PC 73-111•- , ,,
~.
~~
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-111
A RESOLUTION Ofi THE'CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION
OF YHE CITY OF ANAHr,IM RECOMM~NDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TNAT GENERAL PLAN
AMENDt~IENT N0. 126 BE APPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Anaheim did adopt a GQneral Plan by
Resolution No. 69R-644, showing the general description and extent of land uses within
the City and indicating the present beliei- of the Countil as to possible future develop-
ment and redevelopment of land withLii the City; and
WIiEREAS, in accordance u~ith ;iection 65302 of the Governnent Code of the State
of California, a Housing and Resideiitial Llement to the General Plan must be adopted by
the City Council; and ~
WHEREAS, the City Plann;.:g ~::ommission did hold a public hesring in the City
Hall in the City of Anaheimon May 14, 1973, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., notice of s~id public
hearing having been duly given as requi.red by 1aw aad in accordance with the provision of
the Anaheim N:unicipal Code, to hear and ccnsider evidence for and against said Amendment
to the General Eian, and make findings and recommendations in ~onnection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission after due inspecrion, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, DOES HEREBY FI.ID
1. That evidence was presented at said hearing which substantiates the City
Planning Commisaion's recommending to the City Council the amendment of
the General Plan by the establishment of a valid llousing a:1d Residential
Element.
2. That the primary objective of a valid Housing and Residential Element is
to estnblish a realistic approach to an understanding of the housing issues
in the community, both as they ezist and as they can be expected to develop
in the future considering: existing problems; an" attempt to understand
the forces which ahape the quality of housing; an 'evaluation of the prob-
lems and o~portunities which are created as a result of those forces; the
qualities which make for a pleasing and satisfactory urban environment;
and alternative planning policies which would continue to make the com-
muniCy a desirable place to live.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission in connection with the filing of an Environment&1
Impact Report:, finds and determines that the E.I.R. Review Committee's report
found the Report as being adequate as an informative document and followed'
City's established guidelines, and there would be no significant adverse envi~
mnmental impacts; and therefore, recommends to the City Council that said report
be adopted as the Council's Environmental Impact Statement.
IQOW, THEREFGRE, IIE IT RESOLVED that the City Pianning Coromission of the City of
Anaheim does hereby recommend to the City Council of the Gity of Anaheim that General Plan
Amendment No. 126 be approved as the City's Housing and Residential Element to the General
Pian on the basis of the aforementioned findings, and iri accordance with Exhibit "A".
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 24th day of May, 1973.
~7Lc~t~t~/ ,
CHAIRMAN PRO TEM 9NAHEIM C' Y PLANNING COMMISSION
_1_
.g.:t~~~~~~ tt~ff
~ +-
HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL ELEDI~NT
OF
THE
ANAHEIM GEPIERAL PLAN
May, 1973
, ~REPARED &Y:
DEyELOPMENT SERVICES AEQARTMENT
PLANNING DI'VISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PREFACE 1
Federal Activities
California Activities
Local Activities
- II HOUSING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 6
III BACKGROUND $
~ Growth
Present Residential Policies
IV ISSUES . 11
Housing
Structural Age
Structural Condition
Overcrokding
Occupancy Status
Value
. Population
Age
Employmen•t
~ Income
Minority Groups
V SUMMARY 18
VI IMPLEMENTATION METHODS. Z1
Financial Assistance
Construction of Low Cost Housing
Housing Rehabilitation ~nd Demolition
VII GLOSSARY 23
i
APPENDICES
A Department of Housing and Community Development
Housing Element Guidelines
B U.C.I.-Project 21
Report on Low Income Housing in Oxange County
C Orange County Health Department
Housing Condition Survey
D Sauther.n California Association of Governments
Housing Gaals
. EXHIBITS
1 Population and Area Growth
2 Distribution of Dwelling Units by Type
3.Distribution of Dwelling Units by Tenure and Type
4 Age of Dwelling Units
5 Residential Land Use
6 Central City Area
7 Housing Condition Survey Area
8-A Dwelling Unit Value
8-B Median Dwelling Unit Value Distribution
9-.A Monthly Contract Rent
9-B Median Rent Distribution
10-A Age Distribution
10-B Median Age Distribution
11 Employment Characteristics
12-A Family Income
12-B Median Family Income Distribution
13 Racial and Ethnic Population
25
31
s4
39
8.1
8.2
9.1
9.2
10.1
12.1
12.2
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
15.1
15.2
15.5
16.1
16.2
17.1
ii
HOUSING AND RE5IDENTIAL ELEMENT
I PREFACE
The primar~ obiective of a valid Housing Element is to establish
a realistic approacli t~~ an understanding of the housing issues in the
- cnmmunity, b.tli as they exist and as they can be expected to develop
in the future. :'he El~~mcn•'r. is:
' . A stat•ement of the ex'isting problems;
. An attempt to under.stand the forces which shape the quality
of housing;
. An evaluation of the problems and opportunities which are
created as a result uf those forces;
. A statement of the qualities which make for a pleasing and
satisfactory urban environment; and
. A proposal of alternative planning policies which would
continue to make the community a desirable place to live
and work.
' FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
The Federa~ Housing Act of 1949 formalized for the first time
the growing interest in and concern with the state of housing in the
United States. Almost tmenty years passed before another federal law,
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, recognized that tlte
problems first identified in 1949 were not being resolved and that
housing problems were of a greater magnitude than before. The 1968
Housing Act was the first federal law requiring that all federally
assisted urban planning include a Housing Element as part of a local
or regional General Plan. The often repeated national housing goal,
first proclaimed in 1949 and reaffirmed in 1968, promises "a decent
~ home and suitab:e living environment for every American family".
Since the federal govornment feels this goal has remained virtually
• unfulfilled for over two decades, it has renewed its efforts to
generate interest and concern in the area of housing and the urban
living environment.
1
0
z
In addition to recog:!izing that the national housing goal lias
not been fully realized for many of the nation's families, Congress
tias declared that thera exist resources botli public and private with
capabilities to fully realize this goal. The 1968 liousing Act author-
izes the administration of programs designed to assist such families
and it further encourages the fuI'lest practical utilization of private
- enterprise znd individual self-help techniques.
The Housing Element as part of the General Plan is intended to
~ consider the various needs and iand use requirements of housing. It
is further intended to take into account the assumptions and statis-
tical bases upon which the community~s projections of planning, zoning,
and community facilities are based.
A Housing Element can serve as a prerequisite to sevexa? federal
urban improvement programs* which are primarily intended to benefit
families iaho have not yet xealized "a decent home and a suitable living
environment". In this context the lack of a liousing Glement miglit
affect potential future revenues received irom tlie federal governinent.
CALIFORNIA ACTIVITIES
, The California State Planning Lato, Section o5302 of the Government
Code, which at~plies to all cities and counties was amended in 1969 to
include Housing as a mandatory.element of the General Plon.•`* Specific
* During 1972 those federal urban improvement programs included
advance acquisition of lan,d, tlie water and sewer facilities
~rogram, and the open space land program.
** An uncertainty has axisen concerning the Anaheim General Plan
and the impact of State legisl~tive changes on charter and
general law cities.. According t~~ a memorandum prepared by the
City Attorney~s Office (June, 1972), "zoning is a municipal
affair which the city has complete control aver and supersedes
the power of the State legislature, and the city is not subject
- to general laws concerning such affairs". The City Attorney's
Office further notes, "the concept of the General Plan or any
specific plans are solely local affairs to a charter city like
' Anaheim, and (it) can adopt what portion of the State general
law (it wishes) and reject the balance". It has, however, been
city policy in matters pertaining to general plan requirements
to satisfy State law.
3
recommendations as to what the Housing Element mus,t include were not
made but the State did indicate that it shall consi.st of "standards
and plans for the improvement of housing and for the provision of ade-
quate sites for housing". The Housing Element shall also "endeavor to
make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments
of the community". The requirement became effective on July 1, 1969.
During 1970, the California State Legislatur.e enacted legislation
(AB 1436) mandating the Department of Housing and Community De~;elopment
to prepare Housing Element guidelines and to review housing elements in
order to insure compliance with its guidelines. The guidelines were
subsequently adopted by the Commission of Housing and Community Devel-
opment in 1971. (See Appendix A, H.C.D. Housing Element Guidelines)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has
further indicated* that the Housing Element requirement is an attempt
to encou.rage community awareness and undexstanding of housing issues.
Additionally, the Element should idantify a commitment by local juris-
d'zctions to plan for and assist in meeting the housing needs of all .
economic segments of the community.
LOCAL ACTIVITIES
Within the recent past several programs have been undertaken re-
flecting a growing concern with the state of housing in Orange County.
Included are:
. Orange County Housing Authority
. UCI-Project 21 Report on Low Income Housing in Orange County
. Orange County Health Department Housing Condition Surveys
In November 1971, the Orange County Board of Supervisors declar.ed
the need for a housing authority. Within several months seven cities
had passed resolutions indicating their intent to participate in such
an authority. The Housing Authority has since been officially estab-
lished by the Board of Supervisors. The participating cities are Buena
* It did so in the H~using Element Model, a repo.rt which was the
first H.C.D. guideline for the nreparation of a housing element
of a general plan.
4
Park, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Stanton, Yorba Linda,
and Sanra Ana.* As a result of those actions almost 50-gercent of
Orange County's population is presently inc).uded within the service
area af either a county or city housing authority.
In 1970, the University of California Extension sponsored a
"Project 21" study team which covisisted of public and private business-
men and officials ~aho convened to report an low income housing in
Orange County. T'he study team had se~~eral objectives: to understand
the dynamic grolath forces shaping the Orange Caunty-Southern Cali£orria
region, predict the kinds of problems and opportunities which will be
created as a result, consider the qualities which make for a pleasing
urban environment, and suggest alternative public and private planning
and development policies which would preserve Orange County as a desir-
able place in which to live and work. The resulting report enr.itled
"Housing is for Everyone~' was completed in FPbruary, 1972, and stated
there is a"growing lack of adequate housing available at a cost with-
in the reach of all low- and moderate-income families" in Orange County.
It further stated the housing situation is worsening as the county
continues to grow. The stu.dy *.eam then made recommendations to the:
cities and county concerning the quality and quantity of housing iro
Orange County. Those recomm~~ndations can be found in Appendix B,
U.C.1.-Project 21 Report on Low Income Housing in Oran~e Coumty.
7'he Orange County Health Department has developed a housing
condition survey by which a uniform county-wide rating of housing
conditions can eventually be completed. The purpose, is to provide the
municipalities with an objective evaluaticn of the physical condition
of the housing stock. (See Appendix C, Orange County Health Department
Housing Condition Survey, Survey Methodology) Iniormation obtainPd
through the survey is being used by participating cities to develop
housing elements and other plar.s for housing and neighborhood impxove-
ment. During May, 1972, at the request of the Development Services
* On May 1, 1972 the Santa Ana City Council adopted a resolution
appointing itself as the Housing Authority of the City of Santa
Ana.
5
Department the Health Department conducted the housing condition survey
in Anaheim and a summary of the results can be found in Appendix C,
Orange County Health Department liousing Condition Survey, Summary of
Findings and Recommendations.
It is significant tliat there has been a growing concerce with hous-
ing issues aY all levels of government and tliat tltere is an increasing
amount of interest shown at the coun2y and city levels. In addition to
the programs developed to consi3er such issues, the Board of Supervisors
has endorsed the Southern ~:alifornia Association of Governments liousing
Goals and adopted the Orange County Preliminary Housing Element. (See
Appendix D, S.C.A.~. Housing Goals)
i
6
II IiOUSING OBJBCTIVGS AND POLICIGS
T}ie initial stage of tlie Housing Element tiaork,program was the
development of housing goals. The goals entail both:
. A recognition of tlie housing goals as previously set forth
in federal and state legislation and
. The formalization of policies already es:ablished by the
City nf Analieim in its General Plan program:
Consisterit with tiie existing Anaheim General Plan, it can be
stated that ti~e primary purpose of residential la~nd iise plannin~ =...
to provide f.or and maintain a safe, attractive, and desirable living
environment £or all residents of the community. This can be accom-
plished throug:i the application of tlie follotioing goals and objectives:
1. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL SEG1dGtdTS OF TIIE POPULATION RGSIDING
AND EP•1PL4YED WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAIIEI:1 TO OIITAIN DECENT IIOUSING
AND A SUITAI3LE LIVING GNVIRONDIGNT.
