Seal Beach 47 14 . Indices of Substandard Housing: Plumbing ' Facilities by Persons-per-Room 48 15 . Housing Type by Structure 50 16 . Occupancy by Tenure 52 ' 17 . Characteristics of Vacant Units 54 18 . Population Projections 1970-1985 56 19 . Housing Demand Projections 1970-1985 58 20 . Housing Demand Projections by Annual ' Income Range 1975-1985 60 A-1 1970 Population Distribution by Age and Sex 79 ' A-2 Poverty, Low and Moderate Income Levels as Defined by the Bureau of the Census and HUD 80 FIGURES t 1 . Housing Survey Areas 19 ' 2 . Welfare Recipients in Huntington Beach by Quarter Section, September 1970 33 3 . Relationship of Housing Survey Areas to Parks , Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation ' Element of the Master Plan of Land Use 36 4. Location of HUD/FHA Financed Housing Projects 73 A- 1 Population Projections 1960-1980 (graph) 75 ' A-2 Ultimate Population by Quarter Section 76 A-3 Federal Census by Quarter Section 1970 77 t ' PREFACE ' The availability of decent housing , particularly for low income and minority groups , has been of increasing concern to government at the national , state and local levels . The U .S . Department of Housing and Urban Development en- acted the Federal Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 , commonly called the 1968 Housing Act , now in effect , which requires that "all planning carried out with assistance under Section 701 shall also require a housing element as part of the preparation of a comprehensive land use plan. . . " ' In response to this legislation the California State Senate passed a bill which amended Section 65302 of the Government Code as follows : ' The general plan. . . shall include . . .a housing element consisting of standards and plans for the improvement of housing and for ' provision of adequate sites for housing. This element of the plan shall endeavor to make adequate provision of the housing need ' of all economic segments of the community. This is commonly referred to as the "Housing Element . " tThe provision was effective July 1 , 1969 . Compliance with federal and state requirements will be a ' prerequisite for securing funding for any project where the application requirements include a general plan. ' The State requirement and general structure for a housing element is only a beginning step in a program for improving a community' s stock of housing. State law requires that a community prepare a housing element as a part of its general ' plan. The ultimate responsibility for preparing an adequate housing plan lies with the local agency. ' The purpose of the Huntington Beach Housing Element is : 1 . To analyze housing from a physical and ' socio-economic viewpoint ; 2 . To bring guidelines into focus in the form of a plan ; and ' 3 . To provide proposals to implement such a plan for solutions to existing and ' anticipated problems . As with other elements of the master plan, the housing ' element will require periodic review and up-dating. The intent of the following is to indicate procedure , direction and time schedule the Planning Commission is following in development of this element . i . The element will be introduced in two phases . The first ' phase housing inventory report will be a survey of existing and projected conditions and activities , housing goals and ' objectives and a discussion of Federal programs applicable to Huntington Beach . This is the report that. follows . Phase 11 , the report on housing programs , will contain a refine- ment of the goals and objectives , specific alternatives , ' solutions and an implementation program which will be based on recommendations made by the City Council , Planning Com- mission and the Citizens Steering Committee for Goals and ' Objectives . Phase II is earmarked for completion in late 1973 . t ii . ' ' Housing Element Defined ' A Housing Element to the General Plan is a program of action for continued improvement of the local housing stock. This emphasis on action is a mandate of State ' and Federal government in an an attempt to provide continuing relief to an old problem that has become more serious in recent years . ' It is the State and Federal programs available to local government that are the real substance of a Housing Element . What local government can do to increase the quality of ' housing is the reason for the Huntington Beach Housing Element. 1 1 1 ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ' Summary The Preliminary Housing Element to the Master Plan of ' Huntington Beach is an examination of the present housing situation in our city. This document was prepared on two levels : ' 1 . An overview of conditions affecting housing and the housing industry in general ; and ' 2 . An inventory of housing, its residents , and related residential facilities and services, with focus on existing housing problems . ' This overview of housing and its industry examines general constraints and problems inhibiting the industry, especially in attempts to provide housing for families of low and ' moderate income as well as mechanisms currently . available to lower the cost of housing, from both public and private sectors . Housing constraints are regional in nature, and as ' such, cannot be directly controlled. They were found to be in six broad areas: Those directly affecting the housing industry, and the financial , legal, market, socio-economic, ' and political aspects of housing. Housing problems are local in nature and can be directly controlled by a community through effective programs . They have had more of an immediate impact on the situation in Huntington Beach than have constraints . ' These problems included crowding, insufficient income to secure adequate or standard housing, scarcity of standard accommoda- tions for families of low or moderate income, and lack of ' supportive public facilities for certain residential areas of Huntington Beach, such as public transportation, schools, and parks . ' Housing in Huntington Beach, for the most part, is in excellent condition, because 87 percent of the city's existing stock ' was built during the decade of the 1960s . There are four gen- eral areas of the city which contain older housing, some of which is physically substandard or deteriorated, and most of which lacks off-site improvements : ' 1 . The original Town Lot area. ' 2 . An area bounded generally by Edinger Avenue, Newland Street, Talbert Avenue and Gothard Street. Much of this area was in the old county area of Wintersburg. 3. An area within a half-mile radius of the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street in the old county area called Sunset Heights. ' 4. That portion of Sunset Beach now in' the city limits. ' 1 Staffs from three city departments artments conducted sidewalk and windshield surveys in these four areas to determine condition of the total block and individual residential ' structures and their parcels . It was found that , city- wide , less than one percent of the housing was substandard in terms of the degree of deterioration. ' One conclusion that may be drawn at this point is that , presently, a physical housing problem does not exist in ' Huntington Beach. It has been noted, however, that much of the housing built before 1970 will be reaching a stage of marginal utility by the turn of the century. Programs emphasizing conservation of housing and neighborhoods will ' need to be formulated to prevent massive deterioration. It was found, however, from an economic viewpoint , that there ' is a real and immediate problem. From data provided by the 1970 census , over 25 percent of this city's present households may have potential problems in adequately meeting , their housing needs . These are the households whose annual income is less than $8000 . The following income groups were defined in this study: ' Poverty Less than $4500 annual income Very Low $4500 - $6000 ' Low $6000 - $8000 Moderate $8000 - $10 ,000 High $10 ,000 or more Based on these definitions and census data, the fact that ' this city' s housing problem is economic was further strength- ened because : ' 1. Twenty-five percent of annual income for total shelter costs is a standard used by HUD and financial institutions . ' 2 . However, over 40 percent of all renters pay over 25 per- cent of their income for shelter. 3. About 20 percent of all homeowners pay over 30 percent of , their incomes for their homes . 4. Only 7 percent of all houses were valued under $20 ,000 ' and 9 percent of all rentals rented for less than $100 per month. ' This means that only 8 percent of all units were potentially available to lower income households (less than $8000 annual income) . ' Two other groups which are identifiable and may have potential problems in adequately securing standard housing within their ' limited incomes are the elderly and poverty level households , many of which are receiving some form of public assistance . 2 . 1 ' The elderly comprise approximately 4 percent of the total city population. Of these senior citizens , 77 percent receive some form of social security income ; 55 percent have an annual income of less than $5000 ; and 74 percent pay over 25 percent of their income for shelter. Approximately 6 percent of all households in this city ' have incomes below poverty level . Of these households , about 12 percent of the families and 7 percent of all unrelated individuals receive some form of public assist- ance . A market analysis examined characteristics of existing supply and demand projections . Highlights included facts ' that average values of housing, both new and existing, were $28, 700 for homes and $147 monthly rent. Since 1966 no houses built were sold for less than $20 ,000 ; the ' majority were selling for over $30 ,000 . Projections for housing demand were based on studies by ' Economic Research Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department. These projections indicated that households with less then $6000 annual income will re- present approximately 20 percent of the future demand to ' 1985 . An additional 20 percent will have annual incomes between $6000 to $10 ,000 . All this points to the fact that lower income groups will form a significant minority in the economic stratification of this city. There are many programs available to lower housing costs . ' Both private enterprise and the government have made efforts along these lines . The final section of this inventory discusses many of these programs . ' Summary Table 1 contains a brief statistical summary of pertinent tables presented in this document . 1 1 3 Summary Table 1 Statistical Summary of Findingsl Family Composition Poverty Information Families: 2 or more person households 29,631 Unrel Subfamilies 333 All income levels Families Indiv Persons Percent in subfamilies 1.1 Total , , Husband - wife subfamilies 173 Percent receiving public assistance 3.2 6.6 Percent of married couples 0.6 Percent 65 years old and over 4.9 17.1 4.5 Subfamilies with female head 155 Income Less than Poverty Level Families with female head 2,254 Total 1,330 1123 5,961 Percent in subfamilies 6.9 Percent of total in city 4.5 20.3 S.2 Percent receiving public assistance 12.0 6.9 Unrelated individuals 5,540 Percent 65 years old and over 5.9 28.9 8.7 One person households 3,311 Income Less than 75 Percent of Poverty Level Income Total 963 828 4,382 Percent of total in city 3.2 14.9 t Unrel % Unrel t Percent 65 years old and over 7.1 Income Level Families Families Indiv Indiv Total Total Income Less than 125 Percent of Poverty Level Poverty Less than $4000 1,952 6.6 2S28 45.7 4480 12.7 Total 1,863 1S45 8,398 Very Low $4000 - $5999 1,585 5.4 743 13.4 2328 6.6 Percent of total in city 6.3 27.9 Low $6000 - $7999 2,259 7.6 730 13.1 2989 8.5 Percent 65 years old and over 11.0 Moderate $8000 - $9999 2,984 10.0 515 9.3 3499 10.0 High $10,000 or more 20,851 70.4 1024 18.5 21875 62.2 Residential Marketability for New Housing Total 29,631 100.0 5540 100.0 35171 100.0 Huntington Beach-Seal Beach House Value and Rent Indicators 1970 1971 Total units TTbl--= Sellingg price Median value of owner occupied units $28 700 525,000 - $29,999 28$ 21$ Median gross rent of renter occupied units f165 $30,000 - $34,999 26% 31t $35 000 - $39,999 271 23% Less than $5000 income 4,579 $40:000 - $44,999 9% 19% Percent of owner occupants 9 $45,000 or more 7% 6% Percent of renter occupants 25 Total 971* 1001 Median value of owner occupied units (approximate) $24 000 *3% of those units sold in 1970 were valued $20,000-$25,000 Median gross rent of renter occupied units (approximate) 1140 Percent of renter occupants where the gross rent is Indices of Substandard Housing Percent Distribution* 25 to 34 percent of income 7 35 percent or more of income 82 Crowding 1.01 to 1.50 persons per room 4.0 Percent of owner occupants where the value - income ratio is: 1.51 or more persons per room .7 2.5 to 2.9 14 Low House Value 3.0 to 3.9 11 Less than $5000 .04 4.0 or more 11 $5000 to $9999 .2 Percent of owner occupied units that are valued: $10,000 to $14,999 .7 Less than $10,000 ,3 Low Rent 510,000 to $14,999 1.0 Less than $40 monthly cash rent .2 $15,000 to $19,999 6.2 $40-$59 monthly cash rent .5 $20,000 to $24,999 26.5 $60-$79 monthly cash rent 1.3 $80-$99 monthly cash rent 1.5 Percent of renter occupied units where the gross rent is: Lacking some or all Plumbing .4 Less than $60 .9 $60 to $79 3.0 *Based on 100% sample $80 to $99 5.4 $100 to $119 6.6 Population 5 Housing Demand Projections 1975-1985 Indicators of the Elderly Po ul�ation Housing Units 1970* 120 000 ��56U Total 65 years old and over (100% sample) 4455 1975 169,100 53,6S0 Percent of total city population 3.8 1980 197,100 64,850 Families 1452 1985 216,100 73,100 Percent of all families 4.9 Families with female head 33 *Existing July 1st One person households 419 Percent Distribution of Household Income 1975-1985 Percent receiving social security incomes 76.6 Income Level 1975 1980 1985 Average Percent with annual incomes less than $S000 SS Percent paying 25 to 34 percent of income for Less than $4000 13 10 7 10 gross rent 5 $4000-$6999 14 11 9 11 Percent paying 35 percent or more of income for $7000-$9999 24 22 20 22 gross rent 77 $10,000 or more 49 57 64 57 Total 100 100 100 100 1All statistics are based on a 20 percent sample of 1970 census data 4 Conclusions From an economic viewpoint there is a very real and immediate housing problem in Huntington Beach . This problem centers ' around the availability of standard housing that can be secured by those families of low and moderate income . Courses of action that might be taken to remedy the problem include : ' 1 . Official recongition that housing problem does exist in Huntington Beach: ' 2 . Programs designed to deal with housing problems (to be implemented in several phases over a period of time) : ' a) immediate short range programs to correct existing substandard housing, such as code enforcement and voluntary rehabilitation: ' b) long range programs to prevent the decline or deterioration of housing and of neighborhoods in the future . 3. Working with the Orange County Housing Authority to determine Huntington Beach ' s share of housing for lower ' income groups . a) included are education programs designed to educate ' the public and to allay their fears that low-cost housing is detrimetnal to their area; b) to educate the families that will be occupying ' these low-cost units to perform maintenance and upkeep tasks ; ' 4. Encouragement of private enterprise to provide housing for moderate- and low-income families , while recognizing the fact that private enterprise , of itself, cannot supply all housing for these income groups . ' S . Identification of Federal houisng programs that are applicable to Huntington Beach. ' 6 . General upgrading of the physcial environment in areas of deteriorating housing, i . e . providing off-site improve- ments , street lights , etc. This is one of the most impor- tant programs to be implemented. 7. Provision of adequate housing for that segment of the ' city that cannot economically afford standard housing. ' S PRELIMINARY HOUSING POLICIES ' 1 Included in the following statements are excerpts from the Housing section of the Preliminary Policy Plan adopted by ' the City Council in May 1971 . This preliminary plan is being used as a basis for determining final policy through a citizen participation program. Final policies are being developed through the Policy Program and in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority. They will be presented in a separate document at a later ' date . Objectives ' Provide quality living environments for all economic, racial , and ethnic groups residing in Huntington Beach. Principles , 1 . Continue with development of the housing element. ' 2 . Define areas of substandard housing in Huntington Beach. 3 . Continue with and intensify the code enforcement program ' for housing in the city. 4 . Initiate programs to provide off-site improvements in ' those areas of the city which are deficient . S . Encourage conservation of existing housing and neighbor- ' hoods by establishing conservation programs . 6 . Continue participating with the Orange County Housing ' Authority. 6 ' CONSTRAINTS AND PROBLEMS 1 In order for a community to estimate the housing situation ' and the need for different types of housing, it first be- comes necessary to identify constraints or obstacles and problems to providing housing and the preliminary objectives that a city will set forth as guidelines in surmounting those ' constraints and problems . Housing constraints are those impediments or obstacles that ' are regional in scope over which neither public nor private sectors have direct or entire control . They must be coped with. They circumvent actions designed to alleviate or remedy ' current problems or to prevent future ones. Constraints can be adjusted over a period of time with appropriate plans and programs . Housing problems, on the other hand, are local in nature and can be surmounted by direct programs . Problems ' are those situations that directly affect the housing of families and their physical , social, and phychological well - being. ' In the discussion that follows, mention will also be made of constraints and problems identified by two other organiza- tions in their housing elements: Southern California Associa- tion of Governments (SCAG)1 and the County of Orange2. Constraints and problems as noted in the housing elements of these two groups are considered to be general impediments to ' housing on a regional level, and as such, would have some effect on Huntington Beach, either directly or indirectly. Listed below are the constraints and problems as identified ' by SCAG and the County of Orange. A. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ' 1 . Housing Industry Constraints a. State of the technology ' Constraints affecting housing technology include the slow growth and change of technology over the past twenty-five ' years ; lack of widespread acceptance and employment of new techniques and innovations; increasing scarcity and high cost of skilled labor; and the rising cost of material . Because ' the "state of the art" is not that of a high-technology in- dustry, conventional construction methods are now limited to the extent that they can reduce housing costs. As a result, homebuilders find it more profitable to build in the medium ' and high income brackets . This practice leaves the needs of the low income bracket unfilled. 