The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolutions - No. 78-63RESOLUTION NO. 78-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF LODI ADOPTING THE GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Lodi is required to adopt a Housing Element to its General Plan as required by Section 65302(c) of the Government Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Lodi City Planning Commission and the Lodi City Council at which time the matter was discussed and ample opportunity given for public comment and discussion; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Lodi City Council that the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Phase II Housing Element as adopted July 23, 1974 together with the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Evaluative Policies for Housing Dispersment, are proper and suitable for guiding the future development of housing and for making adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Lodi does hereby adopt by reference the SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PHASE II HOUSING ELEMENT as adopted July 23, 1974 together with the SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS EVALUATIVE POLICES FOR HOUSING DISPERS- MENT, dated as adopted August 27, 1974 as the Housing Element for the City of Lodi's General Plan; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing documents be used, together with all other existing General Plan Elements to guide housing development within the City until such time as a revised or amended Housing Element is adopted by this Legislative Body, Dated: June 21, 1978 I hereby certify --that Resolution No. 78-63 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 2 1, 1978 by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen - Hughes, Katnich, Katzakian, McCarty and Pinkerton Noes: Councilmen - None Absent: Councilmen - None i ALICE M. REIMCHE CITY CLERK 78-63 Tx -i 9.:: Oat, ` sf kN�a�w5q��+�.=x ! /was■ a7wa N F IMOGE} .. 1 � ''.� L. � �{� �''�� r "..=. � F��1�4r� s 5 f �9 Y..b .5� E" -<a.-P` �� t�'.:i '�q•{ "eS�` c 74k Siv 41 10AM T � f14 e p O M1E lei •-w si , ,f Won x -.. 5 J r 3 , 4.�K is i t�rK =..1, a. -:#r_.,r-m.,. MIA VIM psi Ism �, ,,,xWAS 3:%'" :fig r -' RS*1""* "iwP�'f .°p ," 4b .�. -- a... `":Jti t'B$'s.�':.�'&.-� s#%P•�-_'. kAWA �.'r"'�" uv �_ ..... ...... ..x•"J is 'i�'`�. 1 401 "WA s v3tO�ST�'IP50Z ZSitbsvA Ti=J' 3[JTS ?ate 8 t x a ,o- bna(lr - . " :: . _ . � i: s,iass IN go sabzayi uaQ' v r ` �� '`-Qk��:� • °'- .Z'E .']Y .'�-�a�"�°7 ��.;.y.�a ...,hp,i�tte,ai a r.w � a � i.ws,, ouax zagrm-4-4=ani iu1CAA e 77 FM Ica WRIBOMA 0 0- _0=0 r �w�Qd�I a a a ,g xaga¢aa ^01103 '114 04 a-r4ezb xrag4 =sss a : STA,- ; 3vS` s4uaaautanoe4.6kigA;A- Will v�=auno'uno3: us5:aq, y 3.' _,•4 i � ; � ' �?I;II110� JOiid �BmsuQr�--��i�Ci� �i5�ra ��s�aH �4r Ma: Ki xxoi>¢Dsg 30 TTJ sa>o uo2I -� 370 3a �iJ>-� Ia33 5 �eaag PMIY J z�a �� ` ar $ � shy "'�r �� .��' '��' �� xR �•� tea, :, +.' '�"�` a�;:..ov, -co- a4 _-. r�'*.'•m�"-..�<�i.'� e �:.., ar x=. a�lvi _�3: �. -. .a.....�._3 �.�i�" �':� a, . _ .... f .. ..... ... .x=+ra as ......... .... E EVALUATIVE POLICIES FOR HOUSING DISPERSEMENT SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS BOARD Mark O l i v e r, Chairman Dan Parises Benjamin Schaffer Charles Bott Vern Hanson H a r t Laurence Ron Pol.hemus City of Manteca San Joaquin County city of Dodi City of Stockton City of Tracy City of Ripon City of Escalon Peter D. V e r d o o r n Executive Secretary HOUSING TASK FORCE --WORKABLE PROGRAM COMMITTEE Jose Bernardo, Chairman Wayne Aucutt Roger Barnett Jerry Briscoe Richard C a s t r o Naomi Cochran Ed Cruz Dean DeCarli Michael G amro th Tom Hargis Ray Hasso J. B. Hedrick Sam Itaya Joyce Jacoby Richard C a r r Jan Klinger Gunter Konold J. Don Layson Richard Lopez Don Uetzger Richard Minnick Ray Morrow Annie Neal Joseph Oliver Claude Potter Doug Unruh Gil Vasquez Logan Wilson Ron Katzakian Betty Witmer August 29, 1974 M r. Mark O l i v e r, Chairman San Joaquin County Council of Governments 1850 East Hazelton Stockton, California 95205 Dear Mr. Oliver: The 1973-74 work program of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments states that an affirmative housing plan w i 1 1 be developed as part of its Phase 11 Housing Element. The intent of the plan is to equitably distribute housing for low and moderate income households throughout the county. In lieu of a mathematical formula to accomplish this end, the document submitted herein proposes that housing and housing related projects submitted to the Council of Govern- ments for review and comment under its A-95 procedure be evaluated on the basis of policy considerations which address the needs of low-income residents. In finalizing the Evaluative Policies for Housing Disperse- ment, I wish to express ny gratitude to the Housing Task Force - Workable Program Committee who provided considerable input in the preparation and refinement of this report. Sincerely, PETER D. VERDOORN Executive Director PDV:vg EVALUATIVE POLICIES FOR HOUSING DISPERSEMENT The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and through the auspices of the Council on Intergovernmental Relations, State of California. RESOLUTION SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS [C-0 R-75-13 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GO EVALUATIVE POLICIES FOR HOUSING DISPERSEMENT. WHQZFAS the San Joaquin County Council of Governments has been charged with the responsibility of developing a Housing Element to the General Plan including a Housing Allocation Plan for low and moderate income housing, and WHQZEAS, it was determined that an allocation plan for low and moderate income housing would be impractical and unworkable in San Joaquin County, and WHEREA a series of Evaluative Policies for Housing Disperse- ment was deemed to be more workable and more in keeping with the responsibilities and authority of the Council of Governments, and VJRREAS, such policies would substantially aid the Council in evaluating housing proposals to assure the development of a broad range of housing opportunities for low and medium income families. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that. the San Joaquin County Council of Governments does hereby adopt the Evaluative Policies for Housing Dispersement. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 1974 by the following vote of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments, to wit: AYES = Polhemus, Escalon; Hanson, Tracy; Schaffer, Lodi; and Oliver, Manteca k007W '4ro=- ABSENT: Stockton, San Joaquin County, and Ripon MARK OLIVER, Chairman 4 Peter D. Verdoorn — Executive Director EVALUATIVE POLICIES FOR HOUSING DISPERSEMENT INTRODUCTION The Phase II Housing Element of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments reveals that while new housing is being produced for upper and middle income households, very little i s being produced, either new or rehabilitated, for those whose circum- stances result in limited income. Consequently, this group has no other choice but to live in units which are often deteriorated, too small for their needs, or otherwise inadequate. Additionally, disadvantaged households tend to be housed in neighborhoods characterized by socio-economic decline. Local housing goals address themselves to achieving safe and adequate housing in a variety of types and location for all households regardless of income level. In order to achieve this goal, the Council of Governments must develop policies which will promote a broad range of housing opportunities for disadvantaged households. The purpose of this presentation is to provide policy guidelines to the Council of Governments in its review of funding applications for housing developments and related projects. Generally, these policy guidelines can be categorized into three major types: those dealing with meeting social concern, those dealing with land development concerns, and those dealing with environmental -aesthetic concerns. A secondary purpose of this report is to insure con- sistency with HUD site selection criteria for assisted housing. This will enable local jurisdictions to receive higher funding priority for federal housing, water and sewer, axtd other community development programs. 2. Social Policy Concerns .Assisted housing proposals should be evaluated on the basis of meeting the need for housing assistance, for both renter and owner households, on a planning area by planning area basis. (See Appendix A for methodology.) With the exception of housing for the elderly, the dis- abled, and special housing needs groups, assisted housing should be developed so that it will not concentrate lower income persons and families within a single project or area. Priority should be given to developments that include both subsidized and regular market rate housing within a single planned residential area. The potential for increasing housing opportunities for lower income persons should be evaluated as part of the discussion concerning the development approval process for a 1 1 FHA housing proposals. .Proposals should be examined on the basis of the extent to which they utilize applicable Federal,State and local programs to reduce development costs to house disadvantaged households. .Predominantly residential renewal programs should avoid permanent displacements of residents and neighborhood businesses and preserve community identity. .Relocation assistance should be provided by the State, the County, and the Cities to families and individuals who are displaced. Land Development Policy Concerns Housing projects should be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which they are consistent with, or con- tribute to, the fulfillment of comprehensive plans. Assisted housing should not be developed in buffer locations, in high noise areas, in areas of unattractive or mixed land uses, or in areas that are not adequately serviced with the full range of urban services unless a concerted effort is made to bring the area up to acceptable standards. Priority should be assigned to projects which are accessible to areas which have an adequate range of services and facilities and would, therefore, maximize sound and efficienf investment in public improvements. Major streets and highways should be planned and located so as not to fractionalize neighborhoods. .Assisted housing should be located in areas that are accessible to employment, shopping and recreational facilities and away from areas economically impacted with housing for low income residents. The location and staging of capital improvement projects should be consistent with local housing policies and goals. .Redevelopment proposals should be synchronized with local capital improvement programs to gain maximum benefit from any capital improvement project. 4. Environmental -Aesthetic Policy Concerns .Agricultural land and other open space should be preserved and natural features and resources will be conserved for the aesthetic and economic benefit of t h e community. The extent to which the project significantly affects the environment should be considered for a 1 1 housing proposals. All housing should adhere to the best practical design, site planning and construction standards. Townhouses, duplexes, garden apartments, and scattered site single family homes should be used for family assisted housing. Multi -story dwellings for families with children should be discouraged. . Environmental proplems such as flooding and soil instability will be considered and hazards mitigated prior to location of any housing. Specific Recommendations 1. The Housing Task body to the COG Such review will to local housing to the provision income families. 5. Force should be the citizen review for a 1 1 housing related proposals. consider the projects contribution goals, particularly as they relate of housing for low and moderate 2. The Housing Task Force should provide assistance to developers to enable them to incorporate assisted housing units into their project, especially in those planning areas where the need for assisted housing has not been met. APPENDIX A: HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION 6. HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION Methodology: In estimating the number of households needing some form of housing assistance for each planning area, it was necessary to determine: 1) The total number of renters which would be eligible for assistance on the basis of their annual incomes and which would realize an economic advantage in renting subsidized housing, and 2) The need for some form of housing assistance for homeowners. In deriving the needs of renters, income data was from the census compared to 1969 Section 235-236 income limits by family size for San Joaquin County. The subsidy programs set rental rates at 25% of monthly income and in actuality a household moving into subsidized housing may expect to pay at least 25% of income for rent. Out of the total number of families which qualified for subsidies on the basis of income, there were those which actually were spending less than 25% of income for rent. These households would realize no economic advantage in renting subsidized housing since to do so would actually increase their housing expense. This number must, then. be subtracted from the total number eligible for housing subsidy in order to arrive at the number of eligible households spending more than 25% of income on rent and who can assume to need subsidized housing (since they could improve their economic situation by renting sub- sidized housing). There may, in fact, be families spending less than 25% of their income for rent but living in substandard housing. Consequently, the needs computation for renters represents a minimum number of families needing some form of housing assistance. The extent to which homeowners experienced burdensome housing expenses was more difficult to determine than that for renters because the costs of homeownership are more complex. Such factors as mortgage interest rate, length of ownership and original purchase price, maintenance expenses, quality and location of the home, and benefits from property tax and interest deductions all influence homeownership costs. Nevertheless, an estimate of the number of homeowners burdened by housing expenses was made which recognizes variations in actual housing expenditures. This estimate was based on budget calculations by household size by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. s - t 1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics analyzes costs of living and publishes estimates of the budgets necessary for maintaining various "standards of living." These budgets vary by household size and composition. The budgets necessary for maintaining the lowest level of living for different house- hold sizes was utilized in the estimate. For the purpose of this estimate, it was assumed that a homeowner whose income is less than an amount equal to the Bureau of Labor Statistics low budget minus housing expenses, was considered too poor to maintain his home even if the mortgage is paid off. The resulting computations from these procedures are summarized below: TABLE 1: NEED DETERMINATION FOR ASSISTED HOUSING I Need 11 Area enter Homeowner Total / Total Need S. J. County (Total) 7,777 9.796 27,573 100.0 Stockton 1,761 5.894 17,655 64.0 Lodi 2,720 1,307 4.027 14.6 Tracy 1,061 694 1,755 6.4 Manteca 1,011 878 1,889 6.9 Escalon 358 281 639 2.3 Ripon 235 214 449 1.6 Locke ford -Clements 209 254 463 1.7 Linden -Peters 187 117 364 1.3 Thornton 103 48 15 0.5 S. Delta 132 49 18 0.7 8. o -f- t -h--- Needs Table Table 1 reveals that of the 27,000 households which needed some form of housing assistance in 1970, 64/o were located in the Stockton Planning Area. What this provides is a gauge of whether or not individual planning areas are meeting their need for assisted housing. If, over a period of time, 95% of all funds for assisted housing programs and related projects are confined to the Stockton Planning Area, then the other planning areas clearly are not meeting their responsibilities. A-95 project review by the Council of Governments should take this into consideration. COG should comment on the lack of assisted housing in proposals submitted for their review in these other planning areas and provide technical assistance to developers and to local governments in their efforts to incorporate assisted housing and related projects in their plans. In their review of proposals, COG should also comment on whether responsibilities for assisted housing are being assumed equitably by the City and the County within planning areas with major urban centers. For example, if the City of Stockton, over a period of years provided 95% of the funding for assisted housing programs and related projects while only 71% of the need was located within the City limits, then the County should reassess its funding contribution in providing for the housing needs of lower income residents in the contiguous built up fringe area of the City and in the rural centers of the Stockton planning area. For planning areas with major urban centers, the incorporated -unincorporated needs distribution is as follows: TABLE 2: 1*l� DETERMINATION FOR PLANNING AREAS WITH MAJOR URBAN CENTERS PlanningI Total I Incorporated I Unincorporated Area No_ % No. % NO. % Stockton 17,655 100.0 !2. 606 71.4 5,049 Lodi 4,027 100.0 3, 310 82.2 717 Tracy 1,755 100.0 1,267 72.2 488 Manteca 1,889 100.0 1,092 51.8 797 28.6 17.8 27.8 42.2 phauii HOUSING ELEMENT SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Adopted 7/23/74 The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and through the auspices of the Council of Intergovernmental Relations, State of California. 1850 EASTHAZELTON AVENUE STOC<TON, CA�iFORNiA 95205 TELEPHONE (209) 944-2585 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS August 1974 M r . Mark Oliver, Chairman San Joaquin County Council of Governments 1050 East Hazelton Avenue Stockton, California 95205 Dear Mr. Oliver: The enclosed document is herewith submitted as the Final Draft of the Council of Governments' Phase II Housing Element of the General Plan. This document will provide all local jurisdictions with a basic framework upon which to develop housing programs responsive to local needs. In finalizing this report, I wish to express ny appreciation to the citizens who gave their time and talents in the preparation of the segments of the document. Their contri- bution has helped to make this a meaningful approach to alleviating the housing problems and needs in our area. R ect fu f ly Subm?"11- (,D 6_QJ� PETER D. VERDOOM, Executive Director PDV =eeb Enclosure • COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN • CITIES OF STOCKTON, LODI. TRACY, MANTECA, ESCALON, RIPON 0 RESOLUTION SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 1 CH R-75-05 RESOLLMON ADOPTING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNRIENTS PHASE 11 HOUSING ELEMENT HOUSING ACTION PLAN. WHEREAS, the San Joaquin County Council of Governments has been acutely aware of a definite need for adequate and decent housing throughout San Joaquin County, and W_[ REAS, the COG in its 1973-74 fiscal year work program did undertake to study the magnitude of the problem and the major obstacles and constraints to overcoming the problem, and WHEREAS. the COG did formulate a Housing Action Program which suggests policies or changes in policies which address current housing ills and possible actions which should be invest- igated by local governments to determine feasibility for imple- mentation. NOW THEREFCPE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Joaquin County Council of Governments does hereby go on record as adopting the Phase II Housing Element Housing Action Program. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July 1974 by the following vote to wit: AYES = Supervisor Parises, San Joaquin Co.; Councilmen Hanson, Tracy: Polhemus, Escalon: Schaffer, Lodi; Bott, Stockton and Oliver, Manteca. l'lOES = None ABSENT: Ripon OLIVER, Cb a i n Peter D. Verdoorn Executive Director INTRODUCTION The Housing Element of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments is intended to satisfy both Federal and State requirements for local housing planning. The Federal Housing Act of 1968 requires agencies receiving Comprehensive Planning Assistance to include a Housing Element in the General Plan adopted by each local unit of government. This requirement extends to regional agencies as well as to cities and counties. Similarly, section 65302 of the California Government Code requires a Housing Element as part of city, county, and regional general plans. Much of the responsibility for formulating and implementing housing programs rests with local governments. The regional agency can assist. review, and coordinate the programs of local jurisdictions, but it should not supplant local efforts. The Housing Element of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments will provide a framework for housing programming to commissions and governmental agencies within the housing market area, i.e., San Joaquin County. A primary objective of this effort is to evolve a feasible and practical action program which can be pursued by both the public and private sectors to overcome some of the basic needs in San Joaquin county. The Phase I Housing Element of the San Joaquin County Council of Governments was issued January 26, 1971. It provided a brief overview of housing problems, conditions, and actions currently underway, specified housing goals and included a statement of the role of the Council of Governments in housing. The Phase II Housing Element contained herein carries these introductory remarks into greater analysis and produces an action program designed to overcome perceived deficiencies. The Phase III Housing Element will consider the feasibility and applicability of the actions suggested in the Phase II report and will develop recommendations for implementation. The Phase II Housing Element, for the purpose of this presenta- tion, is essentially divided into three sections: 1) a section concerning housing needs; 2) a section describing obstacles and constraints to effectively meeting need: and 3) an action program designed to overcome observed problems and deficiencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 P_ age PRINCIPAL FINDINGS 1 HOUSING NEEDS 13 Characteristics of the Resident Population 15 Characteristics of the Housing Stock 25 Housing --Income Relationships 33 Projections of Housing Need 41 Special Housing Needs 51 OBSTACLES AND CONSTRAINTS 55 Costs of Meeting the Housing Need 57 Social and Related Problems 65 Government Related Constraints 85 Public Facilities: Water, Sewer Storm Drainage 91 HOUSING ACTION PROGRAM 95 APPENDIX: Tables, Maps, Figures 1 1 7 3 TABLES MAPS FIGURES Table Page Number Number POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 1 Population Characteristics, 1960-1970 119 2 Population Distribution of Citizens Over 65 120 3 Change in Number and Size of Households 121 4 Median Family Income, 1969 122 Map Median Family Incomes Below $5,000 123 Map Median Incomes Below County Median Income 124 5 Changes in Median Family Income, 1959-1969 125 6 Population Below Poverty Level, 1969 126 7 Population Below Poverty Level by cenSUS Tract, 1959 128 Map Population with Incomes Below the Poverty Level 129 8 Families with Incomes Below Poverty Level 130 Map Families with Incomes Below the Poverty Level 131 9 Unrelated Individuals with Incomes Below Poverty Level, 1969 132 10 Persons 65 and over with Incomes Below Poverty Level, 1969 133 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 11 Housing Units, 1960-1970 134 12 Distribution and Ownership of Housing Stock, 1960-1970 135 13 Type of Units Added during 1960's 136 14 units in Structure 137 15 Residential Building Permits, 1970-1973 140 Map Residential Building Permits 141 16 Overcrowding by Census Tract. 1970 142 Map Overcrowding Rates Above the County Average 143 17 Overcrowded and Severely Overcrowded Units 144 18 Vacancy Rate, 1960-1970 145 19 Vacancy Rate by Census Tract, 1970 146 20 Occupied Housing Units by Number Of Persons 147 21 Condition of Housing in Selected Census Tracts 148 22 Substandard Housing Units by Planning Areas, 1970 149 23 Distribution of Year Round Housing Units by Age 150 HOUSNGF-- Nffi RELATIONSHIPS 24 Distribution of Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value, 1970 154 25 Median Home Values by Census Tract, 1970 156 Map Median Home Values in Relation to County Median 157 Map Median Home Values Below the County Median 158 26 Changes in Values of Homes, 1960-1970 159 27 Median Contract Rent by Census Tract, 1970 160 Map Contract Rent Above the County Median 161 28 Gross Rent as a Percentage of Income, 1970 162 PROJECTIONS 29 Planning Area Population Allocation 165 Fig Population Projection 1970-1995 by Area 166 30 Existing and New Households, 1960-1995 167 31 Optimum Housing Needs, 1970-1995 168 32 Current Housing Need, 1970-1975 170 33 Long -Term Housing Need, 1975-1995 171 34 Housing Units by Type, 1970-1995 172 Fig Housing Stock Projection 1970-1995 174 SPECIAL HOUSING NEED 35 Need Determination for Housing Assistance 175 SOCIAL COQ 36 Years of School Years Completed, 1970 176 37 Employment by Sex and Age 177 38 Male and Female Workers by Weeks Worked, 1969 1.78 SUMMARY I POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Racial Distribution Total Population 290.208 100.0 White 203,341 70.0 Spanish 52,260 18.1 Black 15,783 5.4 Other 16,804 6.5 Income Characteristics Median Family Income $ 9.602 100.0 All Families 73,264 100.0 Families Below Poverty 8,179 11.2 All Unrelated Individuals 28,461 100.0 Unrelated Individuals Below Poverty 9,114 32.0 All Households 92,372 1CO.0 Households Below Poverty 12,807 13.9 All Persons 290,208 100.0 Persons Below Poverty 40,576 14.0 All Elderly Persons 29.676 100.0 Elderly Persons Below Poverty 6,208 20.9 II AOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 2,503 3.1 Size of Household 6,323 7.8 All Occupied Units 92,372 100.0 1-3 Person Units 60,391 65.4 4 Person Units 14,440 15.6 5 Person Units 8,916 9.7 6 or More Person Units 8,625 9.3 Mean Household Sire 3.03 100.0 Tenure 24.479 76.2 All Occupied Units 92,372 100.0 Owner Occupied 56,720 61.4 Homeowner Vacancy Rate 0.8 Renter Occupied 35,652 38.6 Rental Vacancy Rate 5.9 Overcrowding Overcrowded Units 8,854 100.0 Spanish 3,,205 36.2 Black 843 9.5 Severely Overcrowded Units 2,552 100.0 Spanish 1,157 45.3 Black 280 11.0 Age of Units All Housing Units 96,627 100.0 Less Than 10 Years Old 25,270 26.2 10 - 20 Years Old 24.775 25.6 20 30 Years Old 17,662 18.3 Over 30 Years Old 28,920 29.P Median Age 19.3 Type of Unit All Housing Units 96,627 100.0 Singles 69,710 86.4 Multiples 10,964 13.6 2 Units 2,138 2.7 3 - 4 Units 2,503 3.1 5 or More Units 6,323 7.8 Building Permits 1970 Thru 1973 All Residential Units 12,303 100.0 Single Family 5,966 46.5 Multiple Family 6,337 51.5 Condition All Units Surveyed 32,128 100.0 Con6ervable 24.479 76.2 Renewable 5,677 17.7 Demolition 1,972 6.1 _, 3 VI SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS Years of School Completed All Adults 25 Years of Age and Over 158,211 100.0 No Schooling 4.574 2.9 III HOUSING -INCOME RELATIONSHIPS 13,600 8.6 Value And Rent 49,518 31.3 All Syvcified Owner Occupied Units 48,259 100.0 Less Than $10000 Value 7,068 14.7 $10000 - $20000 Value 26,343 53.6 $20000 or More Value 14,848 30.9 Median Value $ 16,609 100.0 Median Contract Rent $ 84 54.9 Gross Rent As A Percentage Of Income 31,656 100.0 Specified Renter Unit6 With Less 17.638 55.7 Than $5000 Income 15,682 100.0 Paying 25% Or More 11.520 73.5 $5000 - $999° income 111623 lco.o Paying 25% Or Mere 6,491 58.9 $10000 Or More Income 6,518 100.0 Paying 25% Or More 83 1.3 IV PROJECTIONS Population 1975 313,400 1980 339,000 1985 336,400 1990 392,400 1995 417,500 Optimum Housing Need 1970 ' 1995 Total Additional Units Needed 82,055 100.0 Population Increase 53.452 65.1 Loss of Deteriorated Units 21,385 26.1 Maintain Adequate Vacancy Rate 2,790 3.4 Eliminate Overcrowding 4,428 5.4 Housing Units By Type Housing Stock 1980 124,655 100.0 Singles 92,133 73.9 Multiples 32,522 26.1 Housing Stock 1995 157,233 100.0 single; 109,897 69.9 Multiples 47,336 30.1 V SPECIAL HOUSING NEED Need For Housing Assistance All Households In Need 26,995 100.0 Rental Households 17.777 65.9 Homeowner Households 9,218 34.1 VI SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS Years of School Completed All Adults 25 Years of Age and Over 158,211 100.0 No Schooling 4.574 2.9 4 Years or Less 13,600 8.6 8 Years or Less 49,518 31.3 High School Graduate 78,230 49.4 College.Graduate 12,612 8.0 Median School Years 11.9 Participation In Labor Force All Persons 16 Years of Age and Over 202,796 100.0 In Labor Force 111,367 54.9 Spanish Over 16 31,656 100.0 In Labor Force 17.638 55.7 Black Owen- 16 9,766 100.0 In Labor Force 4.467 45.7 t PRINCIPAL FINDINGS SECTION I; HOUSING NEEDS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESIDENT POPULATION Population Increase (Pages 15 to 18) (Tables 1 and 2) During the Sixties, the County's population increased by sixteen percent. Population in the State increased by twenty-seven percent. The white population (including Spanish) increased by fourteen percent. .The black population increased by thirty-five percent. Other ethnic groups (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indians and others) increased by forty-four percent. .The Spanish population increased by Thirty-two percent. .The three minority groups comprised thirty percent of the population in 1970, but accounted for half of the population growth of the Sixties. .The portion of the population which was over sixty-five years old increased slightly to just over ten percent. The elderly population increased by twenty-three percent over the decade. .The nearly eight thousand families headed by worm comprised a little more than ten percent of all families. Household Size (Pages 18 and 19) (Table 3) There was a noticeable decrease in average household size in the County during the Sixties. Households tend to be larger in the rural areas and smaller in incorporated areas. .Household sizes for the minority population and for families below the poverty level are larger than for the population as a whole. -1- i t - H Income and Poverty Status (Pages 19 to 24) (Tables 4 to 10) .Median family income in 1970 was $9,602. This represented a sixty-three percent increase over the median income in 1960. .Within the County the median family incomes of the cities generally exceed those of the surrounding unincor- porated areas. San Joaquin County has a substantially larger percentage of its individuals and families below the poverty level than the Statewide average. .Fourteen percent of the County's population is below the poverty level. Eleven percent of the families and thirty-two percent of the unrelated individuals are below poverty. .While only comprising ten percent of the population, elderly persons accounted for over fifteen percent of those below the poverty level. ,While minorities comprised thirty percent of the popu- lation, they accounted for over half of the persons below poverty. .The incidence of poverty among families headed by women was nearly four times as great as that for all families. Female -headed families comprised ten percent of a 1 1 families. .But families with female heads below the poverty level accounted for nearly forty percent of the families below poverty. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING STOCK Changes in Number and Type (Pages 25 to 27) Tables 11 to 15) .The number of housing units in the County increased by twenty percent during the Sixties. -2- x j .Over the decade the proportions of occupied units by tenure shifted slightly. In 1970, renter households accounted for nearly forty percent of a 1 1 occupied units in the County. During the Sixties just over half of the units con- structed were single family dwelling units. The proportion of units in multiple family structures increased from thirteen percentto nearly twenty percent. .Building permit data for 1970 through 1973 reveal that nearly half of new units continue to be built in multiple family structures. ,Approximately one out of every six building permits since 1970 for single family dwellings were for mobilehomes. Overcrowding (Page 28) (Tables 16 and 17) .Although the incidence of overcrowded units decreased slightly during the Sixties, at the time of the 1970 census nearly one out of every ten households in the County was overcrowded. .The Spanish population comprised eighteen percent of the total population, but accounted for forty-five percent of the population in overcrowded units. Vacancy Rate (Pages 28 t o 30) (Tables 18 and 19) .The relatively low vacancy rates in the County indicate that there is some lack of market flexibility. Persons per Occupied Housing Unit (Pages 30 and 31) Table 20) .The proportion of units occupied by one to three persons increased over the past decade to comprise two-thirds of all occupied units. ;am Condition and Age of Housing (Pages 31 and 32) (Tables 23 to' 23) Approximately six percent of the 1970 housing stock is in seriously deteriorating condition and in need of replacement. .The incidence of housing units which are seriously deteriorated is significantly greater in the unincorporated areas than in the incorporated portions of areas surveyed. .The median age of year round housing units in the County increase over the decade in spite of loss to the existing housing stock and significant new construction. HOUSING INCOME RELATIONSHIPS Increase in Cost of Housing and Income (Pages 33 and 34) (Tables 24 t o 26) .Although the increase in median family income during the Sixties exceeded that of median value of owner -occupied units, it was significantly less than the increase in median contract rent. Rent and Income (Pages 34 to 37) (Tables 27 and 28) .Of all households paying more than twenty-five percent of their income for gross rent, eighty-five percent earned less than five thousand dollars. A 1 1 rental households earning less than five thousand dollars accounted for less than half of all rental households. .There is a higher incidence of excessive rent payments in relation to income among the elderly, households headed by women, and minorities than among lower income households as a whole. Homeownership and Income (Pages 37 to 40) .It is estimated that one out of every six owner households had incomes too low to adequately maintain their homes, IE .One person households and large households containing six or more persons have notably higher incidences of inadequate incomes for home maintenance than other household sizes. .Three out of every four one-person households with incomes inadequate for home maintenance are elderly persons. PROJECTIONS OF HOUSING NEED Future Population (Pager 41 and 43) (Table 29) .It is estimated that between 1970 and 1995, the population of San Joaquin County w i 1 1 increase by approximately 127,000. .Population per occupied housing unit is projected to decline from 3.03 in 1970 to 2.79 by 1995. Housing Needs (Pages 43 to 50) (Tables 30 to 34) Over fifty thousand additional housing units w i 11 be needed by 1995 just to accommodate anticipated popu- lation growth. In effect, at least one additional unit w i 1 1 have to be constructed for every two which existing in 1970. .Over twenty thousand units will need to be constructed by 1995 to replace delapidated units. .Over four thousand units are needed to alleviate existing overcrowding of housing units. .Nearly three thousand additional units will be needed through 1995 to maintain a vacancy rate adequate to provide reasonable market flexibility. .A total of over eighty thousand units need to be con- structed to adequately house the 1995 population of San Joaquin County. This represents eighty-five percent of the existing 1970 housing stock. .Nearly half of the units to be constructed by 1995 can be expected to be in multiple family structures. -5- The portion of units in multiples is expected to increase from twenty percent to thirty percent by 1995. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS (Pages 51 to 53) (Table 35) .Nearly ten thousand households which own their homes have incomes inadequate for home maintenance and require some form of housing assistance. Over half of these households are one or two person households, Over seventeen thousand lower income rental households would benefit from housing assistance. Sixty percent of these households in need of assistance are one or two person households. The total of over twenty-seven thousand lower income households in the County which need some form of housing assistance represent thirty percent of all households. .The total of nearly ten thousand single person house- holds requiring assistance account for over one-third of all households in need of housing assistance. These disadvantaged one person households represent over half of all single person households. SECTION It: OBSTACLES AND CONSTRAINTS COSTS OF MEETING THE HOUSING NEED IN THE COUNTY (Pages 57 t o 63) 'The cost of an average 1000 square foot tract house built in the County in 1974 would be about $25,000, not including land. Comparison of building permit data for 1960 and 1969 reveals an average inflation rate of construction cost of a house of about 5 percent per year. However, in the past several years, the inflation rate has been con- siderably greater than this annual average rate. • Changes in median family income from 1960 to 1970 exceeded changes in the median value of homes. Countywide, home value went up 54% and median family income went up 63%. However, there were certain areas in which changes in income lagged behind the increased cost of homeownership and of renting. These areas were characterized by concen- trations. of lower income households. Assuming this trend continues, then without some form of assistance, the goal of meeting the long term housing need in the County will be seriously jeopardized in these areas. *Examination of redevelopment projects completed or underway indicates that rehabilitation undertaken on a public project basis costs less per unit than the typical private new development. Estimated average cost of rehabilitation in Stockton's Knights Addition was between $9000 and $10,000. By comparison, a new home at that time had an average cost of between $18,000 and $20,000. Similarly, bringing units in the County up to code cost, on the average, about one-third the cost of a new unit. This was evidenced in i the FACE projects undertaken. .Major factors which increase the value of land for develop- ment in the County are availability of water and sewer service, zoning and location. 'The cost of land is a relatively less important factor in higher housing costs in the County than the cost of materials and labor. 'The major economic factor in residential construction is the cost of building materials. Recent increase in material costs have not only increased the cost of new houses, but have caused an appreciation in the value of existing houses resulting in an overall increase in the cost of housing. t 'As long as the demand for housing remains high and the supply of building materials relatively scarce, material will continue to be a major cost in providing housing. SOCIAL AND RELATED PROBLEMS IN MEETING THE HOUSING NEED Education (Pages 65 to 67) (Table 36) The amount of education a person obtains affects this level of income and freedom of occupational choice. Over twenty-eight percent of the adult population of San Joaquin County have an eighth grade education or less. The corresponding percentages for minorities is con- siderably higher. -7- The level of educational attainment is somewhat lower for the County than for the State. The educational level of minorities is significantly below that for the County population as a whole. Employment (Pages 67 to 69) (Tables 37 and 38) The high rates of unemployment and underemployment in San Joaquin County precludes a significant portion of the population from qualifying for home financing or having the resources to maintain a house in good condition There is a higher incidence of unemployment and under- employment among the Black and Spanish populations than among the white population. Other Social Problems (Pages 70 to 83) *The problems of meeting the housing needs of the minority communities within the County are compounded by the fact that minority residents perceive a sense of oppression conditioned by institutional racism. *The opinion was expressed by many residents interviewed that the deterioration of housing units in lower income areas was due not only to a lack of money to make repairs but also to a lack of knowledge concerning ordinance up -keep. *The experience of residents in low income areas has been that financing home purchase or construction is very difficult (in south or east Stockton and in the unincorporated area adjacent to the southerly city limits) . In addition, these residents (in the South Stockton Area) have expressed difficulty securing home improvement loans. This situation is believed to be attributable to the application by banks and lending institutions of stricter loan criteria in these areas than is warranted. There is the belief that these lending practices effectively discrim- inate against minorities and persons with moderate incomes who choose to live in neighborhoods with high ethnic concentrations. IM •The present alternative to living in an area where loans are not freely granted is to move. To many middle income, minority residents, this presents an undue hardship because they feel that the cost of housing would be proportionately higher with no compensating increase in amenities. -The expectations of lower income households often are not met by the present housing delivery system. Among this group, there was a high demand expressed for new houses with modern kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms and extra bathrooms. Residents interviewed also expressed a preference for single family and townhouse type of residential development and opposed "projects" and any other form of intense development which tends to segregate people by race or income. Without some signifi- cant change in the housing delivery system, housing of the kind desired cannot be provided at a cost which these households can afford. • The needs of lower income households have not been quantitatively met by federally sponsored housing programs, although some programs have been adequate in quality. 'Although assisted scattered site housing is considered particularly beneficial by low income families, it has been hampered in its application because of local opposition. -minority residents have stated that in areas of their oven ethnic concentration, there is a lack of neighborhood identity and involvement with the total community. 'The level of public and private services was felt by residents to be inadequate in lower income areas. of particular concern are transportation, police, shopping facilities, streets and gutters, recreation, education and general public maintenance. GOVERNMENT RELATED CONSTRAINTS (Pages 85 to 89) • The withdrawal of federal funding support for most housing programs has seriously compromised the ability of local jurisdictions to provide housing for lower income families. *Although County and city roles in housing are established by the State, the State has not provided funding support for housing programs. In addition, it has not utilized existing policies, nor amended or formulated documents which would address base housing problems. For example, the taxing policies of the State are ad hoc and related only to collecting revenue, not the needs and functions of revenue. •Local governmental policies are often in conflict with stated housing goals. Governmental actions and policies directly affect the cycle of depreciation in neighborhoods. In this regard, the following should be noted: .Residents have complained that public services are inadequate or even absent in areas of resi- dential decline while capital improvements are readily extended in new growth areas. Data from the Stockton Neighborhood Analysis Study supports the contention that South Stockton has suffered from population decline and benign neglect while neighborhoods to the north are encouraged to grow. Zoning, particularly that for industry, is often unrealistic and does not represent where development is likely to occur. In existing residential neighbor- hoods, such zoning fosters residential decline. Other development regulations may unnecessarily contribute to the added cost of housing. Although large setbacks, wide streets, sidewalks on bath sides and underground drainage are preferable, the question arises whether they are necessary when a large percentage of the population is not even housed in adequate structures. .City initiated annexations have sometimes failed because cities have not adequately responded to the concerns of residents regarding the consequences of annexation. Residents of unincorporated fringe areas have expressed a desire for the benefits of being part of an adjacent city but fear, often erroneously, that such services will greatly increase their costs. -10- 0 PUBLIC FACILITIES: WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINAGE (Pages 91 to 93) *Overdraft of the underground reservoir has caused problems of water quality and supply in various areas of the County. This has forced affected communities to seek supplemental surface water supplies. This will mean a substantial monthly cost increase to the average residential user. *The problems associated with liquid waste treatment have had an adverse affect on residential development. .Much of the urban fringe area around cities is on septic tanks which have many problems associated with their use, particularly contamination of wells. Although subdivisions without sewer service are no longer permitted, subdivisions with package treatment plants are still allowed. Such plants also have a number of operational problems which are as yet unresolved. For example, in a number of instances adequate effluent disposal systems have not been incorporated. Regional sewer treatment facilities which would facilitate the provision of services to areas currently blighted because they lack sewers have inherent problems of cost and capacity. Trunk lines, individual connections, pumping stations, etc., are needed and w i 1 1 cost a great deal of money. In addition, some cities, which have assumed the responsi- bility esponsi- bility as regional treatment centers in response to federal funding support have reached treatment plant limits or must satisfy more rigid treatment require- ments. Before additional residential development can be permitted, adequate plant capacity must be built. *Adequate storm -water disposal presents cost problems in older areas of cities and in residential areas not contiguous to existing development. In the older area of cities there is a need for an improved drainage system. However, in many cases, property owners cannot afford the cost. In areas which resi- dential development has skipped over large vacant parcels of land, public facilities are provided at greater cost than that for contiguous development. These increased costs are usually borne by affected homeowners and in some instances by cities. -11- . b:.-�.,T: �v.r_:'��.s-.dti��a�,..-;�w.-x.;. �„-. :.. �. .:.::.: ,; _.:. _-��rie�e _� «._ -.. ..-,.�.,; err, �."'Ek'. .:'s�h'�e�:., fc:k��.� �..� _ _ Y -4-11f. T.,,,: INTRODUCTION The Needs .Section of the report has several. -basic objectives First, to examine the population now being- housed and to deter- mine the size of the population to be housed in the Study Area'by 1995. This data will provide a measure of the' demand for housing. Second, this section will examine the character- istics of the misting housing stock. Third, it will complete '4'F'the analysis of the quantity and quality' of housing base that' w i 11 be built upon in the future. Fourth, the housing stock basew,ill be -com•pareaF to the demand: for hous3ngaleulate� dram the population analysis and projection to estimate housg needs to 1995.3< v,� : mow* :: -14-- CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION The characteristics and potential size of the resident popu- lation in an area are key determinants in projecting housing need. • POPULATION INCREASE General Profile Based on the U.S. Census of Population and Housing, San Joaquin County had a population of 290,208 in 1970. Notably, 60.7 percent of this total was located in the Stockton Planning Area (a nap of the Planning Areas nay be found in the Appendix). Over the decade of the 1960's. there has been a 16.1 percent increase in the population of the County. This translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.6 percent per year. During this sane period, the population of the State of California grew 27 percent or 2.7 percent per year. 400 c 300 0 z 200 a 100 CL 0 0 TOTAL POPULATION i9i0 1970 SAM JOAQUIN COUNTY 1960 249,989 1970 290,208 CHANGE 40,219 % CHANGE 161% The white population (including Spanish population) experienced an absolute increase of 30,379 from 1960 to 1970. The growth rate averaged 1.4 percent per year. aW-0 300 0 0 0 z 200 a 100 d ! 0° WHITE POPULATION ( INCL. SPANISH POPULATION) 1960 1970 SAW JOAOUIN COUNTY 1960 1970 C ANGE % a'mm 225,242 255,621 30,379 13.5% The Black population in the County increased by 4,099, growing from 11,684 in 1960 to 15,783 in 1970. The growth in the Black population was more than two and a half times the growth in the White population (35.1 percent versus 13.5 percent). The annual growth rate was 3.5% per year. Significantly, over 93 percent of the Black residents of the County in 1970 resided in the Stockton Planning Area. 16 BLACK POPULATION 0 1960 1974 Soli JOAgUN COUNTY 1960 1970 CHANGE % CHANGE 11684 15783 4099 35.1% Residents in the County which are categorized as "other" (Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Indians, others) added 5,741 people during 1960-1970. This group grew 43.9 percent, or experienced an average annual growth rate of 4.4 percent. 20 OTHER POPULATION 19" WFO SAN "QUO COUNTY -16- 1960 1970 CHANGE % CHANGE 13063 18804 5741 43.9% a The growth in the Spanish population (i.e., Spanish surname or Spanish language residents) in the County cannot be exactly determined since data elements from 1960 to 1970 are not comparable. However, the born in Mexico data does provide us with one estimate of the growth of the Spanish population. o 20 0 0 z 5 to BORN IN MEXICO 1960 1970 SAN 4OAOUIN COUNTY 1960 1970 CHANGE % CHANGE 13800 18246 4446 32.2% For estimating growth trends of the Spanish population, it may be assumed that this trend would be no less than the increase noted by the population that was born in Mexico, 32.2 percent. In 1960 the Spanish surname population in the County totaled 30,585 people. Using the growth rate of the born in Mexico population, the minimum relatable Spanish population in the County would be 40,433. Using this estimate of Spanish growth, the population composition for the County would be: 20 16 0 0 3 12 0 � a J 7 4 if 4 O DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL GROWTH WHITE SPANISH BLACK OTHERS POPI11 ATlnnleTlnN WHITE (EXCL. SPAN, SURNAMED1 SPAN. SURNAMED BLACK OTHERS --17 — OF TOTAL 1960 1970 CHANGE GROWTH 194657 215188 20531 5LO 30585 40433 9898 24.5 11684 15783 4099 10.2 13063 18804 5741 143 Based upon this ethnic distribution, the growth of the three minority groups represented 49 percent of the total County population growth although they constituted only 29.9 percent of the total 1970 population. Elderly From 1960 to 1970, the elderly population (i.e., those over 65) grew by 5,560 people. This represents an increase of 23.1 percent over the decade, or an average annual rate of growth of 2.3 percent. During this period, the 30.0 Z 25.0 0 0 0 M-0 15.0 x 0 i 10.0 4 5.0 0 ELDERLY POPULATION 1960 1970 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 1960 24116 1970 29676 CHANGE 5560 % CHANGE 23.1 percentage of the population which was elderly increased from 9.6 percent to 10.2 percent. Families Headed by Wong Unfortunately, data concerning families headed by women was unavailable in 1960. In 1970 there were 7.777 families headed by women This represented 10.6 percent of all families. • HOUSEHOLD SIZE There was a noticeable decrease in household size during the 1960's from 3.15 to 3.03. This decrease is reflected in all planning areas, except Lockeford- Clements where the household size stayed essentially the same. A comparison of household sizes by planning area reveals some significant trends: households tend to be larger in more rural areas and smaller in the -is- r incorporated areas The Stockton and Lodi Planning Areas have significantly smaller household sizes, attributable to the much smaller household sizes in the cities of Stockton and Lodi. The household size of the minority population tends to be larger than the average for total County households. A com- parison of data for Black and Spanish populations reveals that household size is 14 percent greater for the Black population and 25 percent greater for the Spanish population than the 1970 County average. Household size of families below poverty level was also significantly greater than the 1970 County average. For all families below poverty level household size was 3.85. For Black and Spanish families below poverty level, household sizes were 4.44 and 4.53 respectively, or nearly 50 percent greater than the County -wide average. •.0 3.0 Z 2 b 'A 21.0 w d 1.0 O • INCOME Median Income HOUSEHOLD SIZE S.J. CO. 1970 IQ COUNTY AVERAGE © BELOW POVERTY LEVEL Q BLACK BELOW P.L. T SPANISH BELOW P.L. 3.03 3.85 4.44 4.53 too 127 147 150 Median income figures for the County and planning areas provide an indication of how the population divides by income. The median income figure is the middle of the income distribution e.g, half of the families earn less and half of the families earn more than the median figure. It is difficult to compare income figures over a decade because of inflation, however, such a comparison provides a basis for determining if improve- ments in the financial condition of the population occurred. -19- A comparison of median incomes in the County for 1959 and 1969, for example, reveal a 63 percent increase over the decade. 1960 1970 SAN JOAOUIN COUNTY MEDIAN INCOME 1960 1970 CHANGE % CHANGE 5889 9602 3713 63.0 Some planning areas had greater median incomes than the County. The Lodi and Manteca -Lathrop Planning Areas had the highest medians in 1969 in the County. Comparing median incomes of cities with the unincorporated areas surrounding them reveals that family median incomes in cities generally exceed that of the surrounding unincorporated areas. However, the median income in the City of Ripon is lower than that of its unincor- porated areas. In the Stockton, Lodi, Tracy and Manteca -Lathrop Planning Areas, the unincorporated areas experienced a greater percentage increase in median family income than the cities. Poverty Income The 1970 Census, for the first time, provided information on the poverty status of different segments of the population. This data provides us with an insight into the capacity of these people to provide adequate housing for themselves. The census classifies families, unrelated individuals, and total population as being above or below the poverty level using a poverty index which provides a range of income cutoffs adjusted to take into account such factors as family size, sex and age of family head, the number of children, and farm -non-farm residence. For example, the poverty thresholds used in the 1970 Census were $3,743 for a non-farm family of four, and $1,834 for unrelated individuals --persons either living alone or with others to whom they are not related. -20- In 1970 poverty status in the County and in the State was as follows: POPULATION BELOW P.L. NO. %TOTAL FAMILIES BELOW P.L. UNREL. NOV BELOW P.L. NO. %TOTAL NO. %TOTAL STATE of CALIFORNIA 2152716 10.6 421200 8.4 563218 24.2 SAN JOAOUIN CO. 40576 14.0 8179 112 9114 32.0 The data indicates that San Joaquin County was substantially above the Statewide averages in all poverty categories. Of the total 1970 County population, 40,576 were below the poverty level. There were 8,179 families below poverty level, or 11.2 percent of all families. Unrelated individuals below poverty level accounted for a significantly high 32 percent of all individuals, or 9,114 people. Special Groups and Poverty Income A closer examination of families, persons, and unrelated individuals below poverty level reveal that special groups are particularly affected. These groups are the elderly (i. e. , those over 65). minority groups and families headed by women. Poverty status of the elderly in 1970 was as follows: POPULATION BELOW PL. I FAMILIES BELOW P L. I UNREL. NOV BELOW P L . No. %PbV.LeveiRip. Na % PokL&M PbP4 Na %Pbv.Level Pbp TOTAL POPULATION 40575 IOO.O 8179 IOQO 9114 100.0 ELDERLY 6208 15.3 1407 17.2 3883 42.6 The data shows that there were 6208 elderly persons who were below the poverty level in 1970. These elderly poor constituted -21- 15.3 percent of a 11 persons below poverty level. The data also reveals that one out of every five elderly persons was below the poverty level in 1970. In addition, while only 10 percent of the population were classified as elderly, over 42 percent of all unrelated individuals below poverty level were elderly. The data concerning minorities shows that they also comprise a disproportionate share of the poverty population in relation to their share of the County population. POPULATION BELOW PL. FAMILIES BELOW P. L. UNREL. INDV. BELOW PL. N0. % Pt- Level Pop. No. % PokLevel Pb;), No. % Pok Level Pop. TOTAL POPULATION 40576 100.0 8179 100.0 9114 100.0 MINORITY) 20559 50.7 3938 48.1 3070 33.7 While minorities comprised 29.9 percent of the 1970 population, they accounted for over 50 percent of this population below poverty level. The number of minority residents below poverty level was 20,559. Another significant finding was the dispro- portionate share of minority families below poverty level. Of the 8,179 families below poverty level, 3,938 or 48.1 percent were minority families. Other interesting relationships become apparent when we examine the proportion of the population of each racial group which was below the poverty level. lzncludes Black, Spanish language or Spanish surname residents and "other" (i.e., Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, etc.) 1 -22- 1 30 J W Z5 W �20 Uj W R 15 310 0 W M 5 0 0 0 C PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF EACH RACE BELOW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL WMiTE RACK SMISIA OTHER PERCENTAGE OF FAM l L(E S OF EACH RACE BELOW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL WHITE SLACK SPAMSM OTHER NO % GROUP TOTAL 40576 14.0 WHffE • 20017 9.8 BLACK 5145 325 SPANISH 12136 232 OTHER 3278 17.4 PERCENTAGE OF FAM l L(E S OF EACH RACE BELOW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL WHITE SLACK SPAMSM OTHER * EXCLUDES SPANISH SURNAME OR SPANISH LANGIUMM RESIDENTS The bar charts and data indicate that in relation to their respective populations, minorities experience a greater incidence of poverty than both the population as a whole and the "White" population. While only one out of every ten While residents (9.8 percent) was below poverty level, one out of every three Black residents (32.5 percent), one out of every five Spanish residents (23.2 percent), and one out of every six "other" residents (17.4 percent) were below the poverty level -23-- N0. % GROUP TOTAL 8179 11.2 WHITE 4241 7.7 BLACK 1015 30.6 SPANISH 2365 21.1 OTHER 558 15.7 * EXCLUDES SPANISH SURNAME OR SPANISH LANGIUMM RESIDENTS The bar charts and data indicate that in relation to their respective populations, minorities experience a greater incidence of poverty than both the population as a whole and the "White" population. While only one out of every ten While residents (9.8 percent) was below poverty level, one out of every three Black residents (32.5 percent), one out of every five Spanish residents (23.2 percent), and one out of every six "other" residents (17.4 percent) were below the poverty level -23-- The situation is similar when we consider the percentage of families of each race which were below poverty level. The incidence of poverty among Black families (30.6 percent) was approximately four t i m e s greater than among White families (7.7 percent). Among Spanish families, the incidence of poverty was 21.1 percent, or nearly three times greater than among White families. Among other families, the percentage of families below poverty level was 15.7 percent. Families headed by women also experienced a significantly high incidence of poverty. In 1970, there were 3,133 families FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL POPULATION I FAMILIES HEADED BY WOMEN headed by women which were below the poverty level. This number represented 38.3 percent of all families below poverty level. In addition, the incidence of poverty among families headed by women was nearly four times the rate for all families. ,0 -35 1 �30 25 20 is 10 .. S a PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES HEADED BY WOMEN BELOW POVERTY LEVEL ALL FAK FN& TEAM N womo NO. %GROUP TOTAL FAM 8179 11.2 FAM, HEADED 3133 40.3 BY WOMEN J -24- 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING STOCK Analysis of data on the current housing stock is essential in order to draw conclusions about the nature of housing in the County. This examination will afford a perspective on the future supply and demand for housing. *CHANGES IN NUMBER AND TYPE . Housing Stock From 1960 to 1970 total year round housing units in the County increased by 15,866. 'This represents an average annual rate of growth of approximately 21/o per year. ALL HOUSING UNITS 1960 —1970 . 100 0 o 901960 80697 S tib 1970 96563 i eo CHANGE 15866 n 7O % CHANGE 19.7 z 60 W 1960 t970 Accompanying this growth, there was a shift in the relative positions of owner occupied units and renter occupied units. f in 1960, owner occupied units constituted 63.6 percent 47,475 units of all occupied housing units. 1970, this ( ) p g By � percentage had declined to 61.4 percent (56,720 units), indicating an increasing demand for multiple family renter units. OWNER -RENTER STATUS 1960 1970 % OWNER % FaMER 1960 63.6 36.4 1970 61.4 38.6 CHANGE —2.2 2.2 1W46'z Furthermore, of the 17,715 occupied housing units added from 1960 to 1970, only 9,245, or 52.2 percent, were owner occupied units. DISTRI24TIO11 OF •TAL GRO111T.O. -.• - • 1N FISIV1IN1V 1NIV I Type of Housing Unit OCCUPANCY %VITAL STATUS 1960 1970 CHANGE GROWTH OWNER 47475 56720 9245 52.2 RENTER 27182 35652 8470 47.8 There are four basic types of units for which census data is available. Single family units (including mobilehomes) , duplexes, small multiple family units (triplexes and four- plexes) , and large multiple family units containing more than five units. Examination of census data and building permit data provides insight into the changing demand for types of dwelling units in the County and in various planning areas. TOTAL % SINGLE % 2-4 UNIT % 5 OR MORE UNITS FAMILY STRUCTURFS UNIT STRUCTURFS 1960 80,674 86.4 5.7 7.8 1970 96,627 80.6 8.4 11.0 Despite the fact that in 1970, 80.6 percent of the housing units in the County were single family units, single family units accounted for only 51.4 percent of the increase in housing units over the decade. Of the 15,953 units added from 1960 to 1970, single family units comprised 8,196 and multiple family units 7,757. The percentage of multiple units (2 or more units in structure) increased from 13.5 percent overall (7.8 percent in 5 or more unit structures) to 19.4 percent (11.0 percent in 5 or more unit structures). -26- • w• 0 0 0y z_ n r_4 03 Z w 0 0 S O DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL GROWTH 17 —1970 I-F 2 OR YORE H. u. % OF TOTAL BY TYPE 1960 1970 CHAt+ M GROWTH I -F 69710 77906 8196 51A 2 OR 10964 18721 7757 48.6 MORE Building permit data from 1970 to 1973 confirms this trend toward the construction and increased demand for multiple family housing in the County. During this period, 46.8 percent of new residential construction were multiple family units. If we discount mobilehomes, the percentage of single family units was only 44 percent. Significant also to this discussion of housing unit type is the fact that mobilehomes during the 1970-1973 period con- stituted 17 percent of all single family units, or, in other words, approximately one out of every 6 single family units was a mobilehome. This trend was most conspicuous in 1972 and 1973 when 29 percent and 20 percent respectively of a 1 1 building permits for single family units were for mobilehomes. The most striking thing about the distribution of housing units by type for the more urbanized planning areas was the contrast between the cities and unincorporated areas in 1970.. For example, in the Stockton Planning Area, 93 percent of the unincorporated area's housing and 66.7 percent of the City's stock were single family units. Furthermore, 20 percent of the City's stock was in large multiple units (5 or more units per structure) while only 3 percent of the unincorporated area's units were in such structures. This pattern holds true for the other urbanized planning areas. Generally, the less urbanized and unincorporated planning areas continued to be dominated by single family units in 1970. Higher density residential land uses seem to be attracted to the cores of the more urbanized planning areas. -27- • OVERCROWDING Overcrowding, as defined by the Census, occurs when there is more than one person per habitable room. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per habitable room. The incidence of overcrowding in 1960 and in 1970 for the County was: TOTAL NUMBER OF OCCUPIED OVERCROWDED UNITS UNITS 1960 94,657 8,840 1970 92,372 8,854 PERCENT PERCENT SEVERELY OVERCROWDED OVERCROWDED 11.8 NA 9.6 2.8 While overcrowding decreased from 1960 to 1970 in the County, it still was a major problem. A t the t i m e of the 1970 Census, nearly one out of every 10 households in the County were overcrowded. In addition, of the 8,854 units overcrowded in 1970, 2,552 were severely overcrowded. Forty-five percent of these severely overcrowded units were occupied by persons of Spanish language or Spanish surname, although this group comprised only 18.1 percent of the 1970 population. *VACANCY RATES The vacancy rate is the ratio of available vacant units to all available units. The homeowner vacancy rate is the ratio of all available vacant units for sale to all units available for homeownership. The rental vacancy rate is expressed as the ratio of all vacant rental units to a 1 1 units for rent. An acceptable vacancy rate is frequently considered to be between 3.0 and 4.0 percent. A vacancy rate lower than this indicates a shortage of available housing units and a lack of market flexibility. Examination of vacancy rate information shows that the vacancy rate for the County declined markedly from 1960 to 1970. In 1970, the rate for the County was 2.8 percent indicating that there is some lack of market flexibility. The 1970 vacancy rate for the County for units for sale is significantly below normal, while the rate for units for rent was notably above the acceptable range. -28- J 1 VACANCY RATES --SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OVERALL HOMEOWNER RENTAL 1960 3.8 18 7.4 1970 2.8 0.8 5.9 CHANGE —1.0 —0.8 —1.5 Of greater impact, perhaps, is the fact that, although there were 17,425 more available housing units in 1970 than in 1960, there were 335 less homeowner vacant units and only 45 more rental vacant units. Thus, the demand for housing, especially homeowner housing, has greatly intensified since 1960. 