. To encourage equal opportunity for adequ;ate housing for all,
regazdless of race, creed, national origin, or ethnic group.
. To encourage a range of adequate housing taithin the economic
means of all households iri the community.
. To encournge liousing opportunity in reasonaUle proximity to
jobs and daily activities.
. To encourage a variery of housing types and tenure withiyl the
community and to provide the opportunity to the maximum extent
possihle for a17 households of the commuriity to reside in tlie
area of their choice.
2. TO b1AINTAIN AND HNCOURAGL AN URBAN ENVIRONAIGNT OF THr IIIGHEST
QUALITY POSSIBLL.
. To encourage tlle continued maintenance and upkeep of the exist-
ing housing stock an3 ihe conservation of existing residential
neighborhoods.
. To encourage the rehabilitation of .leclining and blighted
neighborhoods and the elimination a:f substandard environmental
conditions.
. To encourage compre]iensive development plans and pri3ctices
wliich consider the social, pliysical, and economic needs of the
community.
~
. To assure that housing location adequately,considers environ-
mental hazards and ecological factors in siting.
To assure that the location of housing does not destroy local
or regional recreational sites or otlter important open space
resources.
5. TO ENCOURAGE FIAXID1Ut•1 COORDINATION BGTIYEGN TFIE DIFFERENT PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE AGENCILS CONCERNEU IVITIi 1{OllSING.
To ensure consistent and coordinated standards and regulations
for the design, construction and maintenance of existing and
new dwellings.
To assure the fairness and adequacy of compensation and re-
location assistance to persons and families d~.splaced by
publi.c improvements.
. To encourage public concern and participation in s~l~~ing the
community's housing problems.
. To encourage and assist the private sector to participate in
the provision of housing for poverty and low and moderate
income families within tlie community.
The precedin~ housing goals are intended to promote an optimum state
of housing in the City of Analieim. Some can be acliieved th:ou~;h a~ail-
able public and private resources wliile otliers can only Ue encouraged.
The goals are not meant to imply that Anaheim should provide_housing
for all needy fumilies in Northern Orange County, but they do mean th:at
as Anaheim grows it must continue to satisfy its responsibility to~ro=
vide safe, decent, and suitable housing for all its residents.
8
iII BACKGROUND
GROl4TH
Since 1950 Anaiteim i~as gro~an in area sevenfold from less than fivc
(5) to more than thirty-six (36) square miles. During the same period
of time the city's population increased tioelvefold from 14,55G to
• 18G,2d0 persons (November, 1972). During tlte 1950's Anaheim was tlle
, fastest groiaing city in the nation, having a population which increasrd
more than 600-percent~in a ten year period. Anaheim has increased not
only in population and size but also in density (number of residents
' per acre). Between 1950 and 1972 the population density increased from
sliglitly over 5 persons per acre to 8 persons per acre. (See GxhiUit 1,
Population and Area Growtli)
In 1950, the Census determined that 77-percent of the housing stock
consisted of single-family residential units. The remaining 23-percent
were multiple-family residential units. By comparison, the 1970 Census
indicated that the difference between the t~vo had decr•ased and that
' single-family structures accounted for only 58-percent of tlie total
housing stock while 37-percent were apartment units and the remaining
~ 5-percent were mobilehomes. Tl~ese t~ao parallel Uut opposite trends:
decreasing numbers of single-family structures and increasing numbers
o£ apartment units, continued during tlie t~vo and one-half years since
1970. The November, 1972, State Population Estimate* indicated that
52-perCe!~L of al2 residential structures in Anaheim w~re single-family
dwelling units, 43-percent were multiple-family units, and 6-percent
were mobilehomes. (5ee 6xhibit 2, Ci$tribution of Dwelling Units by
Type)
Another aspect of Anaheim~s housin~ stock i~ tenure which, as
• commonly defined, means the occupancy status of a dsaelling unit (owner-
occupied, renter-occupied, and vacant). Typically, tenure corresponds
' to the distribution of dwelling unit types. In 1960 tiohen tlirce-quarters
~ An official population estimate for the City of Analieim is certi-
fied yearly by the State Department of Finance.
200
' ~75
150
v 1:~
c
m
N
7
.°a
~ 100
e
0
M
V
10 75
a
0
t~.
aa
2e
~a.~
Exhibit 1
pOpULATION RF1L' AftEA GfifJt7fN „
5~
40 ,...
N
N
30 E
a-
F
A
:J
2O ~
a
Nt~
~~ q
0
1~ r5
L
~~4p 1945 1950 1955 19G0 19G5 197a
Year
~.2
Exhibit 2
70
60
50
N
9
C
N
. N
~
~ 4~
.+
N
N
~ 30
~
c
~ 2C
1~
1930 :956 19G0 Iy66 1970 1~f~
Yeer
DISTRIBUTION OF Dt'~LLING UilIiS RY TY~E '
9
of the housing stock tivere single-family d~veiling units, 66-percent were
owner-occupied. Tlie decreasing percentage of single-family units has
been accompanied by a similar decrease in the number of o~aner-occupied
~ units until by 1970, 58-percent of ~11 ur.its were single-£amily struc-
tures and 53-percent of all units tiuere o~•iner-occupied. (See Exliibit 3,
Distribution of D~aelling Units by Tenure and Type)
~ The rate of grotivtli Anaheim experienced during the 1950's :ias re-
sulted in an interesting contrast between the changing distribution Uy
age of multiple- and single-family dwelling units over the last tiuenty
years. (See E:chibit 4, Age of Dwelling Units) In 1950 half of all the
dwelling units were less tlian tkenty-three ;•ears old Lut ~ait:iin the
next ten years an upswing in residential construction occurred and in
1960, fully one-half ~aere less than four years old. SubseRuentl;•,
residential construcfion in Anaheim has slowed down until by 1970 half
of. the dwelling units ivere less tlian eleven years old. IVitn the nore
recent increase in multiple-family type dtivellings, it is probable that
apartment units are typically ~'oun~:~r tlian single-family structures.
- As can be seen, Anaheim's gro~ath has been dynamic during the last
twenty years. In 195U, an individ~ial c~uld waik tlie length of tlie city
• in less than one-half hour wliile today it tzkes about tlie same amount
of time by automobile. From a city typified by single-famil~~ residences
Anaheim today conta'ins almost as many apartments and mobilehome units
as single-family residences. The increasing change that has been and
will continue to be characteristic of Anaheim calls for continual re-
evaluation and re-analysis of this city's groiath potential.
PI`iESENT RESIDENTIAL POLICIES
The Anaheim Genexal Plan (1969) designates three categories of
residential density in the city; low, low-medium and medium. Eaclt of
. the three categories is implemented by one or more zone classificstions
which were established to provide adequate and appropriate guides for
• residential development throughout Anaheim. The zones used to imple-
ment the low=density residential category establisli a range of from 1.
to 7 dwelling units Per acre. At the present about 74-percent of all
9.1
Exhibit 3
DISTRIIIUTION OF U'7[LLING UtJITS
BY
TENURE A12D 1'YPE
70
60
50
c
N
~
s 40
~"..
/
~ 30
C
~ 2~
1
. c
Vaeant
\ t.i• bile
Units
^
:ne
H
Rental Ppartment .~
'~ -
~ ~
-'°
s•'•.:, ~'i"<€: Units
Orvner ~<'%%.;~:' ~in91e
Occupied <~;;'r;%
'
s pamily Units
.:»
,
rr~ ~_,.
r„>
..:'„
~ 'i•
:u ~,.-
. '2~J% .
i::{:
A~;~+~
;
";r,;
~ '
: e;:
:`.''c.•M1>•
~
:ix;. <'~
~3N
74,0
`-
.~`^""E"
'X
:
66~ ?$•`::.i3ti »;:
y:;j~
:sY/:`.
~{"p 1;~
36A
6Cf :~~z.
"3'S
7ue~
:'"h
~~:c:~:3:#8 0
1950 19G0 1970
Year
9•2
Exhibit 4
AG= OF ~.':ELLItG U;7ITS
1970
19u0
19~0
m
M
O
E
H
N C'
T •
~ ~
M T
:+ O
~N~ ~ ~'
I,;edian Aye ~~ t= :•
tl,ed:an Age 4 y=s.
tdedian Ane Z3yrs.
i i ~ i i i ~ i 4u„ ~ lOqd
0 20,~ 40,i; 6~
b
N •
N
H ~
N N ~
O Y1 41 7'
M T 0
N T p N
.T LL'1 "'~ .+
.+ N ~D "'~
1 I I ~
10
~ existing residential acreage in the city is developed with low-density
residential uses and it is ultimately expected to account for 79-percer.t
of the total projected residential acreage. The zones which zmplement
the low-medium density category establish a range of from 7.1 Co 18.0
dwelling un'sts per acrc, permitting single-family units, multiple-family
structures, and mobileliome parks. At present, the lotio-medium residcn-
~ tial category accounts for about 12-percent of the developed res'i3ential
land in Anaheim and is ultimately expected to account for approximatcly
7-percent. The medium-density ca*.egory is i.mplemented by zones whic!;
permit the most intense residential development in Anaheim: 18.1 to
36.0 dwelling units per acre. It comprises lh-percent of the existing
residential acreage and is expected to continue to account for ai,out tli~s
same amount in.the future. (See Exhibit 5, Residential Land Use)
Anaheim's projected population reflects r.elatively low residential
densities throughout the city. Highly urbanized cities such as Los
Ar.geles allow maximums in excess o£ 200 dwelling units per acre, far more
than the maximum of 36 dwelling units per acre permitted in Anaheim.
._ _ .... .. ...
• During the last two yeaxs, multiple-family unit completions have been
leading single-family unit completions by a ratio of more than 5 to 1.
- This increasing emphasis on multiple-family residences is paralleled by
an increasing emphasis. on townhouses, condominiums and planned residen-
tial developments. When and i'f it becomes apparent that the three exist-
ing categories of residential density do not adcquately provide for thc
varied residential needs of th'is community, liigher densities permitting
greater concentrations of residential units and population may be estab-
lished for designated areas of Anaheam: for instance the central city
area. The increased community services (schools, parks, utilities,
roads, public transportation, etc.) necessitated Uy higher.density resi-
, dential concentrations will play an important role in determining whicll
areas of the city can in fact adequately accommodate the potential needs
. of the more concentrared population.
~o.~
Lxhibit 5
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
Number of
Utivelling Units
Residential Density Per Acre
Low 1.0 to' 7.0
Low-medium 7.1 to 18.0
Medium 18.1 to 's5.0
All Residential Acrea~c
Existing
Acres Percent
5,058 74.0
824 12.0
916 14.0
~i,798 100.0
Projected
Aczes Percent
13,437 79.0
1,193 7.0
2,546 14.0
16,976 :~00.0
11
IV ISSUES
The main thrust of the Housing Element is identifying housing
issues and determining to what.extent they exist as potential problems
in the City of Anaheim. The issues fall into two categories:
. Housing - features of the dwelling unit (condition, age, size,
• value, and type) which are constant irrespective of the resi-
dents living in the unit and
' . Population - tenant characteristics (family income, size, and
age) whicli serve to pr.edetermine the housing most suitable for
each family.
Clearly, the'housing needs of different families will be satisfied i.n
a variety of ways.
HOUSING
As previously stated, Anaheim continues to be one of the most
rapidly. growing cities in Orange County. Its greatest gro~ath period
occurred during the 1950's and~early 1960's during which time the
city's population increased 385-percent. As a result, over 90-percent.
of Anaheim's present housing stock is less than twenty years old.
_ About 46-percent of all housing units are less than ten years old.