1 7 1 ' Factory-built housing, including mobiles and modulars, ' stillface major production and marketing problems . Briefly, these include large capital investment requirements, cyclical ' instability and complexity of the residential housing market, incompatibility of alternative building systems and of financing methods , labor opposition to new techniques, high ' cost of skilled labor and materials, lack of uniformity in local building and zoning codes, and lack of research and development . (A more indepth discussion of these constraints begins on page 68 . ' b . Union resistance to technological changes Labor unions have often been blamed for sustaining and preserv- ing inefficiencies in the building industry. Major complaints have centered around the union' s resistance to technological changes, application of rules which reduce production levels ' within existing technology, seeking higher wage increases without corresponding increases in efficiency, and implement- ing practices which in effect restrict the entry of minority ' workers into the construction'trades . The impact of these restrictive labor rules is felt profoundly in the low-cost housing field, which needs the introduction of innovative labor- ' saving construction systems . c . Distribution and delivery channels ' The housing distribution and delivery systems are not as efficient as those of other manufacturing industries in all levels of housing costs . Effective large-scale marketing ' techniques have not been extensively implemented in the low- cost sector of the market, which depends on the small broker firms , which are usually incapable of operating competitively ' with mass producers of housing. d. Research and development ' The housing industry is not a high-technology industry, i .e. , it is not an industry characterized by innovations that are continually revolutionizing productivity. This industry, ' however, is not technologically stagnant. The Kaiser Commission, appointed by President Johnson in 1968, indicated that innova- tions in the construction industry have been increasing labor ' productivity at an estimated annual rate of about two percent in the past twenty years . Research and development programs should be initiated by both the private and public sectors in ' order to reduce housing costs, a major constraint to the production of housing for low-income families . 2 . Financing Constraints ' a. Current money market shortage conditions Cost of money is one of the most important issues in residential ' housing construction. During times of tight money policies, the housing market is usually the first major segment of our economy to experience shortage of available funds. ' 8 ' This "credit crunch" as it is sometimes called, affects most acutely the medium and low income households , because ' they are not capable of paying these extra costs . b . Institutional constraints ' Institutional constraints have had the effect of raising financing costs to where they are higher than normal and ' thereby putting the total cost of housing above the ability of low income families to pay. These institutional con- straints have also acted to slow the introduction of new technologies in providing housing for low income families, ' because mortgage lenders have been reluctant to extend mortgage credit on housing built with non-conventional design, and venture capital has been unavailable to those ' who wish to develop new systems . Conventional or private financing provides adequate housing financing for most medium and high income groups . However, ' due to high risk factors , conventional financing does not finance mortgages for such groups as those of lower income , those with poor credit ratings, and those who earn sufficient ' income, but who have erratic or seasonal employment habits . C . Insufficient insurance coverage Both property insurance and mortgage insurance through con- ventional means are often difficult to secure for housing units located in ghetto areas . This practice impedes the ' financing of new construction or rehabilitation of such units , while minimizing incentives that ghetto property owners may have towards improving their units . ' The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has the authority under Section 223(e) to insure financing of ' housing in older, declining neighborhoods . d. Unavailability of private venture capital ' Construction of new housing and rehabilitation of older units both require that the developer provide a minimum amount of "front-end" funds from his own private venture capital , ' funds which add approximately 5-8 percent to total project costs . These funds must be spent prior to the developer obtaining any financing from private or public institutions . ' "Seed money" requirements, as they are called, are necessary to pay fees such as land options , architects ' and engineers ' fees , building permits, insurance fees, and the like. Many prospective sponsors are incapable of entering the field due to the unavailability of this capital . In addition, many developers and investors avoid investing their capital in low cost housing projects because they feel the risks are too high for the potential level of profits such projects could generate . 9 Compounding this problem is the lack of available funding ' P g for low-cost housing projects from HUD. A developer or an investor might have a marketable project, but due to lack ' of HUD funds , the project is never built . e . Inflation t Salaries and wages have failed to keep pace with the increases in the true costs of housing . Such interrelated factors as , high labor costs and land costs, inefficiencies in housing production, high interest rates , legal obstacles , increasing consumer demand for additional amenities such as carpeting , drapes, air conditioning, and high down payment costs ' contribute to the inflationary trend. 3 . Legal Constraints , a. Building codes Municipal building codes and HUD minimum property standards , are often expressed in terms of rigid specifications . New construction and architectural innov,-.tions may meet all re- quirements of safety, comfort, etc. , which the codes were , designed to maintain, yet fail to meet specifications. These codes and standards are yet other constraints that in- hibit construction of less expensive housing which meets social ' needs . Multiplicity of building codes and diversity of code enforce- ' ment force expensive and often unnecessary redesign for each site and alteration of work patterns on each job. b . Zoning and subdivision regulations ' Zoning and subdivision regulations constitute a very complex set of controls which influences the development of land . ' Oftentimes the presence of low-density requirements and large lot zoning preclude production of housing for low income families . , C . Property taxes Property taxes , a vehicle on which local governments depend ' heavily for revenue, constitute a serious constraint to the development and maintenance of housing for low income families . On the average, property taxes represent about ' 25 percent of housing costs for single-family units, and about 15 percent for multiple-family units . This limited capacity of the property tax to generate revenue, ' together with its indirect social effects , are fundamental constraints to lowering the financial and social costs of urban housing . Property tax hits hardest at lower income ' families because such families who earn $4000 to $6000 per year pay in property taxes proportionately double the taxes paid by families in the $10,000 and above bracket. This ' phenomenon limits the ability of low income groups to maintain and improve their homes . 10 ' ' 4 . Market Constraints ' a. Housing choice and mobility factors The housing market fails to provide sufficient amounts of ' older standard housing which is adequate for low income house- holds . Many families of moderate or high incomes presently living in older, standard dwellings , who are able to change accommodations by moving into larger new units , are being ' forced by current market conditions to stay put, and be content with the status quo , add on or remodel their units . The move of these families , into new units creates vacancies , ' which in turn, are filled by the families of lesser means, moving up from their often inadequate units into these older adequate units . ' Movement of a family of higher means to a new unit and subsequent filling of the vacancy created by a family of lesser means is tagged, "filtering. " Marketing conditions which contribute to the failure of "filtering" include : ' 1 . Most of the existing units which could "filter" to families of lower income are presently owned and ' mobility is minimal among present owners . 2 . Units are rented at prices that are still too high for lower income families . 3 . There is an extreme shortage of middle-priced units available for lower income households to move up to . ' 4 . Most houses , when sold, are expected to increase in value . ' S . The "filtering" process assumes that the lower income family is increasing its standard of living to be able to afford a better unit; or the process assumes ' that housing is getting worse (worse as it is used here is a relative term) as it is "filtering down" from middle income families to lower income families . ' b . Ineffective use of existing housing inventory Inefficiencies in the use of existing housing stock, which ' act as deterrants to the effective operation of the market, are a reflection of present deficiencies brought about by factors such as imperfect market knowledge, income constraints and financing limitations . As a result some households are overcrowded, doubled-up with other families , or in substandard units . Imperfections in the housing market are perpetuated by the existence of inappropriate and substandard housing condi- tions and distorted housing demand. 11 Continued use of unsound 'structures past the point of feasible rehabilitation is a major indicator of imper- fections in the housing market . While major efforts have ' been undertaken to reduce the number of substandard or dilapidated units , the numbers and composition of remain- ing blighted units is very significant in relation to ' the total housing inventory. Removal of these units from the housing stock would have the immediate effect of swelling the demand for sound structures . Units consider- t ed dilapidated constitute the largest portion of the housing stock in low income areas requiring clearance or rehabilita- tion. Renter occupied units reflect a higher degree of dilapidation than owner-occupied units due to the better , care and attention given to owner-occupied units . c. Consumer preference for single-family dwellings ' The pattern of residential construction has leaned toward single-family, low-density construction, reflecting the ' preference for this type of dwelling. Accompanying this preference for single-family units , is a general opposition to development of multi-family dwellings . This bais against , multi-family structures quite effectively inhibits better land use planning and implementation of construction techniques capable of producing units at lower cost . d . Existing bias against mobile homes , Mobile home parks in many communities are unwelcome because ' of their past image of being transient, dirty camps for transient, undesirable people . Communities also argue that mobile home parks do not pay for their fair share of municipal services . Another constraint is the assumed unsuitability of ' mobile homes to families . e . Cost and availability of land ' A severe shortage of developable land for the replacement of existing substandard housing and the construction of new , housing and its supportive facilities to accommodate population growth is especially severe in the central urban areas . Along with these trends there has been a rapid escala- tion of land prices in older center city areas , producing an , outward exodus of the more affluent middle-class to the suburbs . The households that remain in this declining central core, or that replace the middle-class suburbanite are usually low ' income households and members of minority groups . Location of housing for low income families in a community , is intimately connected to the available supply of land and mobility patterns and social and racial and economic attitudes of residents of the area in which development will occur. Usually there is determined resistance on the part of subur- ban communities and their residents to the introduction of housing for the lower income families to the less crowded suburbs for fear that such an economic group will overcrowd ' present facilities or downgrade land values . 12 , ' 5. oc -eco omi S io Constraints n c ' a. Income generation Inadequate education or training limits the ability of ' members of certain households to secure adequate employ- ment, and thereby sufficient income . Generally this is reflected by the households who pay a higher portion of ' their income for standard housing. b . Racial and ethnic prejudices ' A neighborhood' s housing situation is directly affected by prejudice against families of a different color or ethnic background. This can be seen by such actions as ' widespread refusal to sell, rent or lend to these minorities . This is often seen in white middle-class neighborhoods which have not adopted fair housing attitudes. This refusal also forces such minority groups into ghetto housing areas where landlords are capable of asking and obtaining excessive rents for deteriorated or substandard housing. ' On the other hand, entry of a minority family into a Caucasian neighborhood sometimes produces fears and the ensuing mass sale of property by the "threatened" neighbor- hood residents . These so-called "grey" areas are then preyed upon by unscrupulous real estate agents who try to get the whites out, purchase properties at low prices and ' resell them at excessive prices to minority residents . c . Demographic considerations ' Research indicates that lower-income families tend to have larger family sizes and should, therefore, be capable of obtaining adequate , larger housing. This is often not the ' case, because these families ' income levels, in many cases , are sufficient to provide only minimum housing, which pro- duces overcrowding. Another factor which may produce over- crowding is the small supply of housing that is available to accommodate very large families . d. Housing of special groups ' Such special groups include the very young, elderly, very small and very large families, agricultural workers , students , ' military families, and the physically handicapped. Such groups are often deprived from obtaining suitable housing due to their special needs and requirements . They are often ' forced to obtain inadequate housing at inflated prices. e. County-wide growth policies for Orange County ' As Orange County is without a clear cut growth policy, ful- fillment of countywide housing needs may be hampered as different jurisdictions make attempts to limit their city's 13 population by restricting housing construction, expecially apartment construction, and thereby shifting the location ' of new housing to areas without well-defined growth policies . 6 . Political Constraints a. Political motivation There exists in many communities a negative attitude toward ' housing the low income segment of a population, especially if Federal subsidy programs are involved. b. Community attitude or public acceptance of , housing for low income families This constraint is basically similar to political motivation, ' but with the addition that within a community the problem be- comes one of integrating housing for low income families into an area which is primarily middle and high income. Often- , times little concern is shown for the problems and needs of the low and low-moderate income groups . t 14 , ' B. HOUSING PROBLEMS ' 1 . At the time of the April 1970 Census, approximately 26, 700 households in Orange County were living in overcrowded conditions . i .e . , had more than 1 .01 persons per room. Of ' these, approximately 1690 households or six percent were in Huntington Beach. 2 . An estimated 24 ,000 county households , at a minimum, cannot afford their housing (which may or may not be standard) without cutting down on food, medicine, and additional necessities . These are the families that live in houses ' valued at less than $15, 000 or that pay rent less than $80 per month. Huntington Beach has approximately 1100 house- holds or five percent. ' 3 . Several neighborhoods , especially in older sections of the county and also in Huntington Beach are lacking in such essential services as street lights , sewers, curbs and ' gutters , parks and schools . 4 . There is a scarcity throughout Orange County of ' standard low and moderately priced housing suitable for large families . ' 5 . Public transportation is minimal in Huntington Beach. 6 . Approximately 30 percent of all apartments in ' Huntington Beach are for adults only, thereby denying housing to families . Of the new apartments being built in the city, approximately 50 percent are adults only. ' 7 . Approximately 2650 units or 7 percent of Huntington Beach's housing stock is over twenty years old. Much of this ' housing may be approaching marginal utility due to age and due to the fact that much of it was originally beach-cottage- resort housing and not constructed as standard residential structures . ' 8. Median house value is apprcximately $21 ,5000 and median gross monthly rent is about $100 , indicating that , even though these untis are older, they are still holding value . This could be a problem for lower income families who can only afford lower-priced untis . 9 . Of the 6 percent of all households with incomes less than poverty leve , mean value of owner occupied units is $27 ,200 and mean gross monthly rent is $134 . This , too, ' indicates that lower income familites probably pay excessive amounts for housing. i ' 15 1 10 . Twenty-eight percent of the households in the city ' have poverty and low incomes , i .e . , less than $8000 annual income . 11 . Over half of the elderly have an annual income of ' less than $5000 . Over 75 percent of the elderly receive social security incomes . 12. Almost 75 percent of the elderly pay over 25 per- ' cent of their incomes for shelter. 16 , INTRODUCTION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH Huntington Beach, California, is situated along the north- west coast of Orange County, approximately 35 miles south- east of Los Angeles , in one of the fastest growing urban areas of the United States . It is but a portion of the greater Southern California urbanized area. The city as it stands today is of relatively recent origin. It expanded to its present size of 27 square fiiles after ' a series of large annexations in the late 1950s . A popu- lation explosion followed a few years later. During the decade of the sixties , the population grew over 900 percent, ' from 11 , 500 to 115,960. Currently, Huntington Beach is the third largest city in Orange County. 1 17 HOUSING SURVEYS As a result of the tremendous growth in population and ' subsequent building boom to provide housing for this population, the majority of housing is less than ten years old, and for the most part, in excellent condi- tion. However, there are small pockets that contain ' problem housing, that is , those units considered to be aging or deteriorated. In a preliminary survey of the entire city, staffs of the Building Department and ' Planning Department found that there were four areas of focus : 1. The original Town Lot area. ' 2 . An area bounded generally by Edinger Avenue, Newland Street, Talbert Avenue, and Gothard ' Street , hereafter designated as Beach Blvd. - Warner Avenue area. Much of this area was in the old county area of Wintersburg. ' 3. An area within a half-mile radius of the intersection of Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street, in the old county area called ' Sunset Heights , 4 . That portion of Sunset Beach now in the city ' limits . After a preliminary appraisal , four study areas were then ' delineated. A fifth area, the remainder of the city, was then designated as a yardstick for measuring the survey criteria and conditions in the other four study areas . These four defined : study areas were then divided into ' a total of seven housing survey areas - two in the original Town Lot area, one in the Warner Avenue-Bolsa Chica Street area, one in the Sunset Beach area, and three in the Beach ' Blvd. -Warner Avenue area. An indepth study was then under- taken by the staffs of the Building Department, Planning Department and Public Works Department . ' The Huntington Beach Housing Survey was modeled after a survey program devised by the Orange County Health Depart- ment4 and consisted of two parts : The Block Environmental ' Survey and the Individual Parcel and Structure Survey. The former was a windshield survey carried out by the staffs of the Planning Department and Public Works Depart- ' ment, while the latter was a sidewalk survey conducted by the Building Department staff. Figure 1 depicts seven survey areas in the four study areas ' where 5300 dwelling units , representing 15 percent of the city' s total housing stock, were surveyed. 