3.0 20 1.0 a CHANGE IN VACANT UNITS 1960-1970 "M Ino Ma 19M Mo Ino TOIfL TOTAL NOME HOME OEM I RENT VACANT UNITS Homeowier Totol Vacant Vacant Units U++its(Yr..Round) 1960 2937 1970 2647 Change -290 %Charge —9.9 Homeowier Rental Vacant Units Vbcw t"" 766 2171 431 2216 -335 45 -43.7 21 Without exception, the vacancy rate for units for sale was well below normal in all planning areas. The vacancy rate for units for rent was significantly above the acceptable level in the more urbanized planning areas. In the less urbanized planning areas, the rental vacancy pattern was less well defined. Although an acceptable vacancy rate may indicate adequate market flexibility in any given area, it may not meet housing demand in specific areas. It may not provide adequate freedom of choice within rental and housing value categories in specific neighborhoods. For example, although the overall vacancy rate in the Stockton Planning Area was 3.0 in 1970, certain -29- census tracts, or neighborhoods, had significantly lower rates. Median Values and Rents In 1970 the median value of owner occupied units and the median monthly contract rent for renter occupied housing units were: MEDIAN MEDIAN VALUE RENT CALIFORNIA $23,100 $ 113 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 16,500 84 Thus, San Joaquin County was significantly below the Statewide averages for the values of homes and monthly rent paid. +PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT The decrease in household size during 1960-1970 from 3.15 to 3.03 was attributable to the fact that, over the decade, there was a three percent increase in the percentage of units with three or fewer occupants and a decrease in the percentages of four, five and six or more person households. TOTAL OCCUPIED % 1-3 %4 % 5 % 6 OR HOUSING PERSON PERSON PERSON MORE PERSON UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 1960 74,657 62.3 16.6 11.0 10.I 1970 92,372 65.4 15.6 9.7 9.3 CHANGE 17,715 3.1 -1D - 13 - .6 Of the 17,715 occupied housing units added from 1960 to 1970, 13,877 units, or 78.3 percent, were 1-3 person units. Thus, the data indicates an apparent and increasing demand for housing units which will accommodate three or less person households. -30- J i 1 .1 14.0 Mo 1Q0 0 0 6.0 6.0 a 4.0 82.0 0 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL GROWTH 1960 -1970 1 -3 4 5 6+ *CONDITION AND AGE OF HOUSING OCCUPIED OF PERSON S S 1960 1970 CHANGE o TOTAL 1-3 46514 60391 13877 78,3 4 12372 14440 2058 11.7 5 8234 8916 682 3.8 6t 7537 8625 1088 61 Condition of Existing Housing A 1 1 estimates of future housing needs must be based on the quantity and condition of the existing housing stock. Unfortunately, the 1970 census did not classify units by condition. Consequently, in neighborhoods where the most severe housing conditions were known to exist, a detailed condition survey was conducted to provide accurate data. 1 These neighborhoods were located almost exclusively in the Stockton and Tracy Planning Areas. In other planning areas, data concerning condition was based on the information pro- vided by local planning departments and on condition data contained in the 1969 Special Census of the unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. Using this composite approach, the following picture of the condition of the housing stock emerged: l) Over 6,100 housing units in the County need to be replaced. This number accounted for approxi- mately six percent of the total 1970 housing stock. 2) The majority, 72 percent, of the seriously deteriorating housing in the County was located in the Stockton Planning Area. The number of Housing units was 4.387. J -For a discussion concerning methodology for the Housing Condition Survey, see the publication Housinq Condition Survey Coding Manual. -31-- 3) In the planning areas condition surveyed, the per- centage of housing units which were seriously deteriorated was significantly greater in the unincorporated area than in the incorporated portion of the planning areas. With respect to this last point, one contributing factor to this situation was the time gap between the adoption of a uniform building code in the County and cities. The City of Stockton adopted its code in 1927, while the County d i d not adopt its code until 1953. Similarly, the City of Tracy implemented such an ordinance ten years before the County's went into effect. Age of Housing Median age of year rauna nousa_ng units in the County increased from 17.9 to 19.3 years. This increase came in spite of a net loss of 9,328 housing units which existed in 1960. To explain, in 1960 there were 36,235 housing units over 21 years of age. Ten years later, there were only 28,920 housing units (now over 31 years old) remaining, a loss of 7,315 units. Similarly, 1,960 units in the 11-20 age category experienced a decrease of 2,128 units by 1970. Units which were ten years old or newer in 1960 showed a slight increase of 115 units in 1970. The sum of these losses and gains in 1960 year round housing units was -9,328. This was a decrease of 11.6 percent in the 1960 housing stock, or an average annual rate of loss of 1.16 percent. This loss was due to demolitions and conversions. It is interesting to note that more than 75 percent of the units lost from the 1960 housing stock would have been over 30 years old in 1970. NET CHANGE, 1960 UNITS: -9328 % LOSS, 1960 UNITS: 11.6 Generally, despite recent construction and a higher rate of loss among housing units more than 30 years old, the housing stock is aging in each of the planning areas with the exception of the Manteca -Lathrop Planning Area. -32- AGE OF YEAR ROUND HOUSING UNITS 1960 8k 1970 1960 — 0-10 Il -20 A+ F TOAL q NAGN 1570 0-10 11-20 21-30 31+ UNI S E 1960 _ 24660 19790 36235 80685 17.9 ism 25270 24775 (7662 28920 96627 193 CHANGE 25270 115 -2128 -7315 15954 L4 NET CHANGE, 1960 UNITS: -9328 % LOSS, 1960 UNITS: 11.6 Generally, despite recent construction and a higher rate of loss among housing units more than 30 years old, the housing stock is aging in each of the planning areas with the exception of the Manteca -Lathrop Planning Area. -32- HOUSING INCOME RELATIONSHIPS An examination concerning the relationship between housing and income is essential in establishing a framework for analyzing the housing needs of the population, especially those for special groups. In order to determine the extent to which housing costsare becoming burdensome, it is necessary to examine data which indicates ability to obtain adequate housing. *INCREASES IN THE COST OF HOUSING AND INCOMES The following bar chart and table relate the increase in home values and rents with the increase in family income for the period 1960-1970 in San Joaquin County. Between 1960 and 1970 the increase in family incomes exceeded the increase in home values, indicating that residents in the County were, on the average, spending a smaller portion of their incomes for homes in 1970 than in 1960. Just t h e opposite was true for families who were renting. The per- centage increase in the median monthly rent significantly exceeded the percentage increase in family income. Analysis of changes in median value of home, rent and incomes by planning areas and within planning areas reveals notable variation from the County averages. For example, in the Stockton Planning Area, the change in the median family income was 60 percent while the change in median home values and median monthly rents were 51 percent and 78 percent respectively. -33- PERCENTAGE 'INCREASE IN HOME VALUES, RENTS, Ek FAMILY INCOMES 1960-1970 i e0.0 [ 1960 1970 % CHANGE a 70.0 MTiOM HOME 10700 16500 54.2 160.0 --- z MEDIAN MONTHLY 48 84 75.0 W.1 I F1 RENT e 40.0 MEDIAN FAMILY 5889 9602 63.0 i INCOME 30.0 MEOIAN ME4SAfI YEfl1A1i HOME MONTHLY FAMILY VALUE RENT INCOME Between 1960 and 1970 the increase in family incomes exceeded the increase in home values, indicating that residents in the County were, on the average, spending a smaller portion of their incomes for homes in 1970 than in 1960. Just t h e opposite was true for families who were renting. The per- centage increase in the median monthly rent significantly exceeded the percentage increase in family income. Analysis of changes in median value of home, rent and incomes by planning areas and within planning areas reveals notable variation from the County averages. For example, in the Stockton Planning Area, the change in the median family income was 60 percent while the change in median home values and median monthly rents were 51 percent and 78 percent respectively. -33- In the downtown area of Stockton and in southern Stockton, the situation was quite different. The percentage increase in both median value of homes and median monthly rents exceeded the percentage increase in median family incomes, indicating that residents were spending a larger portion of their income for housing in 1970 than in 1960. * RENT AND INCOME Gross rent (contract rent plus estimated average monthly cost of utilities and fuel) as a percentage of income provides an insight into what portion of a renter's income is being devoted to housing. If we proceed on the assumption that renters are overspending on housing when they must spend over a quarter of their income to secure rental accommodations, then the following picture of the 1970 rental housing situation in San Joaquin County emerges. 100 J i W 60 C J { 40 o ' g 20 0 RENTAL HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY, 1970 L$s000 $5000 — $10,000' 10,000 ® PAYING EXCESSIVE RENT*WL *EXCLUDES ONE -FAMILY HOMES ON TEN ACRES OR YORE =*H,H, PAYING YORE THAN 25% Of THEIR INCOME FOR RENT Households earning less than $5,000 account for 15,682 house- holds or 47.2 percent of a 1 1 rental households. However, this group accounted for 84.7 percent (11,520 households) of a 1 1 households paying excessive rent. In contrast to these lower income households, households earning more than $10,000 per year comprised less than one percent (83 households) of all households paying more than 25 percent of their income for gross rent. -34- 3 1 RENT 911 H. H, OVERPAYMENT' NO. _YM NO. % TOTAL RENTAL 33223 100.0 13594 1W.0 HOUSEHOLDS /_$5000 15682 47.2 11520 84.7 $5000-0 11023 33.2 1991 14.6 $10,000{ 6518 19.6 83 .6 *EXCLUDES ONE -FAMILY HOMES ON TEN ACRES OR YORE =*H,H, PAYING YORE THAN 25% Of THEIR INCOME FOR RENT Households earning less than $5,000 account for 15,682 house- holds or 47.2 percent of a 1 1 rental households. However, this group accounted for 84.7 percent (11,520 households) of a 1 1 households paying excessive rent. In contrast to these lower income households, households earning more than $10,000 per year comprised less than one percent (83 households) of all households paying more than 25 percent of their income for gross rent. -34- 3 1 Among lower income households, certain subgroups experienced burdensome housing expenses more frequently than others. These subgroups are the elderly, households headed by women, and minorities. For the elderly, the situation was as follows: RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN 5;000 ALL HOUSEHOLDS PAYING EXCESSIVE RENT NO. % NO. % TOTAL 15,682 100.0 11,520 100.0 ELDERLY 5,236 33.4 3,805 33.0 Of the 11,520 lower income households (under $5,000 per year) paying excessive rent, 3,805, or one-third, were elderly households. Households headed by women exhibited similar characteristics. In 1970, there were 2,649 households headed by worm paying excessive rent. This represented 23 percent of a 1 1 such households. Put another way, nearly one out of every four lower income households which paid excessive rent were headed by women. 23.0 RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN $5000* ALL HOUSEHOLDS PAYING EXCESSIVE RENT NO. % NO. % TOTAL 15,682 100.0 11,250 100.0 HEADED BY WOKEN 3,264 20.8 2,649 23.0 * EXCLUDES ONE-FAWLY HOMES ON TEN ACRES OR MORE -35- The data concerning lower income households headed by minorities unfortunately was incomplete. However, data was available for households headed by Spanish language or Spanish surname residents and for Black households with incomes less than $10,000. Examination of this data will provide some indication of the extent to which excessive rental payments were borne by minorities. For Spanish language or Spanish surname headed households, the following characteristics were observed: RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN $5,000-" ALL HOUSEHOLDS PAYING EXCESSIVE RENT NO. % NO. % TOTAL 15,682 100.0 1 1, 520 100.0 SPANISH HOUSEHOLDS EXCLUDES 3,186, 20.3 2,095 18.2 ONE-FAYILV HOMES ON 10 ACRES OR YORE ANO ALL NO CASH RENT UNITS The data shows that nearly one out of every five households paying excessive rent were headed by Spanish surname or Spanish language residents. The number was 2,095. For Black households, of the 2,187 earning less than $10,000, the number paying excessive rent was 1,298. If we assume that the percentages of Black rental households in each income category (i.e., less than $5,000, $5,000-10,000 and over ($10,000) approximated the County averages and that the percentages of Black rental households in each income category paying excessive rent did also, then the rental housing situ- ation for lower income Black Households was as follows: TOTAL BLACK HOUSEHOLDS RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN S5,000* ALL HOUSEHOLDS PAYING EXCESSIVE RENT NO. % NO. % 15,682 100.0 11,520 100.0 11,2133 8.2 1,107 Y -EXCLUDES DNE - FAMILY HOMES ON TEN ACRES OR YORE -36- 9.6 IIS J 4 These figures reveal that one out of every ten lower income households paying excessive rent were headed by Black residents. The number was 1,107. The composite picture of the rental housing situation for lower income minorities was: RENTING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES LESS THAN $ 5,000* ALL HnIISEHALnS PAVINr. EXCESSIVE RENT NO. % NO. % TOTAL 15,682 100.0 11.520 100.0 MINORITIES 4,469 28.5 3,202 27.8 *EXCLUDES ONEfAMILY HOMES ON q ACRES OR MORE "EXCLUDES "OTFfERS" Thus, Lhere were at least 3,202 lower income minority households paying excessive rent. This represented 27.8 percent of all rental households paying excessive rent. The data presented clearly supports the contention that lower income households are the ones most frequently burdened by housing expenses. The findings imply that such households have few options. They must pay the market rate for housing, regardless of the economic burden it may impose. The limited ! alternatives available to lower income households mean that they are faced with the prospect of renting a substandard dwelling, a unit too small for their family, or a unit which is otherwise inadequate for their needs. Additionally, the incomes of many such households are relatively fixed. Their sources of income are often social security, public assistance, or pensions which are not as readily adjusted to inflationary trends as are those of households in the higher income ranges. • HOMEOWNERSHIP AND INCOME The extent to which homeowners experienced burdensome housing expenses in 1970 is more difficult to determine than that for renters because the costs of homeownership are more complex. Such factors as mortgage interest rate, length of ownership and -37- original purchase price, maintenance expenses, quality and location of the home, and benefits from property tax and interest deductions all influence homeownership costs. Nevertheless, an estimate of the number of homeowners burdened by housing expenses can be provided which recognizes variations in actual housing expenditures. This estimate is based on budget calculations by household size by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics analyzes costs of living and publishes estimates of the budgets necessary for maintaining various "standards of living." These budgets vary by household size and composition. The budgets necessary for maintaining the lowest standard of living for different households sizes are shown below. ESTIMATES OF LOW BUDGETS, 1970 L 0 W BUDGET HOUSEHOLD SIZE TOTAL BUDGET MINUS HOUSING EXPENSES ( 2,460 t,907 2 4.150 3,216 3 5,918 4,857 4 7,379 5,719 5 8,762 6,791 6 9,992 7,744 SOURCE: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (STANDARD FAMILY BUDGETS WERE TAKEN IFROM _ LIVING COSTS IN PACIFIC CITIES SPRING 1970, SF BLS BVLLETW& 0-101. EQVIVALEWT FACTDRS FOR NDN-STANOARD HOUSEHOLD SIZES WERE ESTIMATED FROM THE BLS 'REVISED EQUIVALENCE SCALE FOR YRBAY FAMILIE$ OF DIFFERENT SIZE, AGE, AND COMPOSITION WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN BLS BULLETIN 137O.E1 The BLS Budgets are broken down by categories of living expenses, including housing expenses. For the purpose of this estimate, it was assumed that a homeowner whose income is less than an amount equal to the BLS low budget minus housing expenses, is too poor to maintain his home even if the mortgage is paid off. Given these parameters, the number of homeowners by household size which had incomes below the BLS "low budget minus housing expenses" was: -38- HOUSEHOLD SIZE LESS THAN BLS LOW BUDGET MINUS HOUSING EXPENSES NO. % GROUP (H.H. SIZE) In 1970, there were 9,796 owner -occupied housing units which experienced burdensome housing expenses. This represented 17.3 percent, or approximately one in every six, owner -occupied housing units. The data also shows that a significant per- centage of one person households (37.2 percent) and of six or more person households (21.9 percent) had incomes too low to adequately maintain their homes. Unfortunately, data for subgroups of homeowners who experienced burdensome housing expenses was severely incomplete. However, for single elderly homeowners data was available. For this group the housing situation was as follows: 25.0 -20.0 0 0 0 15.0 z n J 10.0 0 w 0 50 z 0 ONE PERSON OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BURDENED BY HOUSING EXPENSES TOTAL, ELDERLY NO. 2,706 37.2 2 3,012 16.4 3 1,099 12.5 4 955 9.0 5 824 13.2 6 1,200 21.9 TOTALS 9,796 17.3 SOURCES: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS. BULLETINS 0-101, 1570-2 METROPOLITAN HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, STOCKTON, TABLE A-3 In 1970, there were 9,796 owner -occupied housing units which experienced burdensome housing expenses. This represented 17.3 percent, or approximately one in every six, owner -occupied housing units. The data also shows that a significant per- centage of one person households (37.2 percent) and of six or more person households (21.9 percent) had incomes too low to adequately maintain their homes. Unfortunately, data for subgroups of homeowners who experienced burdensome housing expenses was severely incomplete. However, for single elderly homeowners data was available. For this group the housing situation was as follows: 25.0 -20.0 0 0 0 15.0 z n J 10.0 0 w 0 50 z 0 ONE PERSON OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BURDENED BY HOUSING EXPENSES TOTAL, ELDERLY NO. .0/a TOTAL 2706 100.0 ELDERLY 2031 75.1 SOURCE= BLS, STOCKTON METROPOLITAN HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, TABLE A-7 -39- The bar chart and statistics reveal that three out of every four one person owner -occupied housing units which had incomes - too low to adequately maintain their homes were elderly home- owners. The number was 2031. J -40- PROJECTIONS OF HOUSING NEED Any assessment of the housing need in San Joaquin County must involve consideration of the following basic questions: 1) What will be the size of the future population? 2) Hwv many housing units w i 1 1 be needed to provide for the increase in population? 3) Hwv many housing units will be needed to replace deteriorated units? How many housing units will be needed to maintain an adequate vacancy rate? To end overcrowding? 4) Fbw many housing units w i 1 1 be needed for low and moderate income households? 5) What types of housing units w i 11 be needed? Resolutions of these questions involves the formulation of reasonable assumptions and application of the findings and trends derived from a consideration of population, housing and housing and income characteristics. • FUTURE POPULATION Estimates of the future population of the County have already been prepared as part of the San Joaquin County Community Development Program by consultants for the program. Local input was provided by the County and City Planning Staffs who distributed the projected County population to each planning area assuming an average annual rate of change. HIGH LOW The table below presents the projected population growth for San Joaquin County: PROJECTED POPULATION —SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 1970 —1995 1 W 1Q7r% 1980 MR% 199(1 1QQ9; 290,208 313,400 339,400 366.400 392,400 417.500 290,208 33,000 334p00 355,000 375,000 -41- As one can see from the table, there are two projections. Discussion of the use of the population projection in planning led to the agreement that there should be a range of projected growth. It was determined that the projection developed by the consultants to the Community Development Program would provide the low figure of the range and that the 1971 State Department of Finance Projection, which basically assumed a higher birth rate and proportional distribution of State in -migration in 1970, would provide the high figure. The range thus estab- lished provides decision makers with some feelings for the possible alternatives in terms of population size which would have to be accommodated. For purposes of this report, esti- mates of housing need are based on the high growth figures. 0-i the basis of the high growth figures, it is estimated that between 1970 and 1995, the population of San Joaquin County will increase by approximately 127,000 people, 57 percent of which will reside in the Stockton Planning Area. 0" N c Z y 350 0 s 300 Q 0 230 zoo 1970 CDP POPULATION PROJECTION 19710 -1995 YR. 1O. VAMOR %ChMM 417300 1970 290208 D�-- 23192 8.0 1975 313400 D�_ 26000 83 1980 339400 } 27000 8.0 1985 356400 26000 7.1 1994 39240 25100 6A 1995 417500 1775 1900 1995 1900 I'M The rate of growth is expected to be at its highest between 1970 and 1985 and decline for the remainder of the period. Population in Group Quarters Group quarters are generally defined as living arrangements for institutional inmates or for other groups containing five or more persons not related to the person in charge. Such quarters generally include boarding houses, military barracks, college dormitories, hospitals, monasteries, convents, ships and youth reformitories. Examination of the changes in the group quarter population is necessary in order to refine projections of additional housing units needed in the County. -42- Over the decade the percent of the population in group quarters declined from 6 percent to 3.7 percent, a decrease of 4,376 persons. 00 5115 0 S o GROUP QUARTER POPULATION 19604970 As with other housing characteristics, the percentage change in the group quarter population varied between planning areas. For example, of the more urbanized planning areas, the Stockton Planning Area experienced the sharpest decline in group quarter population. The Lodi Planning Area, on the other hand, experi- enced a slight percentage increase in group quartered residents. Generally, the decline in the group quarter population in the County is best reflected in the decline in the non -institutional group quarter population. This reduction is largely attributable to the increasing mechanization of agriculture. *HOUSING NEEDS New Households A determination of the number of housing units needed to house the increase in population is based on three major elements: 1) Projected population, 2) Percentage of the total population expected in households, and 3) The population per occupied housing unit. The projected population of the County has been discussed. The percentage of the population in households for each five year interval to 1995 was estimated on the basis of past trends and on the anticipated continued decline of the group quarter population. * 'Group quarter residents include individuals in labor camps, E institutions, rooming houses. military barracks, college dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals, mona- steries, convents and ships. .It was felt that only the decline of individuals in labor camps could be projected with any degree ! of reliability. Consequently. for the remaining people in group quarters. it was decided to hold the number constant over the estimation period. -43- NO. % 1960 15031 6.0 1970 10653 3.7 Change 4370 2.3 %Change -29.1 As with other housing characteristics, the percentage change in the group quarter population varied between planning areas. For example, of the more urbanized planning areas, the Stockton Planning Area experienced the sharpest decline in group quarter population. The Lodi Planning Area, on the other hand, experi- enced a slight percentage increase in group quartered residents. Generally, the decline in the group quarter population in the County is best reflected in the decline in the non -institutional group quarter population. This reduction is largely attributable to the increasing mechanization of agriculture. *HOUSING NEEDS New Households A determination of the number of housing units needed to house the increase in population is based on three major elements: 1) Projected population, 2) Percentage of the total population expected in households, and 3) The population per occupied housing unit. The projected population of the County has been discussed. The percentage of the population in households for each five year interval to 1995 was estimated on the basis of past trends and on the anticipated continued decline of the group quarter population. * 'Group quarter residents include individuals in labor camps, E institutions, rooming houses. military barracks, college dormitories, fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals, mona- steries, convents and ships. .It was felt that only the decline of individuals in labor camps could be projected with any degree ! of reliability. Consequently. for the remaining people in group quarters. it was decided to hold the number constant over the estimation period. -43- POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS 1960-1995 1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLOS 235,170 279,644 302,909 328,664 356,203 382,321 407,554 % TOTAL POPULATION 94.1 96.3 96.7 97.0 97.2 97.4 97.6 Population in households is expected to increase by approximately 128,000 from 1970 to 1995. This represents a 46 percent change over the 1970 figure. During this period, the percentage of the total population in households is expected to increase from 94.1 to 97.6. The group quarter population will essentially remain static, experiencing a net loss of 608 individuals from 1970 to 1995. Population per occupied housing unit was projected for each interval year to 1995. The projection was based on past trends, assumptions concerning the increase in one and two person households, on the expected continued decline in the birth rate and on changing social values. The projected population per occupied housing unit was: POPULATION PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT 1960 —1995 1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 POPULATION PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT 3.15 3.03 2.94 2.87 2.83 2.80 2.79 On the basis of this projection, population per occupied housing unit w i l l decline from 3.03 in 1970 to 2.79 by 1995. Given these inputs, it is a relatively simple task to calculate the total number of occupied housing units for each interval year. This is done by dividing the population in households by the population per occupied housing unit. The difference in occupied housing units from one interval year to the next yields the number of housing units needed to house the increase in population. This information is summarized in the graph and table below: Il<M 'J t i 60 so 40 0 v z 30 m r IQ 0 mm HOUSING UNITS NEEDED FOR POPULATION GROWTH 1970 —1995 1975 1980 1985 1990 1955 (CUMULATIVE TOTAL) The number of housing units which w i 1 1 be needed t o accommodate the increase in population from 1970 to 1995 is estimated at 53,542 units. This represents 55.4 percent of the existing 1970 housing stock. Put another way, for every two housing units which existed in 1970, at least one additional one will have to be constructed simply to keep pace with the projected population growth. Additional Units Needed Housing units needed for the increase in population is only one component of the housing needs equation. To arrive at a total estimate of need, projections were made of the additional number of new units which would be required to replace delapi- dated or deteriorating units, to end overcrowding (i.e., more than one person per habitable room), and to maintain an adequate vacancy rate (in order to provide adequate housing choice). The total housing needs estimate thus arrived at, then, is an optimal figure which assumes that, if met, each family will be adequately housed. In determining the number of units needed to replace delapidated or otherwise uninhabitable units expected to be lost subsequent to 1970, loss rates had to be calculated for each planning area. These rates were derived from the detailed condition of housing -45- CUMULATIVE YR. NO. TOTAL 1975 10703 10703 1980 11288 21991 1985 11625 33616 1990 10405 44021 1995 9431 53452 The number of housing units which w i 1 1 be needed t o accommodate the increase in population from 1970 to 1995 is estimated at 53,542 units. This represents 55.4 percent of the existing 1970 housing stock. Put another way, for every two housing units which existed in 1970, at least one additional one will have to be constructed simply to keep pace with the projected population growth. Additional Units Needed Housing units needed for the increase in population is only one component of the housing needs equation. To arrive at a total estimate of need, projections were made of the additional number of new units which would be required to replace delapi- dated or deteriorating units, to end overcrowding (i.e., more than one person per habitable room), and to maintain an adequate vacancy rate (in order to provide adequate housing choice). The total housing needs estimate thus arrived at, then, is an optimal figure which assumes that, if met, each family will be adequately housed. In determining the number of units needed to replace delapidated or otherwise uninhabitable units expected to be lost subsequent to 1970, loss rates had to be calculated for each planning area. These rates were derived from the detailed condition of housing -45- survey, from condition data provided in the 1969 special census, and from information provided by local planning departments. They were adjusted on the basis of 1960-1970 age data (which indicated loss to the housing stock during the decade). Once the rate of loss was established for each planning area, the data was applied to the 1970 base stock in five year increments. It was assumed that units so poor as to be uninhabitable would be replaced by new units. Thus, these new units would not increase the overall housing stock. Units which were added during the estimation period (1970-1995) were considered to be habitable throughout the period. The total number of new units in the County which would be needed to replace obsolete units was simply the sum of the planning area totals. This information is provided in the graph and table below: 24 20 v 12 00 � s 0 1970 HOUSING UNITS NEEDED TO REPLACE DETERIORATED UNITS CUMULATIVE Vii. Na TOTAL 1970 6115 6115 1975 3310 9425 t980 3175 12600 1985 3049 15649 1990 2927 18576 1995 2807 21385 i 1875 1950 1955 1990 ON ( Mmmul A71LF TnTa1 S The projection indicates that by 1995, 21,383 new units need to be constructed to replace delapidated units. This represents 22 percent of the 1970 housing stock. The graph and data show that in 1970, 6,115 units needed replacement and that an additional 3,310 should be replaced by 1975. This projection and other projections of the components of housing need assume that the backlog of housing needs which were not satisfied in 1970 would be satisfied by 1975, in addition to the housing needs accumulated from 1970 to 1975. The projections assume, ideally, that the needs accumulated by each interval year have been met by that year. -46- In addition to providing replacement units for substandard housing units, new housing units are needed in order to elimi- nate overcrowded units. In estimating the number of units needed to end overcrowding, it was assumed that approximately one new unit would have to be constructed for every two over- crowded units. It was also assumed that, if the optimum is met, there will be no overcrowding after 1975. The total number of units necessary to eliminate overcrowding was estimated at 4,428. The final criteria employed to arrive at optimum housing need was the provision of an adequate vacancy rate. Maintaining an adequate vacancy rate (3.0-4.0 percent) is essential to provide for reasonable flexibility in housing choice. In determining units needed to maintain an adequate vacancy rate, the number of vacant units which would comprise 3.5 percent of the sum of the 1970 housing stock and the number of units needed to end overcrowding were first computed. The actual number of existing vacant units for sale or rent in the County and in each planning area was then subtracted from this optimum number. The results of these computations provided the net number of units necessary to establish an adequate vacancy rate. The total number of units in five year intervals was: 3.0 o 2.0 0 0 z HOUSING UNITS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE VACANCY RATE 1975 1950 1955 1990 1995 (CUMULATIVE TOTAL) -41- CUMULATIVE YR, NO TOTAL 1970 888 888 1975 382 1270 1980 403 1673 1985 412 2085 1990 369 2454 1995 336 2790 The graph and table indicate that a total of 2,790 units need to be built by 1995 in order to maintain a vacancy rate of 3.5 percent. They also show that in 1970 the County was 888 units short of achieving an adequate vacancy rate. A composite picture of the housing need situation in San Joaquin is provided below: COMPONENTS OF HOUSING NEED 1970 —1995 a too m m z .0 CATEGORY NQ % TOTAL NEED POP INCREASE LOSS END OVERCROWD MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE 82055 100.0 53452 651 21385 26.1 4428 54 2790 3.4 By 1995, a total of 82,055 units need to be built to adequately house the population. This represents 85% of the existing 1970 housing stock. By far, the largest component of need is for population increase (65.1 percent). Units needed to replace deteriorated units account for 26.1 percent of all units needed. The smallest component of housing need is to maintain an adequate vacancy rate which accounts for only 3.4 percent of total need. Current and Long Term Housing Need For purposes of further analysis, total housing need in San Joaquin County has been broken down into current housing need, 1970-1975 and long term housing need, 1975-1995. Examination of current housing need reveals that from 1970 to 1975, approximately 25,800 housing units will have to be built in the County. This represents over a quarter of the existing 1970 housing stock. The components of this need are as follows: -48- 7 a loo z z J 60 605 40 z W 20 0 COMPONENTS OF CURRENT NEED 1970-1975 CATEGORY NO. % 1970 2678 51.8 TOTAL NEED 25826 100.0 POP INCREASE 10703 41A LOSS 9425 365 END OVERCROWD 4,428 17.1 MAINTAIN 1270 4.9 VACANCY RATE The data shows that while units needed for population increase is the dominant need category, units needed to replace deteriorated housing is almost of equal rank. From 1970 to 1975, some 10,700 housing units have to be built for population increase and approximately 9,400 to replace obsolete housing units. On an annual basis, some 5,165 units must be built from 1970 to 1975 to adequately ho use the population. Unfortunately, building permit data from 1970 to 1973 reveals that the average annual production of housing units was only 3,252, or 63 percent of average annual need. &0 10 HOUSING NEED AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 0 1970 1971 1972 1973 AV. ANNUAL* NEED516Z AV. ANNUAL PRODU[TWN 3252 In= YR. NO. % AV. ANNUALNEED 1970 2678 51.8 t971 3090 59.8 1972 4046 78.3 1973 3194 61.8 Examination of long terns housing need (1975-1995) reveals that some 2,811 units must be constructed on an annual basis in order to meet the housing needs of the population. The majority of this need, 2,137, is for population increase. Over the period, a total of 56,229 housing units will be required. Of this total, 42,749 should be constructed for population increase. The components of this need by percentage rank is provided below: 100 o� X u40 2p COMPONENTS OF LONG—TERM HOUSING NEED 1975 —1995 0 - - - - Type of Housing U n i t s Needed CATEGORY N0. % TOTAL 56229 POP MN EASE 42749 LOSS 11960 VACANCY RATE 1520 100.0 76.0 21.3 2.7 The proportion of single-family and multiple family units required to house the population was based on past trends and on work recently completed in the County -wide Transportation Study. By 1995, it is estimated that there w i 1 1 be an increase of 32,043 single family units and 28,627 multiple family units. While the absolute number of single family units is greater than that for multiple family units, the percentage of single family units will decline from 80.6 percent in 1970 to 69.9 percent by 1995. This means that nearly one-half of the units to be constructed by 1995 can be expected to be multiple -family dwellings. n a Q � 0 z 20 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL GROWTH BY TYPE OF UNIT 1970-1995 4 0 I -F M -F %!