(See Exhibit 4, Age of Dwelling Units) Because of the relatively few
old (twenty years or more) residential buildings in Anaheim, the vast
majority are structuralZy sound: less than one-half of 1-percent need
major repairs.* To tlie casual observer even fewer residences look
deteriorated.
The visual appearance of a building is not sufficient to judge
its structural soundness and, ther~fore, several other factors have
been considered: age, condition, plumbing, and kitchen facilities.
* The Orange County Efealth Department Housing Condition Survey
defines a dwelling unit wliich is rated as "needs major repairs"
as a structu~e zn which most of the deficiencies would (1) require
a building permit, (2) warrant some expert knowledge of construc-
tion, and (3) are expensive. Additionally, the structure must be
constructed soundly enough and be of a sufficient size to economi-
cally warrant rehabilitation.
ia
Structural Age
It is significant that the central city* area of Anaheim has a
preponderance of both old and substandard diaelling units. (See Exhibit
6, Central City Area Aiap) Two-thirds of Anaheim's entire housing stock
more than twenty years old is located there, an area which accounts for
only 10-percent of the total housing stock. About 48-percent of the
dwelling units in the central city are more than twenty years old. In
itself the age of a dtaelling unit is not an absolute indication of sub-
standard housing conditions but it is a sign of potential problems. It
is generally agreed that when residential structures are twenty years
old and more, a continuing program of mairtenance should ~e adhered zo
in order to prevent accelerating structural deterioration.
Structural Condition
The Hou;ing Condition Survey conducted by the Grange County Health
Department during 1972 (See Exhibit 7, Housing Condition Survey Arca)
datermined that while housing conditions throughout the city can gener-
• ally be rated as "sound", the central city rates as ~'moderately deteri-
orated" with the most frequently noted deficiencies being structural
' deterioration and poor maintenance; common problem~ with aged housing.
The 1970 Census generated data which determine+s whether a diuelling
unit, although visually sound, may be substandard because of certain
other deficiencies: lack of adequate plumbing, incomplete kitchen
facilities, and lack of private access to living quarters. City-wide,
less than 2-percent of all dtielling units (892 units) were deficient
in one or more of the preceding,but one-third of all those cnses occur-
red in the central city. In other words, the ratio of "substandard"
to "sound" dwelling units was more than twice as high in that ~rea
* The "central city" area is that portion of Anaheim which is
generally bounded by the ttiverside Freeway to ~he north, East
~ Street to the east, Ball Road to the south, and Harhor Boulevard
to the west. In the context of the Housing El~ment, reference
is made only to the residentill aspects of the central city.
~ F
•N H
• A U
.~
~a
w~
H
• W
U
~
w
a
~
r cn
-N z
•~ o
A H
•~ F~
X A
W 2
O
U
15
(4-percent) compared to the entire City of Anaheim.(2-percent). In
the downtown area* it was even greater with suUstandard housing condi-
tions being present in 8-percent of all dwelling units.
Although, only 10-percent of all residential units in the central
city may be considered as structurally deficicnt in one way or another,
tlie fact tliat such a concentration of substandard residential units
does exit is indicative of a need for housing improvement.
OvercrowJing
Overcrowdirg of a diaelling uait (onc or more persons per room) is
commonly considered a housing problen, especially when it a~pears that
families are obligated to live in overcrowded conditior.s because they
are financially unable to purchase more spacious housing. Tt is not
a problem in the City of Anaheim, however. The instances of over-
crowded housing that do exist, are at scattered locations throughout
tlie city with no evidence of any significant concentrations.
Occupancy S•tatus
Anaheim's dynamic development, follo~ving completion of the Santa
Ana Freeway to Anaheim and the opening of Disneyland, brougltt with it
an increasing trend tosaards the construction of multi.ple-famil;~ resi-
dences. In 1956, 85-percenL• of all dwelling units were single-family
structures; by 1972, 51-nercent tiuere. Renter-occupancy has increased
concurrently ~eith apartment completions. In 1970, 48-percent of all
units ~aere either•renter-occupied or available-for-rent compared with
31-percent in 1960. The significance of this change is particularly
important in terms of property n;aintenance and upkeep. In genezal;
it is agreed that the owner-occupants of a d~oelling unit will be more
concerned with the condition and maintenance of their property tlian
renters would be. Furthermore, any programs to educate and assist tlte
* The "downtown" arta of Anaheim refers to that poztion of tlie city
which is bounded by Sycamore Street to the north, East Street to
the east, Santa Ana Street to the south, and Harbor Boulevazd to
the west.
14
publi~ in methods of housing maintenance and upkeep, are expected to
be mare successful in predominantly owner-occupied housing areas.
The overall vacancy factor in Anaheim has declined during the
last ten years: in 1960 over 9-percent of all units were vacant and
in 1970 it was almost cut in half to slightly over 5-percent. More
significant, however, are the separate vacancy rates for single-family
units and apartments. Only 1.8-percent of all single-£amily units
intended for owner-occupancy were vacant in April, 1970, compared with
8.2-percent of all apaitments. Subsequently, the apartment vacanc,v
rate rose to 9.G-percent in April, 1971 and dropped back to 8.2-percent
in April, 1972• Apartment vacancy rates in Anaheim have often been the
result of increased apartment construction activity.
In the ce~tral city area (April, 1970) a very significant differ-
ence between the vacancy rates for single- ar.d multiple-family dtivell-
ing units was found to exist. The over-all vacancy factor was 3.2-
percent but only 0.4-percent of all single-family units were vacant
compared with 15.8-percent of all apartment units. This indicates
that the 3emand for single-family residences was far greater than the
availability.
Value
Another feature of the relatively young housing stock in Anaheim
is its purchase and rental value. (See Exhibit 8-A, Dwelling Unit
Value) The median dwelling unit value (as specified by homeowners)
was ~24,800 for a 5.8 room single-family residence in 1969. (See
Exhibit 8-B, hledian llwell~ng Unit Value Distribution) Only 15-percent
were valued at less than $20,000; the vast majority ranging bet~aeen
$20,000 and $35,000. At that same time, the median rent paid fur a
3.9 room apartment was $137 with more than 50-percent of all rentax
units costing between $100 and $150 monthly. (See Exhibit 9-A,
Monthly Contract Rent)
The housing value and rental cost is different in the central city
which has the lowest median dwelling unit values of the entire city,
about $19,500. (See Exhibit 9-B, Dwelling Unit Value D'zstribution)
14.1
Exhibit 8-A
DIVELLING llNIT VALUE
Oianer-specified Number of Percent of
Dwelling Unit Value D~aelling Units Dwelling Units
All owner-occupied units 25,926 100.0
Less than $10,000 , 161 0.6
$10,000 to $14,999 624 2.4
$15,000 to $19,999 3,138 12.1
$20,000 to ~24,999 9,496 3G.6
$25,000 to $34,999 9~793 37'$
$35,000 to $49,999 Z,ZZ1 $'~'
$50,OOQ and over 493 1'Q
Dledian value $24,800
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970.
o~.wnno,o
A~en~~
~~ P~Im~
~rernie
Gkrn
l~ncnln
A.mue
Ornqr
A.mue
n.n
n~
c~+,u
~.,~~.
o,nw~.•
Prmu~
~~,.~,,,4„
,,..~~.
6,999
9,99~
over
, 5 & 3~
e~ ~~ !a •~ ~xE, ~E ~N Wa i° .`~ ~m ~~ 'm ~
~< c'a u„ m
CITY OF ANAHEIM
14.3
Exhibit 9-A
h10NTHLY CONTRACT RENT
Renter-specified
- Monthly Contract Rent
All renter-occupied units
" Less than $60
$60 to $79
$80 to $99
$100 to $14~9
$150 to $199
$200 to $249~
~^250 and over
No cash rezt
Median rent
NumUer of
Dwelling Units
23,636
443
972
1,6sG
12,433
6,683
877
158
434
y~137
Percent of
Dwelling Units
100.0
1.9
4.1
6.9
52.6
28.3
3.7
0.7
1.8
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970.
~ ~ \
a z~
~ yt
~~ _
~ y ~~
~ ~
~ ~
$ ~\
~o
' 'm
m sa ao s~ o
~
j 3 ~
vorw uoa.
Bou1mN
O
YoiW LIM~
Bouie~rd \
m ~
9
~9 \
.s
y C y E ~ i ~~ D E
6
¢
' ¢ '
m~ W 8
'n H L piaGmon
8 m ~ E W 8 n~onue q
F E~a+onu
xoM ~
¢ u
~ :
a ~ in m ~
4y
Orangemorpa
nvenur
qq7ESIA fPEEWAV ~
y~Pl
E~
fn510E FPEEWnV
.rS.^ 4,~ ~ hZq „if
.~.`f3f ~'~~ta u~. ~s' „ ~ ~
~i ~ ''.¢.,.
~~
LuPalina I -~ ~Fn:,~ l:
avem~e
, kF;~sy~~
es g
~
:::.... :::: .
~',~~"~;
~ l ~'~`
u.xnn ~
~
a*~'.}'°' . YY&.~'d'~'.
:..:iiir ~iii ~
~~
~
n~e„~. ' rg`'~ };. Ye »~3:
ra. ~p a~
~ i r:~ ::°•:•~ :
~~ :~i~ :i:~ ,?.u::.
imc a ~t, ~>3`~: ~a:
k~ ~,.~:i
n.n ~e ~ ~ v ~' s .S
p 5'~,~5 ~ ,~i ,L ~~ y^ 'F~
i ~'~
Oien~e
n.~~u. 5 0I ~ 'st' ~ '"+.i a'<hF ~ ~ `~~('¢ ~/ .
~
' y d',f; t y~. ~;.ySf'~ °~~
~
~`'i~`~
Y ~: ~ <
~
L-xhibit 9-B
u~~~ ~~~~.
yb `~;q~y~ "~~~ ?~w,~~
~~'~'~~ `'
M[DIAIJ RENT DISTRIBUTION
Ho~nl :SSY~'u"x3S. '1`v+'_':•< ~:Y?~',
r`
~` ~Y 3~~' '~'9,oy+..
~
~ ~ Uac° }, ~'r'w8
'Y'
~• ~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
''
`
~`
~
~~ r~~;
~ ~ j~~ ro~~.
.;~ ~ ; > . ~.
~.
~.
~.
~.
~.
~.
~.
~.
~. Less than $100
~.~
n,
~t
A.enue {,y,~ ~ y~~. ~
~aw~ ~ ,~:x`>
~
~
'
~~b ~
`
~9
~ :" Y;p M~' '•
~-
~'
~100 to $119
~
Kulel a (
~,.
~
y'
~~
,
~4~R4_ ,~'
'2 y ...1 . 9yq
k
A~~~~~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ $120 to 9~139
n,e~~~~~,~ow a ,~rt ~
~ ... ~ ~~'a.
""`""` - - ~~~ ~ . ~ y140 to $159
<~:~~•
p~~.~~~..~~
••~~~~ - ~ ~ ~160 and over
'
y's °~Q 5t w~ ~$ Sr
h . m oa uG _
$~ Bi ~E
a w~ _~n ' si
c'$ $o `-~ ~m
_N m _~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Devclopment Sa~vices Departmnnt
15
This area, x•epresenting less than 10-percent of all dwelling units
fo•r which the value was specified, contains 55-percent of all the
units valued at less than $15,000. In conjunction with the general
age and condition of residential structuxes in the central city, the
laia housing values are further indication of tlie typically substandard
housing conditions which exist titere.
POPULpTIpv •
' P~ge
More than 91-percent of Anaheim~s population is part of a
"husband-and-wife" household whicli consists of par.ents, ciiildren, and
relatives living togethe: in the same dwelling unit. The median age
of rhe population has remained consistent since 1960: about 25 years
of age. In the early 1950~s it was 33.9 years of age, however. The age-
distribution pattern has also changed. In 1960, almost three-quarters
of the gopulation was eiiher less than 15 years old or between 25 and 45
years old. 'By 1970, this preponderance of school-aged children and
parents had decreased tu about one-half of the population. (See Exhibit
10-A, Age Distribution) At that time only 6.1-percent of the population
tivas 65 years old or older. Senior citizens are recognized as a minority
group witli special needs; primarily due to financial constraints result-
ing from fixed incomes. A disproportionate number of senior ci.tizens
live in the central city, twice the concentration as in the remainder of
Anaheim. (SeP Exhibit 10-B, Median AKe Distribution)
Employment
Almost 84-percent of Anaheim's male population (1G years eld and
over) was part of the labor force in 1970; 47-percent of tlte women wera.