18 ' ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA C y N� ' LEGEND / Survey Area 1 Survey Area 2 Survey Area 3 I / •• c 1 Survey Area 4 �E9 ' Survey Area 5 - © Survey Area 6 / Survey Area 7 Figure 1 Housing Survey Areas ' 19 1 Findings of the Surveys Five percent or 165 of the 5300 structures surveyed were ' found to be substandard, i. e. , economically unfeasible for rehabilitation. The problem of substandard housing in ' this community, then, is not considered to be acute , as only 165 units in the entire city were thought to be sub- standard. However, in terms of one of the goals set forth in the 1968 Federal Housing Act, ". . .a decent home and a ' suitable living environment for every American family. . . " the problem must be recognized. Future Problems 1 These housing survey areas are problem areas for the city today. They represent only a small portion of the housing 1 in Huntington Beach (15 percent) . Taken at face value , current housing problems in this city are relatively non- existent . This situation is prevalent because the majority 1 of housing was developed in the past ten years , 1960-1970 ; consequently housing is good. Looking at the other side of the story, concentration of so , much growth in such a short time has prompted predictions that large areas of the city' s housing may deteriorate with- in an equally short period, around the year 2000. Based on 1 this assumption, the city will be faced with its most critical housing problem at the turn of the century. At least 70 percent of the existing housing in the year 2000 will ' be thirty years old or more and will have reached a stage of marginal utility. Thus , Huntington Beach must seek a formula for curtailing the deterioration of present housing. ' Many housing specialists say the county and its cities must find ways soon to promote conservation of aging neighbor- hoods . The alternative could be a massive single family 1 housing slum. 1 1 i 1 i 1 20 1 ' SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA Providing the population with a suitable home and a ' decent living environment is the ultimate goal of a housing element . In order to estimate the needs de- manded by a population, it first becomes necessary to ' examine the kinds of people to be housed and their needs . Before examining population indicators , it should be noted that most of the information was based on data de- rived from 20 percent samples of the 1970 Census . This sampling technique tends to make some data seem high, and difficult to correlate with information found in ' other tables . For example, there were 2202 female family heads based on a 100 percent sample and 2254 fe- male family heads based on a 20 percent sample. This ' is 2 percent above the actual count. Racial Distribution and Household Composition Because Huntington Beach is one of the newer residential communities in Orange County, it has attracted a large , seemingly high paid, mobile, and relatively young popu- lation. Table 1 is a composite of several characteristics showing racial distribution and household composition. ' This table shows that approximately 98 percent of the popula- tion is "white" and that the majority of households are comprised of two or more persons . ' Other census information indicated that over 50 percent of the city' s population is under 25 years of age. ' Employment Indicators Ability of a family to secure housing for itself is directly ' related to level of income . Income is directly related to employment . Tables 2 and 3 show two characteristics of employment . Employment status and occupation. Conclusions that can be drawn from these tables are that : 1 . Approximately 67 percent of the population 16 years old and over is in the labor foce and of these, 94 percent are employed. This 6 percent unemployment rate was reflective of the general unemployment rate for 1970. 2. Median earnings for males was 2 . 5 times that for females . One reason for this seeming discrepancy is the fact that 72 percent of all employed males ' and only 37 percent of the females worked full time . 21 Table 1 Racial Distribution and Household Composition , % of Total ' Race Population Population All Races 115, 960 100. 0 ' White 103 ,475 89. 3 Spanish American 10,135 8 . 7 ' Negro 99 . 1 American Indian 250 . 2 , Oriental 1, 660 1. 4 Others 341 . 3 Households 33, 638 Two or more person households 30, 327 Male head, wife present no non-relatives 26 ,750 Other male head 1 , 095 Female head 2 ,482 One person households 3 ,311 i a See definition of "Race" in U. S. Department ' of Commerce, Bureau of the Census , 1970 Census of Population, "California, General Population , Characteristics ," U.S. Department of Commerce Publication PC (C2) -6, (Washington. Government Printing Office , 1971) , p. 2 . Sources : University of California, 1970 Census , lst ' County "Census Summary for Huntington Beach" , Prince Display Series , STP 1-1 , (Berkeley: 1971) , P. 4 ; "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics, " HC(2) -10, ' Anaheim-Garden Grove-Santa Ana SMSA, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) , Table G-7 , ' Huntington Beach Planning Department. 22 ' Table 2 ' Employment Status ' Male Female Total Population 35, 647 37 , 552 ' Labor force 31 , 057 15 , 578 Percent of total 87 . 1 41 . 5 ' Armed forces 464 6 ' Civilian labor force 30, 593 15, 572 Employed 29,325 14,379 Unemployed 1 ,268 1 ,193 Percent of labor force 4. 1 7 . 7 ' Not in labor force 4 ,590 21 ,974 ' Inmate of institution 82 156 (home for aged) Enrolled in school 1 , 936 2 ,679 ' Other: Under 65 years 1, 202 18 ,682 ' Percent disabled 41 . 9 12 . 9 65 years old and over 1 ,370 2 , 277 Workers in 1969 by Weeks Worked ' % Distribution Male Female Total 50-52 weeks Tr 37 59 ' 27-49 weeks 19 31 23 26 weeks or less 9 32 18 Total 100% 100% 100% Sources : "General Social and Economic Characteristics , California" , PC(1) -C6, U.S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) , Tables 8S and 88 ; Huntington Beach Planning Department 23 Table 3 Occupation of Employed Person 16 Years Old and Over ' Total Percent Total 43 ,704 100 ' Professional , technical and kindred workers 9,818 22 Managers and administrators , except farm 4 , 735 11 ' Sales workers 4, 489 10 Clerical and kindred workers 7 , 501 17 ' Craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers 6, 146 14 Operatives , except transport 3, 586 8 , Transport equipment operatives 1, 139 3 Laborers , except farm 1 ,136 3 Farmers and farm managers 81 --- ' Farm laborers and farm foremen 224 1 Service workers , except private household 4, 665 11 ' Private household workers 184 --- Source : General Social and Economic Characteristics, California," , P 1 -C6, U. S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971) , Table 86; Huntington Beach Planning Department. ' 24 ' 3 . There is no wayto determine how man of the un- employed had spouses working. ' 4 . A large portion of the residents in this city are in professional , technical, managerial , or ' administrative positions (33 percent) . Income Levels ' Defining income levels is a very nebulous task at best . There are probably as many different definitions as there are people to define them. For this study, income levels are designated as poverty, very low, low, moderate, and high. The Federal government has set a gross annual income of $4500 for a family of four persons as the current poverty ' line limit. These poverty families pay over 30 percent of their incomes for housing, whether it is standard or not . Very low income families ($4500-$6000 annual income) are ' probably paying over 25 percent of their incomes for housing . Low income families ($6000-$8000 annual income) probably also pay approximately the same percentage for housing. Moderate income families ($8000-$10, 000 annual income) pay 20-25 per- cent of their incomes for shelter. High income families (over $10, 000 annual income) pay 12-20 percent of their incomes to- wards such housing. ' The ability of a family to secure standard housing also de- pends on a variety of factors , such as geographical location, ' family size, minimum accepted standard of living, and any special considerations , such as physical disabilities or migratory work habits . The cost of living varies from region to region. It costs more, for example , to live in ' Los Angeles than it does to live in Kansas City. A family of four making $10,000 annually has more money for luxuries than a family of ten on the same income. ' Table 4 indicates the distribution of household income as reported in the 1970 census . This table shows that there were a total of 29,631 families and 5540 unrelated individuals in the city in 1970. Briefly, it can be seen that about 28 percent of these households have poverty level , very low, or low incomes (below $8000 annual income) . Of these lower ' income groups , approximately 20 percent are families , while 72 percent are unrelated individuals . Two reasons for this apparent skewed income distribution between families and individuals are: 1 . That many wives work; 37 percent of the married ' women 16 years old and living with their husbands are in the labor force . This extra income boosts the median family income. ' 2. Many of the unrelated individuals might be elderly on fixed incomes , persons with limited skills earning low salaries, part time workers , or ' unemployed persons receiving unemployment benefits . ' 25 Table 4 , Income Distribution for Families and Unrelated , Individuals Unrelated Income Levels Families % Indiv o Total a Poverty - Less ' than $4000 1 , 952 6. 6 29528 45 . 7 4 , 480 12 . 7 Very Low $4000- $5999 1 , 585 5. 4 743 13 . 4 2 ,328 6. 6 ' Low $6000-$7999 2 , 259 7 . 6 730 13. 1 2 , 989 8 . 5 Moderate , $8000-$9999 2 , 984 10. 0 515 9. 3 3 , 499 10. 0 High $10, 000 or ' more 20, 851 70. 4 1 , 024 18 . 5 21 ,875 62 . 2 Median income $12 , 930 $4 ,656 $11 ,845 Sources : "General Social and Economic Characteristics, . California , " ' PC 1 -C6, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of th6 Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971) Table 89 ; Hunting- , ton Beach Planning Deparment. 1 26 ' ' Table 5 indic ates a distribution of household income from ' 1975-1990. This table shows that , on the average for the 20 year period, 10 percent of the population will be of poverty level . This 10 percent, because of its limited purchasing power, must secure housing priced at the lower ' end of the market. In many instances , this housing which may or may not be standard, requires 30-35 percent of the monthly income, an expense which precludes such vital necessities as medical care or clothing. Tied very closely to the economic income of a household is the wage earner' s age in relation to his income . Table 6 lists various economic factors of household composition for owner and renter occupied housing units . As expected, the bulk of the population, or those between ' the ages of 2S and 64 years , have the highest incomes; most own their own homes ; and about three-fourths of the families pay less than 25 percent of their incomes for housing. Approximately half of these families pay less than 20 percent of their incomes for housing. The elderly, or those 65 years old and over, has special ' significance. It is this group of citizens that is still relatively independent and self-sufficient , but due to such factors as retirement or health, their in- comes are reduced or limited. Table 7 lists various economic characteristics of this age group, which comprises about 4 percent of the total population of the city, and ' about 5 percent of the total elderly population of the county. Three important conclusions that can be drawn from this table are : ' 1 . Over half of the elderly earn less than $5000 a year or have incomes approaching poverty levels . Median income is approximately $5000. 2 . Over half of this age group pays 3S percent or more of their incomes for housing. Another quarter ' spends between 25 to 34 percent of their incomes for shelter. 3 . Of the renter occupied units , over three-fourths of occupants who earned under $5000 annual income pay 35 percent or more of their incomes for housing. Information was not available for owner-occupied ' units . Using the information Tables 4 to 7 it is possible to get ' an idea of the amount of housing that should be provided for these lower income households . Assuming the distribution remains fairly constant approximately 25-30 percent of the units should be made available to those who earn less than $8000 annual income. This includes the poverty, very low and low income groups . 27 Tab le 5 Percent Distribution of Household Income , in Huntington Beach 1975- 1985 Income Level 1975 1980 1985 Average ' Less than $4000 13 10 7 10 , $4000 - $6999 14 11 9 11 $7000 - $9999 24 22 20 22 ' $10 ,000 - $14 ,999 27 31 33 30 $15 ,000 - $24 ,999 18 21 25 22 , $25 ,000 or more 4 5 6 5 , Total 100 100 100 100 Sources : "Economic Growth Projections for the Cityof , Huntington Beach and the Mid-Beach Planning Area" , Economic Research Associates , p. III-11; Huntington Beach Planning ' Department . 28 , Table 6 Household Composition for Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Units ' Two-or-more-person households Male head, Other One-person wife present male Female head households no non relatives head N N N N i i i O L.L O L. 0 1 L a) i i i N i i i 41 ro V >, +) >, 41 >, > G) >, >,> a) >, >,> 0) T T> +-) V O 'O O 'a C) -0 O O C N N V N N InC N N C N N C N N H �N N M M �t0 t0 a =3 l0 10.0 10 10 ea t0 t0 W Owner Occ Hsg Units 24041 373 6238 6283 6788 1118 536 28 1260 110 877 430 ' Income in1969 Less than $200$2000 714 - 65, 77 71 49 17 11 207 4 74 139 $2000 to $2999 518 4 9 31 86 95 9 87 16 80 101 $3000 to $3999 457 - 41 10 81 114 23 5 35 15 61 72 $4000 to $4999 494 23 14 38 85 153 15 - 71 27 39 29 ' $5000 to $5999 487 13 24 31 67 151 10 - 103 17 50 21 $6000 to $6999 580 31 57 87 141 70 19 5 67 5 69 29 $7000 to $9999 3000 98 843 606 630 196 66 316 4 202 39 $10000 to $14999 8085 148 2918 2247 1957 171 205 - 225 12 202 $15000 to $24999 7707 53 2007 2570 2621 106 134 7 129 10 70 - $25000 or more 1999 3 260 586 1049 13 38 _ 20 - 30 - Median $13600 $10600 $13500 $15100 $16100 $6000 $12700 $7600 $4700 $8000 $2800 Value of Spec Owner Occupied Housing 20625 304 5997 5932 5512 565 486 18 1034 87 478 212 Units 1970 Less than $5000 - _ - - _ = _ - _ = 0 $5000-$7499 22 5 7 10 $7500-$9999 35 5 17 5 4 4 $10000-$12499 112 10 10 16 27 9 - - - 4 11 25 $12500-$14999 100 - 19 8 28 23 - - 9 - - 13 $15000-$19999 1277 29 242 236 348 92 37 6 93 29 94 71 $20000-$24999 5474 121 1596 1459 1357 211 147 5 399 14 123 42 $25000-$34999 8949 130 3190 2504 2160 169 175 7 364 21 187 42 $35 $49999 3564 14 813 1438 1019 29 73 121 6 43 8 $50 or more 1092 - 117 271 556 32 49 - 44 6 10 7 Median 28700 $24700 $28500 $30000 $29500 $23800 $28100 - $25300 - $25100 $19700 ' Value-Income Ratio - Specified Owner Occ 20625 304 5997 5932 5512 565 486 18 1034 87 478 212 Less than 1.5 3243 23 640 938 1419 31 63 - 87 7 35 1.5 to 1.9 5155 82 1610 1668 1459 82 97 7 86 - 64 - 2.0 to 2.4 4804 68 1672 1519 1272 26 79 - 91 6 66 5 ' 2.5 to 2.9 2828 50 1034 874 505 78 106 _ 108 - 62 11 3.0 to 3.9 2265 30 706 625 426 100 64 168 23 99 24 4.0 or more 2177 51 330 276 411 244 71 11 450 51 131 151 Not computed 153 - 5 32 20 4 6 - 44 - 21 21 Gross Rent Specified Renter Occ 9520 1210 2305 1065 1080 244 504 27 1062 33 1571 419 Less than $50 34 6 5 8 9 6 $50 to $59 54 - - 8 - 19 - - - 5 22 $60 to $69 155 4 15 - 6 13 - - 5 - 54 58 $70 to $79 131 5 22 - 11 6 - - 11 4 19 53 ' $80 to $99 515 42 33 18 63 26 52 6 40 _ 147 88 $100 to $119 629 83 77 43 95 17 60 66 137 51 $120 to $149 2091 471 422 123 110 46 74 15 276 10 480 64 $150 to $199 3570 510 1044 320 384 98 162 - 424 8 568 52 $200 to $299 1976 70 631 483 312 11 119 6 227 6 ill - $300 or more 179 - 20 58 71 - 13 _ - - 17 - No cash rent 186 19 41 20 20 22 5 5 5 24 25 Gross rent as per- centage of income Spec Renter Occ 9520 1210 2305 1065 1080 244 504 27 1062 33 1571 419 Less than $5000 2396 291 146 80 140 106 240 6 474 13 522 378 Less than 20% 41 5 4 5 22 5 20 to 24% 40 7 4 7 6 16 25 to 34% 178 40 20 7 - 6 9 - 17 4 61 14 35% or more 1955 238 109 68 110 76 231 6 418 4 393 302 ' Not computed 182 13 5 5 26 15 - - 32 5 40 41 $5000 to $9999 3279 598 749 271 275 107 148 15 483 20 582 31 Less than 20% 645 137 159 16 68 20 35 54 146 10 20 to 24 % 866 196 210 35 79 21 30 5 99 - 174 16 25 to 34% 1210 210 285 144 74 51 43 10 191 20 177 5 ' 35% or more 499 49 80 60 54 3 40 _ 139 - 74 Not computed 59 6 15 15 12 11 $10000 to $14999 2453 243 1004 416 309 31 56 6 64 314 10 Less than 20% 1597 170 617 199 217 26 37 6 50 - 265 10 20 to 24% 596 56 272 137 68 5 10 - 5 - 43 - 25% or more 224 12 99 80 14 - 4 - 9 - 6 - Not computed 36 5 16 - 10 - 5 - - _ - = $15000 or more 1392 78 406 298 356 60 41 153 Less than 20% 1289 78 382 276 306 53 41 153 20 to 24% 59 - 14 18 27 - - - - - - - 25% or more 29 - - 4 18 - 7 - - - - - ' Not computed 15 - 10 - 5 - - - - - - - Sources: "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics," HC(2)-10, Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove ' SMSA, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 197p) Table G-7, Huntington Beach Planning Department. 29 Table 7 Indicators of the Elderly 65 years old and over ' Totall 4455 Percent of total population - 11B 3.8 Percent of elderly population • Or. Co. 4.5 Percent receiving social security income 76.6 Families 1452 Percent of total 4.9 ' Unrelated individuals 947 Percent of total 17.1 Number 1n labor force 7597 Percent of total 16.3 Number not in labor force 3647 Percent o1 total 14.9 ' Number in homes for the aged 238 Median weeks work ad3 48.9 c , Two or more person co 0 Y d households e c C W C Y Y C a c ' 65 years old 8 over Y Y a V L '-W c C 2 rq1a•O YY CO F 6 Z=N C Omr Owner Occupied Housing Units 1686 100 1118 28 110 430 Income in 19 ' less than 5 505000 830 49 411 16 62 341 $5000-59999 537 32 417 5 26 89 E10000-$14999 183 11 1;1 -- 12 _ $15000 or more 136 8 119 7 10 - Median -- $6000 -- $4700 $2800 Value of Specified Owner ' Occupied Housing Units 882 100 565 18 87 212 Less than $5000 -- -- - - _ $5000-$7491 7 1 -- 7 $7500-$9999 4 1 -- __ 4 j10000-$12499 38 4 9 4 25 12500-$ 14999 36 4 23 - -- ' 15000-$ 7119999 198 22 92 6 29 11 $20000-$24999 272 31 211 5 14 42 $25000-$34999 239 27 169 7 21 42 $35000-$49999 43 5 29 6 8 $50000 or more 45 5 32 - 6 7 Median -- 23800 -- j19700 VaSplecue itofied income Owner Ratio ' Occupied 882 100 56i iB 87 212 Less then 1.5 38 4 31 -- 7 -- 1.5-1.9 89 10 82 7 - - 2.0-2.4 37 4 26 - 6 5 2.5-2 1 89 10 78 -- - 11 3.0-3.9 147 17 100 - 23 24 4.0 or more 457 52 244 11 51 151 ' not computed 25 3 4 -- -- 21 Specified Renter Occupied Housing Units 723 100 244 27 33 419 Income in 1969 723 100 244 27 33 4179 Less than j5000 503 70 106 6 13 378 $5000-$9999 173 24 107 15 20 31 ' $10000-$14999 47 6 31 6 -- 10 $15000 or more -- -- -- -- -- -- Gross Rent of Specified Renter Occupied Units 723 100 244 27 33 419 Less than S50 11 1 5 -- -- 6 ' $50-S59 22 3 - - -- 22 $60-S69 71 10 13 - - 58 S70-j19 63 9 6 -- 4 53 $80-S99 120 17 26 6 88 $100-$119 68 9 17 -- -- 51 $120-$149 135 19 46 15 10 64 $150-$199 158 22 98 - 8 52 ' f200-$299 23 3 11 6 6 -- $300 or more No cash rent 52 7 22 -- 5 25 Gross Rent es a Percent of Income by Income 723 -- 244 27 33 419 less than $1000 503 100 106 6 13 378 , Less than 20% 10 2 5 -- -- 5 20-24% 20 4 4 - 16 25-34% 24 5 6 4 14 35% or more 388 77 76 6 4 302 Not computed 61 12 15 -- 5 41 $5000-$9999 173 100 107 15 20 31 ' Less than 20% 30 17 20 -- -- 10 20-24% 42 24 21 5 -- 16 25-34% 86 SO 51 10 20 5 35% or more 3 2 3 -- -- -- Not computed 12 7 12 - -- - Gross Rent as a Percent of Tome by Income , 0000-514999 47 100 31 6 -- 10 Less than 20% 42 89 26 6 -- 10 20-24% 5 11 5 -- - -- 25-34% - -- - - -- 35% or more -- -- -- --Not computed -- - -- -- -- - $15000 or more -- -- -- -- , iBased on 100 percent sample 2This figure as well as the remainder of the table ' 1s based on a 20 percent sample 3Tota1 includes female 60 years old and over; males 65 years old and over Sources: "General Social and Economic Characteristics, California," 6, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971). Tables 84, 88. 90; "Metropolitan ' Housing Characteristics," HC(2)-10. Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, US Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971), Tables G-1, G-7, Huntington Beach Planning Department 30 1 Poverty Income Households and Welfare Recipients ' Since this study examines the economic and housing situation of the lower income groups , a brief review of their financial situation is noted in this section. Table 8 shows various ' aspects of poverty status families and persons from informa- tion received in the 1970 census . ' This table shows that : 1. About 3 percent of all families and about 7 percent ' of all persons receive some form of public assistance . Approximately 77 percent of all persons 65 years old and over receive Social Security income . ' 2 . About 5 percent of all persons in Huntington Beach have incomes less than poverty level . Of these 9 percent are 65 years old and over. 3. Four percent of all persons were found to have incomes less than 75 percent of poverty level . ' If poverty level as defined in this study is $4500 annual income, for example, then these persons earn about $3400 a year . Of the persons in this income group 7 percent are 65 years old and over. 4 . The last income group examined, or those with incomes less than 125 percent of poverty level , included about 7 percent of the population. Of these persons 11 percent were 65 years old and ' over. Persons in this income group would make a maximum of $5600 a year if $4500 annual income were the poverty line limit. ' Figure 2 shows that a fairly high correlation exists between the location of welfare recipients and those sections of the city that contain older, poorer, and less expensive housing. ' The occurence seems to be the highest in the old Town Lot area and in the Beach Blvd. -Warner Avenue area. 31 Table 8 ' Poverty Status in 1969 of Families and Persons All Income Levels Families 29,631 ' Percent receiving public assistance income 3.2 Mean size of family 3.71 With related children under 18 years 20,485 Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.27 ' Families with Female head 2,254254 With related children under 18 years 1,732 With related children under 6 years 667 Percent of heads in labor force 74.7 Family heads 29,631 4.9 ' Percent 65 years and over Civilian male family heads under 65 years 25,669 Percent in labor force 96.5 Unrelated individuals 5,540 Percent receiving pu is assistance income 6.6 Percent 43 years and over 17.1 ' Persons 115,481 Percent receiving Social Security income 4.5 Percent 65 years and over 3.7 Percent receiving Social Security income 76.6 Households 30 21 , In owner occupied housing units 20,,815 Mean value of unit $30,753 In renter occupied housing units 9 404 Mean gross rent 1162 Percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities .5 Income Less Than Poverty Level ' Families 1,330 ercent of all families 4.5 Mean family income $1,653 Mean income deficit $1,772 ' Percent receiving public assistance income 12.0 Mean size of family 3.64 With related children under 18 years 1,013 Mean number of related children under 18 years 2.55 Families with female head 537 With related children under 18 years 499 With related children under 6 years 258 ' Percent of heads in labor force 60.1 Famil he ads 1,330 Percent years and over 5.9 Civilian male heads under 65 years 710 Percent in labor force 79.6 Unrelated individuals 1,123 ' Percent of a unrelated individuals 20.3 Mean income $845 Mean income deficit $1,013 Percent receiving public assistance income 6.9 Percent 65 years and over 28.9 Persons 5,961 ' ercent of all persons 5.2 Percent receiving Social Security income 9.4 Percent 65 years and over 8.7 Percent receiving Social Security income 72.4 Related children under 18 years 2,624 Percent living with both parents 50.2 ' Households 1,793 ant of all households 5.9 In owner occupied housing units 751 Mean value of unit $27,210 In renter occupied housing units 1042 ' Mean gross rent 1134 Percent lacking some or all plumbing facilities 1.3 Income Less Than 75 Percent of Poverty Level Families 963 , -- 3.2 cent of all families Mean income deficit $1,425 Families with female head 406 Unrelated individuals 828 Percent of alT unrelated individuals 14.9 ' Mean income deficit $828 Persons 4,382 Percent 67-years and over 7.1 Related children under 18 years 1,945 Percent living with both parents 47.9 Income Less Than 125 Percent of Poverty Level ' Families 1,863 Percent of all families 6.3 Mean income deficit $1,999 ' Families with female head 691 Unrelated individuals 1,545 Percent of all unrelated individuals 27.9 Mean income deficit $1,100 Persons 8,393 Percent 6T years and over 11.0 ' Related children under 18 years 3,567 Percent living with both parents 53.7 �Source: "General Social and Economic Characteristics, Va111-Vrnia," PC(1)-C6, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, (Washighton: Government Printing ' Office, 1971), Table 90. 32 0 0 CITY OF 0 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 ++ + +0 0 0 00+ 00 00 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 1 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % \,0 0 00 00 00 + 0 0 0 0 ., / 0 0 0 + 0+ + LEGEND 0 00 0 Old Age Security (OAS) Aid to Families with + + 00 Dependent Children (AFDC) 0 ' + Aid to the Disabled (ATD) Fwy 0 0 Housing Survey Areas I Symbol Equals S Recipients Figure 2 Welfare Recipients in Huntington Beach by Quarter Section September 1970 33 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES ' Community services and facilities provide for a very ' real need in a community. These facilities and services directly affect the lives of not only the lower income ' families but all residents and are as necessary to their well-being as housing itself. A community that is aware of the needs of all its resi- dents strives to provide services for their needs . Over- all, Huntington Beach meets these needs quite well for all its citizens . However, in some of the older portions ' of the city, many of these facilities or services are deficient or lacking. Public facilities include schools ; such recreation ' facilities as parks , recreation centers , golf courses and beaches ; public transportation, utilities , and libraries . Quasi-public facilitie:; include hospitals , ' convalescent homes , cemeteries , fa:nily counseling centers , churches , service clubs and organizations , and cultural centers . ' It is necessary for a community to evaluate the impact of different housing types on its facilities and services in order to determine where the deficiencies lay. ' Public Facilities - 1. Schools ' Schools are one of the most important factors to discus - ' sion of a housing element , because it is local govern- ment' s responsibility to provide educational services . Schools , especially elementary schools , are directly affected by the composition of housing types in an area, t because different housing types generate varying numbers of students . The table below lists the elementary school student , generation per type of dwelling unit , as determined by a study conducted in 1969 . ' Housing Type Students/Unit Single Family 1. 31 , Condominiums .65 Multiple Family . 36 Mobile Home .05 ' 34 ' ' High schools are not as directly affected by housing types , because they draw students from large areas of the city. ' Figure 3 shows the locations of all school sites and especially those that serve , or will serve , areas of poor housing. As can be seen from the exhibit, the ' areas near Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue , and Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street are adequately served by elementary schools , though these schools are ' operating at or near capacity . An additional seven schools are proposed to serve these study areas , the majority of which have been allocated to serve the Original Town Lot area which has only one site that is operating at capacity. 2 . Recreation Facilities Recreation facilities , especially outdoor recreation facilities , are also provided by the Master Plan of Parks , Open Space , Schools , and Recreation . These facilities are important assets to a well-planned and balanced community, such as Huntington Beach . It is ' necessary to provide a wide range of such facilities in order to fully service a community' s needs and demands ; needs and demands which are increasing as leisure time is becoming more plentiful . The several types of recreation facilities include parks , playgrounds , beaches , golf courses and community ' centers . These types provide for a variety of ranges of recreational activities : neighborhood parks and playgrounds ; community parks and centers ; regional parks ' and regional recreation areas ; and golfing . Huntington Beach is fortunate to have all of the above- mentioned recreation facilities . By careful planning ' and much foresight, these facilities are stragetically located throughout the city. ' Neighborhood parks with playground equipment usually serve the area which is served by an elementary school . Because recreation facilities and school facilities are closely related and their purposes , programs and activ- ities overlap, they are often combined. This combination of facilities increase efficiency by eliminating dupli- cation. ' City-wide , the majority of elementary schools have adjacent parks that are developed. These parks are well used. Again , the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue Area, 35 F2, Fj:I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FA ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA E& h� 'EA Si A if % F-Al F L FA E 44 AE LLO LEGEND: Ada, o,� _E� \_ - — EXISTWO PROPOSED SCHOOLS SITES SITES AF- F -7/ELEMENTARY F F- 'A 7 JUNIOR HIGH HIGH COLLEGE 9: all PARKS A NNEIGHBORHOODA •// ' COMMUNITY W 0 REGIONAL ❑ N SPECIAL FACILITIES O �� ' .CTR <> C,RECREATION I'- , H ENSON R/W m r-.-j GOLF COURSE SPECIAL USE BEACHES PLANNED MARINA MLWTNNM CENTRAL RM M HOUSING SURVEY AREAS Figure 3 Relationship of Housing Survey Areas to the Parks , Open Spaces , Schools & Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use 36 1 ' and the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street Area are adequately served by existing parks . The Original Town Lot Area is served by two parks and a recreation center ' which are heavily used. In the future , an additional eight parks are slated to serve these four housing areas , of which six are for the Original Town Lot Area. ' Community parks serve several neighborhoods within a community and are designed and planned to serve the broader recreation needs and demands of that area. ' Generally, community parks are located near to or adjacent to high schools . This is to avoid, wherever possible , a duplication of facilities and the fact that high schools talso serve broader segments of the community . Community centers or activity buildings are located with- in the community parks . These centers provide meeting ' places for a variety of community functions and activities . Currently there is one community park developed, Murdy Park , and five additional parks to be developed through- out the city. Community parks along with the regional park, beaches ' and golf courses have an indirect effect on the housing survey areas because they serve larger areas than do the neighborhood parks . ' Huntington Central Park is a community park of over 400 acres that will function at the regional park level. This park will augment the county' s regional park ' system. Presently, it is under the first phase of develop- ment . 3. Public Transportation Public transportation in Huntington Beach is minimal, because of two primary considerations : dependency on the ' automobile as a primary mode of transportation and lack of a population density sufficient to support a public transportation system. Inter-city bus service is avail- able , but these routes do not penetrate the city to any extent . One company provided minimal inter-city service between Huntington Beach and Santa Ana. Due to economic ' difficulties and lack of ridership , this service was discontinued in April 1971 . No other comparable services are available at this time . ' Orange County Transit District is an agency that will provide for a mass transit system serving all communities in the county. Initially this system wiil '. consist of ' buses . In the first phase of development several inter- community routes will be established. Service will be inagurated on several of these routes within the next ' two years . The remainder of the inter-community routes ' 37 The remainder of the inter-community routes will ' be in service by 1980 . Ultimately this agency plans to provide inter- and intra-community service to communities in the county. ' Two routes which will affect Huntington Beach within the next two years are routes that service Beach Boule- vard and Adams Avenue . Service proposes a 25 cent fare ' and a 30 minute frequency schedule . 4. Utilities ' Public utilities such as streets , water service , and sewage disposal are provided by the city. Electricity , gas and telephone are provided by private companies . ' Trash collection is contracted out to a private firm. The public utilities are continually being upgraded and expanded as the city grows . ' Improvements such as sidewalks curbs and gutters , street lighting and street maintenance are somewhat deficient ' or lacking in those areas covered by the housing survey. The Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue Area and the Warner Avenue - Bolsa Chica Street Area are former county areas and at the time of development were not required to have ' such improvements . Much of the Original Town Lot Area has fallen into disrepair, due to age and lack of develop- ment . ' S . Libraries The library system consists of four main elements : a ' central library; three branches ; several outlets , distri- bution points or stations ; and a bookmobile . The central library is located at Talbert Avenue and Gold- ' enwest Street (in the Central City Park) . This facility is currently in the design phases and when constructed, will serve as the central repository and administration ' headquarters of the library system. The three branch libraries will be stragetically located ' throughout the city and will provide a basic level of service to the neighborhoods . The three sites will be at Springdale Street and Heil Avenue (Carr Park) , Main Street (currently in the present civic center) , and , Magnolia Street and Hamilton Avenue (Edison Park) . Only the Main Street facility is existing, which is also serving as the main library until the new library at ' Goldenwest Street and Talbert Avenue is finished. Library outlets , distribution points , or stations are ' small distribution centers that are located in intensive use areas , such as shopping centers . 38 , ' The bookmobile is a movable facility that travels to elementary schools and shopping centers that are removed from the outlets . This facility supplements the other ' library facilities . Currently, the Original Town Lot Area is served by the existing library on Main Street. All other survey areas ' are served by the bookmobile . When the system is complete , i . e . , when all library facilities are constructed and operating, there will be a more equitable distribution of these facilities . All study areas will be within approximately one mile of either the Central City Library or a branch. In addition, strategically located outlets ' and the bookmobile will provide service to these areas . Quasi-public Facilities and Services 1. Quasi-public Facilities The city is served by two hospitals , four convalescent ' hospitals , one health clinic, one cemetery, and thirty- one churches representing all denominations . 2 . Quasi-public Services ' Services are offered by various groups and organizations dedicated to dealing with family, emotional , physcial , ' psychological , or social problems . Such counseling or aid is offered free of charge or is paid based on the ability to pay of those receiving the aid. Eleven such ' service-oriented groups are located in Huntington Beach, while another eight are located elsewhere in the county, but serving the city. An additional two groups in the city are exclusively for senior citizens . 39 MARKET ANALYSIS ' The housing market of a community is frequently affected by the supply of housing on the one hand and its demand on the ' other. Both factors react very strongly with each other. There are two types of housing markets : One for the purchase of properties for sale and the other for the rental of the services of properties , usually for specified periods of time. ' Understandably, the market for housing is very local in nature due to competition that exists among different houses ' for a single buyer. Several factors contribute to the "local - ness" of the market : 1 . Availability of land and the location of this land ' for housing. 2 . Presence of certain social attributes of families , in determining whether or not these locations are acceptable . 3 . Construction costs that influence the location of ' housing , structure type , size and nature of construction. ' 4 . Financing. 5. Rising standard of living. ' 6. Existing backlog of demand for housing . Three characteristics help shape the market : Supply ' characteristics , occupancy characteristics and demand characteristics . Supply characteristics include income ' and its relationship to home value and rent , residential marketability or selling price on new homes , quality of housing, age, and number of units in the structure. Characteristics of occupancy include occupancy by tenure, ' vacancies , and persons-per-room ratio. Demand characteris- tics include forecasts based on the number of units deemed necessary to support projected population increases by in- ' come range and the number of units needed to replace those withdrawn from the market due to demolition. Housing Supply Characteristics ' 1 . Income and Its Relationship to Home Value and Rent The amount of rent and value of a house are two very important ' indicators as to the character of the supply of housing. A range from low to high value is desirable if all economic segments of a community are to have a choice in selecting their accommodations . As was also stated earlier, the ability of a family to secure housing for itself is directly related ' to its level of income . 40 ' ' Generally, it is assumed that a family pays approximately 25 percent of its gross annual income for total housing ' needs . A breakdown of percent of income spent for housing was discussed on Page 26, Table 9 gives a theoretical effect of annual income on the shelter budget . This table examines ' relationships between household income , shelter budget and reasonable house purchasing and monthly rental capabilities . Purchasing power levels were based on criteria developed by tmortgage bankers and lenders who felt that a buyer could generally afford to purchase a unit costing 2 . 25 to 2 . 75 times the family' s annual income . A factor of 2 . 5 times income was used in this table as a standard above which burdensome mort- gage or other payments were apt to occur. Renter power levels were calculated on the basis of estimates by HUD. Tables 10 and 11 show actual distribution of housing as found by the 1970 census . These two tables show that on the surface , at least , housing is available to all economic segments of this community. However, upon closer examination, only 7 percent of owner occupied units were valued under $20 ,000 , and 9 percent of the rentals went for less than $100 per month. This means that a total of only 8 percent of all units were potentially available for lower income households . ' There is also evidence from Table 11 that upwards of 40 per- cent of all renters pay over 25 percent of their income for shelter. Of these , 60 percent pay rents in excess of ' $150 per month. Table 8 showed that for poverty level households , the mean value of owner occupied units was $30 , 750 and mean gross rent for renter occupied units was ' $162 . No information was available for owner occupied units . A portion of the final housing element , which will be in a ' separate document, will contain programs designed to attempt to help these families better afford their accommodations . Table 12 indicates an upward shift in house value and rent from 1960 to 1970 . Also compared are the percent increases for the period in median house value and rent for Huntington Beach and the average for Orange County. In this city ' median house value rose 124 percent while median gross rent increased 104 percent . Increases in county average were 70 percent and 53 percent respectively. Although ' Huntington Beach' s increase was dramatic, median values are now slightly above the county average . Past trends indicate that housing costs are rising faster in Huntington Beach than for the county as a whole . These trends might be interpreted to mean that to live in this city, income must increase faster than the county average . This is of critical importance to poverty and low income families who have difficulty securing housing within their incomes . 