-F 1970 77854 18709 80.6 1995 109897 47336 69.9 CHANGE 32043 28627 10.7 % TOTAL 52.8 47.2 GROWTH -50- ._j SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS The projected housing needs of low and moderate income house- holds is not possible to determine with any degree of relia- bility because of the complexity and the interrelationships of the variables involved. What we can provide is a determina- tion of the need for some form of housing assistance for this group for one point in time, the 1970 census year. Information for lower-income homeowners which would benefit from some form of housing assistance has already been presented in the text. Again, this estimate is based on budget calcula- tions for low budgets by household size by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For purposes of the estimate, it was assumed that a homeowner whose income was less than an amount equal to t h e BLS low budget minus housing expenses, was too poor to maintain his home even if the mortgage was paid off. The resulting computations are provided below: 3.0 LAW INCOME HOMEOWNERS NEEDING HOUSING ASSISTANCE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1970 z 0 2 3 4 s s+ H.H. SIZE NO. TOTAL 9796 100.0 1 2706 21.6 2 3012 307 3 1099 11.2 4 955 9.7 5 024 0.4 e 1200 12.2 N. M. SIZE The graph and accompanying information reveals that of the 9,796 lower income owner -occupied households which needed some form of housing assistance, over half, 58.3 percent, were one or two person households. Over one in five households, 21.1 percent, were 3 and 4 person households. -51.-- In deriving the need for lower income renters, income data was compared to 1969, Section 235-236 income limits by family size for San Joaquin County. The subsidy programs set rental rates at 25% of monthly income and in actuality a household moving into subsidized housing may expect to pay at least 25%of income for rent. Out of the total number of families which qualified for subsidies on the basis of income, there were those which actually were spending less than 25% of income for rent. These households would realize no economic advan- tage in renting subsidized housing since to do so would actually increase their housing expense. This number, then, was subtracted from the total number eligible for housing subsidy in order to arrive at the number of eligible households spending more than 25% of income on rent and who it was assumed needed subsidized housing (since they could improve their economic situation by renting subsidized housing). The number of lower income renters needing some form of housing assistance by household size is give below: 7.0 6.0 0 O 5.0 ff 4.0 M 3.0 0 m 2.0 z 1.0 0 LOWER INCOME RENTERS NEEDING HOUSING ASSISTANCE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1970 2 364 5 e H.H. SIZE H. H. SIZE NO. % TOTAL 17777 100.0 1 6954 39.1 2 3936 22.1 3 A 4 3975 22.4 5 I186 6.7 e 1726 9.7 Significantly, one and two person lower income renter households comprised three out of five (61.2 percent) renter households requiring some form of housing assistance. Three and four person households comprised one out of five such households (22.4 percent). The numbers were 10,890 one and two person households and 3.975 three and four person households. The composite picture of lower income households needing some form of housing assistance was as follows: -52- ff I yi J 10.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 0 0 0 6.0 3 5.0 a 0 0 m 4.0 3 0 O S 5.0 2.0 1.0 0 LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS NEEDING HOUSING ASSISTANCE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE. 1970 1 2 ]t4 S i{ H. H. sizz H.H. SIZE NO. % TOTAL 27573 100.0 1 9660 35.0 2 6948 25.2 3 a 4 6029 21.9 5 2010 7.3 e 2926 10.6 In 1970, there were 27.573 lower income households in the County which needed some form of housing assistance. This represented 29.8 percent of a 1 1 households in the County, or nearly one out of every three households in 1970. By far the. most significant need recorded was that for single person households. In 1970, there were 9,660 such households. This number represented 35 percent of the total number of households requiring assistance and 54 percent of all single person households. -53- J -54- Seg tion 11: OBSTACLES & -55- INTRODUCTION Identification of the obstacles and constraints to meeting the housing need are based on the quantative findings of the Housing Needs Section, interviews with businessmen, professionals, community action groups, public servants and residents: ,and, on special studies done within the County. To some extent, the findings of the Obstacles and Constraints Section are more subjective than those of the preceding Housing Needs Section: but then, obstacles to meeting housing needs range from racial prejudice to sewer treatment facilities. It is far easier to quantify the obstacles to sewer line extensions, than it ,is,to,-,,. identify the often subtle expression of racial or economic discrimination. Moreover, some obstacles exist only in the _._ „ ... mind,_of the individual. This. is_ not, to. say. that ,,these, ,.__ perceived constraints are not as real: they are. They must be explored and actions to overcome them are equally as important, as the necessity to provide potable water.. Desirability of141w- housing is very much in the eye of the resident. Few groups of people will seek exactly the same type of dwelling in the same area in the same price range. Thus how people view the opportunities and choice available to them: how they view the cormnunity, its services and attitudes: and how they view the area are critical in meeting their perceived housing needs. The County provides tremendous variety in housing types and locations --from rural and farm to country estates; from high density' urban to suburban. Each area has its assets and appeal. This report examines the obstacles and constraints to develop- ment of , these various areas. The actionprogram which follows.;: - in Section III will examine programs which can be undertaken to overcome the obstacles identified for each of the sub -areas of the County. _ This section will 1) describe the immediate and anticipated costs of providing housing: 2) identify the social and related problems which present obstacles and constraints to meeting current and long-term housing needs of the various communities; and 3) examine the constraints faced by public agencies in the County in meeting housing needs. This report is not intended to make problems seem so over- whelming that the participating communities will feelunable to provide adequate housing for their residents. Rather. its intent is to identify those obstacles which impede meeting the housing need. The Action Program will attempt to identify viable solutions which local governmental agencies, residents, and businessmen can undertake to overcome the identified obstacles and constraints. Action is the thrust of the Housing Element. Identifying the obstacles and constraints is a means to setting priorities for selecting the pertinent and most effective allocation of the communities' scarce resources to meet the housing need. _56- i COST OF MEETING HOUSING NEED a variety of types of costs are involved in meeting the housing needs in the County. First are the costs of construction, strongly influenced by the cost of labor and materials. Second, there is the cost of land. In San Joaquin County the value of land is also affected by its location, zoning, and availability. A third cost of housing is the availability and price of money. The focus of this section is on how these costs will affect meeting the housing need established for the County. Costs change so radically from year to year no attempt is made to project future costs. The purpose is to outline the factors comprising the cost of meeting the housing need and to make note of those factors which are peculiar to San Joaquin County and are significant obstacles to current and future development in the area. • COST OF CONSTRUCTION Costs of construction and repairs are difficult to determine because of accelerating inflation. In addition, the cost of a house depends upon its size, location and the quality of materials used in its construction. Discussions with local contractors and building officials indicate that there is little difference in per square foot costs for single family residences in various parts of San Joaquin County. The main factor which could make a difference in the cost of housing within the County is whether or not union labor is used. The magazine, Building Standards, estimates the average cost of residential construction in different parts of the country. In July 1974 they estimated the cost per square foot for an average quality single family residential building in an area like San Joaquin County as $19.74 a square foot. Custom-built houses cost $26.25 per square foot. Thus, an average 1,500 square foot house would cost approximately $29,610 and an average 1,000 square foot house $19,740. These costs are based on meeting the standards of the Uniform Building Code and include all construction costs plus a 10 percent profit. They do not, however, include the price of land. If a single- family structure were four times the value of the lot it is built on, the sale price of the average 1.500 square foot house in San Joaquin County would approximate $37,000: the -57- L average 1,000 square foot house nearly $25,000. A custom house of 1,500 square feet would cost over $49,000; a 1,000 square foot house almost $33,000. These figures do not include the cost of a private garage. Private developers in the Stockton Area indicate that cost figures are actually somewhat higher than the preceding computations. Although the impact of inflation on construction costs is hard t o estimate, a comparison of average values of building permits issued in the City of Stockton from 1960 to 1969 reveals a 44% increase in average value of structure from $13,529 to $19,501. In the same period the average single-family residence in the County increased 109 percent from $9,976 in 1960 to $20,883 in 1969. These differences in average value reflect not only different construction costs betweeen City and County, but differences in size of the unit being built. The toll of inflation over the decade is most likely closer to the 4.4% annual increase in the City than the 10.9% increase in the County. This increase in value does not include the price of land. While no average costs per unit trends are available for multiple family units, the average cost per unit constructed in Stockton in 1969 was $12,132. Multiple units in the City cost some 6 percent less, on the average, than single family residences in 1969. 7 It is also difficult to estimate the cost of redevelopment and renovation because usually this is done on a project basis. However, some figures are available from projects currently underway or just completed. In Stockton's Knights Addition, the estimated average cost of rehabilitation is between $9,000 and $10,000 a house or about $11.25 to $12.50 a square foot. Improving the existing housing stock by either renewal or code enforcement requires improvement (frequently construction) of public facilities (curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, and street repair). While these services usually are publically funded, their cost is an integral part of improving or redevelop- ing a residential area. City of Stockton estimates these public facility improvements cost from $80 to $130 per lineal foot. To illustrate an order of magnitude, assume $100 per foot for public improvements and $7000 per unit for rehabilitation. One mile of street with 90 units on each side would cost $1,788,000. The City of Tracy estimates street construction and repair slightly higher because local soil constitution requires additional foundation preparation. _J -58- The foregoing figures provide some insight into the financial magnitude of adequately housing the population of the County. As inflation continues, these costs will only increase. The Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis calculate that inflation caused a 21% increase in the cost of housing (including mortgage rates and rentals) from 1962 to 1972. A similar increase in the decade of the seventies and eighties, not matched by increased earnings, could have a significant and negative impact on meeting the additional housing need in the county. A better understanding of the causes of the increase in con- struction costs experienced in the County over the past 10 years is achieved when one examines the major component of the cost of meeting the housing need: land, labor, materials and capital-mortgage/investment, income. Because there are factors which affect each of these components, they will be examined separately. *COST OF LAND It is generally agreed that the cost of land is a less important factor in the increasing cost of housing in the County than the cost of material and labor. Usually, building sites served by public facilities command a higher price than sites not served. In the past few years the price of large rural lots in San Joaquin County increased significantly. These lots are desired by County residents and, increasingly, by people in the East Bay, Area who wish to move to the "country." This demand has been particularly noted in the Tracy Area which is relatively close to Livermore and the East Bay communities. Property ready for immediate development is 10 to 16 percent higher in Tracy than in the rest of the County. However, land not yet ready for development in the Tracy Area costs less than in other places in the County. Rural property around Tracy has been increasing in value about twice as fast as other property, reflecting the demand for "country" sites. However, in the last six months of 1972 this price increase leveled off and is expected to appreciate at the same rate as City land: basically the same rate as inflation. This seems true for the County as a whole. Scarcity, location and accessibility are major factors in deter- mining the value of the land. For example, land in Thornton, which is fairly isolated today, may command a higher price after Interstate 5 is completed. The highway will make the -59- community more accessible but demand for development must also exist for the price of land to increase. Thornton must compete with other places also made more accessible by 1-5 and must be identified as being a better site for development. Competition will be based on environment, availability and cost of public services such as water, sewer and storm drains. Local govern- ment's attitude toward development is also a factor. Study indicates that the price of land w i 11 not be a major factor in deciding whether housing will be built in Thornton or any other community in the County. Far more important will be the cost and availability of public services, the cost of construction materials and labor, and the cost of money. •COST OF MATERIALS Interviews with bankers, realtors, developers, and public officials, such as building inspectors and County Assessor's staff, confirm that the most significant element in the increase in the cost of housing is the cost of materials: particularly, one banker pointed out that lumber even increased in cost ; during the Phase II wage -price freeze, as a result of loop- holes. Since lumber is the primary material in most types of residential construction, its price has a large impact on the 7 value of the structure. In San Joaquin County, according to the Assessor's Office, the increase in cost of materials, particularly lumber, has resulted in increased market value of existing housing units. Building codes in San Joaquin County generally permit the use of plastic pipe which is less expensive to install because of the time it saves. Plastic pipe is impervious to acid and other components of the Valley soil and so pipes can be replaced less frequently. Most people interviewed said that other building materials had increased in price but not as much as lumber. Whether building materials continue to increase in price so that they continue as a major cost factor in residential development in the future will depend, to some extent, on the supply and demand. Since all estimates indicate a high level of national housing starts every year in the foreseeable future, it seems likely that building materials will continue to increase in cost, but the rate of that increase is impossible to determine. It is safe to assume, however, that materials will continue to be a major, if not the major, cost in residential construction in the future. • COST OF LABOR Almost without exception, those interviewed about the cost of construction, the increasing cost of laborkas the second most significant factor increasing cost of construction in the County. Three factors were most frequently cited as major contributors to the high cost of labor in the County: Strong Union control, shop control, and proximity to the Bay Area. Most building trades in San Joaquin County are unionized. Unions obtain for their members substantial insurance and health benefits. Costs for these benefits are passed along in the hourly rates charged. On the other hand, certain levels of skill are generally required for union membership so unioni- zation provides some control over quality of work done. In Stanislaus County, to the south of San Joaquin, labor is not as highly organized. Much of the residential development in and around Manteca is done by contractors and non-union labor from Stanislaus County. Some people interviewed maintained that houses cost less in the Manteca area, in part because of the lower cost of labor. It is notable that union spokesmen interviewed recognized that non-union labor work on residential construction exists in the Manteca area but it was pointed out that this practice does not occur north of Manteca in San Joaquin County. Two of the major unions active in residential construction are plumbers and electricians. In San Joaquin County both of these unions are shop controlled. This means that the only way a union plumber or electrician can be hired for a job is through a contractor. This automatically adds 10 percent overhead to two of the most costly types of labor required in residential construction. In San Joaquin County the other two key residential construction unions, painters and carpenters, are not shop controlled. Shop control varies from county to county, depending upon the strength of the particular union in the area. A third factor affecting the cost of labor in San Joaquin County is its proximity to the Bay Area labor market. Hourly wage rates in San Joaquin County are, in some cases, higher than in other Valley counties because of the proximity and com- petition with the Bay Area for some types of labor. When con- struction slows in San Joaquin County it is not unusual for union labor to commute to the East Bay for work. This happened -61- in the early 1970's with such unions as the Operating Engineers. i Unions have arrangements where they notify their affiliates if there is a greater need for labor in their area than their local members can supply. As a result, the higher Bay Area wage rates are reflected in the standard rates in San Joaquin County. *COST OF CAPITAL There are two kinds of capital involved in providing housing: capital used by developers for initial site preparation and construction and capital used by the home buyer. The avail- ability and price of both types affect the cost of housing. Development capital is short-term, borrowed at commercial rates, which tend to be considerably higher than mortgage rates. In the past, banks have been reluctant to make large commercial loans to developers. However, more recently, banks have come to recognize that the great demand for housing makes these loans profitable. Now, banks are actively seeking interim development loans. Interest rates, for commercial loans, are currently about 15 to 18 percent. Mortgages are long term loans. Often mortgage money is the cheapest money available from lending institutions. Currently the rates on acceptable units for 25 years with 20 percent down run about 94 to 93� percent. Frequently, lenders also charge borrowers points or a given percent of the loan which covers the administrative costs and reflects the supply of mortgage money. Currently lenders are charging I to 2 points (Ito 2 percent of the total value of the loan). As the prime interest rate fluctuates, so does the cost of mortgage money. In 1969 and early 1970 prime rates increased to the point where mortgage money was going as high as 9 percent with 4 and 5 points. Effectively, this high cost of capital discouraged borrowing and was a major contributor to the reduction in housing starts during 1969 and 1970. Recent increases in prime interest rates indicate that this same high cost of capital has caused a decline in housing starts in late 1973 and may continue in 1974. -62- What these interest rates do to the cost of housing is clearly indicated by the example of buying a $25,000 house. At 94 percent with a 20 percent down payment and one point, it would cost $48,556 to pay off the mortgage. At 9' percent at 25 years at two points, the same house would cost $49,625 or 2 percent more. Therefore, it is clear that the cost of mortgage money has a significant impact on the cost of housing. Not only does it inflate the purchase price, it is scarce enough that lenders use rigorous criteria to determine eligibility for loans. Thus, many people are unable to find houses which meet the criteria or don't have sufficient incomes to afford to buy a house. Monthly payments on the $25,000 house would be $144.00 at 9%percent and $146 at 91-2 percent. In both cases, the buyer would have to have a $5,000 down payment and another $400 to $800 for points. Based on a standard formula of buying a house, no more than 2z times the annual salary, the borrower for the $25,000 house should earn a minimum of $10,000 a year. Monthly payments on a $16,000 house would be $92.00 at 9%percent and $93 at 9111 percent. In both cases the buyer would have to put $3,200 down and another $270 to $650 for points. Based on a two and half times income as a l i m i t for borrowing, the purchaser should earn a minimum of $6,400 a year for the $16,000 home. I -63- J -64- S0CIAAL AND RELATED PROBLEMS IN MEETING THE HOUSING NEED •EDUCATION Another factor closely related to the provision of adequate housing is education. The amount of education a person receives, in turn, affects the level of income and the number of occupational choices he or she has. The following diagram outlines the interaction of these factors: FAMILY INCOME AND HOUSING AS A CHILD OCCUPATION ADULT'S AND EDUCATION INCOME HOUSING CHILDS EDUCATION HEALTH AND GENERAL MEDIAN NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY EMPLOYED MALES 25-64 BY TOTAL INCOME IN 1969 FOR THE UNITED STATES* INCOME 999 OR LESS $I, 0 W - 2,999 $3000 - 3,999 $4, 000 - 4,999 $5,000 - 6,999 $7,000 - 9,999 $10,000 - 14,999 $15,000 - 24,999 $25,000 MEDIAN NO. OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED 8.3 8.5 9.0 10.0 11.3 122 12.6 14A 16.2 *EDUCATIONAL CHARACTER43TICS OF THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES: 1970. 1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, PGI -23, NO. 20. -65- N The educational attainment of adults 25 and over in the County is provided below: PERCENT OF ADULTS 25 YEARS AND OVER WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF SCHOOLING HIGH ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COLLEGE MEDIAN NO NO' 4 YEARS 8 YEARS 4 YEARS 4 YEARS SCHOOL YEARS PLACE SCHOOLING OR LESS OR LESS OR MORE OR MORE COMPLETED :ALIFORNIA 1.5 4.3 19.8 62.6 13.4 12.4 iAN JOAQUIN CWNTY 2.9 8.6 31.3 49.4 8.0 11.9 The data indicates that the percentage of adults in the County with no schooling is almost twice that for the State and that a significant percentage of the adult population, 31.3 percent, had 8 years or less of schooling. The total number of adults 25 years and over who had 8 years or less of elementary school in the County was 49,518. These individuals, based on the national figures comparing education and income, would appear to be in a difficult position to compete for standard housing accommodations. The level of educational attainment for minority groups in San Joaquin County is considerably lower than that for the genera 1 population. PERCENT OF ADULTS 25 YEARS AND OVER WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF SCHOOLING BY RACE j HIGH ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COLLEGE MEDIAN NO. N0. 4 YEARS OR 8 YEARS OR 4 YEARS 4 YEARS SCHOOL YEARS RACE SCHOOLING LESS LESS OR MORE OR MORE COMPLETED 1LL RACES 2.9 8.6 31.3 49.4 8.0 11.9 I LAW 2.9 12.8 40.1 31.3 4.2 10.0 IPANISH 8.8 23.2 49.8 31.1 2.9 9.0 For the Black population, the percentage of the population who had 8 years of elementary school or less was 40.1 percent: for the Spanish language or Spanish surname population, the percentage was even higher, 49.8 percent. The total number of Black and Spanish adults 25 years and over who had eight years of schooling or less was 14,060. MOLT5191 ']� /_IO2" Employment is an important factor when one considers the avail- ability of capital for housing. Steady employment is a requirement for qualifying for financing and having resources to maintain a house in good condition. For the past two decades, San Joaquin County has been distinguished by its high rate of unemployment. In the late 1960's and early 1970's unemployment in the County has been as high as 10 percent. In addition, underemployment is also a factor in purchasing and maintaining housing. Under- employed people work only part of the year or can only find part-time work. Underemployment is a significant problem in an area tied to agriculture, such as San Joaquin County. Examination of available census data on the County's work force provides some insight into the magnitude and extent of unemployment ;nd underemployment in the County. The peak participation age for males in the County is 25-64 years, regardless of race. However, the participation rates (percent of eligible workers to those actually working) are not as high for Blacks or Spanish surnamed males as for the total. The period of maximum participation for women in the County labor force is less clearly defined. The participation rate for all females remains fairly constant at about 40 percent between 20 and 64 years. Participation of Spanish surnamed women in the labor force seems to peak twice, once at 20-21 and again at 35-44, leaving participation low during the average child-bearing years. Participation by Black women is more consistent than for Spanish surnamed, with the peak between 35 and 44 years. It is notable, however, that Black women in the County do not enter the labor force as early as Spanish surnamed or all women. -67- In examining participation in the work force it is also signi- ficant igni- ficant to note the number of weeks worked by various age groups. Sixty percent of the men 16 years and over employed in the County worked 50 to 52 weeks in 1969. However, only 29 percent of the males 16-24 worked 50-52 weeks. Twenty-three percent of the men in the County labor force worked 27-49 weeks in 1969, and 16 percent of the males worked 26 weeks or less. If just the men 25-64 are considered, the proportion working 26 weeks or less drops to 6.7 percent, indicating that there is more underemployment among those males 16-24 and over 65 than among 25-64. (However, the fact that underemployment does exist for some 25 percent of the 25-64 year old males in the County cannot be ignored.) Compared to the nation as a whole, a greater percentage of women are participating in the County's labor force. The majority of these women in the County are employed only part- time. art- time. Fifty- five percent of the women in the 16-24 year group are employed 26 weeks or less a year. However, Cor women 40-59 years old in the County, the majority are employed at least 27 weeks. Thus, young women in San Joaquin County are receiving more part-time work while the older women are receiving more full time employment. The net migration rates (difference between 1960 and 1970 population by age cohort) reinforce the trends evidenced by the employment date: low participation rates for young people and fewer young and women employed full time in the County. The net migration figures show that the County lost population from 1960 to 1970 in two key groups, those aged 20-29 and those over 50. In both cases, young and older, the County lost significantly more males than females. No doubt males are more mobile, but the lack of full-time employment frequently accelerates this movement, particularly among young males. These employment factors indicate steady employment is higher among the white population between 25 and 64 years; that more women are participating in the County's labor force, but on a part-time basis: and that underemployment is a significant problem among the young (16-24) and old (over 65). Underemploy- ment also exists for some 25 percent of the 25-64 year old males in the County. These statistics indicate that the ability to pay for and maintain housing is a significant obstacle to meeting the housing need. Moreover, the data indicates that unemployment and underemployment are greater among t h e -68- Black and Spanish speaking populations than among the White population. Employment projections made for the County by SRI, using the shift- share method of projection, indicate that jobs in the County w i 11 increase in the future but at a decreasing rate. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS AND DEPENDENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL POPULATION LABOR FORCE/POPULATION AVG. CHANGE YR 1960- 1971- E980- 1971 1984 1995 1971 1980 1995 (thousands) 114.5 130.0 151.2 2. 1 1.4 1.0 8A% 7.5% 5.0% 125.0 140.5 159.2 2.2 1.3 0.8 295.2 334.5 398.0 1.5 1.4 1.2 42.3% 42.0% 40.0% SOURCE: STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MARCH 1973 Unemployment is anticipated to decrease from 8.4 percent in 1971 to 5.0 percent in 1995. Thus, unemployment will still prevent many from being able to afford and maintain housing. Moreover, underemployment will very likely occur. Therefore, San Joaquin County may well find itself in a position of con- tinuing to export young workers. Participation of women in the labor force does increase the disposable income of families but only when the female is not head of the household. In San Joaquin County 18.4 percent of the households are headed by women. This is almost half of the working women in the County. In addition, banks frequently will not recognize the income of women for loan purposes because they are not considered permanent members of the labor force. Should they have children, or the family finances improve slightly, banks assume they are likely to drop out of the labor force. -69- 61 *SOCIAL PROBLEMS On the basis of interviews conducted during the course of this study, certain issues have been identified as constraints which prevent minorities, and persons with low incomes, from obtaining decent housing in a suitable living environment. A cross-section of community residents, minority representatives, religious and civic leaders were asked the extent to which minorities or low income persons experienced difficulty in finding suitable housing. The issues discussed below are the results of these interviews. The problems of providing decent housing are compounded because in areas of high minority concentrations, there is also a high reported crime rate, a high percentage of persons receiving public assistance, and a disproportionately high unemployment rate. Residents of these areas also perceived a sense of oppression conditioned by institutional racism. These areas also have a higher percentage of households headed by females. Residents of deteriorated areas have expressed the need to place priority on maintenance of homes to preserve neighborhood integrity. The opinion was expressed by many residents inter- viewed that the deterioration of housing units in lower income areas was due not only to a lack of money to make repairs but also to a lack of knowledge concerning ordinary up -keep. Discrimination in Lending _j The experience of residents interviewed has been that financing home purchase or construction is very difficult in areas characterized by concentrations of low income and minority households. In addition, these residents have expressed difficulty in acquiring home improvement loans. This situation is believed to be attributable to the application by banks and other lending institutions of stricter loan criteria in these areas than is warranted. Exact data on FHA loan criteria was unavailable but from the examples cited in the interviews it was concluded that there are certain sections of Stockton where FHA loans are not granted. Since the Federal government has ceased new participation in low/rnoderate income housing, the respondents felt that the current practice of "red lining" w i 1 1 continue. "Red lining" is a term describing policies of lending institutions denying loans for new construction or rehabilitation in deteriorating communities, or communities r MGM with high ethnic concentrations. People who have steady employment and who are good credit risks by most accepted standards are denied loans simply because of the neighborhood they choose to live in. There is a strong indication that current lending practices discriminate against minorities and persons with moderate incomes who choose to live in communities with high ethnic concentrations. The present alternative to living in an area where loans are not freely granted is to move. To many middle income minority residents this presents an undue hardship because they feel that the cost of housing would be proportionately higher with no increase in amenities. Lack of Housing Types Within Existing Neighborhoods The expectations of low income households often are not met by the present housing delivery system. Among this group, there was a high demand expressed for new houses with modern kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms and extra bathrooms. Residents interviewed expressed a preference for single family and townhouse -type of residential development and opposed "projects" and any other form of intense development which tends to segregate people by race or income. A 11 respon- dents concluded there was a definite lack of low cost housing for the elderly and indigent single men. Without some signifi- cant change in the housing delivery system, housing of the kind desired cannot be provided at a cost which these households can afford. Federally Subsidized Housing Programs It is generally recognized that the private housing market has done a creditable job of providing a range of housing opportunities for those in the middle and upper income levels. Due to the costs of money, land and construction, the private market has not been able to adequately provide housing for low and moderate income persons. Therefore, public action programs and assistance are necessary for those who otherwise cannot afford decent housing as developed in the private market. Obviously the needs of lower income households have not been quantitatively met by Federally sponsored housing programs, although some programs have been adequate in quality. In order to gain some insight into the impact and degree of IWAM success or failure of Federal efforts it is necessary to review the major housing assistance programs. The programs principally utilized include: Low Rent Public Housing and Rent Supplement and Mortgage Assistance. Low Rent Public Housing Programs Public housing is intended for low income families --generally ranging from those on welfare to those earning up to $5,000 annua lly . To put decent housing within the financial reach of these families, public housing assistance can pay for the full capital costs of the housing and assist in paying some operating expenses. Only the rent supplement program can, in some cases, approximate this assistance. Local public authorities are not Federal bodies; they are created by State laws. Within the general guidelines set by Federal public housing laws and HUD administrative regulations, local housing authorities have great latitude for constructive action. They, not HUD, plan projects, set income limits and rents, determine specific criteria for admission to public housing, and carry out other administrative regulations. The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin, created in 1942, has under its management the following low rent housing units: CONVENTIONAL LOW RENT HOUSING SIERRA VISTA HOMES, STOCKTON 464 UNITS CONWAY HOMES, STOCKTON 436 UNITS TRACY HOMES, TRACY 60 UNITS DIABLO HOMES, TRACY 60 UNITS BURTON HOMES, TRACY 40 UNITS MOKEWMNE MANOR, THORNTON 50 UNITS 1.110 STOCKTON FRENCH CAMP TRACY W OODBRI DGE THORNTON SECTION 23, LEASED HOUSING -72- I, f57 UNITS 5 UNITS 61 UNITS 14 UNITS IS UNITS 1.352 UNITS _i Occupancy in homes leased or operated by the Housing Authority is limited to low income families according to the following income l i m i t s and family sizes (Housing Authorities establish income l i m i t s which are approved by HUD) : MAXIMUM INCOME LIMITS FOR INITIAL AND CONTINUED OCCUPANCY FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY RESOURCES ARE:* * OF PERSONS ADMISSION CON71NUED OCCUPANCY I S3,700 S4,625 2 3,740 4,675 3 4,400 5,500 4 4,700 5,875 5 5,000 6,250 6 5,200 6,500 7 5,400 6,750 8 5,600 7,000 9 5,800 7,250 *SAN ,IOAQUIN COUNTY NOOSINS AUTHORITY As can be seen, public housing does not offer assistance to those of very low income. Recently, 2221 tenant families were living in public housing. Of these, 508 (23 percent) were elderly or disabled and 1,557 (70 percent) received welfare assistance. County -wide the conventional projects and Leased Housing Program reflected the following racial breakdown: RACE NO, PERCENT WHITE 730 33 BLACK 759 34 SPANISH SURNAME 629 28 AMERICAN INDIAN I ORIENTAL 91 4 OTHER MINORITIES 3 _ 2,221 99* *DUE. TO ROUNOW6 -73- 8 Within Stockton, where the largest percentage of the County's minorities live, the Leased Housing Program had the following racial breakdown: RACE # PERCENT WHITE 567 49 BLACK 301 26 AMERICAN INDIAN 1 0 SPANISH AMERICAN 242 21 ORIENTAL 46 4 OTHER 0 0 1,156 100 Examination of the distribution by type and racial makeup of the public housing units between north and south Stockton, shows disparity between the two areas. There are no conventional public housing units located north of Main Street. Of the 1,157 leased Section 23 units in Stockton, approximately 314 are located in North Stockton. Of these 314 units, 10.8 percent are occupied by Black families while 22.3 percent are occupied by Brown families. These small percentages of minorities occupying leased units in North Stockton indicate the necessarily large percentages of Black and Brown families living in South Stockton public housing units. A 1 1 900 units of conventional public housing are located in South Stockton. Conway Homes, containing 436 units had approximately 47 percent of its occupied units housing Spanish surname families, 36 percent housing Black families, and 9.4 housing White families. Sierra Vista Homes, at last estimation, had 64 percent of its occupied units housing Black families, 28 percent by Spanish surname families and 6 percent by White families. The Housing Authority clearly recognizes the problems connected with locating the vast majority of their units in the southern portions of Stockton. In part, the situation resulted from the desire of people who qualified for Housing Authority assistance to seek a unit in South Stockton. The southern Stockton area has been described by various sources as the "accepted neighborhood" for poor, minority, and periodically unemployed, to live and has been thought of as such for many years. Also, in part, it is due to the large discrepancy in land and housing costs between North and South Stockton. As southern Stockton became associated with deteriorating neighborhoods, minorities and social problems, land prices became depressed. Consequently, South Stockton became the chief source of modest cost housing. It therefore became the principal area where the Housing Authority could afford to lease units to qualified families. -74- Today, there is fear that the Housing Authority w i 1 1 be slowly "priced out of the market" for standard, quality housing. As land costs, and rental rates continue to escalate, the Housing Authority is facing greater fiscal pressures. Compounding this is a lack of the type of Federal financial support it feels is needed to meet its responsibilities. The recently enacted "Brooke Amendment" requires more financial outlay on the part of the Housing Authority to meet legal requirements, yet HUD has not yet provided the Authority with the necessary funds. The impact seems to be that, as more people demand Housing Authority assistance, the Agency will necessarily have to turn to less expensive, more marginal units, in order to pro- vide services and stay solvent. They expect to have one more year of operating out of their reserves before drastic cutbacks in staff and assistance are necessary, A second major problem confronting the Housing Authority is the use of referendums to block construction of needed public housing units under the various "Turnkey" programs. Turnkey programs involved the purchase of new housing from private developers after it had been completed. Any private developer could propose to a local housing authority to build public housing in accordance with his own plans and specifications. If the offer was appropriately priced and met acceptable design standards, the local housing authority would contract with the developer to purchase the completed housing, "turning the keys" over to the local housing authority. In 1971 a measure to approve an additional 200 units of Section 23 leased housing units was approved in Tracy. Recently, however, neighborhood associations in Tracy objected to construction of the last 20 units of housing for the elderly. Indeed, for one of the most significant "housing action programs" in the County, and the one that perhaps provides the only source of housing for the low income people, its future does not look optimistic. At present, there are 500 individuals waiting to occupy conventional units and 1500 waiting for leased unit vacancies. The Section 236 Program --Subsidized Private Multi -Family Housing Section 236, dating back to the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, was designed as the successor to the earlier Section 221 (d) (3) program. Under the "d-3" program, the FHA made available three percent direct loans to limited dividend and non-profit apartment sponsors who in turn would -75- charge rents to low and moderate income tenants reflecting that interest rate. Section 236 was an improvement over "d-3" in that HUD makes monthly payments to a commercial lender to reduce the owners' interest payments from the market rate to one percent. The owner passes the benefits of this interest reduction on to the tenants in the form of reduced rents. A basic rental charge is figured for each unit on the basis of operating and replacement costs for the project under a one percent interest rate mortgage. The tenant pays either the basic rental or 25 percent of his monthly income, whichever is the greater. In either instance, a tenant's payment cannot exceed the fair market rental which would be charged if the project received no assistance. The tenants' income is recertified by the owner every two years and the rent adjusted accordingly. Eligible sponsors under a Section 236 program were non-profit corporations such as churches, labor unions, cooperatives, private developers who sold the project to non -profits or co-ops when built, and limited -profit sponsors. Non -profits and cooperatives could build with 100 percent mortgage financing. Eligible projects under 236 consisted of five or more units which could be detached, semi-detached, or row houses and could be located in walkup or elevator multi -family structures. Units need not to have been located on contiguous sites and could be new or substantially rehabilitated units. Rising land, construction, management and maintenance costs mean that rental payments must also increase, since the Federal subsidy does not relate directly to those elements of cost. Over the years that the 236 program has been in effect, the result has been that only those in the highest ranges of income eligibility may be able to pay enough to occupy housing on which interest costs have been reduced to one percent. Thus, the 236 program reaches a higher income market than public housing. There are 582 Section 236 units distributed in Stockton in the following manner: In North Stockton, Casa Manana contains 184 units, and Stockton Gardens contains 80 units. The West Stockton Redevelopment Area contains the Filipino Center, 128 units of Section 236. Casa Manana was financed under FHA Section 202, Neighborhood Facilities to the elderly. It is discussed here because it is a rental subsidy program. The Lee Center building in the West End Redevelopment Area con- tains 192 units of rental housing for the elderly, financed -76- f under Section -231. However, this building has now been repossessed by FHA As can be seen, a large precentage of the rent subsidized units are reserved by the elderly. The rental ranges run roughly as follows: Filbert Arms, 190 units: Stockton Gardens, 80 units; Casa Manana, 184 units. 1 bedroom $ 80 - 90 month 2 bedroom 95 - 105 month 3 bedroom 120 - 125 month f Filipino Center, 128 units. 68 efficiency units @ $ 98 per month 20 1 -bedroom units C 118 per month 20 2 -bedroom units Ca) 139 per month 20 3 -bedroom units C 158 per month Tracy presently has Phase I of Wainwright Village under con- struction. It consists of 72 family units and 88 elderly units. Phase 11 is expected to contain a comparable amount of units. The maximum gross income 1 i m i t s for Section 236 participation in San Joaquin County are set forth below for some represen- tative family sizes. The amounts are based on 135 percent of approved public housing admission limits. FAMILY SIZE FAMILY INCOME LIMIT $5,400 2 5,940 i 3 6,480 4 7,020 :. 5 7,560 6 B'100 7 8.505 8 8.910 9 9,180 -77- Extensive interviews with citizens and developers have revealed various reasons for the relative lack of Section 236 units in the San Joaquin County area. One reason postulated is the absence of experienced non-profit sponsors. Non-profit sponsorship takes a great deal of time and strong motivation. Once involved, the sponsor usually limits itself to one project. Many sponsors lack the technical expertise to put a project together and the finances to secure it. Often a sponsor will not want to take on the responsibilities of managing a project. Many of these "requirements" are sufficient to intimidate eligible sponsors from packaging a project . Another reason mentioned is the reluctance of large lenders to financially underwrite a project in the South Stockton area where the demand for moderate cost rentals appears to be the highest. While very difficult to prove without extensive data collection and investigation, there is a strong feeling among residents in South Stockton that "red -lining" is practiced by lenders because this area is considered a "high risk" area. Wlm small builders or home buyers have difficulty getting assured financing, mortgage insurance from FHA does them little good. While rentals are in demand in South Stockton, the northern areas of town seem to be overbuilt. A housing market analysis by FHA stated that "rental market absorption is being strained by record levels of construction over the past two years" (1970 and 1971). Most of this new construction has occurred immediately north and south of the Calaveras River. Local hostility to moderate income rental housing has also been expressed through political channels of zoning and concern over neighborhood impact on schools and facilities. An i.nst.anee•of this occurred over a proposal for 200 units of Section 236 housing on Hanm-jer Lane in North Stockton. Pro- spective neighbors of the development opposed it due to its anticipated impact on neighborhood facilities and schools. There was also an apparent unwillingness to have modest income people come into the part of town in which the site was located. Belief that such housing attracts to the area "undesirable" people is also a concern to opponents of such housing. With welfare rolls having increased dramatically over the past years, this is likely to continue to be a sensitive point to prospective neighbors of proposed projects. -78- A further problem in Section 236 was the limitation of Federal funds available for the program. Given the obstacles rental subsidized units face in gaining financial and community support, it is unlikely to expect substantial usage of this type of "action` program. Rent Supplement Program Rent supplements enable sponsors of rent subsidized units to rent to tenants with incomes lower than would otherwise be possible. The Federal rent supplement payment is the difference between the actual rent for the housing and 25 percent of the tenant's income which he is required to pay in rent. The payment, however, cannot be more than 10 percent of the actual rent. This additional subsidy enables a lower income group of tenants to occupy Section 236 or 221 (d) (3) units. HUD generally allows only 20 percent of Section 236 units to be rent supple- mented. One hundred percent of Section 221 (d) (3) units are eligible. A workable program or official approval by the community in which the rent supplement project is located is required for rent supplement payments to be made. San Joaquin County has not made extensive use of the Rent Supplement Program. As of this writing, only two projects are eligible for Rent Supplement utilization: The Filipino Center in which ten percent of the units (13) are eligible, and 100 units within the Lee Center. Potentially, rent supplements can really provide low rent housing, particularly in urban renewal areas, at levels equal to or lower than public housing. The chief inadequacy seems to be insufficient funding. Section 235 Homeownership for Lower Income Housing Section 235 of the 1968 Housing Act was the single-family homeownership counterpart of Section 236. Approximately 221,400 dwelling units financed under Section 235 were occupied in a nationwide count. _79_ The assistance was similar to 236 in that it would also lower the interest rate paid by the moderate income buyer to as low as one percent. This program was open to private developers who were not limited profit sponsors --unlike the other moderate income housing programs discussed above. The developer's commercial mortgage lender received an FHA commitment to insure the market interest rate mortgage of a moderate income buyer of the Section 235 house. The mortgage could be nearly 100 percent of the value of the property. The buyer generally needed make only a $200 down payment which could be used to pay closing costs. At the same time, the commercial lender received an FHA commit- ment to receive mortgage assistance payments for the term of the mortgage. The payments were equal to the difference between the market interest rate mortgage payments (including principal, interest, taxes and insurance) and 20 percent of the buyer's income. The mortgage assistance payments could not exceed an amount which would reduce the interest on the mortgage paid by the buyer to less than one percent. The amount paid by the homeowner is adjusted periodically to reflect changes in his income. Upper income limits on t h e 235 program are the same as those of the 236 program. The Section 235 maximum mortgage 1 i m i t was believed to be 1 $18,000 for a unit up to three bedrooms. For a two-family 1 unit, the limit was $24,000: three-family was $32,400: and four -family was $39,600. According to the hest FHA insuring office tabulations, the City of Stockton had allocations for 559 units with a tentative allotment for 25 more, bringing the total to 584 units if all allocations were filled. Approximately 184 of the units or 31.5 percent were located in North Stockton as determined by Main Street. East Stockton Redevelopment Area contained 127 of the remaining units while the rest were largely located in renewal areas in South Stockton. Tracy had 79 allocations, all in Westchester Green Subdivision. The largest allocation of units in Stockton occurred in Knights Addition, with 83. Escalon had none, while Manteca contained 1.34. It seems clear that Section 235 could be effective in providing _J housing for moderate income families in the County. Income limits generally run in the neighborhood of $7,500 to $10,000, depending on family size. When combined with the land write-down of an Urban Renewal area, the subsidy can reach, in some instances, to the $6,000 to $7,000 income ranges. However. since Section 235 cannot be used along with rent supplements it misses the vast majority of lower income families. At this point in time it is difficult to evaluate the use of the 235 program in Stockton because the "jury is still out", so to speak. The criticism most often heard was that its use in South Stockton concentrated too many families of moderate income in small geographic areas. Social problems are com- pounded by such concentrations. The homeowners there were often described as those "last hired and first fired." It is clear, given the profiles of most 235 homeowners, that many prospective buyers under the 235 program could benefit by extensive financial and homeownership counseling, prior to and after buying. Neighborhoods containing a high per- centage of Section 235 homes, particularly in areas where there previously was a great deal of deterioration, need attention as to adequacy of public facilities, parks, etc. Neighborhood associations that encourage continual upgrading and maintenance have been suggested as helpful to renewal areas incorporating Section 235. Usage of the 235 program in South Stockton in other than urban renewal areas is doubtful. Implementation of site selection criteria by FHA limits the use of mortgage assistance programs in areas of high minority concentration or areas of large previous usage of subsidized housing programs. FHA officials indicate that on the basis of these criteria, South Stockton was declared "off limits" to these programs in areas other than official urban renewal areas. The Section 235 program overall seems to have been used quite successfully in Stockton, the above mentioned concerns aside, particularly in conjunction with rehabilitation programs. The market for such housing appears to be quite strong. Rehabilitation Grants and Loans The City of Stockton made extensive use of Section 115 Rehabilitation Grants and Section 312 Rehabilitation Loans in the East Center Oaks Federally Assisted Code Enforcement (FACE) area and the Knights Addition and Sharpe Lane Rehabili- tation -Renewal areas. cum Rehabilitation Grants (Section 115) were for repair and improve- ment of owner -occupied houses of eligible families to bring the housing up to urban renewal plan requirements, or to standards defined in the FACE area. Grants up to $3,500 were authorized and covered only the actual cost of repair and improvement for owners with incomesbelow $3,000. For other owners the grant could subsidize the costs so that the owner would not need to pay beyond 25 percent of his income for housing cost. Section 115 grants were only made to owners within a FACE or Renewal area. Section 312 Rehabilitation loans were made to owner -occupants of homes in a FACE or Urban Renewal area whose homes were designated as in need of rehabilitation. Loans could be granted for a period of up to 20 years or 75 percent of the remaining life of the structure after rehabilitation. The loans carry an interest rate of three percent with a limit of $14,500. It is widely felt that until Section 115 grants are rein- stated at increased levels, a large proportion of the residents of a FACE or Urban Renewal area w i 1 1 continue to endure the r hardship implicit in programs requiring low income owners to bring their dwelling up to current standards. However. both loans and grants work well in "low cost" areas and where structures can be easily rehabilitated. Inadequate Provision of Public and Private Services The level of public and private services was felt by residents to be inadequate in lower income areas. Of particular concern was public transportation, police service, shopping facilities, streets and gutters, few minority businesses, recreation and the general public responsibility for upkeep of a community. To illustrate, it was felt by residents that public transpor- tation routes do not adequately serve lower income areas. Service is slow and infrequent. Low income families must maintain an automobile in order to get to work or to shopping centers many miles from their homes. Police service was also cited as a major deficiency, especially in the south section of Stockton. In particular, respondents in the south section of Stockton. J -82- Residents interviewed represent the following ethnic back- grounds: Spanish surnamed, Black, Filipino, Japanese and Chinese. In addition, farm workers and their union repre- sentatives were interviewed. Respondents were similar in having ethnic minority backgrounds, but were not of the same social or economic level and expressed differing views of many subjects. These residents expressed a feeling of isolation from the total community in neighborhoods of their own ethnic concentration. It was also noted that housing could not be separated from the cultural patterns, expectations, social, educational and economic conditions of minorities who need a sense of identity f with a particular neighborhood but also need to be able to participate in the life of the total City and County. -83- J -84- i GOVERNMENT RELATED CONSTRAINTS :.11" Owners of virtually a 1 1 housing benefit from one form or another of Federal Subsidy. For upper and moderate income homeowners, the subsidy is indirect. Internal revenue regulations permit mortgage interest and property tax pay- ments to be deducted from gross income. Apartment owners have the additional bonus of depreciation allowance and deductions for maintenance and operation, Some lower income owners have been aided by direct subsidy through Federal 235, 231, 221 and 312 assistance; renters have been aided by 236 assistance, rent subsidy and public housing. Unfortunately, just as people were beginning to learn what the Federal program numbers mean, the programs were being phased out. At this point in time, it appears that the only Federal housing assistance likely to remain in existence is the indirect tax deduction subsidy. The direct subsidy programs were placed under a moratorium. Subsequent to 4 the date of the moratorium, only previously committed con- tractural obligations were being funded. Since Federal programs provided the primary direct housing subsidy to San Joaquin County residents, the moratorium has effectively precluded new lower income housing. Intended t o replace the previous list of programs isthe Federal "Better Communities Act." This is the name given the second phase of Revenue Sharing. It is designed to replace the previous categorical grant programs with "block grants" or gross amounts of money transferred from Federal to local govern- ments. Allegedly, the block grants will total not less than a community received from categorical grants. The intention is for local governments to set their own priorities for expenditures on the basis of need rather than just because money is available through a grant program. The Act, however, is having a difficult time in Congress. The latest prognosis is that there will have to be a substantial revision for the Act to be adopted in time to be in effect by July 1, 1974. As proposed, the Act provides for $2.3 billion with 65% going to urban cities and counties and between $270 to $360 million going to states for distribution to local governments. Previous revenue sharing proposals provided for near).y three times as much money but they were defeated. M10 8 The current possibilities seem to be: lifting the moratorium and reinstatement of subsidy programs, revising direct subsidy programs or their permanent termination. Should the programs be discontinued, there is a presumption that another level of government will assume responsibility using block grants, local funds, or both, but this is not clear. •STATE The State legislature has approved tax rebates for homeowners, a form of indirect housing subsidy. The State also has a Department of Housing and Community Development that is involved in housing at the research, information and planning level. Otherwise, the State has been inactive in housing. There is no indication that the State intends to assume any responsibility in the area of housing, beyond requiring each city and county to adopt a housing element as part of their General Plan. The State, like the Federal government, has adopted environ- mental protection legislation. All projects felt to have a significant impact on the environment are subject to a review process. This requirement is intended to protect the environ- ment and does provide a basis for more intense care and planning; however, it does tend to increase the cost of development by at least a s much as the price of the Environ- A mental Impact Report, plus the cost to the developer for the delay, plus the cost of mitigating whatever detrimental impact is revealed. Somewhat of a constraint to the development of lower income housing is the State policy of taxing mobilehomes as vehicles rather than property. As with a motor vehicle, a portion of , the mobilehome tax is returned to the local government: however, it is a relatively small amount to begin with and decreases as the mobilehome ages. This generates some resentment at the local level where there is a desire to have property occupied with tax generating uses. Therefore, sanctions are taken against mobilehomes and frequently their location is severely limited or even restricted. The subject of tax inequity is extremely broad and complex. It extends far beyond the scope of this report. In general, however, the State dictates types and amounts of taxes which may be levied by local governments. A recent occurrence, M-1 M which undoubtedly will affect the ability of the County and cities in the County to raise revenue, is the property tax rate freeze. The property tax rate. the major source of local government revenue, now cannot be raised beyond current levels without approval of a majority of the electorate. There are exceptions, such as the event of major annexations or extension of service, but, generally speaking, the State has pretty well eliminated the property tax as a resource local government could tap to assist in the development of housing. For many years controversy has existed on the equity of State Laws which require local governments to assess land and improve- ments on the basis of highest and best use and fair market value. Many feel that if land were assessed at a higher rate than improvements, this would generate more rational urban development. It is felt that the current practice tends to disregard deteriorating and marginal improvements on valuable land; encourages sprawling and hopscotching of development: and penalizes maintenance and rehabilitation of property. Another obstacle to be overcome relates to the New Federalism concept proposed by President Nixon and manifested in the "Better Communities Act" previously described. The California Constitution is not as permissive as the Federal Constitution with regard to the utilization of public funds for private purposes. In other words, in order for local government to legally assume the direct housing assistance role previously filled by the Federal Government, it may be necessary to revise, or at least interpret more liberally, the State Constitution. . LOCAL Local governmental policies and actions are often in conflict with stated housing goals. Governmental actions and policies directly effect the cycle of depreciation in neighborhoods. For example, local government traditionally has provided tremendous subsidies toward the development of housing. Unfortunately, however, the subsidies have been subtle, indirect and have tended to benefit entrepreneurs rather than the ultimate consumer. Primarily, what is being referred to is the locational advantage resulting from public action that favors one category of land over another. What makes land valuable for urban purposes? The answer, of course, is its location, in reference to streets, public services and public facilities. Modern development requirements usually -87- K provide that the developer install local streets and utilities, sometimes to dedicate land for parks and occasionally to pay ' a fee to account for previously installed public capital facilities. However, development depends upon the existence of established major facilities that have been installed and paid for by others. Frequently, this represents a bonus of many thousands of dollars per unit to those engaged in develop- ment activity. In this regard, residents have complained that public services are inadequate or even absent in areas of residential decline while capitol improvements are readily extended in new growth areas. Data from the Stockton Neighborhood Analysis Study supports the contention that South Stockton has suffered from population decline and benign neglect while neighborhoods to the north are encouraged to grow. The zoning applied to land is another form of public subsidy. It is well known that zoning determines, to a great extent, the value of land as a corollary to its determining the potential use. Again, it usually is the entrepreneursor dealer in land that captures the profit. Zoning, particularly that for industry is often unrealistic and does not represent where development is likely to occur. In existing residential neighborhoods, such zoning fosters residential decline. Other local land development regulations tend to be somewhat reactionary in the sense that they were formulated to upgrade and provide standards where none existed previously. In many cases, requirements are imposed for the sake of appearance and enhancement of property values. There is no question that low density, large setbacks, wide streets, sidewalks on both sides and underground drainage are better. The question is, are they all necessary when a large percentage of the population is not even housed in adequate structures. 