(See Exhibit 11, Employment Characteristics) A notable cliange in the
city~s labor force during the twenty years since 1950 has been L;ie in-
creasing number of working women. DL.ing the 1950~s, about one•-third
' of all women (1~ years old and over) wera part of the labor force; by
1970 alniost one-half ieere ~mplm;reci. 1?nemployment figures in Anaheim
liaue historically been lower for men than for women: 4,9_gercent of
i;,1
Exhibit 1CLA ' ._ _ .
AGE DISTRIBUTICN .
12
Male ~ . . _. ' 12
Female &1,668
~ 05,033
10
10
e
~ ~ ~ I ~ 8
s .
c 'i ,
y s , ...
u
e G - a ' q
~ E. : N
~ s 6 0
C
~ J ~
F ~ ~
~
~ ' .C
..
y
i ~
~
Y . ~ v
m : < . . ~ ~~' t~ :.
- o
~ . ~' 3
~n. c 4 F
~ +'
q
4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . 4 a
~ s ~ : '
. !: ~ . 3 .. ~.
~. 1 #,1 rt :
. .
. 2
0
2
1~
~ P
~ ~j
o j
r n'
~ N
~ t~'f
''~ t•~j
n Q
Q ~
c
~ O
v1
~ P.
i(1
~ p
~ `~
~ 'p
~ O
M
o
' . b
„ n
r
3~ 9 sva ~ ~ \
d \
N~ S~ Ym aa ¢¢ ~~ ~p ~b ;y \
. I YorM Llid~
Bouln~rE Yub LIrM~
Bwlwcid ~
~9 ~
B
9 ,~\
. '
C a ~~ \
E ° ~ L g (T. men 9
S - E~~ .n,.
x~ ~a ~~ ~~ 'E ~E W~ xS €x wb n.M~. a ~ n ~
n . o¢' a uv'~ ' Sm vr E~y ~
9y
~
O~an~eihu~oe
Arenuu pqTESiA FIIEEYIAY
'~+..i: ~``~NP
VERSIOE FpEEWAY / i
tiii ~` Y
.°~^i
, .::...:............ ............ .:^:.. •:::::::::::::::::::r:•
i., r,im
.. ................ .
1 ........... ....... .
n.~~~~a --
..... ........... ........... ........
[r.xM~ \ ~gY.~ ~~: yx t^'`
..... .......... ......m~~ ........ .
n..~~~~ ~~x. 9s~~' ~ ~ ~'iz' .,'l~~
::::::::::. ::::.::....
. ........... ::::::::::: '• ~ ~~
5 . , 'R ~
.~R'X+ F:.,. :'::::::::: ~ .. ~F £ ; Y~~<'~•.'a
L~m~oln es~w'i~ ••.•::::::: ~ . , •
:::::::.: ... ....... ~ ~~,~w
Avmuv ~......~': ~ ~,wA:'Y~)
:::::::::::: ....... ..........
............ ::::::: ..........
::': HHIH11Ni ".it'~'"~y /". .
:::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::::::
. Orur~qe :::::::::::. ........... ............
........... ....................... ... ........ < L-r.hibit 10-B
........... ............ t:: ..... >
~.r~~o ........... ............ .. .. ... ::::::::::::
~ W M6DIM! AG~ DISTRIBUTION
........... :::::::::r ............ ::::: ::::::::. ~
.......... .......... . ,: ~ .
e.n ~ ~ °
e~,.i - _ _ ...
E
- 4 ears
~ Under 2 y
~
~
~:'~ ~r
25 - 27 ears
Y
~
K.i~u. I- Eis:::;;ii;
Avenuv --'- f - - I ~ ~
I 28 30 y~~ars
s: ~s '`' Y~s `~«x
°:~ ;~.~~~ - -- - --~. '~ ~ ~'~"~~" ~~'s~`~"'~fi ' ~' Y
~ ~~~ • More than 30 ears
c~,.,,~,.~ Note: Median age within City of
~..•n„e - ~ - -r- --
~ Anaheim is 26.4 years.
; ~„ ~ ~E
Pr `~ mm "~ ~~ ~x $~ °r €z er r° ax ~m
,;~ ~ ~a a a~ ;~ w~ _~ ~ m ~~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
ocvolopment scrvlces ocn~~~~ncrtt
O
n
~
ti
0
~
c~
.ti
i~
~
L7
E-~
~
H
C
V O
F' ~
.. V
~ '"
~' +-i C
•r~i ~
.O '
•-i U
~ X F
w z
m
r
0
a
d
~
~ ~
oi ai
r~ v
~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~,
n rn o .ornc~woci~n
~ ~ o ~ciooe+>~nr~.-~
~ O ~ N ~ .r .~
N
N O M ~ N ~ O 7 00 h N CO vl N 1
N ~O 1n v ^~ ~ c0 ~ o] Gl O M O o0 'V
"~ N N N ::1 O !? N~N~DN W O
N ~D N G1 I~ N G1 N~O "J' V~ O N o0
N V lA N ~O .~ N .r
°~° °'p ~ o~° ° e~° o\~ o~~ \ o'O ~
~ ~ ~' ^~ O '~Y'~70 oD N 70
M •• ~O O ln ~--I lA ~U v'i M q~
00 M O .--I ~--1 N ~--1 .-I
ti
.-i ~-, m ~ o c~ rn n~ n m.-i ~.~ ~
O 00 CO N c0 N 1n N^+ ~ l1~ :~ ~--1 N W
~/7 N O ln I~ I~ N h-V 7 G> 00 N.-' 7
N 1~ 'S w I~ tA ~ Cl vY V7 .-~ M~--i
M N M .-~ M
o~ e\~ p~? \ ~ e\e \~ e`? o\~ \ C~
N ~' O N O N l~ ~-1 M~7 00 C1 ~p
a+ ~ ~ ~ o o-. o~o 0 0 00 .-4
I~ M .-~ O ~--i ~--i N.-1 N.-i
~D tn ~O '7 ui M C ln CO W N N l~ ~,'J ~-1
O ~-1 ~D N O O '7 t0 '7 ~-1 O M U(' ~01
M N N. CO CO N l/~ 1n 'J ~-1 ~C1 •-1 N\
~11 C . N .-i N .-~ .~
H
u
1
H
O v1
.. H
U
':7 vl :L
L N :y
L+ C1 O
.C 3
C F+
•.1 O '~
:C r ~
F~
'tl h. '7
C 'n m K
;1 H H •rf
O 'O ,:L
. +~ C
-~ c'3 .-~ y.
~ H .:/. C
u a~ r
~ C1 •rl N 'J
U U ~ .N ~ ..
H f+ C cy G
0 o u •a c~
W W G~ E ~ E
~
f. 'C ~ fr N 'O cJ cJ F H
O N ~ O~ d U O ~
.n N 'L1 >. A c1 'c7 >. ~ '~ ..~ 4+ .~4 'O
ro-~ U O ttl 6 a~ O ~d K f~+ f+ a~
.-1 rJ >. ~ .r N>. ~ K td N ~ N O N
E~ P. tn W O C. O ~ C O) 3 i+
C •~ 6 W C ~ E 7_ •-I t/i U y> N O
tn tG 'r p, N ..7 rJ .-~ P. C~ O m F E~.~ F v P.
W .ri .~ E C 4 .,y .-i 6 c i--i v1 a) + in +~ a) u y
a •-~ m d 7 ~ ., r c~ ~ F y on y~:c H~~ F+
a •.i C W .-1 C d W cJ 'U W h O>
.~ >d.° ~~ W >dP ~e\~ O. O C•i cJ a)y H a~
~.i ..-i a ~ H rJ cJ F+ U. csf N O
a t~ a c~ c~ c.<rn~oamz
a a c~
a ~ o
15.3
.,
.-i
cti
O
1-~
O
n
T
C
.~
H
~
>
O
'rJ
C
oi
~
.~
O
N
F+
M
~
~
~7'
r-1
C
0
N
H
~
~=.
0
n ti
~ ~
N
O
'7 1.~
e
h ~
d
• t,
o r.
~ ~
c~ w
.-1 ~
F
o O
N ~U
G~ L~
~-+ ti
'C!
~n C
~ ~
N
C O f+
d N ~
U , O1 >
~ O
d
,C C 'C1
++ •~i C
~
w ~n
o u~
.rl r-i
7 1.~ O
~ N
~ .rl N
F ~ N
7 cti cC
pp u y
N ~
y N ~
~,' ry
a N
8 +/1
>. C
0 0
W ^1 N
U p. F+
a ~ a~
~ w w
0
~n *
16
the men versus 7.3-percent of the woncn available for employmen~ were
unemployed (April, 1970). As a result of the generally older popula-
tion resi.ding in the central city, fe~aer men are members of the labor
£o.ce than is typical throughout Anahein as a whole: only 79-percent.
versus 84-percent. Hotiuever, more of them are unemployed: 7-percent
versus 5-percent. Interestingly, the employment figures for ~aomen
living in the central city are similar to tliose for women throughout
, ~he entire city. IVithin portions of the central city, hoiaever, un-
ennloyment exceeds 10-percent of tlie labor force for both men and
~.~onen.
Census statistics have revealed tliat the majority of tne laUor
force in Orange County cities is mobi.le and, tyoically, does not work
in tlic city of its residence. In Anaheim, 34.6-percent o£ the labor
force (employable population) lives witliin the city. Conversely,
65.4-percent of the residents in Anaheim who are membe~s of the labor
force do not work in this city. It is interesting to note tiiat accord-
ing to the 1970 Census, there were 103,850 persons working in Anahcim
'' who lived elsewhere in Orange County.
Income
The median family income in 1969 was $11,809 with one-lial.f of ali
families in Anaheim having incumes grcater than $12,000. (See ExhiUit
12-A, hiedian Income Di.stribution) On7y 5-percent of all households in
Anaheim had in~comes below the poverty~ level and only 15.5-percent (552)
of thos~ families received sume type of public assistance during 19G9.
Of significance is the fact that persons 65 years old and over account
for more than 40-percent of the individuals with incomes below tlie
poverty level. In the central city the median income was about $8,900
• in 1970, meaning that Qne-half of the families li~~ing there had in-
cones less than that amount. (See Exhibit 12-8, Median Income Distri-
' bution) Iti the city as a w~hole, less than one-third of all families
had yearly incomes less than $9,000. The central city, containin~
about 7-percent of the city's famiZies, has 14-percent of all *.he fami-
lies with incomes lower than ~9,000., Furthermore, over 10-percent of
16.1
Exhibit 12-A
FAMILY INCOh1E IN 1969
Number Percent
Family Income of Fanilies of Familics
All families 43,277 7.00.0
Less than $2,000 1,35] 3.1
$2,000 to $3,999 2,099 4.9
$4,000 to $5,999 3,009 7.0
$6,000 to $7,999 4,116 9.5
$8,000 to ~9,999 5,51U 12.7
$10,000 to $11,999 6,140 14.2
$12,000 to $14,999 8,196 18.9
$15,000 to $24,999 10,656 24.6
$25,000 to $49,999 1,899 4.4
$50,000 and over 301 0.7
• Median family income $11,809
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970.
Ui~~vK~l~nit
~~eiiu~
° ;z
~e ir $m eti ~m
W~ ~~ ,~ : 3~
CITY Ot A~vr+n~.~•~
ocvcinnmcnt Scrv~cc, uconetmm~l
17
the f~milies had incomes below the poverty level. Since the housing
costs are lower in the centrai city than elsewhere and since the
incomes typicaily fall in the low- and moderate-income ranges, resi-
dents may be financially unable to live elsewhere. The maintenance and
upkeep necessary because of the general age and condition of tlie resi-
dential buildings may pose £urther financial hardships on the residents
of the central city.