41 Table 9 ' Effect of Income Level on Shelter Budget ' Household Annual Shelter Monthly Rent Home Purchase , Annual Income Budget Capability Capability Less than $3 , 000 Less than $1 , 050 Less than $87 Less than $7 , 500 $ 3 , 000-$ 4 , 499 $1 , 050-$1 , 300 $ 87-$110 $ 7 , 500-$11 , 000 ' $ 4 , 500-$ 5, 999 $1 , 300-$1 , 600 $110-$135 $11 ,000-$15 ,000 $ 6, 000-$ 8 , 499 $1 , 600-$2 ,100 $135-$175 $15 , 000-$21 , 000 ' $ 8 , 500-$11 ,999 $2 , 100-$2 , 600 $175-$220 $21 , 000-$30, 000 $12 , 000-$19 ,999 $2 ,600-$4, 000 $220-$330 $30, 000-$50, 000 ' $20, 000 and more $4, 000 and more $330 and more $50, 000 and more Source : Development Research Associates , Final Report, Orange Count ' Low-Income Housing Market Aggregation Study, Los Angeles , 1970) , P. 23 , Table 9. 42 ' Table 10 Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units Less 00 7500 0 0 0 20000 25000 35 5 000 than to to to to to to to to or Median Total $5000 $7499 $9999 $12499 $14999 $19999 $24999 $34999 $49999 more (dollars ) Specified Owner Occupied 20625 -- 22 35 112 100 1277 5474 8949 3654 1092 28700 Percent-Specified Owner Occupied 100 -- . 1 . 1 . 5 . 4 6 . 2 26 . 5 43 . 3 7 . 7 5 . 2 Year Structure Built 1969 to Mar ' 70 1519 -- 5 -- -- -- 17 91 777 474 155 33300 1965-1968 7278 -- 4 -- -- -- 104 613 3436 2531 590 33500 1960-1964 10011 -- -- 5 19 41 803 4114 4315 429 285 25100 1950-1959 1063 -- -- 16 20 11 182 461 264 70 39 23300 1940-1949 231 -- 6 -- 12 22 51 62 54 20 4 22000 1939 or earlier 523 -- 7 14 61 26 120 133 103 40 19 21300 Income in 1969 w Less than $2000 516 -- -- 15 10 17 64 146 215 34 15 25300 $2000-$2999 343 -- -- -- 10 9 77 100 101 36 10 23800 $3000-$3999 280 -- 6 6 18 6 49 88 87 4 16 23100 $4000-$999 296 -- -- -- -- -- 76 ill 86 14 9 23200 $5000-$5999 307 -- 11 5 -- 6 31 104 105 40 5 24800 $6000-$6999 432 _ _ _ _ 6 -_ 77 194 127 8 20 23400 $7000-$9999 2430 -- -- -- 17 28 246 992 971 150 26 24700 $10000-$14999 7245 -- 5 4 32 24 434 2348 3517 779 102 27200 $15000-$24999 7016 -- -- 5 14 10 195 1274 3320 1906 292 31100 $25000 or more 1760 -- -- -- 5 -- 28 117 420 593 597 42800 Median (dollars ) 13900 -- -- -- 9100 8300 10200 12100 14000 18800 27900 -- Source : "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics" , HC(2) - 10 , Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, U. S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) , Table G- 1. Table 11 Gross Rent of Renter Occupied Housing Units Less 50 60 70 80 100 120 150 200 300 No Median Total than to to to to to to to to or cash (dollars) $50 $59 $69 $79 $99 $119 $149 $199 $299 more rent Specified renter occupied 9520 34 54 155 131 515 629 2091 3570 1976 179 186 165 Percent spec renter occupied 100 . 3 . 6 1. 6 1 . 4 5 . 4 6 . 6 22 . 0 37 . 5 20. 8 1 . 9 1 . 9 ear Structure Built 1969 to March 1970 1292 . . . . . . . . 15 S 195 746 309 . . 22 178 1965-1968 2211 . . 5 . . 6 26 56 371 1123 475 128 21 178 1960-1964 3704 . . . . 19 10 114 148 988 1283 1040 36 66 171 1950-1959 1104 5 5 38 39 74 176 323 268 137 15 24 139 1940-1949 481 6 9 21 23 116 104 101 81 15 . . 5 112 1939 or earlier 728 23 35 77 53 170 140 113 69 48 98 IncomeTT Less than $2000 854 15 31 52 42 122 79 183 223 71 4 32 131 $2000-$2999 529 . . 5 26 20 68 72 112 148 54 . . 24 136 $3000-$3999 515 . . 5 10 13 41 59 145 192 35 . . 15 145 $4000-$4999 498 5 4 21 10 50 31 160 154 58 . . S 144 � $5000-$5999 612 . . 4 10 6 47 46 166 226 79 12 16 154 4" $6000-$6999 673 6 4 13 39 48 243 224 81 S 10 147 $7000-$9999 1994 8 S 10 27 90 132 S73 712 399 5 33 160 $10, 000-$14 , 999 2453 . . . . 9 . . 46 139 355 1192 671 5 36 178 $15 , 000-$24 , 999 1151 . . . . 13 . . 12 16 143 445 447 70 5 194 $25, 000 or more 241 . . . . . . 7 11 54 81 78 10 254 Median (dollars) 8700 3000 3300 4500 6600 7200 9600 11600 23400 6100 Gross Rental as a Percentage of Income Less than 10 percent 374 14 5 32 53 32 47 104 61 26 . . 152 10-14 percent 1320 S 8 4 40 66 142 328 518 162 47 . . 1S6 15-19 percent 1878 . . 5 31 6 94 129 372 840 385 16 . . 168 20-24 percent 1561 . . . . 10 14 43 58 401 633 372 30 . . 170 25-34 percent 1632- 4 S 15 13 64 58 383 543 522 25 . . 17S 35 percent or more 2463 6 31 58 52 18S 206 537 889 464 35 1S9 Not computed 292 5 5 6 10 4 23 43 10 186 150 Source : "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics ," HC(2) -10 , Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA U-8.Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government ' Printing Office 1371) , Table G-2 . M 1 Table 12 House Value & Gross Rent 1960 Compared to 1970 % of % of 1960 Total 1970 Total ' Total Owner Occupied Units 1836 100. 0 20, 637a 100. 0 Value Less than $10, 000 520 28 . 3 97 . 5 ' $10, 000 to $14 , 999 754 41 . 1 261 1 . 3 $15 , 000 to $19, 999 332 18 . 1 1265 6 .1 $20, 000 to $24 , 999 100 5 .4 5348 25 . 9 $25 ,000 to $34 , 999 130b 7 . 1 9023 43 . 7 ' $34 , 000 or more -- - -- - - 4643 22. 5 Median H. B. $12 ,800 $28 , 700 Percent increase 1960-70 124 O.C. average $15 , 900 $27, 200 Percent increase 1960-70 71 Total Renter Occupied Units 1673 100. 0 9569 100. 0 Gross Rent Less than $60 456 27. 2 234 2 . 5 $60 - $79 505 30. 2 471 4 . 9 $80 - $99 419 25 . 1 547 5 . 7 $100- $119 116b 6. 9 827 8 . 7 $120- $149 61 3. 7 2931 30. 6 - $150- $199 - 3290 34 .4 $200 or more --- - - - - 1095 11. 4 ' No cash rent 116 6. 9 174 1. 8 Median H.B. $72 $147 Percent increase 1960-70 104 O.C. average $138 Percent increase 1960-70 53 ' aSpecified occupied units , based on 100% sample bIn the 1960 census , all houses valued over $25 , 000 were listed ' as $25, 000 or more" ; all units renting for more than $120 were listed as "$120 or more" . ' Sources : U. S . Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , as gton : Government Printing Office , 1961) , Table 24 ; "California, General Housing Characteristics" , HC(V1) -6 , U. S . ' Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) ; Huntington Beach Planning Department. ' 45 1 2 . Residential Marketability Residential marketability gives an indication of the avail - ' ability and selling price of new houses being constructed. Table 13 shows the trend for the past twelve years in Huntington Beach and Seal Beach. If the price ranges are ' grouped into three categories , under $20 , 000 , $20 , 000-$30 ,000 , and over $30, 000 , it can be seen that prior to 1964 the majority of houses built in these two cities was selling for ' under $20 , 000. Between 1964 and 1969 very few units were built for less than $20 , 000 , with approximately half being sold for $20 , 000-$30, 000 . After 1969 the majority were ' selling for over $30, 000 . After 1966 no units built were sold for less than $20 , 000 . 3 . Quality of Housing ' Quality of housing in a community is one of the most important aspects of the supply in a market . Poor quality housing is of ' primary concern, although premature deterioration of good housing is another principal concern . Quality of housing in Huntington Beach has been rated in two studies : 1) The ex- ' terior of the structures has been rated during the Individual Parcel and Structure Survey in those areas where it was felt problems might exist . (In the remainder of the city, exteriors of the structures were not rated. ) 2) Adequacy of the structure ' with regard to the presence or lack of plumbing, was determined in the 1970 Federal census . The Individual Parcel and Structure Survey gives an indication of the structure exterior ' and its environs , elements which have important affects on the quality of the neighborhood. On the whole , quality of housing in Huntington Beach is in ' excellent condition. Assuming that all structures that were rated as substandard, or those in need of major re- pair or beyond repair by the Individual Parcel and Structure ' Survey are the only such structures in the city, then there are only 165 units of the structures city-wide which are substandard. ' There is also no way to tell if there is any direct correla- tion between the two surveys , i .e . , between the condition of ' the exterior and the adequacy of the interior. Table 14 lists some of these criteria that are indicative of substandard housing as determined by the Federal census . This ' table compares several characteristics of substandard housing to the number of persons-per-room and presence or lack of plumbing facilities . Highlights of this table are that ' only . 5 percent of all units are lacking some or all plumb- ing facilities ; that 5 percent of all units show evidence of crowding, i . e . , have 1 . 01 or more persons per room; and of these crowded units only 2 percent lack some or all ' plumbing facilities . An interesting finding is that correlation of substandard housing indices to crowding and presence or lack of plumbing facilities is not confined ' to low income groups , to older units , or to units with low house value or rent . 46 , 1 Table 13 ' Residential Marketability for New Housing Huntington Beach-Seal Beach Number of Units ' Price Range 1961 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 Under $15 , 000 271 311 313 ' $15 , 000-$17,499 212 280 62 62 $17 , 500-$19, 999 200 24 11 ' $20 , 000-$24, 999 200 1002 529 281 286 230 25 $25, 000-$29, 999 18 639 786 660 470 607 159 327 138 ' $30, 000-$34, 999 229 484 650 541 326 458 304 207 $35, 000 and over 451 4F7 330 619 459 405 505 327 ' Percentage Distribution ' Year Under $20, 000 $20 ,000-$30, 000 Over $30, 000 Total 1961 96% 4% 100% ' 1963 100% 100% 1964 15% 60% 25% 100% ' 1965 2% 57% 41% 100% 1966 1% 48% 51% 100% 1967 40% 60% 100% ' 1968 52% 48% 100% 1969 15% 85% 100% ' 1970 30% 70% 100% 1971 21% 79% 100% ' aThe sources listed Residential Marketability for Huntington Beach and Seal Beach as : Units Completed, Total number and number unsold ; ' Units under construction, Total number and Number unsold. For this table , it was assumed that eventually all units under construction were completed and all units in both categories were sold. The table , therefore shows only those units completed. ' Sources : Orange County Progress Report , Orange County Planning Department, (Santa Ana, - 71 , Vols . 2-9; Huntington Beach ' Planning Department. ' 47 TABLE 14 INDICES OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSING: PLUMBING FACILITIES BY PERSONS PER ROOM With all Plumbing Facilities Lacking some or all Plumbing Facilities 0 1,71 Total Total or to to or Total or to to or less 1.00 1.50 more less 1.00 1.50 more Total cc. Housing Units 33,i082 Median - Persons 3.3 3.3 2.1 4.1 6.3 6.8 --- --- --- --- --- Year Structure Built 1960-March 1970 29,197 292128 12,491 15,460 1,021 156 69 12 38 11 8 1950-1959 2,323 2,309 1,086 1,005 178 40 14 7 -- -- 7 1940-1949 723 710 399 246 36 29 22 6 16 -- -- 1939 or earlier 1,394 1,361 916 398 40 7 33 13 12 8 -- Income in 1969 Less than $4000 3,616 3,555 2,317 1,142 85 11 61 24 18 7 12 $4000-$5999 2,091 2,069 1,107 875 61 26 22 11 11 -- -- $6000-$6999 1,270 1,270 628 542 77 23 -- -- -- -- -- $7000 or more 26,661 26,593 10,819 14,490 1,118 166 68 21 32 11 4 Median (dollars) 12,200 12,200 12,250 12,600 11,800 10,300 -- -- -- -- -- Specified Owner Occ. Units 20,625 20,595 8,452 11,223 812 108 Value 30 10 16 4 -- Less than $10,000 57 57 31 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- $10,000-$14,999 212 212 114 67 25 6 -- -- -- -- -- $15,000-$191999 1,277 1,267 627 524 100 16 10 10 -- -- $20,000-$24,999 5,474 5,474 1,717 3,392 309 56 -- -- -- -- -- $25,000 or more 13,605 13,585 5,963 7,214 378 30 20 -- 16 4 -- Median (dollars) 28,700 28,700 30,100 28,100 24,500 22,900 -- -- -- -- -- Value - Income Ratio Less than 2.5 13,202 13,187 4,961 7,595 541 90 15 5 6 4 -- 2.5-2.9 2,828 2,823 1,074 12633 116 -- 5 -- 5 -- -- 3.0-3.9 2,265 2,265 1,014 1,150 87 14 -- -- -- -- -- 4.0 or more 2,177 2,172 1,315 790 63 4 5 -- 5 --Not computed 153 148 88 55 5 -- 5 5 -- -- -- Specified Renter Occ.Units 9,520 9,410 4,079 4,731 489 ill Gross Rent 110 40 40 14 16 Less than $60 88 69 44 16 9 -- 19 -- -- 7 12 $60-$79 286 277 215 37 11 14 9 -- 5 -- 4 $80-$99 515 499 315 162 5 17 16 10 6 -- -- $100-$119 629 629 292 270 43 24 -- -- -- -- -- $120 or more 7,816 7,746 3,101 4,182 421 52 60 30 23 7 No cash rent 186 180 112 64 -- 4 6 -- 6 -- -- Median (dollars) 165 165 1S6 173 165 119 -- -- -- -- Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income 30 11 15 -- 4 Less than 25 percent 5,133 5,103 1,960 2,774 285 84 22 10 5 7 -- 25-34 percent 1,632 1,610 644 853 101 12 52 19 14 7 12 35 percent or more 2,463 2,411 1,286 12016 98 11 6 -- 6 --Not computed 292 286 189 88 5 4 Sources: "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics," HC(2)-10, Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, US Department of ommerce Bureau of the Census, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971) Tables G-1, G-2, G-4. 48 In most cases the highest incidence of occurrence seems to ' be in the newer units , higher income brackets , or higher value units . This is probably because of the large volume in these higher or newer brackets . ' 4. Age of Housing Other important factors affecting quality of housing are ' age and neighborhood quality. These two elements combined have a direct effect on the condition of housing. Obviously, two houses of the same quality, age and construction type ' will have different values if one is in a well-kept neighbor- hood and the other is in a deteriorating neighborhood. ' Eighty-seven percent of the city' s housing stock of 35 ,971 units was built after 1960. Of the housing that was built prior to 1960, the majority ' is still in excellent condition. Of those units needing major repair, the majority of these were constructed prior to 1945 . ' Tables 10 and 11 indicate structure age and house value and rent ; Table 14 correlates age with certain substandard indicators ; and Table 17 shows age and vacancy status . S . Number of Units in the Structure ' Housing supply is made up of a variety of housing types . This is a reflection of the fact that housing has, in a general way, been developed to meet the desires and needs ' of families of varying composition and with diversified economic and social characteristics . For example , the large family with several young children will demand a ' different type of dwelling from the employed couple with grown children or no children, or the elderly couple . Similarly, housing of different types will be required at different income levels and engaged in different pursuits . ' This can be seen in the diversification of housing offered in Huntington Beach. ' Table 15 shows a breakdown of the number of housing units in a structure. There is also a variety of structures , ranging from the extremely popular single family detached house, to ' duplexes , triplexes , four-plexes , apartments , condominiums , town houses and mobile home parks. These structures come in a range of settings , from the single family tract , to apartment complexes , planned unit developments , cluster ' housing, and mobile home parks . This variety is available to allow a family some selectivity in meeting its immediate needs and desires . ' Occupancy Characteristics ' 1. Occupancy by Tenure Table 16 shows one occupancy characteristic . Briefly, this ' 49 Table 15 ' Housing Type by Structure ' Units % of Total ' Total housing units 35 ,971 100% 1 unit 26,684 74% ' 2-4 units 2, 688 7% 5-9 units 718 2% ' 10+ units 2, 791 8% Mobile homes and trailers 1 , 813 5% ' Not reported 1 , 277 4% Sources : "California, General Housing Characteristics," , ffCTVT---l-) -6 , U. S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) , _ p. 16 ; Huntington Beach Planning Department. ' 1 1 1 1 50 ' 1 table shows that in 1970, the majority of units , 94 per- cent , were occupied, and of these occupied units 67 per- cent were owner-occupied. Population per occupied unit was greater for the owned unit than for the rented unit ; i .e . , 3 . 7 for owner occupied and 2 . 9 for renter occupied. ' 2 . Vacancy Status ' Vacancy rate of a housing market is another indicator of the housing situation. A local housing market may be out of balance , either on the side of an excess of dwelling ' units over those demanded or on the side of excessive demand for units over those available. More frequently, however, a market may be out of balance with respect to the total quantity of housing . The most common measure of ' balance between supply and demand is the number and type of dwellings that are both vacant and available . It is important to consider only "available" units , because there are usually ' many units vacant simply because they are not available on the market . It may be that some units are used only seasonally, and are therefore vacant in the off-season. It is also im- portant to know the price or rental levels of vacancies ; quality of structures ; and their age , type and location; and the unit size. Obviously, if there is a surplus of high- priced units , this would have very little relation to the ' supply of low-priced units . There may be a surplus of three-bedroom units , but this might not necessarily mean that more one-bedroom units were not needed. Or, that ' ' many expensive luxury apartments may be vacant , but this would not mean that there was not a need for more rental housing at low or moderate rents. ' A certain number of units in the housing market will and should always be available to allow some selection in hous- ing . On the other hand, however, a disproportionate number ' of vacant dwellings obviously works an economic hardship on the owners . Vacancy level , then, has an extremely important influence not only on the kind, but also on the volume of ' new construction which is likely to occur. At the time of the 1970 Census the vacancy rate was 6 . 4 per- cent. This rate reflects not only those existing units that are vacant , but also new construction which was counted vacant . According to the definition of "vacant housing units" used by the U. S. Bureau of the Census in the 1970 ' Federal Census , "new units not yet occupied are enumerated as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed ' and final useable floors are in place." Conceivably, these units would not have a Certificate of Occupancy issued; and therefore, they would not be available for ' occupancy, and yet are still counted as vacant by census enumerators. 51 Table 16 Occupancy by Tenure of TotaT 1960 1970 1970 Total housing units 4 ,600 35 , 971 100% Total units occupied 3 , 758 33 , 675 94% Owner occupied units 2 ,085 24 , 026 67% Renter occupied units 1 , 673 9, 649 27% Vacant 842 2 , 296 6% Population 11 ,492 115 , 960 100% In owner occupied units N.A.a 88 ,896 77% In renter occupied units N.A. a 27 , 064 23% N Population per occupied unit 3 . 0 3. 4 Population per owner occupied unit 3. 0 3. 7 Population per renter occupied unit 2. 9 2. 9 aN.A. means Not Available bPopulation/owner occupied unit does not necessarily mean single family houses nor does population/renter occupied unit mean apart- ments . Some apartments are owned as are some condominiums , while some single family homes are rented, as are some mobile homes . Sources : "California, General Housing Characteristics ," H.C. (V1) -6 , U. S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) , p. 16 ; Huntington Beach Planning Department. Table 17 lists some characteristics of vacant units . Twenty- seven percent of 514 were for sale and 73 percent , 1417 , were rentals. Sixty-two percent or 1196 units were built after 1969. Median sales price asked was $32 ,800 and median rent ' asked was $162 . Over 90 percent of all sale units had 3 or more bedrooms , while the same percentage of rentals had 2 bedrooms or less . ' Only 4 percent of all sale units , 19 units , were being offered for less than $20, 000 and 3 percent , 37 units , of all rentals were asking less than $100 per month. These were all older smaller units . This indicates a scarcity of units available for the lower economic segment of this community. ' 4. Persons-per-Room Ratio Persons-per-room ratio represents another important index to the adequacy of housing . This ratio is an indicator ' of crowding, a problem which occurs when there is insufficient space for the number of persons living in a dwelling. Vowd- ing exists when there is 1. 01 or more persons per room, a standard used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census . Crowding is an important problem because it appears to be the major housing characteristic contributing to ill health, both physical and emotional ; and it is a key housing feature ' plaguing low income families . Overcrowding creates stress ; causes rooms to be used for a function other than their original intention; leads to fatigue, lack of sleep, intra- ' family friction; and can result in poor health conditions such as those stemming from substandard housing. Over- crowding is also directly related to the prices of homes ' and rentals and to vacancies . In 1970 there were 1687 units (5 percent) with 1 . 