9 These points are raided not to attack the moral character of those who may benefit from these events and processes. On an individual basis, they assume risks and frequently contribute value for their efforts. Rather, the intention is to point out that local government may unintentionally be contributing to the inflation of land values and residential decline thru their policies and commitment of resources. This is one of the factors that make housing increasingly more expensive and, perhaps more significantly, local governments may be contri- buting to their own financial dilemma by selling stock in their corporations too cheaply. -88- City initiated annexations have sometimes failed because cities have not adequately responded to the concerns of residents regarding the consequences of annexation. Residents of unincorporated fringe areas have expressed a desire for the benefits of being part of an adjacent city but fear, often erroneously, that such services will greatly increase their costs. -89- I I m Mm PUBLIC FACILITIES This section covers three basic services: water, liquid waste and drainage. There are serious, often severe problems related to these facilities. Many of the problems derive from the geographical location, terrain and soil conditions of the County and the need to bring older, substandard areas up to an acceptable condition of health and safety. As if this weren't enough, the Federal and State governments, depended upon for financing major portions of needed major facilities, are revising their requirements to cause local governments to amend previous policies concerning use and extensions of facilities. San Joaquin County is located in an alluvial basin formed before recorded history by the flow of water from the Sierra Nevada. Although the San Joaquin River remains to remind the County of its previous land formation, most of the County's fresh water supply comes from underground storage areas or aquifers, not from the river. Water supply problems in the County are primarily expressed in terms of overdrafts on the underground supply. As pumping for domestic use increases. the barriers which forstall salt water invasion are broken down. Salt water invades and con- taminates the underground stores. The closer the community is to the river the more likely its water supply will be affected by salt water intrusion. Pumps in the western part of Stockton have had to be closed down because of the invasion. Areas like Manteca, on the other hand, are far enough removed that they have little to worry about unless much more serious erosions take place. To prevent overdrafting, and in some cases to improve water quality, affected communities are seeking supplemental surface water supplies. Currently liquid waste treatment is undertaken locally. Service is generally limited to the cities which own the treatment facilities. There are, of course, some conspicuous exceptions: the Lincoln Village Plant, a small plant serving the Housing Authority units in Thornton, and a small plant i n Lockeford. These small secondary treatment facilities and "packase treatment plants", however, often have a number of -91- operational problems which are as yet unresolved. For example, in a number of instances adequate effluent disposal systems have not been incorporated. In at least two cases in the County, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has placed cease and desist orders on further development within a subdivision because of package plant inadequacies. The effluent disposal systems provided by the designers were inadequate to handle the load and no backup system was pro- vided. This has precluded further development until water quality requirements have been met. Generally, residences in the unincorporated area of the County use septic tanks. Since much of the soil in the County is clay and poorly drained, many problems have occurred with septic tanks: particularly contamination of wells. Recognizing these problems the Environmental Protection Agency has recently required cities to agree to serve as regional treatment or processing centers as a condition of accepting Federal and State financial assistance for sewer and water projects. Consequently Stockton, Manteca, Tracy and Lodi ! treatment plants have been designated as major processors for their planning areas, and in some cases, for communities in adjacent planning areas. Although such facilities will facilitate the extension of services to areas currently blighted because they lack sewers, the regional treatment plant approach has inherent problems of cost and capacity. Trunk lines, individual connections, pumping stations, etc., are needed and will cost a great deal of money. In addition, some cities, which have assumed the responsibility as Regional Treatment Centers in response to Federal funding support, have reached ' treatment plant limits or must satisfy more rigid treatment requirements before additional residential development can be permitted. These problems w i l l have t o be remedied. Concerning drainage, adequate storm -water disposal presents cost problems in older areas of cities and in residential areas which are not contiguous to existing development. In the older area of cities there is a need for an improved drainage system. However, in many cases, property owners 1 -92- J C cannot afford the cost. In areas in which ment has skipped over large vacant parcels facilities must be extended at greater cost contiguous development. These increased c borne by affected homeowners and in some ca -93- C residential develop - of land, public than that for co are usually ses by cities. 1 7 J -94- -95- i - r section i 1 I : _' HOUSING ACTION PI c. x✓h. _ -95- INTRODUCTION Previous sections outlined the housing needs of the County and identified constraints to meeting this need. From these -findings, it is obvious that public policy must be focused on meeting the housing need, particularly that for lower income households, and that local governments must take the initiative in trying to alleviate housing problems in the absence of State or Federal commitment. Priorities must be defined and responsibilities must be assumed by appropriate public and private entities. _.,.,_,,,_,:Theapurpose.a:of this section is -to define, in brief,- the _major. problem, or housing need: to suggest policy, or changes in policy which would address housing ills: and to suggest possible actions which should be investigated by governments to determine feasibility of implementation. The point to be emphasized here is that the action programs and policy recommendations which follow are suggested methods of involvement and that these w i 1 1 be investigated further as to their practicality and feasibility by the newly created Housing Task Force. It should also be noted that it is not the intention of the Task Force to prescribe action programs for each juris- -di'ct'ion but -rather to suggest viable programs that -each--'- –'- — community could be involved in to alleviate housing problems. To provide background, the Task Force was created by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, the City of Tracy and the City of Stockton at the conclusion of the Community Development Program. These jurisdictions recognized that continuing responsibility for housing action should be vested in one body which w i 1 1 investigate, recommend and coordinate housing action programs and in other ways serve to further the objectives of safe housing in decent neighborhoods for all citizens. In order for the Task Force to accomplish these ends, it is essential that the San Joaquin County Council of Governments provide permanent technical and staff assistance. W� FINDING: Residents in low income areas have experienced difficulty in obtaining financing for home purchase, construction or improve- ments. ■ Policy: Local government should act to promote the flow of capital into low and moderate income neighborhoods. ■ Recommended Action Programs: i. FHA should be encouraged to review its current insuring practices with intent of directing equitable resources into the moderate income minority neighborhoods of the County. 2. Organizations such as Savings Association Mortgage Company, Inc. (SAMCO) should be encouraged to engage in a joint venture to create a revolving loan fund for rehabilitation of houses, with priority given to homeowners in designated renewal rehabilitation or code enforce- ment neighborhoods. 3. Cities and the County together should contribute to a single high risk insurance plan. This would greatly expand borrowing capabilities. An example of the potential of such an arrangement is in the Mission District of San Francisco where the Model Cities Program and the Crocker Bank engaged in a program of providing loans to homeowners in the area. Model Cities deposited $150,000 as security against default and the bank, in turn, will make $1.5 million available to residents for home improvements at seven percent interest. 4. The Cities and the County should insist that banks and insurance companies with wliotn they do business adopt Affirmative Action Lending and Insurance Programs. Among other things, an Affirmative Action Program implies review and revision of lending and insuring practices in supposed high risk areas. ■Discussion: Over -estimation of mortgage risks of borrower and property and neighborhood have caused traditional lenders to withhold their support from the target areas of the County. Studies conducted in a number of inner cities have concluded that the fears of lending institutions and govern- mental officials have often been highly exaggerated as to the risk of non-payment by minorities. A recent study in -97- West Fresno, California advanced the following arguments: 1) Experience of those who have made housing loans in West Fresno show a very low delinquency rate; 2) Much of the belief that low income people in general, and blacks in particular, are poor credit risks comes from records on such time purchases as automobiles and households furnishings. These are not good indicators of reliability in making housing payments. Methods must be devised to redirect capital into target areas. Existing housing will further decline and neighborhoods will become eien more undesirable if the existing good stock of housing is not preserved. Local governments must use their considerable power and leadership to encourage banks and lending institutions to invest in minority neighborhoods. This is not only a question of social equity, but also good business to help preserve the integrity of areas which are already built up. J -98- FINDING: Low and moderate income families are, for the most part, excluded from the new homeownership market. ■ Policy: Local governments should actively seek to increase the opportunity for homeownership among low and moderate income families. ■ Recommended Action Programs: 1. Encourage the State to form "little FHA's" to provide insurance mortgage funds for buyers in the target areas who heretofore could not secure long term financing. 2. Encourage Federal revision of Section 235 to provide direct low interest rate loans to eligible families, and encourage the formation of a Federal bank to make such loans. 3. Promote and publicize the potential benefits of cooperative and condominium type arrangements as owner- ship possibilities for low and moderate income families. 4, Encourage private builcbrs to use Turnkey programs to provide low/moderate homes in scattered sites in the study area. 5. Encourage the Housing Authority to develop new public housing units for sale to low income families in scattered sites throughout the study area. 6. Encourage the formation of a Housing Development Corporation. 7. Investigate the use of self-help, non-profit groups as potential sponsors o:E homes and other services. 8. Promote efforts to provide loans and grants from the Farmers Home Administration to construct housing in rural areas. =Discussion: Low/moderate families generally have an oppor- tunity only to buy older homes. Without Federal participation there will probably be little new housing constructed for low income families. Some new construction can be provided, however, through the use of special revenue sharing funds. The magnitude and nature of the Federally sponsored Better Communities Act is still undetermined, therefore ambitious --I programs requiring massive amounts of money for low rent public housing cannot be considered in this report. However, preparation for future Federally funded programs must be started now if San Joaquin County is to effectively compete for Federal assistance. Many low/moderate income families could afford to purchase their homes if a number of institutional costs commonly associated with acquisition, financing and transfer of title were reduced or eliminated. Section 235 was an interest subsidy program intended to provide homeownership opportunities to families in the $3,000 to $8,000 income range. The program subsidized mortgage interest rates down to 1 percent. For example, on an average $15,000 new unit with a 30 year mortgage at 8.5 percent the estimated monthly payment would be $155 on the open market. With the federal subsidy there would be a very low down payment and the same unit would have a monthly payment of only $121. One serious drawback of the Section 235 program is that the equity buildup in the subsidized program is much smaller than on a direct low interest rate loan. If, for instance, the government would provide a direct loan of $15,000 for thirty years to a family at 1 percent interest rate, in fifteen years the quity buildup would be $6,950. Under the subsidy program, f after fifteen years of payment on a thirty year FHA insured loan at 8.5 percent, the homeowner w i 11 have accumulated only $3,200 in equity. Since homeownership is a means of savings for moderate income people it would appear that interest subsidy -� programs defeat this intent. In the past, Turnkey programs were used to provide homeownership opportunity to poor people. Under these programs any private developer may propose to a local housing authority to build public housing in accordance with his own plans and specifi- cations. If the units were appropriately priced and met acceptable design standards, the local housing authority contracted with the developer to purchase the completed housing. "Turning the Keys" over to the local housing authority who then offered the houses for sale to low and moderate income families. Turnkey III type programs offered homeownership possibilities to families who have been tenants in publicly owned units for some time. Equity was built up through rent payments or from credits earned from undertaking maintenance. Under _100- I existing law the tenant would never pay more than 25 percent of his adjusted income for rent. As his income increased his rent would increase also. This would continue until such time as his adjusted income exceeded the set maximum. At that time, the tenant would either convert to the Ynm ownership program or acquire housing elsewhere, thereby permitting a family in the lowest income group to receive the necessary assistance. Programs under the jurisdiction of the Farmers Home Administration should also be investigated as to their ability to provide housing in rural areas. For example, the FHA with an office in Stockton, provides Section 502 loans and Section 504 grants with interest rates as low as one percent to low income families in rural areas of 10,000 or less. Under Section 502, loans are issued to individual families or non-profit groups who purchase materials and save labor costs by investing their own "sweat" in construction of new homes. -101- FINDING: The primary source of affordable and decent housing for low and moderate income households is in the rehabilitation and preservation of the existing housing stock. ■ Policy: Local government should promote the maximum use of rehabilitation and assisted code enforcement procedures where appropriate. ■ Recommended Action Pragrams: Rehabi litation 1. The County and the Cities should set aside sufficient monies from special revenue sharing to establish a revolving fund account similar to the Section 312 loan program of HUD, one which is especially tailored to the needs of the County. The concept of making such loans available on a County -wide basis should be investigated. 2. Private lending institutions and banks should be encouraged by the County and the Cities to form pooled risk insurance plans to provide loans for meaningful rehabilitation treatment in areas not covered by code enforcement programs. 3. Non-profit and limited dividend sponsoring groups who demonstrate the ability to provide expert management skills should be encouraged and assisted by the Cities and the County to undertake minimum and moderate size rehabilitation programs. ¢. Large corporations and experienced construction companies should be encouraged to use their considerable resources, management skills and expertise for demonstration programs. Such programs should be located in rehabili- tation treatment areas. Demonstration programs should, at a minimum, cover a city block. Other less experienced private sponsoring groups could benefit from the results of the demonstration program and the impact of a large size project will serve as a focus for other community conservation efforts. 5. Encourage the establishment of a limited dividend Housing Development Corporation composed of major businesses, residents and housing professionals. Shares could be issued to provide seed money to buy vacant land or deteriorating structures for the purpose of rehabilitating and selling them to low income families. This approach has been used in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and in Compton, California. 6. Promote efforts to provide rehabilitation loans to low make needed repairs. -102- Farm Home Administration income owner -occupants to i Code Enforcement 1. All housing offered for sale should be inspected prior to sale and should be brought up to housing code prior to occupancy. 2. Code enforcement programs should be undertaken on a neighborhood basis and subsidies must be available for those families who cannot afford to make needed corrections. 3. Code enforcement programs must be coordinated with other rehabilitation and relocation efforts and with social and economic counselling programs. 4. Voluntary code enforcement must be stimulated by area - wide educational programs. The Cities and the County should provide guidance and technical assistance to residents who wish to make their own repairs. 5. The Cities and the County should survey a 1 1 neighbor- hoods on a periodic basis with the intent of detecting early decline, such as neglect of minor repairs and unpainted houses. Such surveys should also include assessment of public improvements. Information regarding the condition of neighborhood public facilities should be incorporated in the formulation of capital improvement programs. Voluntary repair and rehabilitation of these areas should be encouraged through education programs, and technical assistance from the Planning and Building Departments and colleges should be made available to homeowners. These services should be made available after normal working hours and on weekends. 6. Demolition should be kept at a minimum and efforts should be made to keep very low rent housing on the market. 7. Add sufficient personnel to code enforcement staff to adequately provide area -wide surveys and technical assistance to homeowners. • Discussion: Rehabilitation The goals of rehabilitation are to provide much needed quality housing, in the shortest possible period of time, at rents and prices which people can afford. Secondly, rehabilitation tends to stabilize neighborhoods, deters future decline and loss of units and protects the sizeable investment of governments in public facilities. Since rehabilitation represents one of the major thrusts of this report, it is described in more detail than will other program actions. -103- Tunes of Rehabilitation Proqrams Four general types of rehabilitation can occur. The least costly action is a "paint -up, fix -up" program which runs less than 5 percent of the cost of new construction. This effort may be viewed as ordinary maintenance and somewhat less than minimum rehabilitation. A neighborhood organiza- tion with voluntary and/or public support may undertake such a project as a means of increasing neighborhood awareness and community pride. Minimum rehabilitation programs seek to achieve a certain level of quality at costs which do not exceed 20 percent of the cost of new construction. Moderate rehabilitation standards would be attainable at unit costs which do not exceed 50 percent of the new construct -ion. Maximum rehabilitation would bring housing units to new construction standards and would require costs within 50 to 80 percent of new construction. It has been found in many programs across the country that maximum rehabilitation has been extremely costly. In the Amity Village program in New York City, for example, maximum rehabilitation cost nearly as much as it would have to demolish and rebuild. Minimum and moderate rehabilitation have enjoyed varying degrees of success in the large cities of the nation. A "paint -up, fix -up" program coupled with a Federally Assisted Code Enforcement (FACE) program in the Belle Haven Section of Menlo Park, California, has contributed substantially to a renewed sense of community pride and has helped to conserve houses in a minority suburban community. The level of rehabilitation selected must depend upon the unique characteristics and needs of a particular community and the age and condition of the housing stock. Each requires financing equal to the magnitude of the task. Federal Assistance Programs Prior to the moratorium of 1973, the Federal government provided financial assistance to localities and non-profit or limited partnership sponsoring groups for rehabilitation. Reference w i 11 still be made to these programs since some are felt to be useful models for local government to use in the allocation of special revenue sharing monies and also because future Federal participation in the housing market may be based upon these experiences. A number of Federal assistance programs were available for rehabilitation of housing. -104- Sect oir-3f2 ITrwrand Section 115 cTrant programs served low and moderate income homeowners in code enforcement and urban renewal areas. Section 312 loans offered 3 percent interest rate loans repayable over a twenty year period. The maximum loan ceiling was $10,000. Section 11.5 crrants were restricted to very low income homeowners with incomes not to exceed $3,000 a year and the grant maximum was $3,500. A 1970 analysis of the performance of Federal housing sub- sidy programs was prepared by the George Washington University Center for Manpower Policy Studies. The analysis, entitled "Low Income Housing: A Critique of Federal Aid", indicates that Section 312 loans and Section 115 grants accounted for more housing rehabilitation than any other subsidy program. Both programs concentrated on houses in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. The Section 115 grant helped the lower income family make needed repairs but not rehabilitate since the typical grant was less than $2,000 and the family usually could not afford to go further into debt to secure additional money for rehabilitation. The average Section 312 loan was for $5,300 and allowed for minimum to moderate rehabilitative efforts. Local housing professionals indicated that under -funding of programs and restricted use of both programs to code enforcement or urban renewal area limited the extent to which these programs were usable to overcome blight. It was further indicated that the Section 115 grant program should have more liberal family income criteria so that large families, who might have incomes above the $3,000 but who were inadequately housed, could benefit from the program. The Section 236 program was aimed at the non-profit or limited- dividend groups with experience in the housing market and a demonstrated long-lasting concern with housing production and problems. The program could be used for single family units or for moderate size (20-40 units) apartments. Public housing authorities could use Section 236 to acquire and rehabilitate rental housing units in "adequate" neighborhoods. "Adequate" implying a scattering technique to place low -moderate income rentals in middle income neighborhoods. Rehabilitation by this method was usually of a moderate to maximum level and included, in some cases, gutting buildings and completely restructuring the interior. Section 235 and 221h could be used by non- profit sponsoring organizations for rehabilitation of small size programs (10-20 units). Only a few programs have been funded under these sections, however. Regular Section 235 could be used for rehabilitation of individual units. -105- In addition to these programs, the Farmers Hoene Admini- stration, under Section 502 of the Housing Act, can provide low interest loans up to $ 7000 to owner -occupants in rural areas for repairs which correct conditions which endanger the health or safety of a family. Sponsors of Rehabilitation Program Housing authorities, urban renewal agencies or other govern- mental bodies can sponsor rehabilitation programs for low and moderate income people. In addition, private sponsor- ship may take a variety of forms: 1) non-profit sponsors such as church -affiliated organizations who receive governmental assistance to buy, rehabilitate, and rent or sell completed units to eligible consumers, 2) private for-profit developers who are willing to accept limited cash returns plus additional tax benefits, can buy with governmental assistance and sell completed units, 3) large corporations, primarily those engaged in the manufacturing of building products, who participate in rehabilitation pro- grams as a means of showcasing their products, testing new components, protecting inner-city investments and also to seek a profit. National Gypsum, for example, explains its activities in rehabilitation programs in this way: "a desire to create social profit concurrent with financial profit" while another large company, Warner and Swasey, entered the field because among other reasons "as an inner-city operation, the company has concluded that it can stay and fight or run to the suburbs. It has elected to stay where it is", (Journal of Housing, 1970, p.80) Problems Encountered in Rehabilitation Programs Rehabilitation is not an easy process. The experience of public and privately sponsored programs across the nation have uncovered a number of critical features which seem to re -occur regardless of the size of the project or the quality of the program objectives. Privately sponsored programs have had problems of underestimation of costs, inefficiency of small scale operation, mismanagement, difficulties of securing properties and clearing titles, conflicts over goals and objectives and related problems. Private sponsors generally wish to provide a number of quality units at reasonable costs. They evaluate program success in terms of the number of people rehoused and the comparison of the environment of the people prior to rehabilitation with the new environment created by the program. Community leaders, however, may have a different -106- set of criteria by which "successful programs" may be gauged. They might well consider the number of jobs pro- duced for minorities during construction, the training opportunities and the feeling of people with control over their own environment as equally as important as the number of new units produced --conflicts between these two views of success have caused delays in projects and substantial cost overruns, especially when the sponsors were inexperienced in housing. The possibility of private sponsorship --community leadership interaction should not be minimized. Early efforts must be made to reconcile possible differences. Code Enforcement Code enforcement has a connotation of being a punitive, costly, disruptive process. In some cases, tenants have been forced to relocate because rehabilitated units become too costly for them to continue to rent. Owners may be required to spend large amounts of money in order to bring structures up to code. If the owner is unable to afford the expenditure, the unit may not be permitted to be occupied and is thus lost as a housing resource. Increased tax assessment on the rehabilitated building may also bring a financial hardship on an owner. Thus a key element in code enforcement is the availability of low interest rate loans to finance repair and rehabilitation. Under these conditions, code enforcement efforts should be expanded to a 1 1 neighborhoods needing conservation. -107- FINDINGS: The problem of providing affordable and decent housing for the elderly is severely complicated by the need for special urban services and by relatively low fixed incomes. ■ Policy: Local government should continue to expand housing opportunities and services for the elderly. • Recommended Action Programs: 1. Work with the Area Technical Agency for aging programs to address the problems of the elderly in each planning area and support its outreach efforts. 