~ Minority Grouas
The popnlation in racial and ethnic minorities has never been
particularly large in Anaheim, although the numbers have been slowly
increasing since 1950 when less than 4-percent of the city's population
identified itself as a member of a specific racial or ethnic group:
typically, Spanish-American, Black, Oriental, or American Indian. (See
Exhibit 13, Racial and Ethnic Population) In 1970, 12-percent of the
population identifi.ed itself as a minority group member. The Sp~nis~-
American residents are the largest minority group and account for
10.5-percent of the city's population. About one-third of all thc
Spanish-American residents in Anaheim liv~ in the ce~ntral city and
account for more than one-four*_h of that area~s popuiation. It can,
therefore, be assumed that many Spanish-American fam:lies may bc living
in housing conditions which are less than adequate.
17.1
Exhibit 13
RACIAL AND ETHNIC POPULATION
1950 1960 1970
Number Percent Number Percent Number Fercent
All Persons 14,556 100.0 104,184 100.0 166,701 100.0
America~ Indian 22 0.2 66 0.1 469 O.S
Black 74 0.5 48 0.1 170 0.1
Oriental* ~ 11 0.1 506 0.5 2,050 1.2
Spanish-American 434 3.0 5,315 5.1 17,389 10.4
Other 64 0.4 664 0.5 495 0.3
* Includes Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawhiiun, and Korean
SOURCE: U.S. Buresu of the Census, 1950, 1960, 1970.
18
V SUMfAARY
~ .
The most important aspect of the [iousing and Residential Element
of the General Plan is its functiori to critically review the housing
situation in the City of Anaheim. By determining whether any housing
problems do in fact exist in Anaheim, it is possible to~determine
what course of action would be most suitable.
Statistically, it has been found that Anaheim, on the whole, has
very few housing problems:
. Less than 2-percent (892) of all dwelling units are sub-
standard (without adequate plumbing, complete kitchen
facilities, or private access).
, Only 10-percent of the housing stock (5,467 dwelling units)
is more than twenty yeaxs old (thereby requiring continuing
maintenance and upkeep).
The median dwelling unit value was $24,800 in 1970 with
only 15-percent of the dwelling units being valued at less
than $20,000. '
The median family income in 1969 was $:1,809 with about
5-percent (2,256) of all Eamilies naving incames belok the
poverty level.
~ There are, ho~oever, several issues which indicate that housing
problems of a soxt do exist in Anaheim and call for remedial measures.
First, is the coacentration of structurally substandard dtaeliing units
in the central city. Second, pertaining to the same area, is the dis-
proportionate number of elderly citizens and low- and moderate-income
fzmilies residing there. And third, a foreseeable problem which is
not yet evident is the potential deterioration of about 70-percent of
the city's present housing stock during the next ten to fifteen years.
While the vast majority of Anaheim's residents are assured o£ an
• adequate housing environnent, all of the residents of the central city
do not have that assurance. Less than 2-percent of the housing in the
' City of Anaheim ~s substandard but more than one-third of those iznits
are located in the central city (which accounts for abeut one-tenth of
the ~ity's total housing stock). 1Vhile the dwelling units elsewhere
in Anah~im are generally considered structurally "suund" by the Orange
19
County Health Department, a large portion of the ce,ntral city has been
rated "moderately deteriorated".'
Typically, the housing in.Anaheim is less than twenty years old
Uut 73-percent of those d~velling units (4,011) are located in the
central city'. That means that almost half of all the dwelling units
in that area are more than t~venty years old and are, there£ore, prone
~ to increasing deterioration unless a continuing program of maintenance
and upkeep is adhered to. Tt is easily understood that the.dwelling
unit values are lotiver here than elsewhere in the city: a median value
of about $20,900 compared to $24,800.
In addition to the housing deficiencies ir. the central city are
resadent characteristics which intensify those problems and make them
more difficult,to solve. The median family income in the centra.l city
was $8,900 in 1964, which is about $3,000 less than for the typical
Anaheim !iouseliold. Furthermore, almost 11-percent of the families
living there had incomes lower than poverty level incomes as dete:-
. mined by the federal government. A range of "poverty thresh'olds"~is
• established yearly by the federal government. The resulting poverty
level incomes are based on family si~e, age and sex of family head,
• number of children, and Consumer Price Index. The loiv and moderate
family incomes that are found in this area restrict the financial
ability of those families to find and maintain suitable housing.
There is a concentration of two minority groups in the central
city: Spanish-American (5,232 persons) and the elderly (3,023 persons).
City-wide, about 10-percent of the population is Spanish-American and
6-percent ar:: si:cy-five years old and older. In the central city,
25-percent rare Spanish-American and 12-percent a•re elderly. It is
likely that a disproportionate number of Spanish-Americ.ans.and elderly
, citi.zens who reside in the central city area do not have the "decent
home and suitable living eYivironment" first promised in the national
. housing goal of 1949.
14ithin the next fifteen years, 70-percent (39,351 dwelling units)
, of Anaheim's housing stock (as of April, 1970) will be tvienty years old
or older. At that time it is anticipated that structural deterioration
20
~ ,
will begin unless a program of adequate maintenance is adhered to.
The majority of the dwelling units west of the Santa Ana Freeway were
built during the decade between 1555 and 1965 and will, therefore,
begin to c'•.eteriorate at about the same time. Similar to the concen-
tration of like-aged dwelling units in the central city, but of a much
larger scope, the dtioelling units in west Anaheim pose a potantial
.. housing pro'blem. Recognition of this problem will aid in.preventing a
. repetition of the general deterioration presently found in the central
citv.
zi
VI IAIPLEMBNTATION METHODS
There are basically four methods for improving substandard hous-
ing conditions. They are (1) financial assistance, (2) construction
of low cost housing, (3) housing rehabilitation, and (4) demolition.
The magnitude and seriousness of housing problems in a community are,
~ in addition to the existing city policies, the basis for the selection
of the most suitable prog:am of housing improvement. Additionally, .
~ an3 of particular sign'ificance to a city like Anaheim, is the conser-
vation and maintenance of the existing hausing stock and living envi-
ronment. In this way the dangers of deterioration are .recognized and
thereby prevented. The extent of the comnunity's acceptance of a
honsing improvement program will serve to either enhance or detract
from the potential success of such a program. It is with this last
point in mind that the preceding methods are discussed.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
• One of the most widely discussed and vehemently debated approaches
• to the planned improvement o£ housing has been the financial assistance
available through nrograms administered by the United States Department
• of Housing and'Urban Development. The high costs of housing are com-
monly bl.amed on the ever increasing construction costs which make it
difficult if not impossible for low- and moderate-income families to
find safe, decen~, and suitable housing at a price which they can af-
ford. Since private industry has not been able to fill this lack, the
federal government stepped in and developed several fundiag programs
which would enable ~amilies to live in the adaquate housing they were
otherwise unable to affoad. The funding has taken many forms (1)
interest subsidies.for the acqui~ition and rehabilitation of housing,
, (2) mortgage insurance, (3) property improvement loans, (4) interost
reduction payments, and (5) leased public housing. In addition there
. have been programs oriented to community development projects such as
urban renewal, model cities, and comprehensive planning assistance.
(Comprehensive information concerning,federal housing programs can be
found in the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance). Recently,
22
however, the federal government put a moratorium on all such funding
and the future of those housing programs is now in doubt. Furthermore,
the competition for federal housing assistance has been great and to
dcpend on it as a means of housing improvement iaould certainly appear
to be foolhardy, especially at this time.
CONSTRUCTION OF LO{V COST HOUSING '
. Since a need for extensive new low cost housing is not evident in
, Anaheim, construction of new low cost i:nits is not viewed as a practi-
cal nor desirable means of improving the existing state of housing.
HOUSING REHABILITATION AND DEh10LITI0N
Housing.rehabilitation (and demolition when necessary) can be
achieved through a ci~y-taide program of housing code enforcement and
public education. To some extent this already exists in the City of
Anaheim although it is generally restricted to condemnations resulting
from Health Code violations. Optimally, a program of housing rehabili -
itation is part of a systematic program of housing inspections aiming
• towards improving the state of housi.ng in the entire.city and educating
' the tenants and home-owners in methods of property maintenance. The
existence of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency provides a means of
~ achieving housing rehabilitation in that part of the city which most
. needs it at the present time. F+urthermore, it can provide a compre-
hensive means of improving more tlian only the residential environment.
Since the character of the central city area of Anaheim is not solely
residential, programs aimed at housing improvements would be partial
solutions to the more involved problems found in that area.
The Redevelopment Agency (and tlie Redevelopment Element of the
Anaheim General Plan) may provide an opportunity to upgrade the entire
living environment of the central city with its many implications:
• residential, social,.commercial, and other~vise; and could pravide a
comprehensive plan towards the improvement of that living environment.
' Having a project area similar to the "central city'! area discussed in
this Housing and Residential Element, the goals and objectives of that
agency and the Redevel~pment Element.of the.General Plan, can serve as
a means to solve the housing problems that presently exist in Anaheim.
yII GLOSSARY•
D{qELLING UNIT - A dwelling unit is a house or an apartment (occupied
or vacant) ~~~ an occupied mobile home or trailer. Apartments are also
referred t ;~ multiple-family dwelling units.
~AbfILY - A family consists of a household head and one or more,other
persons living in the same household who.are related to the head by
blood, marriage, or adoption.
FAMILY INCOME - The family income is the combined amount of income
earned du•ring the calendar year 1969 by all members of each family,
14 years old and over. The figures represent the amount of income
received before deductions for personal income taxes, Social Security,
bond purchases, union dues, medicare de~uctions, etc,
HOUSEHOLD - A household includes all persons who occupy a group of
rooms or a single room which constitutes a dwelling unit.
LABOR FORCE - The labor force in Anaheim consists of all persons, 16
years old and older, residing in this city who are either employed at
the present time or unemployed and available to accept a job. Ex-
cluded from the employed are persons whose only activity consists of
' work around the house or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and
. similar organizations.
MEDIAN - The me,dian is that number which divides a distribution of
' numbers into two equal parts, ~one-half being greater than the median
and the one-half lower. The median age, for instance, is that age
which divides th~ population distribution into two equal parts, one-
half older than the median and one-half younger. In a similar manner
the median exists for income and dwelling unit costs.
OVERCROIVDING - The number of persons per room in an occupied dwelling
unit determines whether a unit is overcrowded. The U.S. Bureau of the
Census defines an overcrowded dwelling unit as one in which there are
more than 1.0 persons per raom (axcluding kitchens, bathrooms, hallways,
and closets).
POVERTY LEVEL INCOME - The poverty level income was established by using
the poverty index adopted by a Federal Interagency Committee in 1969.
' This index provides a range of i.ncome cutoffs or "poverty threshoids"
adjusted to take into account such £actors as family size, age and sex
of the family h~ar~tonreflectrthe changesnin theSConsumer PricefIndex.
updated every y
R~NT - Rent is tabulated for all renter-occupied and vacant-for-rent-
only dwelling units except single-family houses on a place of ten acres
or ~aore.
24
SOUND - The conditiun of a dwelling uni± is considered "sound" ~ahen
tliere are no repairs other thas~ minor ones such as paint"ing necessary.
SPANISH-AMERICAN - The Spanish-American population has been defined as
persons of Spanish languagz or Spanish surname.
STRUCTURAL DETGRIORATI~I~ - St~uctural deterioration occurs when the
adequate maintenance and upkeep of a•dwelling unit has not been adhered
to. The resulting deficiencies may lower the value of the unit and
make it unsuitable for habitation. Improvement of those deficiencies
would, in all likelihood, require some technical aid.