01 persons or more per room in Huntington Beach, based on a 100 percent sample . Of these 1430 units (4 percent of the total housing stock) had 1 . 01 to 1 . 50 persons per room, and 257 units (one percent) had 1 . 51 persons or more per room. (1 . 51 or more ' persons per room is indicative of undesirable overcrowding. ) Table 14 correlates crowding with several other indicators ' of substandard housing. ' 53 Table 17 ' Characteristics of Vacant Units Sale Rent Total Units 514 1417 Bedrooms ' None or 1 13 880 2 26 515 ' 3 148 53 4 336 83 Year Structure Built , 1969 - March 1970 368 828 1960 - 1968 132 486 , 1959 or earlier 14 103 Median Price Asked $32 ,800 $162 Source : "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics ," MT7-_10 , Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, ' U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971) Table G-9. ' 54 ' Housing Demand Characteristics Projections for Housing demand are based on studies made by ' the Huntington Beach Planning Department and by Economics Research Associates (ERA) . Housing development trends were examined as a part of the first Six Year Capital Improvements Program. As a result , housing and population projections ' were updated to 1985 . ERA, as part of an economic base analysis of Huntington Beach done in 1969 , projected an in- come distribution by income level to 1990 . E These two ' sources have been utilized in making housing demand projec- tions . Existing distribution has been estimated from data in the 1970 census . These current estimates were based on a 20 percent sample, thereby tending to make the estimates a little high. 1 . Population 1 A demand analysis hinges on population projections to some target date in the future . Usually population estimates for a period of five to ten years in the future can be made ' with a fair degree of accuracy. Beyond ten years , too many variables can enter into the picture which may skew the estimates . To give some idea of what the long range growth pattern will be, projections in this demand discussion ' have been made for a fifteen year period. Table 18 indicates that-Huntington Beach will have a popula- tion of 169,100 by 1975 ; 197 ,100 by 1980 and 216,100 by 1985 based on estimates of the Huntington Beach Planning Depart- ment. This growth rate is expected to remain high through 1975 as the remaining single family land is developed. After 1975, this rate is expected to drop sharply to a more "normal" growth rate of approximately 2 percent per year until 1985 . The average annual growth rate for this time period is 4 per- cent. Population projections are always of interest to growth oriented cities such as Huntington Beach. Past growth policy is reflected by the high level of residential subdivision activity. Because of this activity, the city' s population is still growing at a fairly constant rate of over 800 persons per month. If this growth continues as predicted, the 1985 estimate is reasonable. ' Of increasing concern in the past several years , however, is the subject of ecology, or the total relationship between man and his environment. Related to the ecology of man is ' the impact of population growth and demand on the environ- ment . Huntington Beach is aware of these demands on the environment. For several reasons stated below, these ' population projections may not be realized: ' 55 Table 18 Population Projections 1 1970 - 1985 Population Annual Year l Population Growth Growth Rate 1 1970 120, 000 1975 169, 100 49, 100 8 . 2% 1 1980 197, 100 28 , 000 3 . 3% 1985 216, 100 19, 000 1 . 9% 1 1970-1985 96,100 4. 0% 1July 1st . 1 Source : Huntington Beach Planning Department i 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 56 ' ' 1. A growing sentiment of the city' s residents to limit growth and preserve undeveloped areas . ' 2 . Requirement of environmental impact reports to be on file on all major projects which evaluate the project ' s impact on the environment. ' 3. Passage of the Coastline Initiative in the November 1972 election which may delay construc- tion projects for four years . 2 . Removal of Housing ' Housing unit removal has been occurring at an average rate of about 30 residential units per year in Huntington Beach, ' based on a ten-year average (1960-1970) . Assuming this to be a constant rate, over 450 residential units will be removed over the next fifteen year period. Many of these units will be occupied by those households of lower income . Removal results from a combination of accidents and natural causes , such as fires , floods , and earthquakes , and from ' a combination of public and private decisions . Public decisions affecting the housing stock include new freeway construction and street networks , exercise of eminent domain ' for public works or other civic projects . Private decisions results in demolitions due to conversions to a more intensive land use or to non-residential land use. ' A sizeable number of demolitions will also be due to deterioration and dilapidation caused by the wear and tear of time . By 1985 those 4600 units existing at the ' time of the 1960 Federal census will be at least twenty- five years old and over half will be over thirty-five years old. It was noted during the housing surveys that many houses constructed prior to 1960 were of the beach-cottage- resort-type housing that was not constructed as soundly as conventional housing. Hence , by 1985, many of these units will have more than likely reached marginal utility. It would not be unreasonable to assume that many of these units will be occupied by lower income households by 1985 . 3. Housing Demand Table 19 indicates housing demand projections to 1985 for ' Huntington Beach. Those units lost through demolition will eventually be absorbed by the demand for new housing. This table indicates that in 1970 there were approximately 36, 500 total dwelling units. Of these 80 percent were ' single family and 20 percent were multiple family. By 1975 this dominance of single family units over multiple family 57 i Table 19 Housing Demand Projections i 1970 - 1985 Total Total Single Propensity Multiple Propensity 3 Year l 3 Units Propensity Units � Units % 4 800 20 i 1970 36, 500 100 28 , 700 80 7 ,800 1975 53 ,650 100 37, 550 70 16, 100 30 i 1980 64 , 850 100 42 ,150 65 22 , 700 35 1985 73,100 100 43,850 60 29, 250 40 , 1As of July 1 2Total units as based on Huntington Beach Planning Department i estimates , 1975- 1985. 3Propensity based on ERA' s economic base analysis report on ' Huntington Beach for 1975-1985 . 4Estimates based on 1970 census . i Sources : Huntington Beach Planning Delartment ; Economic Research Associates , "Economic Growth Projections for the City of Huntington ' Beach and the Mid-Beach Planning Area," (Los Angeles : 1970) , p . III - 18. i 1 1 58 units is expected to lessen to about 70 percent single family and 30 percent multiple family and decreasing there- after . By 1985 it is estimated that there will be about 73, 000 units in the city, of which 60 percent will be single ' family. Table 20 indicates the projected housing demand by annual income range for 1975 to 1985 . The income ranges listed ' in this table approximately correspond to the income groups designated in this study: Less than $4000 (poverty income group) ; $4000-5999 (very low income group) ; $6000-9999 (low ' and moderate income groups) ; and $10 , 000 or more (high in- come group) . These are only approximations as the statistics were not refined enough to permit differentiation between the low and moderate income groups , i .e . , $6000 to $9999 annual income . This table shows that the total number of units for the ' poverty and very low income groups will decline, while the remaining groups will demand an increasing number of units. This table is actually a numerical representation ' of a combination of Table 5 and 19. Using Table 20, demand for the poverty, very low, and low income groups can be examined for expected trends to 1985. ' It will be assumed that the moderate and high income groups will have adequate housing available to them at all times . These income groups will be excluded from further discussions . ' a. Poverty Level Income Group This is the income group which earns less than $4500 yearly. ' It is this group that has immediate housing needs and faces acute shortages of available and adequate units for its requirements . Approximately 6 percent of all households have ' incomes less than poverty level (Table 8) . It has been pro- jected in Table 5 that an average of 10 percent of all house- holds will have poverty level incomes over the next fifteen ' years , to 1985 . b. Lower Income Groups ' These income groups have an average annual income ranging from poverty level to about $8000. Many of these families seem to have high expectations of achieving middle class ' status by owning a new home . They are limited to resale units . The average housing values are probably somewhat similar to the poverty level group. It is estimated that ' about half or less of these families pay 30 percent or more of their incomes for housing. It can be seen, then, that over the next fifteen years , ' these lower income groups will continue to be a significant minority in the economic stratification of this city. These households will comprise over thirty percent of the total households . ' 59 Table 20 Housing Demand Projections by Annual Income Range 1975 -1985 Total Single Multiple ' Number of Housing Units by Income Units Units Units Less than $4000 overt level group) ' (poverty g P 1975 7, 000 4, 900 2, 100 ' 1980 6,450 4, 200 2 , 250 1985 5, 100 3 , 050 2 , 050 $4000 - $5999 (very low income group) ' 1975 7 , 550 5 , 250 2 , 300 1980 7 ,150 4, 650 2 ,500 1985 6, 600 3 , 950 2 ,650 ' $6000 - $9999 (low & moderate income group) 197S 12 , 900 9, 000 3, 900 ' 1980 14 , 250 9, 250 5 , 000 1985 14, 600 8 , 750 5, 850 $10,000 or more (high income group) , 1975 26, 200 18 ,400 7 ,800 1980 37 , 000 24 , 050 12 , 950 1985 46,800 28 ,100 18 ,700 ' Totals by Year 1975 53 ,6S0 37 , 550 16,100 ' 1980 64 , 850 42 ,150 22 ,700 1985 73 ,100 43,850 29 , 250 Source : Huntington Beach Planning Department ' 60 , MECHANISMS TO LOWER THE COST OF ROUSING Both the private and public sectors are making efforts to overcome problems and obstacles to lower the cost ' of housing. The private sector consists of two groups : the construction industry, which is working on building technology and its products and profit and non-profit motivated organizations which sponsor housing projects ; ' the public sector is the Local Housing Authority (of a city or county) and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . Private Sector 1. Construction Industry The housing industry is constantly improving construction technology through innovations and new products . One of the more recent technological changes was the intro- duction of modular housing. A modular is a unit designed to meet requirements both single and multiple family ' structures ; that is constructed off-site in a plant and transported in early finished form usually by truck to a site . A modular usually includes mechanical equipment , wiring, plumbing , floor coverings , and appliances . It ' is considered to be real estate once it has been attached to a permanent foundation, as opposed to mobile homes , which are considered as chattels or personal property. ' The modular-housing industry , as a whole , has been some- what less than a success . One reason the industry came ' into existence was because of a high-priced and dwind- ling labor supply. It was also thought that the industry could efficiently and econ.omicalty produce new housing that is so badly needed by moderate and lower income ' families by employing production- line techniques and by using semi-skilled and unskilled labor. In an ii4terview article that recently appeared in House and Home ' , Kenneth ' Campbell , a specialist in housing stocks , prove ed some insights into the modular-housing industry : its disasters and successes . Portions of this article have been para- phrased for the discussion that follows . The article indicated that although there have been some spectacular failures , such as Stirling-Homex, the real ' modular-housing industry is still very small , but is quietly and surely growing. Mr. Campbell indicated several reasons for the difficulty in the modular-housing ' industry: 61 1. Misconception about the industry : ' a) about the realities of modular production. To use an analogy, housing cannot be produced and ' sold like automobiles as many producers thought . Demand and availability of sites for modulars is less than the supply. , b) comparison of modulars to mobile homes : modulars are considered to be real estate once attached to a permanent foundation, while mobile homes ' are chattels or personal property. c) the somewhat naive belief that the modular-housing ' business would be "duck-soup" , when in reality it is an incredibly complex, logistical , and technical business . ' 2 . Putting bigness and complexity before quality: many producers built large and sophisticated plants and had complex operations . They were geared for pro- ' duction, a la the automobile . They built the plant and went looking for the market . 3. Faulty estimates of capital needs left many companies , undercapitalized. Two sources of working capital what are denied to the modular producer are suppliers and subcontractors . Credit is not extended on any ' work done in the plant . 4. Esthetic pressures to upgrade the design of the unit ' and improve the environment created a difficult situation for many companies . Mr. Campbell also cited key patterns of the successful , companies : 1. Operation with a very low profile . These successful companies have not looked at modulars as an opportunity to promote their stock . 2. They ignored Operation Breakthrough as it would give ' then only moderate benefits . 3. These companies paid a high regard to logistics , for ' example , weather and transportation details . 4. Operations were kept as simple as possible . , S . Minimal amounts of sub-assembly or compenent work was done in the plant. Because of this , capital ' expenditures and inventories were kept to a minimum. 62 ' Mr. Campbell sees the modular housing producer as "essentially a homebuilder who happens to build in a plant. " These producers must "know their market , ' select a market they want to,serve and then build a plant to serve that market . " Housing Sponsors Other important groups in the private sector are those profit-motivated and non-profit sponsors of housing ' projects . Generally, these sponsors back multifamily projects . Non-profit sponsors are a significant part of this private sector, because they show that there are individuals and groups with strong enough motivation to form non-profit groups . These groups include organi- zations formed by religious groups , fraternal orders , labor unions , and concerned private citizens . These non-profit sponsors , if they meet HUD' s eligibility requirements , qualify under Section 106 (b) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. This program authorizes HUD to provide financial assistance in the form of 80 percent interest-free loans , to cover certain ' preconstruction costs , and establishes a revolving Low and Moderate Income Sponsor Fund for this purpose . There are several programs available to these eligible sponsors . Included are : 1. Section 236 lower income rental and cooperative ' housing; 2. Section 221 (d) (3) below market interest rate housing; 3. Rent supplement housing; ' 4. Sections 221 (h) and 235 (j ) . Public Sector 1 . Local Housing Authorities The public sector includes Local Housing Authorities (of a city or county) and the Federal government in the form of HUD-FHA. Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) are five-member commis - sions comprised of either the local governing body or appointees of the governing body. Commissioners of local housing authorities function as directors of a low-rent ' housing program. The LHAs either own or lease dwelling units for the purpose of providing adequate housing for very low income households . Funds for rent subsidies ' are provided by HUD through contractural arrangements for financial assistance between HUD and the LHAs . 63 1 The basic concept of housing authorities was formed with , the creation of housing authorities by the U. S. Housing Act of 1937 . This act created the U. S. Housing Authority (USHA) . The USHA was succeeded by the Federal Public ' Housing Authority in 1942 and by the Public Housing Administration (PHA) in 1947 . The PHA provided loans and annual contributions to local public housing agencies , for low-rent housing and slum clearance projects . Since aid could only be provided to public bodies , LHAs were established under state-enabling legislation for the purpose of building and operating these projects . ' The 1937 law prescribed certain conditions for eligibility and specific preferences in the selection of tenants , by the LHAs . Then in 1961 these conditions were eliminated and LHAs were given the responsibility of determining policies for admission of tenants to these public housing ' projects . A local housing authority was established for the County of Orange by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on ' November 24, 1971. This body was established, because the county recognized that such a body offered one of the few means of providing housing for low income families , and individuals residing or working in Orange County. It was felt that the private sector adequately met the housing needs of higher income residents of the County ' and that Federal housing programs requiring local approval, but not a housing authority were available to assist in providing moderate-income housing. This Orange County Housing Authority has jurisdiction ' over all unicorporated portions of the county as well as those incorporated cities which-,een ract with the , County Housing Authority. Huntington Beach , along with six other communities- in the county, have joined the County Housing Authority. (Section 34209 of the Califor- nia Health and Safety Code defines the area of operation , by a county housing authority. ) HUD-FHA Programs ' The other important area which HUD deals in is the FHA ' programs . Since HUD and FHA merged in September 1969 into one entity, all programs are now a product of this new department . The HUD-FHA administered housing programs play a vital , role in providing housing for the nation' s population. These programs are a means , but not the sole means , of , 1 64 1 ' helping attain the national housing goal of a "decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family" , by providing housing for many families who could ' not otherwise afford such decent housing. Listed below are general descriptions of several of the ' national housing programs , some of which may be appli- cable in Huntington Beach . HUD-FHA Housing Programs ' Low Rent Public Housing is the name given to a series of programs , all of which are designed to provide loans ' and annual contributions which permit public agencies to provide decent , safe and sanitary housing for low- income families at rents they can afford. Local housing ' authorities rent to low-income families dwelling units provided by construction, rehabilitation of existing structures , purchase from private developers or builders (the Turnkey method) , and by lease from private owners . Low Rent Public Housing Program - Loans and Annual Contributions for New Construction is a program where , in addition to loans and annual contributions , technical assistance and guidance in the development and operation of this housing are provided to communities for the ' provision of decent housing within the financial reach of low-income families . Loan funds are made available for preliminary planning ' and initial construction. Annual zontributions amortize local authority bonds sold to pay for development of low-rent housing. In addition, subsidies are authorized to enable local authorities to keep rents within the means of these low-income families , when necessary to assure project financial solvency. Low Rent Public Housing - Rehabilitation of Existing Structures encompasses two programs : t e mo ernitAtion of existing public housing projects and the acquisition ' and, if necessary, rehabilitation, of existing housing for use as public housing. The former program provides loans and annual contributions to bring existing public housing projects up to present day physical standards , and t-o invo.ivie tenants in all aspects of management