2. Sites for senior citizen service and recreational centers should be investigated which are near trans- portation lines and provide security and access to medical services. An example of such a center is the Little House in Menlo Park, California where over 2,000 senior citizens find companionship and recreational outlets. The budget for the Little House is $100,000 per year. Transportation is pro- vided by a mini -bus system and special services are provided such as a braille room. One meal a day i s provided several t i m e s a week. 3. Housing centers for the elderly have been constructed with HUD Section 236 and Section 23 programs. Such funds are presently not available. In lieu of Federal funds, a special district may be formed to provide funds for elderly citizen housing. The Geriatric Authority of Holyoke, Massachusetts, is funded in this manner. ■ Discussion: Elderly people need housing which they can afford and a number of additional support services which can best be met in urban areas by the establishment of centralized senior living arrangements. In rural areas, elderly people who wish to remain in their family home usually need low cost loans to make repairs and must depend upon the few social agencies with home visit services or neighbors for additional help. Any housing program for the elderly should consider six elements of adequacy: medical services (including an insurance program), optional meal service at least once a day, social and recreation programs including access to public social services, a security program including patrol -108- and emergency response, property maintenance, and trans- portation. As is clear from these criteria, location of housing in the center of town where there is good security may eliminate the need for a security program and trans- portation, for example. Therefore, the emphasis to be placed on each of these criteria in meeting the housing need of the elderly is dependent on the location of the housing site. Studies also indicate that the best housing for the elderly is that which is kept to the smallest number of units possible to provide all six services. It has been suggested that a minimum of 50 to 100 older participating citizens is needed for a community to consider special housing facilities for the elderly. _109- FINDING: Residential deterioration in lower income areas is due not only to a lack of money to pay for the cost of repairs but also, in many cases, to a lack of knowledge concerning ordi- nary up -keep. y wPoiicy: Local government should actively be involved in developing consumer education and assistance programs. Recommended Action Programs: 1. Establish, with public subsidy, a non-profit Haran Maintenance Corps to work in target areas. 2. Seek to expand the Housing Authority's consumer education service to include all persons needing such assistance. 3. Encourage the Agricultural Extension Service and Community Colleges to establish bone repair clinics in target areas. 4. Promote a centralized, coordinated housing relocation and housing information office. 5. Encourage the use of cable television and other media to provide consumers with information concerning housing care. ' 1 oDiscussion: There is a need to develop innovative institutional arrange- ments to provide maintenance, education and management services to rental units and owner occupied homes alike. A Have Maintenance Corps should be established, with public funding, to provide these services. This would allow a continuing stabilizing force to be present in newly rehabilitated areas to insure upkeep and prevent reversal of the rehabilitation process. Hatne ownership counseling assistance was available under Section 237, HUD program. This service was for families who were considered marginal or poor credit risks by conventional standards and who were ineligible for other financing programs. Counseling was offered on debit management and home ownership. This badly needed service could be undertaken by a privately financed service organi- zation. Housing assistance information and relocation assistance is currently handled by several different agencies. These services should be combined to save costs and to prevent duplication of agency effort. -110- A 11 residents in need of housing assistance should be encouraged to participate in an expanded security and service program of the Housing Authority. Currently, the Housing Authority operates these programs on a limited budget only for their own tenants. Those persons who are candidates for assisted home ownership should be required to participate in home management training. -111- FINDING: In areas of high ethnic concentration, there is a need for neighborhood identity and involvement with the total community. ■ Policy: In areas of high ethnic concentration, local governments should support efforts to foster neighborhood pride and improve interaction with the total community. ■ Recommended Action Programs: 1. Initiate programs which would improve the general appearance of ethnic communities. 2. Implement social and cultural programs designed to preserve the unique aspects of each culture within residential areas of their ethnic concentration. 3. Involve residents of minority neighborhoods in precise, short-range neighborhood planning designed to accomplish realistic objectives to correct housing deficiencies. 4. Consider organizational arrangements which would equitably represent the housing concerns and needs of minority neighborhoods. 5. Support efforts to broaden representation on all appointed boards and commissions. ■'Discussion: In interviews conducted with minority residents, each ethnic group felt that the unique aspect of his culture should be preserved as much as possible within the residential areas of their ethnic concentration. They also expressed a desire to have identifiable neighborhood institutions which could interact with the total community. J Implicit in these conversations was the desire for a true choice regarding housing location. Minority residents a wanted the opportunity to choose a decent neighborhood either in areas of their own ethnic concentration or in other residential areas. By upgrading existing minority neighborhoods (which too often are characterized by residential deterioration) this choice becomes a tangible reality. -112- /11 1" FINDINGS: Governmental policies, ordinance and actions are often in conflict with desired housing goals and directly affect the cycle of depreciation in neighborhoods. ■ Policy: Governments should make the necessary administrative and ordinance changes in order to assure compatibility with stated housing goals. ■ Recommended Action Programs: 1. Evaluate and update General Plans and Zoning Districts to insure that extravagant use of high density resi- dential, commercial and industrial designations does not deter the conservation of older residential neighborhoods. 2. Incorporate provisions for special conservation zoning districts in City and County ordinances and actively seek the establishment of such districts. Said districts would be designed to provide stability to neigh- borhoods where existing mixed uses otherwise would imply future change and increase instability. 3. Develop and promote a County -wide Land Bank system which will buy, hold and resell land in areas where conflicting land uses have retarded residential expansion: in areas where assisted housing is needed: and in expansion areas where land appreciates in value because of public actions. 4. Examine and revise development regulations with a view to lowering the cost of shelter without, of course, increasing overall public costs or hazards to health and safety. In this regard, a set of minimum standards to meet the requirements of the Housing Code should be established in written form to assure consistent interpretation of the Housing Code for rehabilitation purposes. The minimum standards should be concerned with external appearance and safe housing conditions but should not require used or rehabilitated housing to be brought up to an unrealistically high level. 5. Investigate the possibility of requiring residential developers to make available a percentage of their units to low and moderate income families as part of a housing allocation plan. -113- 1 6. Encourage the Local Agency Formation Commission to work with the cities to establish Spheres of Influence for the cities and outline staged city expansion areas within the Spheres. The expansion areas will be the urban growth areas of the County. The County should be encouraged to inhibit urban growth in other areas. This practice will lead to more rational, conservable City growth. 7. Encourrge cities to couple their annexation efforts with programs which respond to the concerns of residents regarding annexation. 8. Encourage the County -wide coordination of a 1 1 housing agencies and programs to minimize cost and maximize efficiency in meeting the housing needs of the County. 9. Work for the repeal of Article 34 of the State Constitution which requires voter approval of public housing projects . ■ Discussion: Zoning and other institutional devices are ways in which local governments can protect existing public investments and help direct future growth. However, zoning particularly that for industry, is often unrealistic and does not repre- sent where development is likely to occur. In existing residential neighborhoods, such zoning fosters residential decline. Clearly zoning regulations and general plans must be revised 3 and updated to reflect realistic needs. The actual land area needed for industrial and commercial growth must be determined using the most sophisticated projections possible. Industrially desirable sites on major transportation routes should be identified. Residential development in these areas should be discouraged. The County's computerized information system will aid in determining optimumland use patterns. Green belts should be used as barriers between industrial sections and residential neighborhoods. In addition to more effective use of zoning controls, a new institutional structure is needed: one which could buy and hold land for future development. A County -wide Land Bank could mitigate the speculative increase in land costs which contribute so heavily to the high cost of housing. Future growth could be directed into preassigned districts. Sufficiently large tracts could be assembled to attract new industry into the inner city where police and transportation routes are already established. Growth could occur in an -114- . orderly fashion and industrial, commercial and residential leapfrogging and sprawl would be curtailed thereby reducing the costs of providing public facilities. Industrial growth and residential redevelopment could be timed to the expenditure schedule of the capital improvements budget. If we accept the premise implied here, that governments should benefit from the decisions and investments made in behalf of the public for the public benefit, then it would be justifiable for localities to require developers to assist in meeting the housing needs of low and moderate income families. There are other ordinance and policy changes which local governments should investigate in order to achieve con- sistency with stated housing goals. The Cities and the County should take a close look at building and development regulations. These may contribute unnecessarily to the added cost of housing. An examination of City and County policy regarding future development areas may also prove productive and serve to head off possible land use conflicts. Annexation procedures should also be scrutinized to insure success in populated areas. In addition to these actions, all agencies in the County which deal with housing and renewal should be coordinated. These would allow for consistency in policy and efficient use of manpower, resources and information dissemination. Special Federal revenue sharing money could more efficiently be channeled through agencies which coordinated their efforts. The cities and County could actively promote this coordination by expanding the area served by some agencies such as the Stockton Redevelopment Agency to include the entire County and encouraging maximum communications among the existing agencies. At the state level, a major constraint in providing housing for low and moderate income families is Article 34 of the State Constitution which requires voter approval for public housing projects. This effectively prohibits public housing authorities from utilizing the funding programs of Federal agencies, notably HUD and the Farmers Hare Administration, without the consent of the electorate. Repeal of Article 34 would greatly increase the capacity of the Housing Authority to meet local housing needs. -115- FINDING: Housing deficiencies and needs are directly related to problems encountered in employment, education, community health, and other socio-economic areas. ■ Policy: Governments should address housing problems in a comprehensive manner, coordinating their efforts with other agencies and organizations concerned with housing and related problems. ■ Recommended Action Programs: 1. The Housing Task Force, Committee to the Council provided with permanent by COG in order for it t on continuing basis. as the Citizens Advisory of Governments, should be staff and technical assistance o carry out its objectives 2. The Council of Governments should actively pursue funding from various sources in order to meet staffing and programming needs of the Housing Task Force. 3. A subcommittee of the Housing Task force should be formed which would be responsible for reviewing the activities of other agencies as it relates to housing and for developing strategies and methods to assure coordination and compatibility between the programs of these groups and those recommended for implemen- tation by the Housing Task force. 4. A program of socio-economic analysis should be initiated on a County -wide basis, in order to prepare socio- economic profiles of neighborhoods, particularly those which may require some form of community renewal action. ■ Discussion: Analysis of the condition of housing survey data and census data reveals that in areas of severe hcusing deficiencies, socio-economic problems are greater than in other parts of the community. Specifically, there is a disproportionate share of the unemployed and underemployed and, as might be expected, concentrations of the poor, the unskilled and those with low educational levels. Programs of neighborhood improvement must, therefore, be aware of and address these problems otherwise only temporary changes will be produced. Coordination must also be fostered among housing agencies and other agencies concerned with housing related problems since every action which increases the earning, skills and opportunities of residents in potential project areas strengthens the neighborhood. Efficient communication and cooperation among these groups would also facilitate efforts to seek housing sponsors for demonstration programs from foundations, corporations, insurance companies, and other potential sources. -116- . _ :;.�;y ,.�,r .- I -118- r r P m POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS- 1960.1970 'Percentages in Parenthesis relate to Planning Area Eigucee 2Spanieh includes Persons of Spanish language and other persons of Spanish surname 31960 and 1970 base data cannot be related SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960,TIble I -2, 19'10 Table P-1, P-5. P-7: General Population Characteristics, 1960, Tables 20-24, 1970, Tables 27. 209 31 POPULIgTION IEDIA AGE RACIAL DIST �BUTION } ] INCREASE E PEl � ISH 9- 1 HER !Z ) X LE °6 BLJICK BY 960 4.1 MA 1970 sss� 5.4 8Y A I960� s 0 A2 BY L96( ss� 5. RFA # % OF;may 0111R'Y I # 100.0 100.0 1gwm0 16.1 16.1 0 ppQQ 33pp EE �DO'.� 30:f 1970 1960 1970 1970 1970 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 249989 ,100.0 29020E 28.1 ssssw 30.7 sss� 29.1 ssw� lEl.l 6.5 STOCKTON PA 155220 62.1 176201 60.7 13.° 52.2 31.1 2E.( 30.4 28.E 7.c 8.3 19.5 5.1 7.6 CITY 06321 (55.6) 107644 (61.1) 24.1 53.0 33.t 28.1 32.1 2a.e 8.5 11.0 21.2 7.4 9.5 UNINC 68099 (44.4) 68565 138.9 -0.5 -0.8 27.1 27.5 27.4 28.4 5.2 4.2 16.8 3.5 5.2 MDI PA 31903 12.8 39832 13.7 24.5 19.7 33.f 31.6 32.4 32.6 - 0.1 9.7 4.: 4.3 CITY 22229 169.7) 20691 (72.0) 29.1 16.1 33.t 32.E 33.4 34.5 - - 7.4 2.c 3.3 UNINC 9674 (30.3) 11141 (28.0) 15.2 3.6 33.1 29.1 29.E 28.3 0.1 0.2 15.9 9.5 6.9 TRACY PA 19933 8.0 27.72E 7.5 9.c 4.5 27.4 26.3 27.6 29.7 3.1 2.3 26.6 2.2 2.4 CITY 11289 (56.6) 14724 (67.8) 30.4 0.5 29.0 27.4 28.1 29.7 1.8 1.7 24.4 0.9 1,7 UNINC 8644 (43.4) 7004 (32.2) -19.0 -4.1 25.E 24.2 25.7 29.7 4.8 3.5 31.2 4.0 3.9 MAN'CECA-[ATHRCP PA 17307 6.9 26562 9.2 53.5 23.0 27.1 22.4 26.3 25.8 0.6 1.4 15.7 3.c 4.4 MAW ECA CITY 8242 (47.6) 13845 (52.1) 68.0 13.9 26.4 25.3 26.0 25.8 0.1 0.1 12.2 0.5 2.4 UN INC 9065 (52.4) 12711 (47.9) 40.3 9.1 27.1 24.5 26.6 25.0 1.1 2.9 19.5 5.3 6.5 ESCA W N PA 5926 2.4 6986 2.4 17.9 2.6 29.6 27.9 29.8 29.8 0.1 - 15.3 0.3 2.1 CITY 1763 (29.8) 2366 (33.9) 34.2 1.5 30.4 NA 32.7 NA - - NS 0.6 2.6 UNINC 4163 (70.2) 4620 (66.1) 11.0 1.1 29.3 NA 28.5 NA O.I 0.1 NA 0.2 1.9 RIPON PA 4514 1.9 5362 1.0 11.2 2.0 28.7 27.5 29.2 28.5 - - 8.1 0.7 0.9 CITY 1894 (41.4) 2679 (50.0) 41.4 2.0 27.2 26.8 29.1 27.6 0.1 0.1 NS 0.6 1.0 UNINC 2680 (58.6) 2683 (50.0) 0.1 0.0 29.7 28.1 29.2 29.5 - - NA 0.8 0.1 LOCKEFORD-CLFMEKTS PA 4012 1.6 5139 1.8 28.1 2.8 31.4 28.1 28.8 30.6 0.3 0.6 12.4 2.5 3.6 SOUTH DELTA PA 5893 2.4 3252 1.1 -44.8 -6.6 30.6 35.9 24.8 26.0 0.5 0.7 41.6 8.3 4.1 LINDEN -PETERS PA 2679 1.1 3017 1.0 12.6 0.E 34.8 29.0 31.2 30.8 0.1 0.1 8.8 2.3 1.8 THnRNTON PA 2542 1.0 2121 0.7 -16.6 -1.0 32.4 � 30.0 22.9 26.3 0.0 � 1.1 1 38.0 3.3 9.5 10) 'Percentages in Parenthesis relate to Planning Area Eigucee 2Spanieh includes Persons of Spanish language and other persons of Spanish surname 31960 and 1970 base data cannot be related SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960,TIble I -2, 19'10 Table P-1, P-5. P-7: General Population Characteristics, 1960, Tables 20-24, 1970, Tables 27. 209 31 N R POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF CITIZENS al132 65 CLDERLY (65 AND OVER) MDERLY BELOW POVERTY T,EVF 1960 1976 1970 % OF % OF % OF % OF G CISANG� % OF OF TOTAL # AREA 'MUM" 9 AREA DLR4TY 1960-10 if OUNT1 91MERLY BY AF 7A SAN JOAQUIN 170WPY 24116 9.6 100.0 29676 10.2 100.0 23.7 6200 100.0 20.9 sTnr),,TON PA 15302 9.9 63.5 18244 10.4 61.5 19.2 3776 60.8 20.7 CITY 10454 12.1 43.4 12380 11.5 41.7 10.4 2401 38.7 19.4 UNINC 4848 1.0 20.1 5864 8.6 119.8 21.0 1375 22.1 23.4 [ADI PA 3600 12.2 16.1 5035 12.6 17.0 29.8 1071 17.3 21.3 CITY 3014 13.6 12.5 4115 14.3 13.9 36.5 904 14.6 22.0 UNINC 866 9.0 3.6 920 8.3 3.1 6.2 167 2.7 18.2 TRACY PA 1415 7.1 5.9 2028 9.3 6.8 43.3 479 6.9 21.2 CITY n14 8.1 3.R 1415 9.6 4.0 54.8 264 4.2 18.7 UNINC 501 5.8 2.1 613 8.8 2.0 22.4 165 2.7 26.9 MANTECA-LATHROP PA 1347 7.8 5.6 1827 6.9 6.2 35.6 459 7.4 25.1 CITY 608 7.4 2.5 1024 7.4 3.5 68.4 247 4.0 24.1 UNINC 737 8.2 3.1 803 6.3 2.7 8.7 212 3.4 26.4 ESCAWN PA 562 9.5 2.3 673 9.6 2.3 19.8 139 2.2 20.7 CITY 240 1116 1.0 315 13.3 1.1 31.3 UNINC 322 7.7 1.3 358 7.7 1.2 11.2 RIPON PA 4"2 10.5 2.0 603 11.2 2.0 25.1 116 1.^ 19.2 CITY 230 12.1 1.6 37A 14.1 1.3 f 4.3 UNINC 252 9.4 1.0 225 8.4 0.7 -10.7 LOCYEFORD-Cl FM!4NrS PA 397 9.9 1.6 427 8.3 1.4 7.6 61 1.0 14.3 SOUTH DEUPA PA 294 5.0 1.2 3c3 9.3 1.0 3.1 73 1.2 24.1 LINDLN-PETERS PA 296 11.0 1.2 307 10.2 1.0 3.7 58 0.9 18.9 THORNT�11 PA 141 5.5 0.6 229 10.0 0.0 62.4 26 0.4 11.3 AOURCf,': U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960, Table 7-2, 1970. Tables P-1, P-4: General Population Characteristics, 1960, Tables 20. 22. 24. 1970. Tables 28, 31 W O W m W Z mw0 4( V AMLE 3 0 10 cm w 9 ✓. .L17 oz q 2 at F N al x F Ix W !A C a � 0% ry O M n O �O Q O m Ln In h O n n 0 T n 0 ry h n1D O+ r a0 n TmO pend Z.•1and Iw M n M V' n d 4,44 d M d d M Q N M d M n In tn 94 fn QQ 4q M �( O T n M M n N N w . a m (o N V m 40 m 1A'1 V W 0% 0% &n N d m d &M M M C O> >n n a. -f 10 NN.d 1n �pQ NNN ddN 4 O T CL A* I b W F n 1n in 1n N W Ln N h 1n 0 m co LA M O 1n N 10 d 1n Q O�191 0+mM IOO 17.1 'iIt el! md c M N ': N ' M N N M N N M M M n M n M in N M M M n M M M M 1n 0% 1 cc in d -' M M O 1n M h d o un M W [n M M h m If O m M O a% d M N in V M Y1 n 0% 4n M .r V n n 1n n M N M 44,4 n M n M M M M N M M M M M M M M h 1n &n 1n 13% CO 1n •4 N 1n aT M h %9 �['! 0 N 11'1 O1 ID n 11 1n M b 0 1D h .+ h d m .-1 N C 1n N N n 01 .-I .-0 >b d M d N N M N M .i N n 1 1n r M N a li ^1 Q P1 5 '4 N Q ca (4 'i0N ml+mt`Md dNN ON co 1n 10 %o m P r10Q 10 Ino r4 T4 m .4 11 O 10d N M d m N .M 0 n M d N N N m M P m m%0 N e od m M 10 m h Lry !n C1 W N h 10 .-+ M m M N .1 .4 r1 C1 in M N r4 _ -- h i0 N d 1D W rl 0 n 10 1`i V 01 N U1 P � In M 1D IT N n In V dD Av1 ca vv a% iahO 10 Ln i4 %cn61N m M d 1n ko d h h 00 n N M M 14 Q N N �� r4 .I h r-� � m � h d 1-4 .1 .+ a a N P. a w ota S IZ1 a ►7 a a RI O d a W O T7 i F rC4 [moi H 3. r 1-1 W 'j" zm z -121.- O O T n .-I w . a m U e 4 r; +j C 1 0 d in 1 CL A* I b W F � y O V qu .. c Id i 1Q m ^f N N e z n m rd N CIV 0 C b S FA 0 0 c c.4 w C 0 m O F S. ua1 b r1 h W 7 16 0 a rn z D ul+ 4 0 W ® O a n m A m .i y in t it. N 1J m m m Adm 0 od K 14 :$ :3 E. o FA N m w b c •c u m m c x z n R .. ul 2 LEDIAN FAMILY INCOME -1969 CENSUS f NUMBER TRACT OF FAMILIES 1 1000 2 41 3 298 4 1724 5 593 6 474 7 1118 8 340 9 1480 10 1439 11.01 1541 11.02 1291 12 1449 13 1545 14 1312 15 1991 16 580 17 831 18 938 19 1353 20 766 21 428 22 1644 23 1107 24 1292 25 773 26 262 27.01 1117 27.02 723 28 324 29 -- 30 -- 31.01 240 31.02 2442 32.01 1201 32.02 917 4DIAN INCOME PERCENT OF OUN°TY MED IAA CENSWS TRACT NUMBER �F FAMILIES 4732 49 33.01 2060 4100 43 33.02 1623 6741 70 33.03 1394 9326 97 34 328 7620 79 35 1048 4545 47 36.01 871 7094 74 36.02 641 4708 49 37 874 9478 99 38 805 12092 126 51.03 11256 117 Stock ton 44244 11027 115 PA 73 13459 140 Manteca 9486 99 39 402 11013 115 50. Delt. 98 8374 87 PA 52.02 7656 80 53.01 1895 6293 66 40 477 9222 96 Thornton 55 6571 68 PA 7784 81 5516 9318 97 41.01 935 5367 56 41.02 816 6437 67 12.01 1556 6404 67 42.02 1938 5329 55 43.01 812 7667 80 43.02 1584 7574 79 44 1274 7307 76 45 783 7148 74 46 1018 -- -- Lodi 10716 10920 114 PA 14012 146 14799 154 17 1373 13432 140 [,ockefov PA �� 54ATTF: U.S. Census of Populatloo and Houslny, 1510, Table P-4 i MEDIAN INCOME 12170 11702 12535 9909 12205 11289 9846 8678 8265 9557 6805 6986 8533 9400 11273 11410 11754 10371 7536 8077 9467 10019 9445 PERCENT OF AUNTY MEDIAN CENSUS TRACT NUMBER F FAMILIES 127 48 048 122 Linden 131 PA 103 127 49 1776 118 Escalon 103 PA 90 86 50 1358 Ripon 100 PA 51.01 055 71 51.02 1200 51.03 811 51.04 1745 51.05 1489 73 51.06 454 Manteca 6554 PA 89 98 52.01 625 117 52.02 477 119 53.01 1895 122 53.02 1207 108 54 839 78 55 473 84 99 Tracy 5516 PA 104 SJ Count 73264 98 MEDIAE PERCENT OF [INCOME COUNTY MEDIAN 7797 81 058289 9567 100 8382 9687 10414 11101 9462 10027 10009 8924 9196 9810 12265 6559 7650 9480 9602 1 � i 87 101 108 116 99 104 104 93 96 102 128 68 80 99 100 41M -, 46 LODI w r n1 I N 4 a vo DELTA t� 3! a 1 /f M Sam SLO2 ~ TRACY 55 E- SUM -123- 47 LOCKEFORD 4! LINDEN 4! ESCA CIN I . E CENSUS TRIM IM WCCRPORK1ED CITIES RA14NING.RE. 50UNDAW CENSUS TRACTS WITH MEDIAN FAMILY INCOMES BELOW $ 5,000 CENSUS TRACTS WITH MEDIAN FAINLY INCOMES ABOVE # 10,000 .......... _ .._._.... CENSUS TRACTS WITH MEDIAN FAMILY INCOMES BELOW THE COUNTY MEDIAN IN 1960 AND N WHICH THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE BETWEEN 19608 1970 WAS I 1 BELOW THE COUNTY'S PERCENTAGE INCREASE. -124- r CHANGES IN MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME -1959-1969 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Pr pul.,llnn and Housing, 1960, Table P-!, 1570. Tabic P-4 .0 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME CENSUS PERCENT CENSUS 'ERCENT CENSUS PERCENT TRACT 1959 1969 NCRFASE NCRFASE TRACT 33.01 1959 1969 INCREASE NCRFASE TRACT 1959 1969 7797 [NCRFAS 1905 NCRFASE 1 4008 4132 724 18,1 2170 52.7 48 5892 3 2 2964 4100 1136 38.3 33.02 7969 ,1702 3733 46.8 Linden 3 6094 6741 647 10.6 33.03 .2535 4566 57.1 PA 4 6109 9126 3211 52.7 34 9909 5 5149 7620 2471 48.0 35 7682 .2205 4523 5B.9 49 5319 8582 J263 61.3 6 4485 4545 60 1.3 36.01 1289 5502 95.1 Escalon 7 4135 7094 2959 71.5 36.02 5187 9846 4059 70.1 PA 8 3778 4708 910 24.6 11 5034 8678 3644 72.4 9 6702 9478 2176 41.4 38 4679 8265 3586 76.6 50 5616 9561 3951 70.4 10 7711 2092 4381 56.8 Ripon 11.01 1256 3801 51.0 Stocktor 5960 9557 3591 60.4 PA 11.02 1455 1027 3572 47.9 PA 12 8643 3459 4816 55.7 51.01 8382 2705 41.6 13 6755 9486 2731 40.4 19 5350 6805 1455 21.2 51.02 3687 4010 70.6 14 1482 1013 3531 47.2 So. Dell 51.03 0414 4737 03.4 15 5750 8374 2624 45.6 PA 51.04 5677 1101 5424 95.5 16 5667 7656 1989 35.1 51-05 9462 3785 66.7 17 4672 6293 1621 34.7 40 4171 6986 2815 67.5 51.06 0027 4350 76.6 18 5826 9222 3396 58.3 Thorntor 19 4730 6571 1841 38.9 PA anteca 5617 0009 4332 16.3 20 4553 7784 3231 71.0 PA 21 6325 9318 2993 47.3 41.01 8531 3155 58.7 22 4180 5367 1187 28.4 41.02 5378 9400 4022 74.8 52.01 8924 1123 �s5.9 23 5286 6437 1151 21.8 42.01 1273 4481 66.0 52.02 4801 8196 1395 91.5 24 4069 6404 2335 57.4 42.02 6792 1410 4618 68.0 53.01 9810 8"23 40.4 25 3145 5329 1984 59.3 41.01 1754 4839 70.0 53.02 957 2265 278 15.5 26 5346 7667 2321 43.4 43.02 6�1' 0371 3456 50.0 54 2848 6559 1711 15.3 27.01 7574 2688 55.0 44 4579 7516 2957 64.6 55 1532 7650 1118 M. F1 27.02 4886 7307 2421 49.5 45 4411 8077 3666 83,1 28 31133 11411 3315 HO.5 46 5300 9467 4079 15.7 'Tracy x973 941!0 1507 8.6 29 -- -- -- -- PA 30 -- -- -- -- Lodi 6036 0019 3983 66.0 31.01 0920 2524 30.1 PA J1.112 k! 39f� 41112 5616 60. 9 SJ cou pit) y i8H9 9f,02 i7! 1 3.0 32.01 479'1 6246 73.0 47 5019 9445 4426 88,2 32.02 115'3 J432 4819 51.0 l,ockefoi PA SOURCE: U.S. Census of Pr pul.,llnn and Housing, 1960, Table P-!, 1570. Tabic P-4 .0 N m P POPULATION SOW PO119ZiY LeNE1- 1969 LODI % 100.0 1.3 (32.0) (32.0) 100.0 36.4 100.0 12.4 (48.4) (51.6) 100.0 9.3 STOCKTON SAN J'DAQUIN COUNTY CITY ALL FAMILIES 13264 100.0 FAMILIES BE WW POVERTY LEVEL 8179 11.2 FAMILIES WITH MALE HEAD UNDER 65 3846 147.0) FAMILIES WLTH FgMALB HEAD 3133 (38.3) TOTAL UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 28461 100.0 UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS BE W W POVERTY LEVEL 9114 32.0 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 92312 100.0 HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 12807 13.9 OWNER OCCUPIED 4985 (38.9) RENTER OCCUPIED 7822 (61.1) TOTAL, PERSONS 290208 100,0 PERSONS BE WW POVERTY LEVEL 40516 14.0 LODI % 100.0 1.3 (32.0) (32.0) 100.0 36.4 100.0 12.4 (48.4) (51.6) 100.0 9.3 STOCKTON PLANN CITY ALL FAMILIES 1141 FAMILIES BEWW POVERTY LEVEL 569 FAMILIES WITH MALE HEAD UNDER 65 182 FAMILIES WITH F'M'iAL,E HEAD 182 TOTAL UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 2546 UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS BE WW POVERTY LEVEL 926 TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 9959 HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 1231 OWNER OCCUPIED 599 RENTER OCCUPIED 638 TOTAL PERSONS 28691 PERSONS AFi,OW POVERTY LEVEL 2675 LODI % 100.0 1.3 (32.0) (32.0) 100.0 36.4 100.0 12.4 (48.4) (51.6) 100.0 9.3 STOCKTON PLANN ARFdt LODI 8.5 44092 100.0 5599 12.1 2480 144.3) 2442 (43.6) 37098 100.0 5954 16.0 51409 100.0 9142 15.9 3249 (35.5) 5893 164.5) 116209 100.0 21355 15.5 UNINCORPORATED LOD1 2969 100.0 318 10.1 201 (65.1) 61 (19.2) 469 100.0 193 41.2 2173 100.0 261 12.3 82 (30.7) 185 (69.3) 11141 100.0 1622 14.6 TRACY PLANNI UNINCORPORATEU LODI 8.5 :ITY OF 'OCKTON STOCKTON P LANNINU AREA q % # % # % 26338 100.0 11154 100.0 10716 100.0 3559 13.5 2040 11.5 887 8.3 1440 (40.5) 1040 (51.0) 389 (43.9) 1140 (48.9) 102 (34.4) 243 (27.4) 14580 100.0 22518 100.0 3015 100,0 4292 29.4 1662 7.4 1119 31.1 36208 100.0 21201 100.0 12132 100.0 6188 11.1 2954 13.9 1504 12.4 1856 (30.0) 1393 (47.2) 681 .(45.3) 4332 (70.0) 1561 (52.8) 823 (54.7) ,07644 100.0 68565 100.0 39832 100.0 18191 16.9 9164 13.4 4297 10.8 TRACY PLANNI AREA I3835 325 8.5 5516 100.0 554 10.0 214 (49,5) 166 (30.0) 1525 100,0 451 30.0 6115 100.0 196 11.9 353 (44.3) 443 (55.7) 21728 100.0 2629 12.1 i CITY OF TRACY UNINCORPORATED TRACY 100.0 I3835 325 8.5 163 50.2 119 (36.6) 1129 100.0 324 28.7 4752 100.0 515 12.1 234 (40.7) 341 (59.3) 14124 100.00 1569 10.1 UNINCORPORATED TRACY r x 1681 100.0 229 13.6 111 (48.5) 41 (20.5) 396 100.0 133 33.6 1963 100,0 221 11.3 119 (53.8) 102 (46.2) 7004 100.0 1060 15.1 r N J o, POPULATION BBaU1/ POVERTY LEVEL ALL PAMILIES FAMILIES BEWW POVERTY LEVEL FAMILIES WITH MALE HEAD UNDER 65 FAMILIES WITH FEMALE HEAD TOTAL UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS BEWW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL HKMSFA')LDS HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL OWNER OCCUPIED RENTER OCCUPIED TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS 13ecnw POVERTY LEVEL ALL FAMILIES FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL FAMILIES WITH MA4F HEAD UNDER 65 FAMILIES WITH FEMALE HEAD TOTAL UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS nELOW POVERTY LEVEL TOTAL H005F.HOLDS HOUSEW)LDS DEWW POVERTY LEVEL OWNER OCCUPIED REWER OCCUPIED TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS & EIS) YY POVERTY i,EV BL 1969 KNTECI ATHROP UNINCORPOMTED ES CA LUN RIPON PLANN I ARM CITY 01 IANTECA MANTECA PLANNING AREA PSA" AREA N !C #k !6 #1 % M % it x 6554 100.0 3534 100.0 3020 100.0 1776 100.0 1358 100.0 475 7.2 197 5.6 278 9.2 130 9.6 251 152.8) 91 (46.2) 160 (57.6) 71 (54.6) 150 (31.6) 80 (40.6) 70 (25.2) 29 (22.31 1423 100.0 842 100.0 581 100.0 344 100.0 599 42.1 336 39.9 263 45.3 94 27.3 7617 100.0 4066 100.0 3551 100.0 1630 100.0 739 9.1 421 10.5 312 8.8 200 0.2 139 9.5 413 (55.9) 244 (57.1) 169 154.2) 108 (54.0) 74 (53.2) 326 (44,1) 183 (42.9) 143 (45.8) 92 (46.0) 65 (46.8) 26562 100.0 13845 100.0 12117 100.0 6986 100.0 5362 100.0 2325 8.8 1049 7.6 1276 10.0 897 12.8 582 10.9 I,ocKEPORD-CL,F-1riE i'rS SOUTH DELTA LINDEN-1'6TFRS TFiORNTON ]J ANNING AREA PIANN AREA PLANNING AREA PI"N: AREA % x x x a 848 100.0 477 100.0 1373 100.0 402 100.0 129 9.4 67 16.7 84 9.9 68 14.3 85 (65.9) 55 (82.1) 72 (H5.7) 56 182.4) 33 125.6 5 ( 7.5) 12 (14.3) 12 (17.6) 250 100.0 1665 100.0 190 100.0 436 100.0 95 38.0 468 28.1 83 43.7 107 24.5 1525 100.0 517 100.0 956 100.0 578 100.0 119 7.8 1 14 2.7 74 7.7 80 13.0 62 152.1) 0 ( 0.0) 40 (54.1) 5 ( 6.3) 57 147.9) 14 (100.0) 34 (45.9) 75 (93.7) 5139 100.0 3252 100.0 3011 100.0 2121 100.0 599 11.7 705 21.1 405 16.1 412 19.4 I Percentages in parenthesis relate to total families or households below poverty level SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 197D, Table P-4: General Social and Economic C haracteristies. 1970, Table 107 I r CD I r POPULATION WITH INCOMES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL BY CENSUS TRACT -1969 CENSUS TRACT 1 TOTAL )PULATIO? 5696 NUMBER BELOW POVERTY 025 2 312 93 3 1141 211 4 6895 762 5 2555 439 6 2053 868 7 4671 303 8 1516 377 9 5284 726 10 5217 370 11.01 5433 369 11.02 4574 202 12 6526 478 13 5392 504 14 4032 405 15 6954 954 16 2027 307 17 3179 892 18 3305 464 19 5435 527 20 3273 544 21 1851 376 22 7314 1379 23 4316 192 24 5930 741 25 3990 304 26 831 17 27.01 4352 769 27.02 2029 586 28 1390 268 29 -- -- 30 9 -- 31.01 1294 367 31.02 8805 441 32.01 4489 190 PERCENT BELOW 'OVERTY 32.2 28.1 23.4 11.3 17.4 45.8 21.2 27.5 13.8 7.1 6.8 4.5 9.5 9.5 8.9 14.0 15.9 28.7 13.6 28.3 16.9 20.7 44.1 21.6 29.4 34.6 2.0 11.1 20.0 18.8 30.5 5.0 4.3 SOURCE: U.S. Census of rrpulation ant+ ho,fsing, I CENSUS TRACT 32.02 33.01 33.02 13.03 34 35 36.01 36.02 37 38 Stocktc PA 39 So. Del PA 40 Thornt( PA 41.01 41.02 42.01 42.02 43.01 43.02 44 45 46 Lodi PA 47 Lockef oz PA )70, Table P-4 TOTAL PULATIC 3191 7059 6320 5238 1475 3019 3146 2488 3321 4207 76209 3246 1 2121 3557 2906 5623 7328 2951 5710 4131 3146 3000 39032 5139 �w WMBER BELOW OVERTY 183 467 316 182 176 221 274 314 404 652 27639 105 412 640 456 297 418 225 521 809 513 418 4297 599 ?ERCENT 'ERCENT BELOW BELOW CENSUS TOTAL 'OVERTY TRACT OPULAT D 5.5 48 3017 6.1 Linden 6.1 PA 3.4 11.9 49 6986 5.8 Escalon 8.7 PA 13.4 13.9 50 5362 Ripon 21.1 PA 15.7 51.01 3494 51.02 4842 22.5 51.03 3854 51.04 6863 51.05 5561 19.5 51.06 1945 Manteca 26562 PA 17,8 52.01 2509 16.0 52.02 1760 5.3 53.01 7174 5.8 53.02 4527 7.2 54 3610 9.7 55 2088 17.6 Tracy 21128 17.0 PA 11.1 10.8 SJ Couhty ?90208 11.8 � NUMBER 'ERCENT BELOW BELOW POVERTY 'OVERTY 485 16.0 897 12.8 582 391 280 274 466 651 263 2325 445 152 572 227 888 345 2629 40576 10.9 5.9 9.2 6.8 11.7 13.7 8.8 16.8 9.4 8.1 5.0 24.1 20.1 12.1 14.4 r 0 1 o� FAMILIES WITH INCOMES BBUN POVERTY LEVEL CENSUS TRACT TOTAL NUMBER OF ?AMILIES NUMBER BELOW POVERTY PERCENT BELOW POVERTY 1 1000 266 26.6 2 41 9 22.0 3 298 68 22.8 4 1724 152 8.8 5 593 88 14.8 6 474 194 40.9 7 1118 286 25.6 8 340 83 24.4 9 1480 165 11.1 10 1439 77 5.4 11.01 1541 91 5.9 11.02 1291 40 3.1 12 1449 59 4.1 13 1545 110 7.1 14 1312 87 6.6 15 1991 209 10.5 16 580 75 12.9 17 831 186 22.4 18 938 114 12.2 19 1353 333 24.6 20 766 118 15.4 21 428 63 14.7 22 1644 646 39.3 23 1107 259 23.4 24 1292 301 23.3 25 773 256 33.1 26 262 -- -- 27.01 1117 191 17.1 27.02 723 139 19.2 28 324 58 17.9 29 26 -- -- 30 -- -- -- 31.01 240 36 15.0 31.02 2442 96 3.9 32.01 1201 43 3.6 32.02 917 43 4.7 33.01 2060 75 3.6 33.02 1623 80 4.9 33.03 1394 37 2.7 34 328 24 7.3 CENSUS TRACT 35 36.01 36.02 37 38 Stockton PA 39 So. Delti PA 40 Thornton PA 41.01 41.02 42.01 42.02 43.01 43.02 44 45 46 Lodi PA 47 Lockeforg PA 48 4inden PA 49 Escalon PA SCUIICL: U.S. Census of IuFulatIon and Huusiny, 1970, Table A-- TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF 'AMILIES 1358 NUMBER BELCW POVERTY NUMBER NUMBER ?ERCMIT OF BELCW BELOW 7AMILIES POVERTY 'OVERTY 1048 50 4.8 87I 58 6.7 641 86 13.4 874 114 13.0 805 134 16.6 44244 5599 12.7 402 67 16.7 477 935 816 1556 1938 812 1584 1274 783 1018 10716 1373 848 1776 ,--,.-.J 68 1 14.3 120 12.8 98 12.0 54 3.5 87 4.5 42 5.2 131 8.3 169 13.3 106 13.5 80 7.9 887 8.3 129 1 9.4 84 1 9.9 186 1 10.5 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL NUMBER OF 'AMILIES 1358 NUMBER BELCW POVERTY ?ERCENT PELow 'OVERTY 9.6 50 130 Ripon PA 51.01 855 72 0.4 51.02 1200 42 3.5 51.03 87.1 60 7.4 51.04 1745 94 5.4 51.05 1489 149 10.0 51.06 454 58 12.8 Manteca 6554 475 1.2 PA 52.01 625 101 16.2 52.02 477 30 6.3 53.01 1895 123 6.5 53.02 1207 59 4.9 54 839 163 19.4 55 473 78 16.5 Tracy 5516 554 10.0 PA s,7 count 1 73264 1 8179 1 11.2 - .i _... _ 1 sal-IINU 6d8 -IV.LOI AiNnoo %Z'll MV63AV AINnoz) 13A31 KL83A0d 3K MO'138 S3HWNl HiLM S3nir4V3 3HI -40 %OZ Ni wi 38ow mim som snSN3-) AUVOW= W311M ONOW" - VMLQ oxv4o*jmw 890 Av#,IV" WO AV"0114 ........... SLRWL S(Wo PD NOcllb 06 NOIVOS3 it N30NII ar —TIET— MIS VD31NVY4 soTc NIS rots as Itt A gulls", io 9f low Lf Ulf • ZO tri tefr 1001 wo tOZL WT irila ..........