5UBSTANDARD HOUSING - Substandard housing is determined by data derived
from the 1970 Census. The lack of complete plumbing facilities, kiCchen
facilities, and private access to living quarters determines whether a
dwelling unit is substandard. Dwelling units with all plumbing facili-
ties consist of units which have hot and cold piped iaater, a flush
toilet, and a bathtub br shower inside the structure for the exclusive
use of the occupants of the unit. Complete kitchen facilities consist
of all three of the follo~aing for the exclusive use of the occupants:
installed sink with piped tiaater, a range or cookstove, and a mechanical
refrigerator. All kitchen facilities must be located in the residential
structure. Private access to living quarters means that the occupants
of the dwelling unit ;iave direct access from the outside or through a
common or public hall. They do not pass through someone else!s living
quarters to enter their own. •
TENURE - Tenure denotes the occupancy status of a dwelling unit:
owner-occupied; rente.--occupied, or vacant.
VACANCY RATE - The vacancy rate is the percent of vacant dwelling units
within the entire housing stock. A dwelling unit is corasidered vacant
if no one is living in it at the time of enumeration, unless its occu-
pants are only temporarily absent. '
VALUE - Housing value is tabulated for owner-occupied and vacant-for-
sale-only single-family houses wliich are on a property of less than ten
acres and have no businesses or offices on the property. Value is not
tabulated•£or mobile homes, trailers, or condominiums.
25
APPENDIX A
STATE OF CALIFO~NIA
f.. CGi°II`'lISSION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMETtT
HOUSING ELII`'~[~TT GUIDELINFS
I. PURPOS~ AND NEEDS
A. STATE LAW R~QUIRING HOUSING EI~II"lENTS
Government Code Sections 65302 and 6~303.
B, INTERGOVIl~NN~LdTAL COORDINATIOPI
Involvement of all local jurisdictions in the housing
2lement planning process is necessary. There should
be an ongoing plan to continue intergovernmental
coordination efforts. ,
~ l, A housing element should be prepared by.a planning
~ entity whose jurisdiction i.ncorporates a housing
market.
2, Major metropolitan areas require a regional or
~ multi-coun+v approach. In.some instances, a
single count9 wi11 cover a housing market. Cities
that comprise part of a housing market should
• jointJ.y prepare housing elements with the county.
3, Counties that are•situated in a multi-county
housing market should prepare and adopt a housing
element based upon and within the context o~. a
~ regional housing element.
y., In ~:~d.er to avoid irreconcilable differences
~~ bet~raen the xegional and/or county housing plans,
~ the cities and counties within a region should
,. make significant inputs into.the regional plan
. process.
5, There is a need for "city to city" and "county to
county!' coordination and cooperation to s:~are the
' responsibility for housing all segmeni:s of the
population.
-1-
C. INTERAGE[vCY COORDINATION
26
Coordination of plans of local public and quasi public
bodies, s~ate an~ rederal agencies which have a local
impact, as well as'regional regulatory boaies is
essential.
D. RELATION TO GTI~R PL.AN ELFI°LEEPIITS
A housing element cannot advocate goals a•nd plans that
are foreign to the oL•her general~ plan elemeni;s. A
simple statement made in the form of an objective to
be accomplished through the nousing plan may well imply
policy determinatimn in other general plan elements.
Housing implies people, and people require services;
therefore, other gez~.Pral plan elements must be reviewEd
and any incoasistencies or incompatibilities resolved.
Among ~the more important elements which need to be
closely corre~.ated with the housing element are:
Land Use Open Space
Transportation Public Facilities
Recreation Conservation
E. CITIZE[`T PAR.TICIPATIOPJ
This is one of the mo:-.r. important of all aspects in the
development of a housi~.~ element: the direct invol.ve-
ment oi a cross secziot~ of the citizenry in the planning
process. The goals and plans must be generated thrcugh
citizen advisers. A br.oadly based, communitywide
consumer-producer committee or organization can provide
positive input if free of political pressure and
harassment. Upon acceptance of a draft of tlie proposed
housing element, the planning body shall hold hearings
to receive input and comment fron those not a part of
the advisory committee.
II. GOAIS
.~
At least three broad ooals of a housing element have been '
identified. The.goals listed below may be expanded t~
include others of l~cal concern and impact: ,~
1. To promote and insure the provision of adequate housing
fbr all persons regardless of income, age, race, or
ethnic background.
2. To prorote and insure the provision of housi~ag selection
by location, type, price, and tenure.
3. To promote and insure open ar~d free choice of housing Poz•
all. •
27
SII. PROBLF~~'I
The scope of the housing problem,, although generally accepted
as critical or severe, must be documented for each juris-
diction. The first four categories below each define a
specific area of concern. The last category (E; ideutifies
specific nee~. and is used to further detex~ine obstacles and
to prepare the housi.ng work program.
A. Il`1VENTORY OF EXISTING UNITS, FOR EXAP7PLE
IInit Size
. Unit Type
Density ~
Ownership
Rent
Condition
Location
Neighborhood
' Public Facilities
Number of Rboms
Single, Multiple
Units per Acre
Rental, Homeowner, Abandoned
Monthly Reut
Standard, Substandard
Census District, Assessor Parcel
Surrounding Area
Water/sewer, Sch~ols, Other Services
B, IN`TI~ITORi OF POTEPIITIAZ UN7TS, FOk EXAMPT,E
Rehabilitation Code enforcement project an.d/or
supply of vnits that can be
rehabilitated
Specia'1 Projects Funded projects under any iinancial
method whic~ will add to the housing
3tock or remove units
Housing Authority Applicat~ons made for additional
units ~nd estimate of fundi.r_g 1eve1
Redevelopmen•t Agency Units removed as a decrease, and
• replacement housing to be cr~ated
as an increase in uni±s
C. • IN'VE[~~'ORY OF EXISTING SITES, FOR EXAMPLE
Vacant Iand Suitable for single or multiple
dwe?.l:i.ng regardless o.f zoning
Potential Adequacy Water, S'ewer, Drainage: availabili~y,
of Public Facilities cost, nearness t~ emplo~ment, 2nd
shopping
Redevelqpment Land i;o be made available through ~
the Redevelopment Agency
~hvironmental Density, open space, 3mog~basin,
Considerations wooded, or recreatior~ land
71•Q
. , ~.
D. POPULATION C~~ARAG'~EEtISTICS '
The 19?0 Census, ~s it ~ecr~m~s avsi~.lable, r:i3~. pro~i~e:
much of ~~he followin~;~ 3r;;a, ;~;t~. kill then b~'tida' a
continuin~• process to be•t~~a it ~urrent by i.ntegi~:tts~xg
new data. '
Incone ' ~ow ~ehc?.d, using cent~ ~.;3 aa~'~iz~ar~~ .,
, Fami.ly Composition •~~Type of head o,f IIi)tiSGYY,J~.Cl~ size,
ages
• Zocation of Emplo~- Trav81 from ~lar~ ef .residence
ment
Race Census Classi~:~~•at~ on
E. NEED ~
Current - by type, size, price, and location.
Pro ected - by type, size, price, and location,
usz.ng pro~ections for several years.
' IV. OBSTACLES
• The following represent real or imaginary ob~tructions which
impede attaining the objectives of the housing plan.
Political Voter approval
I,ncal governmental approval
. , Neighbor~^od oppo~ition
Schools
. Real e~tate and Uv,;ilding ~~dustry
opposition
~ High-rise structure oppo_•ition
~ DiscriminaL'ion: Race, sex, family
siae, and eeonomic
Economic 7~and cost
- Tax structures (property-income)
~ . Allocation of state and federal
~ fund.s
• . Risk vs. return on c:apital
Seed money
' Increasing construction costs
. ~lmployment Location D~emporaryxaveled, permanent,
~
.
28
D. POPUI~ATION C~iARACTERISTICS '
The 1970 ~ensus, as it becomes available, vrill provide
much of the roce~s to keep~itlcurrenttby integrating
continuing~p
new data.
Iacome
Family Composition
• I,ocation of ~ploy-
ment
Race
Household, using census defi.nitions
~~Type of head of househoid, size,
ages
Travel from place of residence
Census Classification.
E. N~ED ~
Cu?^rent - by type, size, pr.'ice, and location.
Pro ected - by type, size, price, and location,
us:~ng pro~ections Sor several years.
• zv. oasTnc~s
• The following represent real or imaginar~ obstructions vrhich
of the rousin~ plan.
impede att~ining the objectives
Political Voter approval
Loaal ~overnmenta7. approval
. , Neighborhood opposition
. Sch~ols
Real estate a!:~. building industry
onposition
;h--rise struc;t~xre oppo..•it f~
H'i
. ;
~l
Discrimination,: Race, sex, 9
size, and gccnomic
Fcon~mi.c I,and aos~
Tax struct.:;res (Property-income)
~ . Allocat:on of state snd £ederal
. funds
Risk vs. rpturn on c:agital
' ~eed roney
:i~~•reasing construction cost~
Employment rarplp''..~ nermanent,
Location Dt
emporary
• -. ~
.,.s
. a~ ~
- 29
Institutional or Sponsor. or daveloper interest
ove.rnmenta Processing time - star~ to finish
. Building Codes outdated
Union restr.ictions
Zoning
' ~ Fh.ysical I,and avai],ability
Availability of public services
Much of the above, as well as otY:ers rrhich may apply to your
area, should be analyzed and approached in the housing plan
to follow. 1n honest appraisal at this point can save time
and effort iahen implementing the housing plan.
V. THE HOUSING PROr,RAM
The objectives recommended by the advisory committee should
become th° housing pro6ram. Long range and short range
objectives should be stated in terms o~ identified need and
obstacles to overcome. Each objective should be defined in
three parts.
OBJECTIUES:
A, SPECIFIC ITEM - what is to be accomplishea by thi~
oT~~ecti'- ve. - ~
B. ItNOLVF~~^IT - who and/or what grnups are to participate
and,~re~ore, become jointly resg~:zsible for achieve-
menL of the objective. .
C. 'TIME ~RAI'~ - establish a time fr~mework to reach the
objective and identify landmarks to indicate progrnss.
Arli'ERNATIVES :
It is obvious that there may be several paths to the achieve-
ment oS the objective af a specific item orithi.n a.specific
time frame. The time ava~lable ~aay be the rea;:an for select-
ing one plan over an~ther; however, as time passes a~ternates
should be considered i~ ~he prior metrods selected ~re n~t
fully success£uL
. VI , gE~IIEW APiD UPDAT~
A. CONTINUTNG HOUSITIG DATA
Interna.l Departments. ~dithin each city and county there
is a ui aing, ousng, community development, ox plan-
ninQ departnent responsible for issuing buildin~ permits,
demqlition permits, inspection, and other services.
Tha~ denartment should be the central source oS housiag
30
data relating to construction, demolition and rehabili-
tatior_. This data, along orith infornation on proposed
projects, can be used to update the housing element.
We encourage accurate building activity records which ;
can serve to assist t}~e other levels of government to
analyze housing needs.
• ,.
City-Count,y-Re~ion-State=~'ederal. The data required
for greparation of a tlousing Element., onoe assemoled,
can be used for manj* purposes. The regional planning
agency, the market analysis and forecasts are users
of this datan •
Consumers - Producers. The consumer as well as the
producer.has the right to knoor both the current status
of hou~ing conditaons and programs and plans for the
future. A county=city housing element which includes
an ongoing•information system should supnly that need.
B, ANNiJAZ CITIZII`I REVIEW -. BIENNIAL UPDATE
The citizen advisers that helped prepare the goals and
programs should review on an annual basis the progress
toward achieving the objectives, easing of obstacles,
and select alternatives if necessary. In addition, a
two-year printed update to document changes and progress
and reflect neUr plans is necessary. This function is
perfo.rmed not only b;~ the planning bod3~~, but by those
affected by the resul.ting pro~rams.
C. STATE DE7.'ARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUPIITY DEVELOPMETIT
1 I ~ 1 AI D U D~~TE
It is requested that the draft and final housing element,
as adopted, be sent to tY?e Department of Housing and
Community Development for review and comment to insure
compliance with the mandate contained in :;he lavrs and
to further allow integration o~ tne data in~o the Sta.te
Housing Element as an c~~.going function of the depait-.
ment.