including planning and implementing modernization pro- grams , determining management policies and practices , ' expanding services and facilities , and providing employ- ment opportunities . The latter program provides annual contributions and technical assistance to communities ' for the provision of decent housing within the financial reach of low-income families by the use of existing housing. The housing can be rehabilitated if necessary. ' The use of existing housing can (a) produce public housing 65 more speedily and cheaply than new construction; (b) , provide scattered site public housing; and (c) conserve or improve residential neighborhoods . The annual contributions are made to amortize the debt of local ' housing authority bonds sold to pa;, for the capital cost of acquisting and rehabilitation, if necessary , of privately owned property. ' "Turnkey" Low Rent Public Housing is the program in w ish private housing developers with appropriate sites , or site options , submit proposals to local housing ' authorities to build low-rent public housing in accord- ance to their own plans and specifications . The local authorities contract to purchase the completed housing ' for use as low-rent housing for low-income families with federal contributions to be made to the housing. The annual contributions amortize local authority bonds ' sold to pay for the low-rent housing projects . In addi- tion, special operating subsidies are authorized to enable local authorities to keep rents within the means of the low-income families , when necessary to assure ' project financial solvency. Low Rent Public Housing - Leased Housing or Rent Certi- ficate Program is also known by its more popular name o Section 23 Housing. This program provides annual contributions to authorized public agencies to work ' with real estate agencies , owners and developers to provide housing for low-income families . Local housing authorities lease dwellings from private ' owners and make them available to low income families at rents they can afford. The deficiency between the rent payable by the authorities to the private owners ' of the leased units and the amount which the low-in- come families can afford to pay as rent for the housing is made up by the annual contributions . The annual ' contributions cannot exceed the amount that would be applicable for newly constructed public housing units accommodating comparable families . In addition to these basic four programs there are two others - Homeownership under the Public Housing Program and Grants for Public Housing Tenant Service . Homeowner- ship under Public Housing Pro ram authorizes to either sell any public- housing unit to t e low-income tenant family that is sufficiently separable from other property retained by the local authority. The purchase price , may be amortized for as long as forty years with low amortization rates . The interest rate is the same as the interest rate on the local authority's bonds which ' financed the project. Or, the local authorities may purchase privately owned dwellings being leased under 66 ' Section 23 for use as low-rent housing and sell the housing to the low-income tenant families . The term of sale to the tenants may permit deferment of down- payment and elimination of, or adjustment in, interest payments for a temporary period to prevent undue fin- ancial hardship on the tenant purchaser. ' The purpose of the program is to encourage homeowner- ship by low-income families . In order to qualify tenant families must show capability of homeownership . ' Grants for Public Housing Tenant Services are authorized to be made to local housing aut orities to assist in ' financing tenant services which include counselling on household management; budgeting, child-care , and similar matters ; advice on the availability of such r-ommunity services as job training and placement, educ- ation, welfare and health, and other services directly related to meeting the need of public housing tenants . ' Section 213 Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative Housing is a program that provides insurance of long-term mortgage loans used to finance projects that will be ' owned by, and provide housing for, members of non- profit cooperative corporations . The program is intend- ed to serve a broad cross-section of the housing ' market , and its administration recognizes variations in the needs of different types of families in central and suburban areas . ' Section 221 - MR. This program of mortgage insurance or low an mo erate income housing at market rate provides mortgage insurance to aid in financing the ' construction of rental housing for low and moderate income families , persons 62 years or older, or handi- capped persons . There are no family income limitations ' on eligibility for occupancy in a project , which must have a minimum of five units . Section 221 (d) (3) - BMR. This is a program whereby ' private leers are insured against losses on mortgage loans bearing below market interest rates made to finance purchase and rehabilitation of rental or cooperative housing for low- or moderate- income or displaced families ; or low- or moderate-income individ- uals 62 years or older of handicapped. ' Section 241. This program provides insurance of supple- mental loans to finance alteration, repair, additions or improvements or any multifamily project insured under ' any section of the National Housing Act. 67 Section 106 (b) . This program provides loans to ' stimulate prospective non-profit sponsors of low- and moderate-income housing to develop sound housing projects efficiently. It is designed to provide strong non- ' profit groups with the financial resources required to establish identifiable low- and moderate-income housing projects . ' Eighty percent interest-free loans covering certain preconstruction costs may be used to plan and obtain financing for a proposed project. The loans are repay- ' able when the permanent mortgage proceeds become in the final mortgage financing. Mortgage Insurance in Older DecliningNeighborhoods , Tor private lenders is authorized y - e agency will waive normal economic soundness requirements and , economic life requirements in such areas and base decisions for mortgage insurance applications on individ- ual merit, and the need for hous 'sng for low- and moder- ate-income families in declinging areas . ' No neighborhood will be declared off-limits for FHA- financing solely on the basis of its being an older ' neighborhood. Section 202 . , Senior Citizen Housing program provides ' low-interest, long-term loans for new and rehabilitated rental housing, and related facilities for the elderly (62 years and older) and the handicapped. Section 237 provides mortgage insurance to finance home- ownership Tor certain families of low and moderate income who cannot qualify for insurance under other ' FHA programs because of their poor credit histories or irregular income patterns , but who are found by FHA to be reasonably satisfactory credit risks and ' capable of homeownership with the assistance of budget , debt management and related counselling. HUD-FHA is authorized to provide the counselling services to the home purchasers and to prospective homeowners who lack ' sufficient funds to supply a downpayment. Where property and homeowner are eligible , interest ' rate subsidy payments may be paid by HUD-FHA to the lender to enable monthly payments the homeowner can afford. Section 117 . Grants to cities , municipalities and , counties or program costs associated with planning, reviewing, and administering concentrated code enforce- , ment programs in selected local areas . A workable program is a prerequisite . 68 ' Section 115 . Grants for rehabilitation of single- family owner-occupied or multifamily owner-occupied (with not more than three units rented) in approved ' urban renewal or federally-aided code enforcement areas ; also eligible under FAIR insurance plan; a workable program is a prerequisite. ' Section 312 . Loans for rehabilitation of owner- occupied r rental properties in approved urban renewal or federally-aided code enforcement areas ; ' also eligible under FAIR insurance plan. A workable program is a prerequisite . ' Section 221(h) or Section 221(d) () . Mortgage insur- ance pr purc ase and re a ilitation of housing for resale to low-income families at below-market-interest- rate financing. Section 221(d) (2) . Market interest rate mortgages are insured by H FH to finance construction, purchase , ' or rehabilitation of one-to-four-family homes with borrower down payments as low as 3 percent and no income limits for borrowers . ' Section 221(d) (4) . Market interest rate mortgages for new rental housing projects are insured by HUD-FHA; ' housing intended for low- and moderate-income families in general, although there are no family income limit- ations on eligibility for occupancy. ' Section 234_ HUD-FHA mortgage insurance for purchase oindividual iamily units in multifamily housing projects or to finance construction of projects ' intended to be sold on a condominium basis . Section 235 . HUD-FHA payment to mortgage of HUD-FHA ' mortgage insurance premium and interest on mortgage over one percent to reduce interest cost on homeowner- ship for lower-income families . ' Section 235 Rehabilitation of single-family, two-family— or condominium multi-family housing in groups of four or more with payment by HUD-FHA to mortgagee of HUD-FHA m6-ttgAle insurance premium and interest on permanent mortgage over one percent. Section 236 . New construction or substantial rehabil- tation in rental housing for five or more units for lower-income families with HUD-FHA interest reduction payments to mortgagee . 69 Section 203. Home mortgage insurance provides insured , mortgage financing for the construction, purchase , or repair and rehabilitation of one-to-four-family homes . It is designed to help families undertake home- ' ownership on a sound basis . The maximum mortgage amount for a single-family owner- occupied home is $30 ,000 . Mortgages on non-owner- occupied dwellings are limited to 85 percent of the maximum for owner-occupied homes . Insurance for properties which meet only the FHA low-cost housing ' standards , as in the case of rural area homes , is limited to $13 ,500 . A mortgage loan equal to the appraised value (up to $12 ,000) of a new of existing ' one-family house may be insured ::or a buyer whose home was completely or substantially destroyed by a natural disaster. ' Home improvement loans up to $10 ,000 are available . This program provides personal counselling services to individuals with housing problems . It is adminis- tered in various HUD-FHA insuring offices throughout the country. Section 203 (b) . Major home improvements may be ' financed with oans insured by HUD-FHA under several different programs . ' A home mortgage. on .one- to four-..family dwellings can be refinanced with a new Section 203(b) mortgage in an amount sufficient to pay off outstanding mortgages ' and finance improvements . Such mortgages include special terms for veterans . Loans of up to $10 ,000 per family-unit ($14 ,500 in ' high cost areas) with terms up to 20 years are insured by HUD-FHA under Section 203(k) for improving or ' rehabilitating one—to four-family homes located inside or insured under Section 220 (h) on one to eleven-family units in urban renewal areas . Title X. Mortgage insurance for land development and , new communities provide financing for land acquisition and development costs for large subdivisions and ' complete new communities and for the implementation of sound planning concepts in their development. Proceeds of mortgages insured under this program may be used to finance land acquisitioA, water and sewer lines , streets ' and lighting," and other installations needed for resi- dential communities . Nonresidential buildings (commer- cial, school, etc. ) are not included, except for water ' supply and sewage disposal installations , clubhouses , parking garages , etc. , owned and maintained jointly by property owners . ' 70 ' Land development must meet statutory and HUD-FHA requirements and receive all governmental approvals required by state or local law or by HUD. Land devel- opment project mortgages , except those covering New Communities or sewer and water systems , are limited to terms not exceeding 10 years . ' Section 231. Mortgage insurance for senior citizens busing provides mortgage insurance to profit and non-profit sponsors of new or rehabilitated rental ' housing projects specifically designed for occupancy by the elderly (62 years or over) or the handicapped. The mortgages may be repaid over a period not exceed- ing 40 years and may either finance up to 100 percent of the replacement cost or rehabilitated value in the case of non-profit projects , or finance up to 90 per- cent in the case of profit-motivated projects . A project must have at least eight dwelling units . Section 233. Mortgage insurance for experimental housing provides mortgage insurance on individual homes and multi-family properties that incorporate new or untried construction concepts intended to reduce housing costs , raise living standards , and improve neighborhood design. ' It is designed to speed the development of new con- cepts by reducing the risks involved in underwriting mortgages on housing incorporating experimental materials , designs and techniques . ' Section 340 . Mortgage insurance for purchase of fee simple title provides insured mortgage financing for purchase of fee-simple title by a homeowner who has only a leasehold interest in the land on which his home is located. Mortgages up to $10 ,000 for a ' period of 20 years are allowable . Multi-family housing projects - supplemental loans provide insurance of supplemental loans to finance ' alteration, repair, additions , or improvements on any multi-family project insured under any section of the National Housing Act. Loan proceeds may be ' used to finance the purchase of equipment for the operation of a nursing home of group practice facility. ' Title I . Home Improvement Loans provide for insurance by A -FHA of loans of up to $5 ,000 to alter, repair and improve residential and nonresidential properties and loans of up to $15 ,000 (not to exceed $2 ,000 for ' each dwelling unit) to alter, repair, improve , or convert existing structures used or to used as dwell- ings for two or more families . The loan term in both ' instances may not exceed seven years . ' 71 No down payment is required, and in most cases the ' borrower' s signature serve as security and no co- signer is required. On loans of over $5000 , the ' lender must obtain FHA approval before advancing the money. These loans may not be used to pay for work already done . ' Section 207 . Mortgage insurance for multi-family rental ousing provides mortgage insurance and long- term mortgage financing for the construction or rehab- , ilitation of rental housing. It is designed to serve a broad cross-section of the rental housing market by facilitating the provision of rental accommodations ' suitably designed to provide 1) adequate space for family living at reasonable rents , and 2) appro- priate facilities for different types of families those with or without children or those located in urban or suburban areas . Section 220 . Mortgage insurance for low and moderate ' income ousing - market rate provides mortgage insur- ance to aid in financing the construction of detached, semi-detached, row, walkup, or elevator-type rental ' housing for low- or moderate income families , persons 62 years or older , or handicapped 1,ersons . There must be a minimum of five units . Priority in occupancy is ' assigned persons displaced by urban renewal orc)other governmental action. There are no family income limitations on eligibility for occupancy. 1 72 ■ ■ ■ t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 7 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA r. 7 i�,L i X, ■ ` X1 A J C'41 LEGEND Sec. 234 Condominiums 525 units . ,� - / Sec. 235 Homeownership 74 units ■ A6 Sec. 236 Multiple Family 198 units ■ ■ Figure 4 Location of HUD/FHA Financed Housing Projects 73 1 1 1 1 1 � APPENDIX 74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SEEN MIMEMEMEM 0 0 Oman EMOMMEMEMEMIN MOREEMEMEMEMIN ON MEMMEMMEMEMEN MENEM MEMEMEMEMMEMMIMMIMMIMEM i EEEEEEEENEEE!01-11,-33.900(1-1-72)PD- ESTIK r 1 MEN M MEMO ME i'Allk"SY4"EAVIR-1 --lU I I V90:1 NEMESES MOMME MEMMEMN 14 .......... MESSES V, L—IsIl MEMIMMEM -A MOMME vl;o;:IU- MENOMONEE MEMO MEMNONNOR mom SENSE NEUMMENEMMMM mom . MENNEN MEMMEM E M ONENESS ON i A. i♦ . • i August 1, 1968 , ULTIMATE POPULATION BY SECTION (TOTAL 286,293)* ' 201 5 0 2142 LEGEND: FREEWAY 544 MAJOR__ __. -120'R/W 5.50 0 2600 2 � PRIMARY___—_I00'R/W n SECONDARY_ __80'R/W ' 1335 0 2729 243 29- 1 NOTE a.r .K SOLID LIDS INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WRY � 24 I T 3466 265 227 34b5 5 RI 24 Jp 3252 \ DASNEO LINES ING"T AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS ' 15,744 40 SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COPLET 33 253 778 2938 302 14119 2273',I 9 ' 82 1 802 3463 472 14273 237 - �;�' 1965 1951 0 2769 2023 - ——� - ,70 l 1-0 30,000 y% 70C 0 13075 17 02 - -- 17 066 299 36 9 2020 136 192 i54 2�8 - 35215 1666- 2102 389 2420 3524 2710- ' 1558�94i 2667 2228 265 14 9465 . ., � -�-1 ' 4138 2036 2596 2707 :41270 12,054 2109 15 I 091 260 154 2907 �42 © o _ CITY OF qz ° 560, 419 HUNTINGTON BEACH — -192 ' ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 781 , 1201 p i # THIS PROJECTION MADE PRIOR TO R2 CHANGE FROM 1 UNIT/3000 SQ. FT. TO 1 UNIT/2000 SQ. FT. Figure A-2 76 , 1 , 589 FEDERAL CENSUS 2082 • • TOTAL POPULATION 144 APRIL 11970 557 115,960 2509 19 0 6 2194 1_3672 0 1375 2713 3187 2667 28.54J 1487 2051 3409 3568 '�458 1422 3 4 gel� 4:203 2139 776 2776 t- -, 02*4 3545 1866.i _ 2 N, 3016 1660/ 465 f 2465 1864 1503 2242 2 228 3 13 IN -4641 L889 245262656 2551 - - - - - - - - - - ' ~ 948 1803 CENSUS BLOCK �2 • 4f.91 2004:' GROUPING 2824 6492 oc, 4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 _•__�.��A-3 77 Community Survey and Analysis Program ' by Orange County Health Department A major roadblock encountered by most community decision ' makers and community researchers is the lack of up-to- date , reliable and accessible data about housing and its ' environment . The Environmental Health Division of the Orange County Health Department recognized this factor and determined that the first step in developing a ' plan for community improvement should be the analysis of the needs and review of the possible solutions to these very needs . With this in mind a form has been developed for a relatively rapid and inexpensive ' appraisal of housing and its environment; the form is compatible with data processing for storing , retrieving and reporting results . , Community Analysis is one of the important prerequisites in a total program of neighborhood improvement . It attempts to identify and evaluate urban blight and its , causative factors . The objectives of Community Analysis are to delineate and define blighted areas and to produce data upon which to base improvement programs designed to : , 1) prevent decay of sound urban areas ; 2) reverse the trend toward deterioration; 3) rehabilitate blighted neighborhoods ; 4) insure that neighborhoods have fully ' adequate homes in a suitable and safe environment . The Housing and Environmental Survey would be a structure- by-structure, parcel-by-parcel evaluation which would , provide data of physical and environmental conditions within a prescribed area. This data would be refined , stored, analyzed , and summarized by electronic data , processing . The result would be a complete inventory of every structure within a project area that would serve as an effective tool for program planning . ' 78 Table A-1 ' 1970 Population Distribution by Age and Sex 0 Age Total Total Total Total ' (Years) City City Male City Female City All ages 115 , 960 100 57 ,489 49. 6 58 ,471 50. 4 Under 5 12 ,464 10. 8 6,337 5. 5 6,127 5. 3 5-14 28 , 075 24. 2 14 ,309 12 . 3 13 , 766 11 . 9 ' 15-24 17 , 259 14 . 9 8 ,148 7. 0 9, 111 7 . 9 25-34 20, 569 17 . 7 9, 783 8 . 4 10 , 786 9.3 ' 35-44 16 ,112 13 . 9 8 ,381 7 . 2 7 ,731 6 . 7 45-54 11 ,463 9. 9 6. 004 5 . 2 5 ,459 4. 7 55-64 5 , 563 4 . 8 2, 710 2 . 3 2 ,853 2 . 5 ' 65-74 2 ;861 2 . 4 1 ,206 1 . 0 1 ,655 1 .4 75+ 1 ,594 1 .4 611 . 5 983 . 9 ' Sources : "California, General Population Characteristics ," PC(V2) -6 , U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census , (Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971) ' p . 14; Huntington Beach Planning Department . ' 79 Table A-2 Poverty, Low and Moderate Income Levels as Definedl ' by the Bureau of the Census and HUD Poverty Low Moderate Family Census Bureau Public Housing Rent Supplement Sections 235/236 ' Size Poverty Levels2 Income Limits3 Income Limits4 Income Limits5 1 $1834 $4400 $4400 $5940 2 2364 4800 4800 6480 3 2905 5200 5200 7020 ' 4 3721 5600 5600 7560 5 4386 6000 6000 8100 6 4921 6400 6400 8640 ' 7 6034 6700 6700 9045 8 7000 9450 9 7200 9720 ' 10 7333 9990 1Adjusted annual incomes. 2Census Bureau poverty levels are based on a definition of poverty developed by the ' Social Security Administration in 1964. At the core of the SSA definition of poverty was a nutritionally adequate food plan (economy plan) designed by the Department of Agriculture for emergency or temporary use when funds are low". The Census Bureau ' has modified this definition by basing annual adjustments on changes in the Consumer Price Index and by raising farm poverty thresholds from 70 to 85 percent of correspond- ing nonfarm levels. The poverty levels included in the table are for 1969 and are nation- wide not specific to Orange County. Furthermore, the incomes are averaged from more detailed levels based on age, residence, and family size. Also, since these statistics ' were published, there have been increases in the poverty levels. For example, the poverty threshold for a nonfarm family of four was $3968 in 1970, $225 above the 1969 figures. (No data was available concerning poverty level adjustments on other family sizes.) 3Maximum income levels under the public housing program must be so established that a gap of at , east 20 percent except in the case of an elderly or a displaced family and the lowest rents under Section 23) will be left between the upper rental limits for admission and the lowest rents at which private enterprise unaided by public subsidy is providing (through new construction and available existing structures) a substantial supply of decent, safe and sanitary housing toward meeting the need of an adequate volume threof. Income limits are fixed by a local housing ' authority and approved by HUD after taking into consideration: (1) The family size, composition, age, physical handicaps, and other factors which might affect the rent paying ability of the family, and (2) The economic factors which affect the financial stability and solvency of the project. ' Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, RHA 7465.1, "Low Rent Housing Income emits, Rents and Occupancy Handbook," June 1969. 4For the rent supplement program, the income of all family members must be under 100 percent of public housing eligibility. ' SThe family income limits for FHA Sections 235 and 236 housing are based on 135 percent of approv- ed or permissable public housing admission limits. However, since housing authorities have not existed (until recently) in Orange County, HUD has established 235/236 income limits in the absence of local public housing limits. The public housing income limits shown in the table are estimates ' based on the ass um tion that the income remits far the low-rent housing program would be-35 percent lower than t ose or Sections The Sections 235/236 income limits are based on adjusted annual incomes. In determininPP adjusted incomes several deductions are allowed from gross incomes, to two most important being $300 for each minor in the ouse o d and a five percent deduction for unusual/nonrecurring income. The , earnings of minors are also deducted by those of adults included. Therefore, the income limits are based on annual adult adjusted income. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Po ulation Re orts, Series P-60, No. 76, "24 Million ' ee riicans--Poverty in the United States: 9", U.S. overnment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1970. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Po ulation Re orts, Series P-60, No. 77, "Poverty Increases by 1.2 Million in 1970," U.S. overnmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. May 1971. 80 DEFINITIONS ' Adequate housin For purposes of this study, it is Te. ined as ousing that provides for or fulfills the fundamental psychological and physiological needs of a ' family and protection against the elements , contagion and accidents . Adequate housing and a suitable living environment for families have never been defined ' in any of the national housing acts nor by HUD . Age . The age classification is based on the age of the ' person in completed years as of April 1 , 1970 . Constraints . Housing constraints are those hinderances or impediments to the solution of housing problems that are not directly curable . Constraints are broad in scope and the only way they are "overcome" is by circumvention. ' Contract rent . Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for , even if furnishings , utilities and services are included. ' Dila idated housing . Housing that has fallen into partial ruin or decay through neglect or nuisance . ' Group quarters . Group quarters are living arrangements for institutional inmates or for other groups containing ' five or more persons not related to the person in charge . Group quarters are located most frequently in institutions , boarding houses , military barracks , college dormitories , fraternity and sorority houses , hospitals , monasteries , ' convents and ships . A house or apartment is considered group quarters if it is shared by the person in charge and five or more persons unrelated to him, or if there is ' no person in charge , by six or more unrelated persons . Household. All the persons who occupy a housing unit are a house old. Housing Element. A section of the master plan which consists of standards and plans for the improvement of ' housing and for provisions of adequate sites for housing . This element endeavors to make adequate provision of the housing need of all economic segments of the community. ' It includes a program for the continued improvement of the housing stock and for provisior. of housing for its residents . ' Housing market areas . For this study , the market area of w ich Huntington Beach is a part is called the North Coast Statistical Area by the Orange County Planning ' Department. All studies done for the entire county use 81 1 this designation for the communities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Westminster. ' Housing units . Living quarters are in structures intended or residential use , a one-family home , apartment house , hotel or motel , boarding house , or mobile home . Living ' quarters may also be in structures intended for non- residential use , the room in a warehouse where a watchman lives , as well as in tents , caves , old railroad , cars , etc . A housing unit is a house , an apartment , a group of rooms ' or a single room when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters . Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants do not live and eat with any other persons in the structure and which , quarters have either 1) direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall or 2) complete kitchen facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants . ' A household may , therefore , consist of a single family, one person living alone , two or more families living together , or any other group of related or nonrelated persons who share living arrangements . Both occupied and , vacant housing units are included in the housing inventory, except that mobile homes , trailers , tents , etc . , are included only if they are occupied. ' Occupied housing units.., A housing unit is classified as occupied if a person or group of persons is living in it ' at the time of enumeration or if the occupants are only temporarily absent , for example , on vacation. However, if the persons staying in the unit have their usual place of residence elsewhere , the unit is classified as vacant. ' Persons i2er room. This is computed by dividing the number of persons in the unit by the number of rooms in , the unit . Plumbing facilities . The category "with all plumbing ' acilities" consists of units which have hot and cold piped water , as well as a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower inside the structure for the exclusive: use of the occupants of the unit. "Lacking some or all plumbing" , means that the unit does not have all three specified plumbing facilities (hot and cold piped water , as well as a bathtub or shower inside the structure) , or that the ' toilet or bathing facilities are also for the use of the other occupants of other housing units . Policy. Policy is an official course of action taken by , the city; it may be formal (adopted) or informal (not adopted) . Problems . Housing problems are those situations that , irectly affect the housing of families and their physical social and psychological well-being . They can be ' 82 ' surmounted by direct programs . ' Race . The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau does not denote clearcut scientific definitions of biological stock. Rather it reflects self-identification by respondents . Since the 1970 census obtained the infor- mation on race principally through self-enumeration, the data represent essentially self-classification by people ' according to the race with which they identify themselves . For persons of mixed parentage who are in doubt as to their classification, the race of the person' s father is used . Persons of Mexican or Puerto Rican birth or ' ancestry who do not identify themselves as of a race other than white (eg . American Indian, Negro , etc . ) , are classified as white . In the 3-category grouping shown in the census report , the "other" category consists of all races except white of Negro , i .e . , American Indian, Japanese , Chinese , Filipino, Korean, Eskimo , etc . ' Rooms . Rooms to be counted include whole rooms , dining rooms , kitchens , bedrooms , finished recreation rooms , family rooms , etc . Not counted as rooms are bathrooms , porches , balconies , foyers , halls , half-rooms , unfinished attics , basements , or other space used for storage. Specified renter occupied . This tern. means that the contract rent data exclude one-family houses on ten acres or more . ' Substandard housin Defined by the 1960 Federal census as t ose units lacking any essential plumbing facilities for the exclusive use of the household , or those units that ' are dilapidated. In this study, substandard housing are those units that ' lack any essential plumbing , kitchen, or toilet facilities for the exclusive use of the household, have extreme overcrowding (1 . 5 . or more persons per room) , are dilapidated, or do not provide protection against the ' elements , contagion, or accidents . Tenure . A housing unit is "owner-occupied" if the owner ' or co-owner lives in the unit , even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is "owner-occupied" only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as "renter-occupied" including units rented for cash payment and those occupied without payment of cash rent. ' Units in the structure . Statistics on the number of ousing units in a structure are presented in terms of one-family houses , number of units in multi-unit ' structures and mobile homes . Vacant housing units . A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of enumeration , unless its ' occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a ' 83 vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere . New units ' not yet occupied are enumerated as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final useable floors are in place . Vacant units are excluded if unfit for , human habitation because the roof , walls , windows , or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements , or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the ' house or in the block) that the unit is to be demolished or condemned. Year-round units . These are units which, although vacant ' at the time of enumeration, are usually occupied or are intended for occupancy at any time of the year . A unit in a resort area which is usually occupied on a year-round , basis is considered as year-round. Units used only occasionally throughout the year are also considered as year-round. ' Year-round vacant units are subdivided as follows : "for sale only"; "for rent" which also includes vacant , units offered either for rent or for sale; and "other vacant" which includes units sold or rented but 'not yet occupied by the new owner or renter , units held for the occasional use of the owner, and units being ' held off the market for other reasons . 84 ' ' FOOTNOTES Page g in ' Text 1Southern California Association of Governments , ' Housing Element , (Los Angeles , 1971) . 9 2Orange County Planning Department , County of Orange Preliminary Housing Element, (Santa Ana, 1971) . 9 ' 3President ' s Committee on Urban Housing, A Decent Home (Washington : Government Printing Offce,_MT- 10 ' 4See "Community Survey and Analysis Program," Page 84 in the Appendix, for a description of the County' s program 19 ' 5See definition of "rooms" on Page 90. 60 6See Economics Research Associates , "Economic Growth ' Projections for the City of Huntington Beach and the Mid-Beach Planning Area," (Los Angeles : 1970) , P. III-11 . 60 ' 7"The Two Faces of Modular Housing" House and Home , XLII , No . 4 October 1972 , Pages 79-8 . 68 8Ibid. Page 81 . 70 1 1 1 85 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY AIP, Newsletter, California Chapter. XXII , 10 (Special ' E ition ctober 1968 . "Analysis of the Orange County, California, Housing ' Market , as of May 1 , 1971 . " Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration. Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . ' Bertsch, D .F . and Shafor , A.M. "A Regional Housing Plan: The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission ' Experience . " (AIP) Planners ' Notebook, I , 1 Washington, April 19 . Beyer , G .H. Housing and Society . New York : MacMillian ' Co . 1965 . California , State of, Department of Housing and Community ' Development. "Housing Element Guidelines . " Sacramento, 1971 . California, State of, Department of Housing and Community ' Development . "Housing Element Model . " Sacramento , 1970 . Development Research Associates . Final Report Oranre ' County Low-Income Housing Market Aggregation Study. Los Angeles , 1970 . "Government Subsidized Housing : Sleeper Market of the , Seventies . " House and Home . XXXVIII , 4 (December 1970) , 52-65 . Hahn, Wise $ Associates , Inc. "Federal Aid for Housing?" t San Carlos (California) . Huntoon, M.C . Jr. "Let' s Not Start Underrating the ' Potential of Modular Housing . . . And Let' s Not Over- rate the Potential of the Mobile Home ." House and ' Home , XL, 4 October 1971 , 85 . National Association of Home Builders . "FHA Financing for Rental Housing - Section 236 - A Hypothetical ' Case . " 1970 . National Association of Home Builders . "FHA Financing ' for Sales Housing - Section 235 - A Hypothetical Case." 1970 . National Urban Coalition. "Guide to Federal Low- and , Moderate-Income Housing and Community Development Programs . " 3rd ed. Washington, 1971 . Orange County Planning Department, "County of Orange , Preliminary Housing Element . " Santa Ana, 1971 . 86 ' Orange County Planning Department . 111970 Census , Special Tabulations . " 2 Vols . Santa Ana, 1971. Orange County Planning Department. Orange County Progress Report . 9 Vols . Santa Ana, 1961-1972 . ' Orange County Planning Department. "A Report on Questions Concerning Local Housing Authorities and Section 23 ' Leased Housing Program. " Santa Ana, 1971 . Roth, William, Jr . U .S . Representative . 1969 Listing of Operating Federal Assistance Pro rams Compiled During ' the Roth Study . Washington: Goti-ernment Printing brTice , 1969 . ' San Mateo County Regional Planning Ccmmittee . "Housing Needs and Problems . " Redwood City; 1970 . Santa Ana Human Relations Commission, "Proposal for a Leased Housing Program. " Santa Ana. Santa Ana Planning Department, "Section 23 Leased Housing - ' Leasing of Privately-Owned Housing for Low Income Families as Administered by the U . S. Department of HUD with a Discussion of Its Proposed Use in the ' City of Santa Ana. " Santa Ana, 1971 . Santa Rosa Planning Department . "Analysis of Housing . " Santa Rosa, 1971 . ' Santa Rosa Planning Department. "Documantation for Preparation of the Housing Element. " Santa Rosa, 1969 . ' Southern California Association of Governments , "`dousing Element. " Los Angeles , 1971 . ' "The Two Faces of Modular Housing . " House and Home , XLII , 4 , October 1972 , 79-85 . University of California. "Census Summary for Huntington Beach. " 1970 Census First Count . Prince Display Series , STP 1-1 , Berkeley, 1971 . ' U. S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census . "C alifornia, General Housing Characteristics ," t HC(Vl) -6 . Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . U.S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . ' "California, General Population Characteristics ," PC(V2) -6 . Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . ' U.S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census . "G eneral Social and Economic Characteristics , California. " PC(1) -C6 . Washington : Government ' Printing Office , 1971 . ' 87 1 U.S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census . "Metropolitan Housing Characteristics , " Anaheim- ' Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA. HC (2) -10 . Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . U.S . Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census . , "Special Census of Huntington Beach, California, October 3 , 1962 . " Current Population Re orts , Special Censuses . " Series -2 , No . 1310 . Washington: ' Government Prinfing Office , 1962 . U.S . Department of Housing and Urba:i Development . ' "Counseling for Homeownership for Low and Moderate Income Families . " HM-7610 . 1 Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . ' U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Financial Assistance for Nonprofit Sponsors of Low and Moderate Housing (Section 106) . " FHA ' 4403 . 1 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1968 . U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. ' "Homeownership for Lower Income Families (Section 235) . " HPMC-FHA 4441 . 1A Washington : Government Printing Office , 1971 . ' U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . "HUD-FHA Assisted Program for Low-Rent Public ' Housing Program. " HUD 92-F(3) Washington : Govern- ment Printing Office , 1971 . U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . , "HUD-FHA Non-Assisted Program for Rental Housing for Moderate Income Families (Section 221 (d) (4) National Housing Act . " HUD 143-F(3) Washington: Government ' Printing Office , 1971 . U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "HUD-FHA ' Program for Home Mortgage Insurance (Section 203) " . HUD-97-F(3) Washington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . ' U .S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . "HUD-FHA Assisted Program for the Rent Supplement Program. " HUD 91-F(3) . Washington : Government ' Printing Office , 1971 . U . S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . "Low-Rent Housing Income Limits , Rents and Occupancy , Handbook. " RHA 7465 . 1 Washington : Government Printing Office , 1969 . U.S. Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics . ' "Living Costs in Pacific Cities , Spring 1970 . " San Francisco , 1970 . , 88 1 ' U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics . "Three Standards of Living for an Urban Family of Four ' Persons . " Bulletin No. 1570-5 Washington, Spring , 1970 . ' U.S . House of Representatives , Committee on Banking and Currency. Basic Laws and Authorities on Housing and Urban Development, Revised through January 31 1971 . ' as ington: Government Printing Office , 1971 . U. S. National Commission on Urban Problems . Building the American City. Washington: Government Printing ' 0 ice , 1968 . U. S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Catalog of Federal ' Domestic Assistance. Washington : Government Printing Office , 1969. U. S. President ' s Committee on Urban Housing . A Decent ' Home . Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968 . Wheaton , W.C.L . , Milgram, G . , and Meyerson, M.E. , eds . ' Urban Housing . New York: The Free Press , 1966 . Williams , S.H. and Mocine, C .R. " (San Mateo) County ' Housing Problems - A Consultant Report . " San Francisco , 1970 . 1 ' 89