The biennial update will be revy.ewed by the State Depart-
ment of Housing and ~~~~1t5 Development to determine
progress toward achieving the objectives in the housing
p1ar: and, ir. additiori, determine areas of needed legisla-
tion an~1 provide.a continuing source of. housin~ information
fos the State. ,
31
APPENDIX 8
p •
1 •.
~~. M ..
3
O
,
.~ ~
C
A
~
C
.~
C
•
~ O.
~
V
C
~ 3
J '
C
y
.
O
~' O
~~
~ .
~
~ O
~ C
N
~
~ G
~ N
W m
~
c
~
~ ~
a rn
~
~ a
~ ~
c
~ LL
~
~
~ .
~
~
~
m
G
,~
C
0
.y
C
X
~1
C
w
.~
U ^
O ~
~ ~
N ~
d ~
~
~ ti
;.~
.~-'
"~r~`,~<
'" ' F L
\ i
'~~ ~ r- "
ti~~,' ;';;:.~.'
,i_~ - ".
~ ~~.~
:~,
~
~ ~
2 a;.
A Q
zz
V- W
Q ~
~ O
~ V
QC ~
G ~
.~ Z
~ Q
~ ~.~~ , ~~`~"AiBg 3~ ' ~. ~,:; ,~ :~_.~'" ~
=. ,~~. ~, . ~ ~~~, • . ; . ` .r. -. . ..
wl .1 .k~., . ~2 ^.~ 3v.:r,M1~ ~ .
~.::'.
'~,' :r r - ~ a ' . • :t -. .
~ J ~ ~~ f: ~~-,.~vFy~ ~ ;~ .'-'-..a., - _ I ~ , e
.,
;:./ ~ .-~'~ . f ~•. ~ ~1..:_..."°l~.~.".,~"~ = ~.r.,...~~ '~"'"~.
-s?' y1~ „=~ ~ ~ t ...-...+._.':" .... =
" t ,,• ~ . , .. t ~.;,...
..~-,r , ! ^ . _ :~',•~ :~~, ~ ~ I _._ _ ... "`~
...r,,,r~ 1. ~ ~ 6 , ... ~ N . ,.!
. ~~~ ' _t ~~^ ~ ' . ~~_~ fl.
, ~ . !, . , . .,a f ~~•
./r~_f ~~.y"~ ~ 1'. ...~ ', ' `~..~~ I ~ ~.. ~. `, ~f
' ,~. ~ . • :~~4,~ ~ ` . ~ y.
T i ~
j ~-.,~,..1;~' ~ ' 'i.'~~.~~ ~ K.
3 . ~ i : , }~ t . i ,
~" ~.~~. ~Ytj~ ~~ _7 ~ : :: . •~y)' . .-
~~- ~ r ft ~ . I Ji ~ S ti. ' t~ ~~'.
s t . ~..:_:~ ~ ' ~ t .
.•
t, \ ,~.~~. '~ `',, . trr , a.Vi~I'I ~~ (
~`~j. ~ r R ~ y` . F ~ 4~'~ ~ . _ -~' ~ ~.1.. .. . ~i
`---~ j ~~~~ ; ~ r ~ .. _ . 4. . .'_ ~.
~ ~{~fi~ 1 i ~ ,t '.:: . ~
`` '~ j ,_ e~ iy,.~.~r,i ~ ~~'..r.....~.,.,, ~.
~ ~,r(~ ~ }i i . . _ . ~ . . ~ . . ~- - •. _._.. ':.
~ s ~ ~ .; -,..J!J ~ . .., . '_" . • . ~,,,..~.... _.. .... '• ~.,
~\: .~ ._ . Ja l ~ ._. ~~f .. ...~. ~.~ _
,.~~~7 L~.'•i.:.......~.._...sl""".:J' i r . ...._.___~~. ~:.:i:~~ ; __ __ ' `n
... , •."~.~~ „-_~• ~ ~ ~ . ~. . , . ~ ~ ~ . ~ M . _ _' ~ - : :•7
_ ; -.~:~-,.~.. ,., .. ;::: . ~ ,;
....~.....~...~.,_.~ -:~.,,,,.....
, ~ _,,..~..,.>a ,,.~~ ~ - ~..:~~
~i +y ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~"..aYi 4'• J ~~ , '~i
erwi{.,_ .''~;~__.: •_,r- . ^s .' _ . '~- . . . _ ~.a~
l~Y~,'' ~+
~r!`
~,. ~ :}4 ; }~/
, ,~.
Edp t~i ~~ O'.V". G C=~ y e~.i ~~^. o C rj •~• uUi ~ C~~ K~ p
. C'a H>^.C 6~ •O 7' y ~~" 7. ~ C~ w' V E, O
2'~ 7 ui O R'~ •O ~ 7 G ~ C V~.p t~ a,. ~~ C~ ~p
~ C'. ~ N~- ~ >` s o E"'~ G
~a •=~ Eh ~~'°.,a-.
'L ~" o .+ c, t7 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •C. c~
..r7 ^~C C ~ C ~n O v •C .a ~ ~ .. ~ ~ v`~i ~ = c: v~i .y E
yE~ ° ~~=c~,~~e ~" o°uE;,=c" ~o
.a .~ E~' r .° ~.~ u~ o ~ u°.. ,7 "' c:= ~ c r, ~
° > w u ' ~ ei ~ : ~.C. ~ ~ ° ~ > : " u ° ~e C u , ~ :A
c''~ ~ ~ r°.r ~ ~ u ~ ~ c~ a? = c- :a ~ ~
~' C~'~C 7 :~~ O^ 4 G o i.Gi ~-t"" y O^ ~ ~" O
•~ ~ •G . 'j U C '1 '- C N ~ ~. ' ~. ~ ~ J ~ .Vi~ ~ u ri ..~.
.'~ .~~. r ~ « ... ~ O ~ U 7 C ' i .'li " ~ ~ J vf ... Vr~ :l
O ~1 ~ .'~. ~ ~ 1. ~ J V ~' C :J ~ ~ "' ^ C ~, ~ ~ / ~r.
•„ „ aa --?.- ~,;; ~ „:c-- - - u~- ~ a' • ~
J^ O ~ ,p L- O ~' U
Cn ^ _~ ~ T•C C C ~ u C~ ~, _. ~ V~ y u ~ ~' .:L
c: .: _ ' ? ~ ° c ~ = _ ~ ~ _ - - ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ J c
r i+ ` .. :J •r : :J ^ v y ~ C : = G ~ -y ' ,~,'-.' ^- - C
~ ~ _'o,_ U ?•u _ _- ~ u_ o '~~~J•F y~F'y ~~ e:,
~ ~ ~ ~O -~ ~ •G• , •;J, C ~, ~ ~ •C ~' r •~ ^ :J ~ ~ ^ o ~:i .~.
,'~~.,, ~= .^ i:: ~ C ~ G y ~ G . ~ . : V r ~ ~.~ v •~ O :J .'~~. J
O ~ i .~ i :L y ,3. ~ ^ '^ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~. C i ~.~'. ^
'u 'U :n~= O ~ q ~ C V J ~ ~ •r h •~^ w ^ ~ ^~' ~ O v
~ ~ ~. ~ ' O .. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ `~ a~. ~ O ~ ^O ~ C V ~ y rw
~ ° ~ E -' ~ .° .e ` .". ^ =: = ` ^'~, c ^ ^ "'- ^ -.un.` ° .. .> .~
r V ^ ~ ^, .~ ~ G~ ~.' i~G a ~~ ^
L C ~ M :~ G~'~ F 7 C 7•C 7 O F~~ ~ 7.~ W 3~ CO u.~. r ~= -'1
~ F~1 ["~ V O . "
r"n'~ •
D,Z~ ~aa[ac ~
~~ ~b~O'~~ ~
~^ ~a ~ •`s'~ u' ~ ~" ~ . ~°
~~~ ~~~a?~c n
a r O w Cw C~:: ~
~°Ci•~~o;'r?^
^ , YI 4 ~ V
? . U ~ ~ J ~ G G
~y ~ o'=^ ~ ~~ p
h ~~ p ~ _ ~r. C ~ .:
>+ ~ v.' ^ ~ .-" ~
. V u O ~ y^ .r' u•C '~ C
J = Sc ~ ^ ~u = ~;,
:1 .~, tn = ,~ ? u "L O :~
a~ ~ •u ^' u ~~ c -
V ~ ~ •~ •C • f u ~ u ~ ~
~ I~ N. i 4 a N O Q
[`y ~ O • •
^
~~
v e ~ ~.~ ~ a q ~~° E ~ p~ ~ c o ~~~ ~
N'~ u~^ ' u~C ~uG u^3~~~ ~u ^ C~ ~ ~~~o~ ^V~ O
~"+ y y... ~ O G >. ^ r~.n. a y^~o .~ o~ a b~ cp ~ 0 1~
.°. o'"E F"'. a o a' ? ~~~... ~~ ` y ~'g c~'1c 'wG ~" z
.. ~.c•,. ~..,~ °g$ ac,~'? aya .~e~C pV _',;~ ^ n='KC ~o
~ a, = "-_ ^ c r, ~ e a ~~ ~ a ~ ~ c ~ . ^ ~- ~(:~ c~ 'o
C`L -_ C~ '~ L N C.r ~ O E C F •Q y..•~ C C C1 •~ N O~ V
~ C ~= v ^~ u ~O u 'j u~.U O~ C ;~ n.^ O G w.^.. .` U ~~~ F'i
C:c. 'oc~ °-~=' =--'c •`~ou `n~a: °E: .. ~g1•~y~ ~ce"`~
- > u•o inr o ~ o u .. N u ~~ E•~ `c~_ c- `' ~- e c~i
=' a++~ : '== c.^O- c'o'_, 5 o c^. ; I ~ h u•a
w _ ^~ = ~. '3 '~ ~ ~ O Q U U ^ .. O ci V O ~ G h ti' - "' ` ~~n
~•~ C O G :J ~i O n:J C N U ~ u J' CJ ~ 4 q ~~n ..~`i '^ tl ~.~.
: .ca E~= c~~ Euo'~ .~ c ~ mu ~'~•-~~ =~...~ F
~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~F u"' „.7 = u ~~ °° ~ o'~ o c~ ~'~+
c ,,.,
~o ~C~ k:~~. ~~o c ~o° ou~,-~ c>~c~ '~^~'~a^ ~e~-
~"' ~~~ ~n in i Cl O'i~ V O•~- u ~ iG"7. C u~ ~o ' ..Uy~.~.~ 0~ ~~
o~ y•~ ^ ~~+~'d ^'1 v fj~ O y C.~ C C GO Y+ ~ v~ '` C~~~ «..., p~~
u c _ =;c^ „
O"' v ~ w 7.~, C n U
^ ~~ ~ u a. o `~`' ` C G o ..~. c ^ •.--T' ~ U > ~ ~ ~ •~ c~i ~ ~ es ' c~ ^ :. c .C ^ c ~ r
cua r,c^'~ ~.=oo ~~°a G"~~ "~'ac'ou°~>. ~c°~.: ~o ~o?^'
..c^o ~3•~y '?.;oc. _,co ~o uc . ~ •~... a ,°c ti
~~+~ eU~C 'o°-'~Q, ~`'? ~~oc °pO~ 3xu•"•o o°•y•~np c~~iu~~
°°o c~ a 5... p w ~,...~e ay om r`o~'~ m ..
' a• .~~ F~5 ~g'O L C~~e•g °°~~U O;:°`o~ F:~°»6
~•~ ~~ s o~~~~-~o~~
'~~~ =°° ~_~_ ~_' ~ '__=~~ -~° >°'E ~ I I
Cd: P; « C.°o V'= o'ti Q~.= a d Ea ab E~'o c c~ ~.a ~i~'.r.+
• . 6'r.~ m o • • s
^ ~
. ~ ~ d en
(Yi , a+ q m C„C„ t-0 C X ~-0 y eJ ~~ C,r y"'"~ n u~ •7 ::
`^ '' 'C o'b u Q.5 a .a c .5 .'7 c u .S m e ~~ ~ e M• ° o
..; 4 a ~, ~ .~ ^° .+-a ~ ^:. .o .a ,o ~ ~ o ,a.+ e "' E p~ y ~ ~ "a,•~ ~ ~=
cG'^ ~E~b° ° ~~'° o ac.~°e E° ~~ ~=~ "'~ u„~°, '+~c,~ ~°
c'.°^.^o ~ u°' vFi ~a 4 N ."c c~y u~ o° `'= = ~•~ " ~ ~ c'~° °a
r. C ~ N~ C ~ .~ C c~ -tl M~ u U ~. •^ C•~ -' ° G' o ^~' ~ u c~i "' U V C
~:i C GL u 7 • .. ~•~ c~ a a.. 'G ~ . L V p~ v w ~ C ~"' G C p,~~, ~p.
~ o V7 t0 ~ G u ~ U C ~ !L D O E•v~i E tU.O O
C C.: "^J v •
~c,r .. ~ ~~~ .... aa •u s1 ~ E~ u u ~ cn
~ ~c o >S ~[~
~'~"y O •O CJ ~~~ •~ U O c ~~ ~'v w ~'~ r C u"~U ti7~ 'D'~ =^~G G QQ
O
"u^' = o o° E o ~ a.o ~ e u~'a v w E E .".y ~ •°. 'd' a^' e~c+
._ :~c ~~'^ E.`~. _`-'~' ~ c n~o e a o > eo ~~ ~R+ o~ .~zr, c. r. ~
~ iy t~J = u C n y C .''. m=.'J- r o ~ ti. .C •.' ,+, ' tp•-•
~o•U^•~ . r ~ e_cC°o' ~ ~u:7 0^. ~: - ~~ ~c„ "Gp ~cy~' ~ Q
_ ,. u r. ~ "' ti e ~ o c~i ^ .° u ~ ~ 'D o r,1 'C ~ ~ ~ ~ y •o .~ . ~ - `~ '^ o ^~ "n o
ry " in 'O y~ .oJ r ~j •~ p ..C~. O ~ in G.~-.-' ~ p G~~ 'C ~ y; ~~ U
y~ ~ ~ ~L C K ^ 0= f3 ~ ~ U ~ C ~ y O 11 QI Cj 7 C ~ C~
G' ~ b 'C: 'Ci •G r.. i C ~^'J' i~ ^ "O CJ '' y r • U. V .~.
~ C•O C ~ Ti ...~+ v ~ ^J ~" r' ~ u ^ C~ G ~ 'C ~ ~ U n N r4 (~' ~ U~ ~>~' ~ ~ La ^3
~ ~` ^ ^ ~ 7 u' • G~" G '.~ ~ ^ ^ • vvi i
'^ o C~ ~ C'C C O C U C~ •'r ~,~ •~ r N 7 N G ~ Vl J q ~ n E r w~ u i:, O U.~ ~ O
C.:O~ C~.~ Oyr ~ CU`~ CC4] 0~^..~ ~~v n=Cr~,.Ci.~,~w ~CA
^ -' ^ •- ~ C N ~ y ~ C G "a ''7 "C n E ~ !J N c+ Cp ~ .~ .^. ~ CS ^ C ~ .~ O ^~ G ~ • G y ~.~i
Q i17 O ~ ^' ~F r rfl •7 U O ^~T,' ~ y: ., '0^F "tl ^'J` i % CC7 u ~ ~ J' ' •v~ C L~ ~' = v N ^,~ ,r. ~ y r'7 L '
^•CJ ~ f7 ,C•U ~~ O~ ~ u•7 C^.? CA v O U O L"~ =^ C UO r.~ V.~ .U- .~ > ~. O~N •~ C O'~' ~ C~1 O
u u~ w C•~ ^ y e~ ~ ~ r`~. ~ V7 7~i w m~ C~ ~~ q~t ~-1 c~3 .-".. 7 ~ Q U G n C~ E~ ~ u ° a
C~ a o rr^ a - Gr4^ ~ • Hin •. • L'r0~-7 • • HC
e E~ ~ • .
^ ~ ~ ^
3~
APPENDIX G '
Report of a Huusing Condition Survey
ia the
~ City of Anaheim
• MaY,.1972
Coaducted by
The Orange County Health Department
and the
-City of Anaheim Planning Department
May, 19'~2
~ ~.
~ r. '
35
~ II.
SL~PtARY OF FINDINGS AND RECQ~t~tENDATIONS
. From Novemher of 1971 through April of 1972, a housing condition survey was
conducted in the City of Anaheim by the Orange County Nealth Department and
the City's Plxcinin;~ L`Npa~tment.
, Thc puznose of tY.e s:irvey was to provide informatfon for the development
of a housing eleme^t i•~r. the City, which would serve as a plan of action
• for housing improvement.
. Housing conditions throuohout most of the City were rated as Class I
Sound, on a five-step rating scale. Fiowever, the large Central City of Auaheim
received a rating of CLass III~ Moderate Deterio:ation, the Mountain View
Tract £ell into a:.las~ IV~ Major Deterioration Rating~ and the area north
of La Palma received a Ciasa V rating of deteriorated. The ratings were
determined on the basis of structural, premise, and enviro:unental conditions.
~.. The most.f~ quently noted deficiencies in the three areas were structural
' deterioration of dweliings, poorly maintained premises, inadequate trans-
portation, substandard alleys and some minimal street s~idths.
. It is believed that housing conditions in these areas could be brought
up~ to an acceptabie level of conformity by the imp`lementation of coc~aunity
co~pliance programs consisting of detailed evaluatian of deficiencies, advice
~ to property owners on nece~~~T; remedial saeasures and~consultation on financ-
~ ing of improvements where necessary. Federal funding assistan~e should be
~ considered as a possib£lity. ,
.. . Fos the remainder of the City~ only a surveillance-type prograsa would
' be necessary, cor.sisting o£ occasional sp4t surveys to detect incipieat
deteri¢ratian and inspections in response to sitizea co~plaints.
, The correction of neighborhood euvironmental deficieaeies•can be
/~ .
appruached through a community program of phased public utility improvement.
36
~ ~.
Intcrgovernmental coopcration will be necessary for the solution
of environmcntal problems outside the cantrol. of the City, such as the
lack of public transpoxtation.
, The housino condition survey is only one of several necessary
Housing Element activities, all of whi.ch must be.cor..pleted be£ore a
Housing Ele~ent can be develo~ed. Others which should be conducted are
a housing need survey, a short tezm availability,analysis, a housing
program impact analysis and a local concerns and implications analysis.
_ '"~
37
IV. SURVEY 41GTHODOLOGY ,
The survey consists of two principal parts, the parcel rating
~ and thc environmental rating. The fosmer seeks to evaluate the
. housin~ parcel itself, including structures and ptemises. while the
lattQr neasures neighborhood factors affecting the qua2ity of housing.
To determine the parcel rating, every housia~ parc~_1 is observed
from the exterior, and the structuzes and premises are rated on a four
, poi.nt scale. The scores attained are then composited by the surveyor
and an over-all parcel rating is assigned from one to four as follows:
1. Sound
2. In need of minor repair
~ 3. In need of najor repair.
~ /+, Deteriorated - beyond repair
In arriving at the rating the surveyor judges the condition of such
structural features as walls, roof~ foundation, porches, electrical in~
_ .'
stallation, paint apgearance an~ other i.adicators of souadness which are
~ visible from outside the dwelling. Also, he rates premises items such as
fences, lot size, access, sfdewallcs, driveways, landscaping, refuse, animals
and accessory buildings. Finally, hP evalnates t~he effects of any nearby
cor.~ercial or industrial operations on the housing parcel d'ue to aoise,
odors, li~hting, loading, parking or other nuisances. ~
As the surveyor does not enter the dwclling structures, the satings •
are.not represented as a definitive evaluation of all housing conditions~
~ nor as a c~easure of co~pliance with building and housing code requirer..ents.
• Rather~ the ratings, in total, can be used to describe the general
character of the araa studied, and with other necessary data, can help
in formulating an effective long-rar.ge~housing inprovement program.
38
Eaeh blosk in the survey area is given an environmental rating.
In making the environ~ental rating. again a four-point scalc is used.
, The surveyor rates the followin~ block features to arrive at the over-all
environnental rating: land ase~ street lighting, stree*. parking,
street width, street grade, street maintenance, parkways, traffic,
noise and ~lare, smolce and odors, Fublic transportation, and miscel-
laneous nuisanees. •
Every effort is made ti~ aa;~:eve a high degr~e of uniformity
a~on~ field personnel working on the survey. These measures include
preliminary lectures and training, standardization ratings in which
all personnel rate the same pilot area, periodic group discussion
sessions and rando~ eheck ratings by the field supervisor of forms
turned in by surveyors. •
The rating forms and the printed list of rating criweria nsed in
the survey are attached as Appendix A uf :his report.
39
APPENDlX D
~OUSIi~IC; ~ELE111~ENT
. ~_
. ~~~~
ADOPTED BY SCAG EXECUTIVE COhIMITTEE
. APRIL 8, 1971
The preparaCion ot this report was partly financed through
att urban planning grant fro~ the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, under the provistons of Section
701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended.
40
IV .
HOUSING GOALS
1. To assure a variety of life styles within the regiou and witY~in each of its ~
major geo~raptiical sub-units.
2. To provide opportunity for all segments of the population,. with emphasis
~ on low-income, minority groups, and the elderly to obtain decent housing
and a suitable living environment within each of the region's major
' geographical sub-units. ,
3. To reduce the proportion of income spent on housing including maintenance
for poor and moderate income groups and the elderly to no more than 25%
of their income. '
4. To encourage the maintenance of viable residential neighborhoods nnd in-
creased rehabilitation o blighted and declintng neighborhouds. VVcrk with
taxing authorities to develop a positive taxing program that will encourage
the upkeep of property.
5. To assure the fairness and adequacy of co ublicaimprovementsation aseist-
' ance to persona and families displaced by p
6. To assure the adequate delivery of public services.to all residents, and
• eape~ially to those whose needs are the greatest, To properly consider the
additionalfinancial burdens placed on the public service.jurisdictiona rela-
ting to these housing gouls. This could include the possibility of financially
supporting public services relating to the housing efforts of dties engaged
in implementing these housing goals. ,
7. To encourage the coordination and uniformity in all regulatlons rel'ating to
housing to expedite the construcl.ion of homes for moderate and low income
people.
8. To encourage new construct:on methods and housing types to increase the
supply ot housing for all segments of the population ,
• 9. To ensure housing opportunity in proximity to jabs and daily activities. Also
to encourage job opportunity In proximity to low and moderate income housing.
.LO. To ensure that all housing enhances the total environment and family life
etyles. '
41
r r
. .
.
11. To work with State and Federal officials ¢o take a more realistic view of the
housing problem.
12. To implement existing finaucing ~°ehicles and stimulate tlie development of
innovative financial techniques that will reduce housing,costa.
13. To assure that housing location adequately considers geological hazards and
ecological factora in aiting.
14. To assure that the locar:on of housing dces nut destroy regional recreational
sites or important open space resources.
15. To establlsh workable programa to elimiaate substandard housing and en-
. courage the developmeat of greenbelt areas in those determined to be sub-
standaxd.
J -.. ~
ATTEST
~
~
~
~~~~~
SECR~TARY ANAiiEIM'~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF OAAP~CE ) ss.
CITY OF ANP.H~'~M )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commiasion of the City of Anaheim, do herebv
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City El+~n-
ning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 14, 1973, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., by tnc~
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~D, EARANO, HE1tBST, GAUER, KAY1d00D, ROL3LAND.
NCES:. COMMISSIQNER5: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SEYMOUR~ ~~~''~'
IN WITNESS WFIEREOF, I have ~4ereunto set my hanl this 24th day of May, 1973.
~ A
. ~~~~~ ~
SECtRE'fARY A*L~,•i:l CITY PLANNYNG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0, PC73•111 'Z'