✓................... ro Ir NOiNKMI or 'we %o UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS WITH INCOMES BROW POVERTY LEVEL 1969 QRCE. U.ES. Census of Prpulatfon and Hourfr 'ERCENT 'OTAL NUMBEF NUMBER CENSUS IF UNRELATED BELOW TRACT INDIVIDUALS 'OVERTY 1 2730 904 2 181 60 3 274 62 4 1476 390 5 402 105 6 228 120 7 596 283 8 249 104 9 446 116 10 123 60 11.01 216 51 11.02 342 80 12 2277 302 13 800 221 14 650 171 15 730 291 16 178 51 17 356 176 18 258 107 19 494 206 20 184 67 21 119 63 22 372 Ila 23 489 191 24 545 254 25 153 49 26 50 17 27.01 300 138 27.02 172 67 28 98 41 29 8 -- 30 -- -- 31.01 452 240 31.02 421 54 32.01 166 37 32.02 69 10 33.01 770 209 33.02 480 90 13.03 110 27 34 65 20 QRCE. U.ES. Census of Prpulatfon and Hourfr 'ERCENT OTAL NUMBE )TALCIUMBE BELOW CENSUS ' UNRELATE 'OVERTY TRACT 4DIVIDUAL: 13.1 35 135 33.1 36.01 251 23.0 36.02 130 26.4 37 163 26.1 38 478 53.0 158 03 47.4 Stockton 19186 42.0 PA 144 26.0 79 50 46.0 39 1665 24.0 So. Delta 23.3 PA 40 13.2 117 33 28.3 40 436 26.3 Thornton 21 40.0 PA 138 21.0 141 66 49.4 41.01 157 41.5 41.02 129 42.0 42.01 188 36.4 42.02 775 53.0 43.01 66 32.0 43.02 421 40.2 44 613 47.0 45 513 32.0 46 153 34.0 46.0 Lodi 3015 39.0 PA 48.0 -- 47 250 -- Lockeford 53.1 PA 13.0 22.2 48 190 14.4 Linden 27.1 PA 19.0 15.4 49 421 30.7 Eecalon IF 9. 1970, Table p-4 NUMBER BELOW POVERTY 36 104 40 78 120 5948 468 107 49 57 94 180 28 180 268 200 63 1119 95 PERCENT BELOW POVERTY 27.0 41.4 30.7 48.0 25.1 31.0 30.4 24.5 31.2 44.2 50.0 23.2 42.4 42.8 43.7 39.0 41.2 37.1 38.0 83 43.7 138 12.8 Si Count 1 28461 1 9114 �ERCF.,]T uLL -4 I` YE RT Y 27_.3 34.5 36.9 52.5 39.2 44.6 61.3 42.1 29.2 28.2 29.6 10.4 35.2 46.8 30.0 34.4 OTAL NUMBE NUMBER CENSUS IF UNRELATE BELOW TRACT lNDIVIPUAL, POVERTY 50 144 94 Ripon PA 51.01 194 57 51.02 314 116 51.03 158 03 51.04 355 119 51.05 323 144 51.06 79 50 Manteca 1423 599 PA 52.01 117 40 52.02 117 33 53.01 537 159 53.02 201 21 54 192 138 55 141 66 Tracy 1525 457 PA Si Count 1 28461 1 9114 �ERCF.,]T uLL -4 I` YE RT Y 27_.3 34.5 36.9 52.5 39.2 44.6 61.3 42.1 29.2 28.2 29.6 10.4 35.2 46.8 30.0 34.4 w i o PERSONS 65 & O'NE3i WITH NCOIUES B9 -0W POVERTY LEVEL -1969 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL ELDERLY 1635 CENSUS TRACT 2 73 1 169 4 1530 5 376 6 220 7 691 8 185 9 512 10 221 11.01 316 11.02 436 12 1043 13 1184 14 694 15 850 16 249 17 376 IS 317 19 614 20 305 21 100 22 388 23 526 24 591 25 149 26 107 27.01 389 27.02 281 28 143 29 578 30 1 31.01 160 31.02 4311 32,01 155 32.02 164 IUMBER BELOW 'OVERTY ERCENT BELOW OVERTY 27. 1 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL ELDERLI 340 NUMBER BELOW OVERTY 9 ERCENT BELOW DVERTY 2.6 CENSUS TRACT TOTAL ELDERLY 307 (UMBER BELOW 'OVERTY 58 PERCENT BELOW POVERTV 443 33.01 48 18.9 50 68.5 33.02 251 36 14.3 Linden 42 24.9 33.03 71 4 5.6 PA 251 16.4 34 100 5 5.0 65 17.3 35 252 45 17.9 49 673 139 20.7 80 36.4 16.01 342 73 21.3 Escalon 242 35.0 36.02 191 38 19.9 PA 30.1 205 59 28.6 156 2 1.5 38 330 63 19.1 50 603 116 19.2 79 35.7 Stockton 18244 3776 20.7 Ripon 22 7.0 PA PA 81 18.6 76 7.3 39 303 73 24. 1 51.01 218 43 19.7 215 18.2 So. Delta 51.02 34 1 84 24.6 111 16.0 PA 51.03 189 30 15.9 239 28. 1 51.04 560 123 22.0 59 23.7 40 229 26 11.4 51.05 397 114 28.7 134 35.6 Thornton 51.06 122 65 45 14.2 PA Manteca 1827 459 25.31 157 25.6 PA 109 35.7 41.01 277 63 22.7 41.02 216 50 23.1 52.01 194 64 33.0 105 27.1 42.01 340 52 15.3 52.02 138 26 18.8 129 24.5 42.02 1218 167 13.7 53.01 744 168 22.6 150 25.4 43.01 IDI 23 22.8 53.02 280 26 10.0 68 45.6 43.02 1019 217 21,3 54 428 71 16.6 -- -- 44 953 273 28.6 55 244 72 20.5 136 35.0 45 578 la4 31.8 Tracy 2028 429 21.2 89 31 • 7 46 333 42 12.6 PA 49 34.3 Lodi 5035 1071 21.3 -- -- PA San Joaquin !9676 6202 20.9 "" County 13 8 1 47 427 61 14.3 20 4.6 Lockeford 5 3.2 PA 4 2.4 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Tables P-1, P-4 HOUSING UNITS•1960. 1974 — l',...-..,... t TOTAL YEAR-ROUND TOTAL YEAR-ROUND UNITS 1 TOTAL YEAR-ROUND CENSUS UNITS NET NET ERCVT CENSUS TRACT 1960 1970 CHANGE 'ERCENT'i. I 34817 - R3L -19.3 33.01 411f) 2 1104 177 - 927 -84.0 33.02 3 407 485 78 19.2 33.03 4 3195 3313 148 4,6 34 5 877 977 100 11.4 35 L, 653 703 50 7.7 36.01 J 2149 1597 - 552 -25.7 36.02 8 818 545 - 273 -33.4 37 9 1776 1864 88 5.0 38 10 1254 1533 279 22,2 11.01 1099 1697 9_2 Stockton 11.02 3068 16,52 281 PA 12 1812 2014 262 14,5 13 2157 2261 104 4,8 39 14 1266 1815 549 43.4 3o. Delta 15 1911 2615 704 36,8 PA I6 874 754 120 -13_7 17 1293 1250 43 - 3.3 40 18 1045 1130 85 8.1 Thornton 19 1561 1751 190 12,2 PA 20 1311 1073 238 -18.2 JI 392 4h7 77 19,r, 41.01 22 18119 1918 59 3.2 41,02 23 128( 1468 182 14.2 42.01 24 1985 1653 132 - 6.6 42.02 25 1179 871 292 50,4 43.01 26 ?87 317 30 1.0,5 43.02 27.01 5442 14',7 2510 14 27.02 2729 928 56 2,4 1757 45 28 4L2 4118 4 - 1,0 46 29 L(. 24 8 _ J0 - 1 3 I,odi 11.01 4[,, 7 509 PA 11.02 19911 2813 1347 (,7, S 12,01 134,) 47 12,o2 1430 924 R43 -").0 Locke ford 1660 335 20.2 PA SOU1tCL: U.S. Ccosus of ropulatlon Housing, and 1960, Table H-1, 1910, Table H-1 ;2,01 — l',...-..,... t TOTAL YEAR-ROUND UNITS ERCEN TOTAL YEAR-ROUND UNITS NET NET CENSUS 'ERCENT'i. 1960 1970 2743 CHANGE 1 'HA N (7, 1 TRACT 1960 1970 CHANGE 3W1fGE j 40 94 102' 1881 2046 4392 233,0 Linden 1474 PA 22C 539 119 145,0 754 1117 363 48.1 49 194 ? 2(,? 320 16 1099 EscaIon 1411 759 487 34.c PA 734 994 260 35.4 66ri 983 117 13.5 50 1471, 1692 217 14.7 iipon 51285 59865 9580 16.7 PA 51.01 1035 586 561 - 25 4.3 51.02 157{, 51.03 915 51.04 5442 2158 2510 46,7 51.05 1757 1,57 602 _ nu 8.4 31.06 543 lanfcca 5444 7984 2 Ao 4[,, 7 ,A lOFl 1660 335 20.2 934 ;2,01 C79 1738 12.02 1241 ,04 21 2.3 3213 1246 33,£3 2721 13,01 2479 2014 841 801 39.4 3.02 27(31 1399 1117 40, , 1994 14 1 ?C15 1334 - 31 17113 1971 L 7 R 9.9 5 651 1,93 42 1219 12 9 5 76 (..2 1095 1199 104 9.5 'racy 1.021 7 17 8 11',7 19,2 ,p 11014 3754 2740 24.9 J County 130(,`)7 96563 iRM, 1),7 1325 1637 312 23.5 z m N DISTRIBUTION AND OWNERSHIP OF HOUSING STMK- 1960-1970 SA ST LO TR Ln i r w MA ES RI L-0 SC LI TH 3tFMM OCOVPIED ALL OCCUPIED UNITS # 6 OF CWNER OCCUPIED % OF % Or 1 ) cmhmz 1 ] 100.0 31.2 1' # OF ,0 Ty 29.5 12174 (68.6) 16679 % OF OURrY MAN¢ a ICl 100.0 56720 x nr OUN3Y % nP tfANG J JOAQUIN COUNTY 14657 100.0 )2372 100.0 23.7 17475 100.0 19.5 7CKTON PA 17642 63.8 X7410 62.2 20.5 29904 63.0 34431 60.7 15.1 ZITY 27742 {58.2) 16208 (63.1) 30.5 15568 (52,1) 19529 (56.7) 25.4 UNINC 19900 (41,9) !1202 (36.9) 6.5 14336 (47.9) 14902 (43.3) 3.9 7I PA 10366 13.9 .3261 14.4 27.9 7043 14.8 8758 15.4 24.4 CITY 7550 {72.8) 9959 {75.1} 31.9 5249 74.5) 6587 (75.2) 25.5 UNINC 2816 (27.2) 3302 (24.9) 17.3 1794 (25.5) 2171 (24.6) 21.a 4CY PA 5409 7.2 6715 7.324.1 3224 6.8 4037 1.1 25.2 �ITY 3493 164.6) 4827 ( 71, 9) 38.2 2178 (67.6) 2834 (70.2) 30.1 ININC 1916 (35.4) 1968 (28,1) -1.5 1046 (32.4) 1203 {29,8) 15.0 9T'ECA-LATHROP PA 4983 6.7 7617 8.2 52.9 3489 1.3 4906 8.6 40.6 �ITY OF hLWrECA 2474 (49.6) 4213 (55.3) 70.3 1753 {50.2) 2651 (54.0) 51.2 JNINC 2509 (50.4) 3404 (44.7) 35.7 1736 (49.8) 2255 (46.2) 29.9 AWN Dk 1765 2.4 2164 2.3 22.6 1180 2.5 1306 2.4 17.5 D I T Y OF ESCAWN 595 (33.7) 842 (36.9) 41.5 412 (34.9) 567 (40.9) 37.6 JNINC 1170 (66.3) 1322 (61.1) 13.0 768 (65.1) 819 (59.1) 6.6 ?ON PA 1368 1.0 1630 1.8 19.2 943 2.0 1093 1.9 15.9 =Y 595 (43.5) 842 (51.7) 41.5 398 (42.2) 555 150.8) 39.4 UNINC 773 (56.5) 788 (48.3) 1.9 545 {57,8) 538 (49.2) -1.3 :KEFORp-CLEMENTS PA 1186 1.6 1525 1.7 28.6 822 1.7 1068 1.9 32.4 JTH DELTA PA 539 0.7 516 .0.6 -4.3 162 0.3 165 0.3 1.9 MEN -PETERS PA 842 1.1 956 1.0 13.5 515 1.1 629 1.1 22.1 )RN7ON PA 553 0.7 578 0.6 4.5 191 0.4 227 0.4 18.8 3tFMM OCOVPIED # 6 OF % OF % Or :OUNTY COUNTY cmhmz 27182 100.0 35652 100.0 31.2 17738 65.3 22919 64.5 29.5 12174 (68.6) 16679 (72.6) 37.0 5564 (31.4) 6300 (27.4) 13.2 3323 12.2 4503 12.6 35.5 2301 [69.2) 3372 (74.9) 46.5 1022 (30.8) 1131 (25.1) 10.7 2185 8.0 2670 7.5 22.61 1315 (60.2) 1993 (74.4 51.6 870 (39.8) 685 (25.6) -a.3 1494 5.5 2711 7.6 81.5 721 (48.3) 1562 (57.6) 116.6 773 (51.7) 1149 (42.4) 48.6 585 2.2 770 2.2 33.0 183 (31.3) 275 (35.3) 50.3 402 (68.7) 503 (64.7) 25.1 425 1.6 537 1.5 26.4 197 (46.4) 287 (53.4) 45.7 228 (53.6) 250 (46.6) 9.6 364 1.3 437 1.2 20.1 377 1.4 351 1.0 -6.9 327 1.2 327 0.9 0.0 362 1.3 351 1.0 -3.0 'Percentages in parenthesis relate to Planning Area totals SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Houkrq, 1960, Table H-1, 1970. Table H-1: Housing Characteristics. 1960, Tables 24. 25. 271 Detailed Housing Cteracteristics, 1970. Tables 54. 58 I r T ■ TYPE CF UNITS ADDED DURING 1960's iPereentages in parenthesis relate to Planning Area totA319 SOURCE. U.S, Census of Population and Housinq, 1960. Table 11-1, 1910, Table H -1f Housinq Characteristics. 1960, Tables 22. 25. 271 Detailed Housinq Characterietics. 1910, Tables 54. 50 TOTAL OCCUPIED CHANGS UNITS OWNER OCCUPIED RENTER OCCUPIED TOTAL HOUSINI UNITS I 'or COUN CHANGE 6 OF COUNTY CHANGE % OF COUNTY CHANCE% Or COUNT 1960-1970 11115 ADDITIONS 1960-1970 ADDITIONS 1960-1970 ADDITIONS 1960-1910 ADDITIONS SAN MAQTJIN COUNTY 100.0 9245 100.0 0470 100.0 16014 100.0 STOCKTON PA 9760 55.1 4527 49.0 5241 61.9 0504 53.4 CITY 0466 186.7) 3961 (87,5) 4505 (86.0) 1907 (93.0) UNINC 1302 (13.31 566 12,5} 736 {14.0) 597 (7,0) WDI PA 2095 16.3 1115 10.6 1180 13.9 3400 21.2 CITY 2409 (83.2) 1330 (78.0) 1011 (90.01 2423 (71.3) UNINC 486 (16,8} 311 (22.01 109 (9,2) 971 (29.7) TRACY PA 1306 1.4 013 8.8 493 5.0 1168 1.4 CITY 1334 (102.1) 656 (80.7) 610 {137.5) 1309 (110.21 UNINC -20 (-211) 157 {I9,3) -105 (37.51 -121 MANTMA-LATHROP PA 2634 14.9 1417 15.3 1217 14.4 2550 15.9 CITY OF MANTECA 1739 (66.0) 899 (63.4) 041 (69.11 1746 168.5) UNINC 095 (34.0) 519 (36.6) 376 {30,91 004 (31.51 75CAtUN PA 399 2.3 206 2.2 193 2.3 333 2.1 CITY 241 (61.9) 155 ?5. 2) 92 (47.7) 241 (72.41 UNINC 152 (38.1} 51 124.8) 101 (52.31 92 (21.61 RIPON PA 262 1.5 150 1.6 112 1.3 231 1.5 CITY 241 (94.3) 151 (104,7) 90 180.4) 243 (102.51 UNINC 15 (517) -7 (-4.11 22 (19.61 -6 (-2.51 i3OCYEFORD-CLFVFNTS PA 339 1.9 266 2.9 13 0.9 343 2,1 SOUTH DELTA PA -23 -0.1 3 0.0 -26 -0.3 2 0.0 i, INDFIN-p ErERs PA 114 0.6 114 1.2 0 -- Be 0.5 7MGRN7(nN PA 25 0.1 36 0.4 -11 -0.1 -54 0.3 iPereentages in parenthesis relate to Planning Area totA319 SOURCE. U.S, Census of Population and Housinq, 1960. Table 11-1, 1910, Table H -1f Housinq Characteristics. 1960, Tables 22. 25. 271 Detailed Housinq Characterietics. 1910, Tables 54. 50 At UNITS IN STRUCTURE SAN JOAUUIN COUNTY 19f,0 1970 % # X. Change STOCKTON PLANNING AREA 1960 1970 CITY OF STOCKTON 1960 1970 # % # % Change r R 96 Ch n e ALL UNITS 00674 100.0 96627 100.0 19.8 51290 100.0 59870 100.0 16.7 29073 100.0 37797 100.0 26.5 1 UNIT 69110 06.4 77906 80.6 11.0 41803 81.5 45755 76.4 9.5 21509 72.1 25187 66.7 19.9 2 UNITS 2130 2.7 3907 4.0 02.7 1696 3.3 2630 4.4 55.5 1295 4.3 2246 5.9 73.4 3-4 UNITS 2503 3.1 4107 4.3 67.3 1958 3.0 3151 5.3 60.9 1707 5.7 2717 7.2 59.2 5 OR MORE 6323 7.0 10621 11.0 60.1 5033 11.4 8326 13.9 42.7 5367 17.9 7647 20.2 42.6 UNINCORPORATW STOCKTON 1960 1970 PLANNING AREA TRACY PLANNING AREA 1960 1970 # CITY OF TRACY 19 0 1970 A # % # % Changd # % # % Change y., r_hanq y y. Chang ALL UNITS 21417 100.0 22073 100.0 3.1 6021 100.0 7196 100.0 19.5 3760 100.0 5069 100.0 34.8 1 UNIT 20294 94.7 20568 93.2 1.4 5634 93.6 5987 83.2 6.3 3427 91.1 3955 7B.6 15.4 2 UNITS 401 1.9 392 1.8 -2.2 40 .7 301 4.2 652.5 21 0.7 277 5.4 1219.0 3-4 UNITS 251 1.2 434 2.0 72.9 175 2.9 313 4.3 78.9 175 4.7 309 5.9 76.6 5 OR MORE 471 2.2 679 3.0 44.2 172 2.8 595 8.3 245.0 137 3.6 528 10.2 285.4 t"41NCORPORATFD TPiACY PLANNING AREA 19!,o 19 70 _ X g % Chanc I.ODI PLANNING AREA 1960 1973 CITY OF' Lf)Dl I' ,n 1070 # 56 A F Change q X a y., r_hanq ALL UNITS 2261 100.0 2127 100.0 -5.9 11010 100.0 13756 100.0 24.9 7896 100.0 10313 100.0 30.6 1 UNIT 2207 97.6 2032 95.5 -7.9 10310 93.6 11593 04.3 12.4 7309 92.6 0347 00.9 14.2 2 UNITS 19 0.8 24 1.1 26.3 269 2.4 656 4.0 143.9 239 3.0 613 5.9 156.5 3-4 UNITS 0 -- 4 0.2 -- 235 2.1 366 2.1 55.7 185 2.3 335 3.2 81.1 5 OR MORE 35 1.5 67 3.1 91.4 196 1.8 1141 0.3 482.1 163 2.1 1010 9.9 524.5 ol w OD :UNITS IN STRUCTURE Konli"a ! UNINCORPORATED LORI PLANNING; AREA � KANTECA -LATHkuF PLANNING AREA I CITY OF MANTECA 0 L9� 0 1960 TT 1470 1 1960 1970 1 70 b n k rhann 6 X. I 4i W. Channd Ghana ALL WITS 3114 100.0 3443 100.0 10.6 5444 100.0 7974 100.0 46.5 2642 100.0 4399 100.0 66.5 1 UNIT 3001 1 96.4 3246 94.3 8.1 5185 95.3 7099 89.0 36.9 2450 92.1 3154 85.3 53.2 2 UNITS 30 1.0 43 1.2 43.3 76 1.4 185 2.3 143.4 43 1.6 107 2.4 148.8 3-4 UNITS 50 1.6 31 0.9 -38.0 78 1.4 308 3.9 294.9 50 1.9 168 3.8 236.0 5 OR MORE 33 I 1.1 I 123 I 3.6 1272.7 105 1.9 382 4.8 263.8 99 3.1 310 8.4 213.1 TiR)RNTON PkANNIN G AREA [dY-Vj. ORT]PLANNING AkA SOUTH DELTA PI,ANNINC, J\M'A I at.r) I :'f';f1 I11"0i'17^ T -1 I97 i a 1 1s 9 ;.4 ChanuJ 4 a % % r.'h:,nn n n ALL UNITS UNINCORPORATED MANTECA-L.ATHROP PLANNING ARFA 1960 1.70 ESCAWN PLANNING ARTA 1 q 5f) 1570 RIPON PLANNING AREA 1 r+0 1910 -4.4 1325 100.0 1653 100.0 24.0 584 100.0 534 100.0 Y, Chan it 98.4 q % V6 Chang ALL UNITS 2802 100.0 3515 100.0 27.6 1942 100.0 2263 100.0 16.5 1415 100.0 1123 100.0 16.8 1 UNIT 2135 97.6 3345 93.6 22.3 1923 99.2 2162 95.5 12.2 1451 98.4 1624 94.3 11.9 2 UNITS 33 12 78 2.2 136.4 5 0.3 29 13 480.0 15 1.0 44 2.6 193.3 3-4 UNITS 28 1.0 140 3.9 400.0 5 0.3 22 1.0 340.0 _- __ 3 0.2 -- 5 OR MORE 6 02 12 0.3 1 100.0 5 0.3 50 2.2 1 900.0 9 0.6 52 3.0 1 477.8 TiR)RNTON PkANNIN G AREA [dY-Vj. ORT]PLANNING AkA SOUTH DELTA PI,ANNINC, J\M'A I at.r) I :'f';f1 I11"0i'17^ T -1 I97 i a 1 1s 9 ;.4 ChanuJ 4 a % % r.'h:,nn n n ALL UNITS 657 100.0 628 100.0 -4.4 1325 100.0 1653 100.0 24.0 584 100.0 534 100.0 1 UNIT 647 98.4 557 88.7 -13.9 1306 98.6 1604 97.1 22.8 494 84.6 499 93.4 2 UNITS 5 .8 34 5.4 580.0 0 -- 5 .3 _- 62 10.6 15 2.8 3-4 UNI 5 .8 0 -- -- 19 1.4 19 11 0 28 4.8 5 0.9 5 OR MORE 0 -- 37 5.9 -- 0 -- 25 1.5 __ __ __ 15 2.8 -8.6 1.0 -75.8 -82.1 ,9- .§ � ■�� _ . � 0 tt k;� § §■ ||© .. 2 can, s� _ W 2 §§ || 2�� lw�. ( ��- 00 �_0 00 cci,. �» �||; asIm )C; 4a;■ Doi to _� z ■k1 a§B-§ ci TABLE HMO _-0C4Q� § ,9- RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 1970-1973 CENSUS TRACT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS '1'4A 'AMILY JNITS UUTIPLI 'AMILY UNITS TOTAL CENSUS TPACT SINGLE 'AMILY UNITS .www 12 TWO FAMILY UNITS IULTIPTaI FAMILY UNITS 416 I CENSUS TOTAL TRAGI SINGLE FAMILY UNITS � 90 TWO FAMILY UNITS �� 0 ORJ,TIPL! FAMILY UNITS � TOTAL � ww�w� 1 �� 9 � 4 � 183 196 33.01 ww•� 0 420 48 0 90 2 8 0 128 136 33.02 16B 2 375 545 Linden 3 1 2 106 109 33.03 264 136 161 561 PA 4 '15 10 314 339 34 170 4 147 321 5 13 4 77 94 35 90 0 0 98 49 165 0 0 1(15 6 11 0 28 39 36.01 44 6 0 50 Escalon 7 11 10 3 32 35.02 49 0 0 49 PA 8 5 0 1 6 37 28 6 0 34 9 5 6 61 72 38 33 2 0 35 50 139 2 0 141 10 68 0 179 247 Ripon 11.01 4 2 0 6 Stockton 3108 406 3715 7229 PA 11.02 7 8 34 49 PA 12 4 0 0 4 51.01 134 2 0 136 13 9 6 30 45 39 8 2 0 10 51.02 394 29 160 583 14 16 0 115 131 So. Delt 51.03 91 0 0 91 15 29 6 0 35 PA 51.04 118 F9 101 2R7 16 11 2 0 13 51,05 79 6 105 190 17 38 0 0 38 40 11 4 0 15 51.06 52 0 0 52 18 75 2 0 77 Thornton 19 55 6 16 77 PA Manteca 868 105 366 1339 20 113 0 0 113 PA 21 127 0 0 127 41.01 64 4 0 68 22 118 0 9 127 41.02 39 0 3 42 52.01 76 B 0 04 23 10 4 22 36 42.01 176 56 93 325 52.02 30 0 0 30 24 18 0 6 24 42.02 01 22 173 276 53.01 265 52 293 610 25 39 0 0 39 43.01 304 32 210 546 53.02 1 0 B 9 26 1 0 0 1 43.02 2 2 262 266 54 100 0 160 2F0 27.01 49 0 0 49 44 01 42 169 292 55 44 2 0 4h 21.02 41 0 0 41 45 0 52 61 113 28 71 0 0 71 46 96 0 0 90 Tracy 516 62 461 1039 29 0 0 0 0 PA 30 0 0 0 0 Lodi 045 210 971 2026 31.01 0 0 240 240 PA 31.02 778 F0 967 1805 SJ Courtt.y 5966 703 5554 12303 32.01 170 50 0 220 47 216 2 30 240 32.02 313 50 100 463 Lockefor Planning PA SOURCE: San Joaquin County Department, Residential Building Permit Data �, f I.............. ..._.....»..vr......JL • }� ® CENSUS TRACTS WITH RESIDENTIAL j BUILDING PERMITS FOR MORE THAN I�:✓ 200 UNITS --141- OVERCROWDING 19TO CENSUS TRACT TOTAL x CUP IED UNITS NUMBER OF iVBRCROWDEC UNITS PERCENT CENSUS =CROWDED TRACT TOTAL )CCUPIED UNITS 1 3244 207 6.4 33.01 2553 2 171 9 5.3 33.02 1958 3 463 19 4.1 33.03 1406 4 3126 89 2.8 34 460 5 928 76 8.2 35 1104 6 667 127 19.0 36.01 1073 7 1529 271 17.7 36.02 746 8 504 86 17.1 37 973 9 1808 123 6.8 38 947 10 1511 94 6.2 1372 104 11.01 1672 101 6.0 Stockton 57406 11.02 1621 73 4.5 PA 17.6 12 2043 20 1.0 165 11.2 13 2214 61 2.8 39 516 14 1753 64 3.7 So. Delta 15 2525 165 6.5 PA 16 723 71 9.8 92372 6854 17 1174 155 13.2 40 578 18 1115 91 8.2 Thornton 19 1673 269 16.1 PA 20 971 184 18.9 21 458 106 23.1 41.01 1027 22 1832 514 28.1 41.02 907 23 1417 210 14.8 42.01 1677 24 1745 422 24.2 42.02 2653 25 860 330 38.4 43.01 821 26 304 28 9.2 43.02 1946 27.01 1403 186 13.3 44 1875 27.02 883 147 16.6 45 1226 28 389 84 21.6 46 1129 29 20 1 5.0 30 -- ---- -- Lodi 13261 31.01 476 26 5.5 PA 31.02 2738 73 2.7 32.01 1316 44 3.3 47 155 32.02 910 32 3.5 Lockeforc PA SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Table H-1 NUMBER OF ✓ERCROWDEE UNITS PERCENT VERCRONTDED CENSUS TRACT TOTAL OCCUPIED UNITS 956 NUMBER OF VERCROWDET UNIC S PERCENT NERCROWDEE 112 4.4 48 128 13.4 120 6.1 Linden 51.05 1688 204 76 5.4 PA 51.06 522 83 39 8.5 Manteca 7617 848 87 7.9 49 2164 248 11.5 67 6.2 Escalon 89 11.9 PA 52.01 642 118 154 15.8 5.5 52.02 567 63 146 15.4 50 1630 162 9.9 6.9 42 Ripon 53.02 1372 104 5448 9.5 PA 54 1201 199 16.6 153 51.01 982 173 17.6 95 18.4 51.02 1473 165 11.2 51.03 881 78 8.9 51.04 2071 145 7.0 51.05 1688 204 12.1 100 17.3 51.06 522 83 15.9 Manteca 7617 848 11.1 PA 131 12.8 77 8.5 52.01 642 118 18.4 93 5.5 52.02 567 63 11.1 91 3.4 53.01 2391 165 6.9 42 5.1 53.02 1372 104 7.6 91 4.7 54 1201 199 16.6 153 8.2 55 542 69 12.7 76 6.2 151 13.4 Tracy 6715 718 10.7 PA 905 6.8 SJ Count 92372 6854 9.6 198 13.0 1 1 1► , 7+ , 7��iy� +:1i 16i 0-7 11► xr �`_:x r l0.yx �� ii t ila h !it IPI i / 'it iifi► xl i HaN 11.a �►►f1+� ►1/►f1►►f lf�il►►►114 } ►►� � 7f1 i f1►x ��►�►Ifs f1♦'1►* � 1 r►►1►►11►f 1. •11 ►f If► If1♦►N 1►/N►►►s►N f1 �s IIi 1f►fffl i l�. �If� 11�t �►�! ►fi►off hfi ii i1�►�► y V aVERCRawoEDa seVEFav OVERCROWDED uNns lOvprcro,,rdPd unite are defined in the census as those with 1.01 or more persons per room 25aversly overcrowded units are defined as those with 1.51 or more persons Per room 3Snanis8 includes persons of Spanish language and other persons of Snts anfa, urnalme I rr [f r SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 1960, Table X-1, 1970, Tables H-1, H-3, H-5: Housing Character- ist iea , 1960, Tables 24. 26. 2 7 t General Haus ing Characteristics, 1970, Tables 19. 23, 21 OVERCRO ED1 SEVERELY OVER( WD"z 1960 1970 ELAC) SPANISH! 1970 %BUCK SFANTSHI _ % N % 1970 1970 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 1840 11,8 1854 9.6 9.5 36.2 552 2.8 11.0 45.3 STOCrMN PA 5611 11.9 X452 9.5 NA NA 541 2.7 NA NA CITY 1666 Y.6 1220 1.4 20.5 40.1 950 2.6 22.6 40.0 UNINC 2945 14.8 ',232 10.5 NA NA 591 2.8 NA NA W D I PA 849 8.2 905 6.8 NA NA 266 2.0 NA NA CITY 382 5.1 512 5.1 NA 26.0 110 1.1 NA 34.5 UNINC 467 16.6 393 11.9 NA NA 156 4.1 NA NA TRACY PA 765 14.1 718 10.7 NA 46.7 218 3.2 NA 52.8 CITY 361 10.3 426 8.8 NA 48.1 111 2.3 NA 38.7 UNINC 404 21.1 292 15.5 NA 44.5 107 5.7 NA 67.3 MANTSCA-LATH?07' BA 733 14.7 848 11.1 NA 32.7 208 2.1 NA 63.5 CITY OF MANTECA 283 11.4 368 8.7 NA 28.3 80 1.9 NA 61.3 UNINC 450 11.9 480 14.1 NA 36.0 1 2 8 3.8 NA 64.8 ESCAWN PA 218 12.4 248 11.5 NA 40.7 73 3.4 NA 8 0 , 8 CITY 58 9.1 51 6.0 NA NA 16 1.9 NA NA UNINC 160 13.7 191 15.0 NA M 57 4.3 NA NP. RIPON PA 183 13.4 162 9.9 NA 9.3 45 2.8 NA 17.8 CITY 75 12.6 67 8.0 NA NA 18 2.1 NA NA UNINC 108 14.0 95 12.1 NA NA 21 3.4 NA M LOCXFFORD-CI,EMEMTS IA 172 14.5 198 13.0 NA 20.1 51 3.3 NA 31.4 SOUTH DELTA PA 89 16.5 95 18.4 NA 60.0 40 7.8 NA 90.0 LINDEN-PE'PERS PA 84 10.0 128 13.4 NA NA 68 1.1 NA NA T"ORN'MN PA 1 136 sssw 24.6 � 100 17.3 NA e�w 44.0 42 7.3 NA 38.1 sssw� lOvprcro,,rdPd unite are defined in the census as those with 1.01 or more persons per room 25aversly overcrowded units are defined as those with 1.51 or more persons Per room 3Snanis8 includes persons of Spanish language and other persons of Snts anfa, urnalme I rr [f r SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 1960, Table X-1, 1970, Tables H-1, H-3, H-5: Housing Character- ist iea , 1960, Tables 24. 26. 2 7 t General Haus ing Characteristics, 1970, Tables 19. 23, 21 VACANCY RATE E10MBOWNER ALL AVAILABLE 1960 UNITS 1.6 0.8 1� 1�9� H 3.8 2.8 0.8 4.0 3.0 1.4 4.1 3.4 0.6 3.8 2.3 3DI PA 3.2 2.2 CITY 3.3 2.5 UNINC 2.9 1.5 LACY 111 4.6 3.0 CITY 4.9 3.6 UHINC 4.1 1.6 INT£C.i-LATHROP PJ 3.9 3.0 CITY 5.4 3.5 UNINC 2.5 2.2 iCAIAN PA 1.3 1.7 CITY M 1.6 UHINC NA 2.8 PON PA 3.7 1.6 CITY NA 2.1 UNINC NA 1.1 ICYEFORD-CLEMENT; 2.1 2.6 PA iUTH DELTA PA 0.7 0,8 NDEN-PETERS PA 1.2 2.2 iQRNTON PA 4.2 1.9 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Porulation 1970, Table H-1; Housing C 22. 25: General Housing ch 18, 23. E10MBOWNER VACANCY RATE 1960 1970 1.6 0.8 1.9 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.5 0.6 0.6 1.7 0.9 2.8 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 MA 0.5 NA 0.1 0,8 0.9 NA NA - 0.6 0,8 0.6 - 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.4 and Housing. 19E haracteristics, aracteristics, 1 tXWER VACANCY RATE 1960 1970 7.4 5.9 7.4 6.2 6.3 6.3 9.7 5.7 7.0 5.2 7.4 5.9 6.1 3.2 9.8 5.6 11.0 6.4 7.9 3.2 8.8 6.5 11.1 7.5 6.5 5.1 3.0 4.1 bA 3.8 NA 4.2 9.4 3.1 NA 2.7 NA 3.5 5.5 6.6 0.8 1.1 2.7 5.2 5.7 2.8 0, Table H-1, 1960, Tables 970, Tablee VACANCY RATE •1970 R CAN' OR ENT 157 70 43 65 6 8 1 3 21 508 4 10 11 10 41 33 3 33 58 43 15 247 31 OTAL VERALL ACAtT ACANCY CENSU€ NITS RATE TRACT �e 159 5.8 48 04 4.1 Linden 55 3.7 PA 75 13.9 9 0.8 49 12 1.1 Cscalon 4 0.5 PA 8 0.8 28 2.8 50 Ripon 1766 3.0 PA 51.01 4 0.7 51.02 51.03 51.04 51.05 11 1.8 51.06 Manteca PA 16 1.5 10 1-1 52.01 55 3.2 52.02 46 1.7 53.01 13 1.5 53.02 38 1.9 54 62 3.1 55 46 3.6 19 1.6 Tracv PA 305 2.2 SJ OSunty 40 2.4 CAI %R- 3Nr IT! ACAN 'OR% ALE 4 ACAr 'OR ENT 18 TOTAL 1ACAN1 INITS 7ERA ►CAN RATE )29 22 2.1 !62 TOTAL 33 37 1 _ i 92 10 DTAL 27 l.f YEAR- 'ACANT ALAN "OTAL IERAL I EAR- RCAF CENSUS ROUND 'OR OR 'ACAM �CANC CENSUS OUND 'OR TRACT UNITS TALE ENT (NITS RATE TRACT NITS SALE 1 3487 -- 98 98 5.7 33.01 743 2 2 176 -- 2 2 1.1 33.02 2046 14 3 485 1 18 19 3.9 33.03 1474 12 4 3343 12 81 93 5.8 34 539 10 5 977 2 34 36 3.7 35 1117 3 6 703 4 23 27 3.8 36.01 1099 4 7 1597 1 39 40 2.5 36.02 759 3 e 545 -- 33 33 6.1 37 994 5 9 1864 29 19 48 2.6 38 983 7 10 1533 13 5 18 1.2 11.01 1697 8 15 23 1.4 Stocktor )8154 258 12.02 1652 4 22 26 1.6 PA 12 2074 5 19 24 1.2 14 2261 7 24 31 1.1 39 560 -- 14 1815 1 38 39 2.2 So. Deli 15 2615 21 33 54 2.1 PA 16 754 2 24 26 3.5 17 1250 4 47 51 4.1 40 602 1 18 1130 3 8 11 1.0 rhorntor 19 1749 5 18 23 1.3 PA 20 1072 6 48 54 5.0 21 469 -- 6 6 1.3 41.01 061 5 22 1918 7 42 49 2.6 41.02 934 -- 23 1468 9 19 20 1.9 42.01 .738 14 24 1853 9 53 62 3.4 42.02 !721 13 25 871 2 3 5 0.6 43.01 841 10 26 317 2 6 8 2.5 43.02 .994 5 27.01 1457 14 13 27 1.9 14 .971 4 27.02 920 1 9 10 1.1 45 .295 3 28 408 2 2 4 1.0 46 .199 4 29 24 -- 3 3 2.5 30 3 -- - - Lodi 1754 58 31.01 509 -- 30 30 5.9 PA 31.02 2833 5 80 85 3.0 32.01 1349 5 19 24 1.8 4" .637 9 32.02 I 924 7 1 8 0.9 Lockefoi PA SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960. Table H-1, IWO, Table H-1 R CAN' OR ENT 157 70 43 65 6 8 1 3 21 508 4 10 11 10 41 33 3 33 58 43 15 247 31 OTAL VERALL ACAtT ACANCY CENSU€ NITS RATE TRACT �e 159 5.8 48 04 4.1 Linden 55 3.7 PA 75 13.9 9 0.8 49 12 1.1 Cscalon 4 0.5 PA 8 0.8 28 2.8 50 Ripon 1766 3.0 PA 51.01 4 0.7 51.02 51.03 51.04 51.05 11 1.8 51.06 Manteca PA 16 1.5 10 1-1 52.01 55 3.2 52.02 46 1.7 53.01 13 1.5 53.02 38 1.9 54 62 3.1 55 46 3.6 19 1.6 Tracv PA 305 2.2 SJ OSunty 40 2.4 CAI %R- 3Nr IT! ACAN 'OR% ALE 4 ACAr 'OR ENT 18 TOTAL 1ACAN1 INITS 7ERA ►CAN RATE )29 22 2.1 !62 4 33 37 1 _ i 92 10 17 27 l.f 35 1 29 30 2.5 76 15 42 57 3. i 15 8 7 15 1.0 58 9 65 74 3.4 57 10 43 53 3. c 43 1 2 3 0.6 84 44 188 232 2.9 79 2 9 11 1.6 94 2 5 7 1.2 79 4 56 60 2.4 99 3 11 14 1.0 34 36 69 105 7-9 93 3 10 13 1.9 78 50 160 210 2.9 63 131 2216 2647 2.7 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS PER 1 - 3 POISON UNITS 6 OR 4 PERSON UNITS 9.3 196 x 70 1960 x 1970 # 7537 1 9. ; 10.6 5228 # 4713 # w 62.3 60391 x 2988 x 2406 81 3090 8.5 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 46514 10.E 2307 65.4 12372 16.6 14440 15.6 8234 806 7.e 64.1 38564 10.6 908 91 455 6.0 586 SMCKTON PA 30269 WA 2 67.2 7650 16.2 8429 14.7 5010 CITY 18895 60.2 252ft 69.9 3924 14.1 4840 13.4 2517 UNINC 11374 57.2 13274 62.6 3726 18.7 3589 16.9 2493 LODI PA 6684 64.5 8802 66.4 1792 17.3 2212 16.7 1084 CITY 5024 66.5 6842 68.7 1267 16.8 1623 16.3 804 UNINC 1660 58.9 1960 59.4 525 118.6 589 17.1 280 TRACY PA 3199 59.1 4212 62.7 925 17.1 1139 17.0 664 CITY 2121 60.7 3120 64.6 653 18.7 825 17.2 381 UNINC 1078 56.3 1092 57.8 272 14.2 311 16.5 283 MANTECA-LATHROP PA 2717 54.5 4343 57.0 934 18.7 1443 18.9 108 CITY 1373 S5.5 2451 58.2 509 20.6 850 20.2 354 UNINC 1344 53.6 1892 55.5 425 16.9 593 17.4 354 ESCAMN PA 1021 57.8 1338 61.8 312 17.7 335 15.5 230 CITY NA NA 596 70.1 IA NA 124 14.6 NA UNINC NA NA 142 56.5 (A NA 211 16.1 NA RIPON PA 796 58.2 970 59.5 216 15.8 275 16.9 166 CITY NA NA 526 62.5 4A NA 130 15.4 NA UNINC NA NA 444 56.3 (A NA 145 18.4 NA LOCKEFORD-CLEMENTS PA 683 57.6 891 58.4 203 17.1 273 17.9 155 SOUTH DELTA PA 321 59.6 308 59.6 92 17.1 88 17.0 65 LINDEN -PETERS 519 61.6 594 62.1 160 19.0 176 18.4 86 THORNTON PA 302 54.6 369 63.8 wI � and Housing, 1960, Table H-1, 88 1970. H-1; 15.9 7012.1 65 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population Housing Characteristics, 1960, Tables 24, 26; General Housing Characteristics, [970, Tables 18. 23 PER IUNITS 6 OR MORE # 8625 9.3 1970 # 8916 1960 x 10.1 1 x x # 7537 ll.c 9. ; 10.6 5228 9.1 4713 lox 5182 9.0 9.1 2988 8.3 2406 81 3090 8.5 12.5 2240 10.E 2307 11.6 2092 9.9 10.6 1279 9.f 806 7.e 968 7.3 10.6 908 91 455 6.0 586 5.9 9.4 371 11.2 351 12.5 382 11.6 12.3 645 9.6 621 11.5 719 10.7 10.9 446 9.2 338 9.1 433 9.0 14.8 199 10.5 283 14.8 286 15.1 14.2 967 12.1 624 12.5 870 11.4 14.3 501 11.9 238 9.6 411 9.8 14.1 466 13.7 386 15.4 459 13.5 13.0 236 10.9 202 11.4 255 11.8 NA 76 8.9 NA NA 54 6.4 NA 160 12.2 NA NA 201 15.3 12.1 191 11.7 190 13.9 194 11.9 NA 100 11.9 NA NA 86 10.2 NA 91 11.5 NA NA 108 13.7 13.1 168 11.0 145 12.2 193 12.7 12.1 51 9.9 61 11.3 70 13.5 10.2 95 9.9 77 9.1 91 9.5 11.8 56 9.7 98 11.7 83 14.4 -148- 0 7 P P Q p O P p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d O O O O O O O O w } o G G P o G G G p G G G O u d o O O o pp o O 0 0 0 0 O o d O G G o G a o rt ph F C N ry O�611t� O N W ^a P U\i:iM�a Oln elW-T ^an a1O ory@nha inONO�R+nnN pa MW�u'1^MSD MyI�M� O � M M � Or�M1 O�,� -m�v. O� •G a P �- � ' n m CIN .s - - M C� N W •/� .� M ^ int •G U1 N 2 O C, 1 N O O _ ^ W vt DOM t U ✓ J ` � V- Mll1^ hNW MA MU],umm •6 01 C+ C C O = W G Y D2 W� �•O^- Y�W2 Z; DQ1 M^ -mm NNS Clh^ D1 - •LMN M•O M^ ^ MMMN �.s hv1fA C1 M1 2 .T M!n pi M _ t V c_ :n ? Cy j W m t W W K dL = T1 N d •O W -i Ut N - � W Cl al\ T� N ^ N M1 M n h N OQ ? O� •O a1 O V• N O m -S ry - C� Q1 Of h M r n u`, N Ol ew m .� +'+ !'+ fl- � N- M - N MN1 .� N .••.� M MMMrvMM V � O\ ^ - - v< 4n ^ � N Y1 N W N m 2 � v..0 � .. A W W � _ - u J V �,t �hMh^ MOO lD N O',S .- aW G W n- p�01N r --.o ut m m OW In..y Cl W m rr�vlMp�N UIM- Nm�DN4O �U7 LRha M1ArvQ�N@�J 3l� M1 M1 NW^Min N N hNa N?N N-Vt inN-�+N ^N L c - ✓Sv. "' ^mIn M2N 1Dc h MmnW-sWM; s " M @nhmD'• mm0'lh ins M1.p A@!tipsM N a nM1IA;.. f p;zw (1h22 �7!tw I O H;;' H>-- I.-ntgw 2 Vf U1 n h • 11@ ^- l�e�aWT 1!� n h L r w W � u 0• Z O-an+n •D Miti^mss O�T•O nNNin !til �h A-O-hin N M!n In W u1 ions ^ s 1O.I ir, s W ^ Q� �O ^ s M N tr� u'I G M NMR}^ MaltiO b4^Ct ASO+Aa NMN ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ � G� @ Q 1 M1 M1 OI a M M @S•O 17+n v1 .9 M O� M WN•Dm M •G •A M an ^ ^ 1'r u V , v,» b s ; j I I I l O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 b b O 99 99 i b0 4 p ^ p G N C V c. � b h ar O _ •• 1 •. 1 • I pi000000o doo 0 000000 o 000000P opp 0 oPopoo 0 0 00 00 ouloo oa ao O 4 a c e Y c «L- L i i- I O m !T •O MMM I SCOS I ry s •O MhM O ? M M MW i Oti 1 I I i I N I? �•p^� SIA I M101^ I N I M -.T N iAM Ol ✓i N N NM l a a N !bV -0 MON= MO N ill^gyp M N= �- �3 ul lt1 {n - N N N ;•L � L tll Y G S tr1! INhM@MI NIA�i I?MP MSN i I 1 i I - _-;I; �@ m I v, -.;'O I I SI •O ,P u'i mw T OO Oi at ?moi N O I N Ul U1 � - - c �• Y• - ^ ] O m Y b d ro Y U G i i! i� I; MSO M@•- 1 0 O1 -S I O I N Nm? O Ol 1 i M i •O N Ol N i l+! O 1^ I N^? N N m �O -0 AM1 -0 -,Z MW i - N � 1 N M M M M Y 9 Y J 9✓+✓ e O• N 1 1 1 1 ! M41�O^•O � h . 3 m O 1 1 1 1 1 • • N ..� N ifs? Qt P 1T �C n �O M m^ �O M /'>• • .S .• iA iA • 1N h W O Y� W W ry N N @ MN^ C—b 1A M1 M1 OM1 ; m I ] i 1 1 M 1^ N �O •O ^� 1 0� M I N I M1 N a�a M1 V O ^ C = Q J m 2.+ i l I I I N 1 1Q1 d DO 1. A I -T M1 •S I .; I M W M O O 1 1 1 1 I M I W Ol M1 01 O� U1 1 01Cp IA I N I M1 N N CO M1 CO Q1 C1 D1 •G S ? Vt iA �O a M in � to U\ M J •D �D pi p1 ^ iA M1 M v< 1 W lti d'DA o 'B'D @ b w W M1 M1 N N @ @ L ! 14 e I I I M M1 O1 p'• D1C0 ^ i^ pl i s N s ii'1 1 1 F i t IN M@n.Ms1�MAI-IM^�O1O M ^ !2 C, ^ N - - Ad r N OC1 m A M1 Q1 n M ifl M I P'! - nNI?O - W M V CO U W UI O C = V+NN O�6d Od QUI^M1NU1�W dp MQ�S DDm 40 M M1 O- 01 NmSr UlNMN M1S 1'll;; Go m N m W C1 N^ to Ci�W O b O G k MS M1W OI tnd ; Nm Wm�O 01 �Pm�Oma4w 1 SW M1 I Am- 1 V1MU1W {T Gpaagy alMb I N N- MY�QIMN M1Q�W N 1 N � M^ i ^ •D ^ �D M -S M I iA 1 N M � lO 1 1 1 1 Oln�p M R N N A I 1 1 W I 1 G C M W Z r O 1 � F Y ` Qi u1-0 •OW M1UIN N W M1-Q�MAAO M 1 p1M 1 �R1N OW �O N ^ •SDS ina A.t NN U�^p�l/lM 1ao M I S Y N N N �S. -:a vl I i O I 1 y A n M M1^�O DON ^ N M Ob �•a U11'r�AMq•••�p 1 U] N fr N � ^ O N U wi^ h N G k ✓ � U _ W 4 .� Z W of L/ N C = W 91 InMW NDO� MCO Ql^M1^ MMt MDd Opp U\ -S O ! 001 �N0 >•W Q1m N- AMm 11'1 M1�p ^ Q11A Lf1 inhM0 I MM1W M1itiN �lh Ci Pl Qti�?m�CI 0101 ODSW AIl�m 1f\H�I S i ! NS MO M 3a W ^ N S��W 1 I 1 i ! v 7 � CL O- �ln.c �tv� N cnp Pm.e N - O�CO@ N nM0 hCIM I M -.D .O v �• i 1 NMM4AW b NON rv@ S Y1N M!? IA 6� N N MU'11"• � I 1 N •O M @ N .. ili N m - •D O M M W � �O �O - U1 Y] N •[I n y L I • � U WOU 21 r 00 0o CO h@ ^ 4 u ro um y Y � C •.r d ro ro o a C Y ro V C _ LL Qco uroc M M;'- cc O ro •' U n m C r C a 1 6 N C U L „G. a �c �Cro -148- 0 0 W z Z Q J IL V z rr 0 Z e�e' '7 TABLE N u y 7 ro u L D Y Y L m > L L m Q ✓ 06 m ; pGy1 N k-0 Y L N E m C L ro L C] L a m E a Y C N 7 q p ro a o m c Y c aw L H S .. C L c m y Y a m m O a ; •+ } a L L C A N— a .moi L Y m G w 7 E ro m s m m c c m m O- c m u N m 7 a L a c — O L C a a 9 a�vc--m c N a 3 N N O7p �+ ++ a ++ aYi 3 S C A Y L C V �I w o 4 O n � @ N N r7 N @ — m — �O � m m m m m m a m Y •i Y sp Y m Y a aL � c c a v+ m w 4 a N a m rn rn c rn C u c •- c c u c L c C c m e C c p c Y a c Y G C y G c a L L m m C C G C c 7 L m ro m m m c L— w -149- in N W �DISTRBIJTION CIF YEAR ROUND HOUSING UNITS BYAGE L.._....: L_ -.._ L QUIN COUNTY 5TOCKTON PLANT, SAN J 1960 1 1960 NUMBER NUMBER NET 1969 -MARCH 1970 NUMBER 3637 1965-1968 -23.9 10002 1960-1964 2310 3.9 11631 1950-1959 24660 24775 1940-1949 19790 17662 1939 OR FORNffit 36235 28920 TOTAL 80685 96627 MEDIAN AGE 17.92 19.: N 1960 UNITS WST -10.3 11873 19.8 29.9 CITY 1960 % CHANGE 1 NUMBER +15942 NUMBER 1969 -MARCH 1970 59870 1598 1965-1969 -11.0 4185 1960-1964 STOC 4190 1950-1959 6746 7583 1940-1949 5831 6346 1939 OR FORMER 17296 13895 TOTAL 29873 37197 MEDIAN AGE 21+ 22.: % 1960 UNITS WST 712 3.2 LOOT 9973 1960 1 NUMBER 7.3 NUTS ER 1969 -MARCH 1970 465 1965-1968 10.6 1471 1960-1964 12.4 1858 1950-1959 3860 3146 1940-1949 2112 1831 1939 OR FCPA4ER 5038 4385 TOTAL 11010 13756 MEDIAN AGE 17.79 18.< % 1960 UNITS WST 26.5 21411 L.._....: L_ -.._ L QUIN COUNTY 5TOCKTON PLANT, I DECADE % CHANGE 1960 1970 X. NET NUMBER NUMBER 9L 3.8 -23.9 8586 16.4 2310 3.9 10,4 25270 'IANN3 ]ECA D3 5789 9.7 12.0 % CIffWGE 4654 6529 10.9 25.6 +115 .5 -22.1 15670 26.2 18.3 -2128 -10.3 11873 19.8 29.9 -7315 -20.2 % CHANGE 17700 29.5 100.0 +15942 +19.8 -2.2 59870 -9.3 -371 -11.0 2417 19.77 STOC T1 UNINCOR �FATEO STOCK9M 0 DECADE 1960 1970 % % CHANCE NET NUMBER NUMBER y(, 4.2 712 3.2 11.1 9973 1603 7.3 11.1 2339 10.6 20.1 837 12.4 8363 8087 36.6 16.8 515 8-8 7094 5527 25.0 36.8 -3401 -19.7 5954 3805 17.2 7924 26.5 21411 22073 13.30 17.89 -12.21 INNING A R M CITY OF 3 0 DECADE 'b CHRNGE 1960 1970 % I NEP ER NUMBER % 3.4 1 299 2.9 10.71 3794 1117 10.8 13.5 1572 15.2 27.2 -114 3.0 3132 3063 29.7 13.3 -281 - 13.3 1403 1272 12.3 31.9 -653 -13.0 3361 2990 29.0 2746 24.9 7896 10313 15.82 17.08 -9.52 ]ECADI NET % C HANICE ,4627 561 3.7 -1052 -4.5 5550 -23.9 8586 16.4 -11.78 AREA 'IANN3 ]ECA D3 N E T % CIffWGE 4654 -276 -3.3 1567 -22.1 2149 -36.1 662 3.1 18.64 ]ECADE mon- % CHANGE NEI' 2988 -69 -2.2 -131 -9.3 -371 -11.0 2417 30.6 -7.23 DISTRBUTION OF YEAR ROUND HOUSING UNITS BY AGE iewar 1969 -MARCH 1970 1965-1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR POWER TOTAL MEDIAN AGE % 1960 UNITS WST 1969-MRCH 1970 1965-1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR FORMER MTAL MEDIAN AGE % 1960 UNITS L9ST 1969-MRCH 1970 1965.1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR FORMER T0rA(, MEDLAN AOE % 1960 UNITS WST UNINCORPORATED U I P [ANN T NCS ARM NF `G CHANGE 1960 191r0 D�°IIADE NUMBER NUMBER 9.1 179 166 4.8 254 11.9 781 354 10.3 806 27.'.' 941 286 8.3 495 2084 728 Aal 19.8 -45 -6.2 709 559 16.2 -150 -21.2 1677 1395 40.5 -282 -16.8 3114 3443 1175 329 1,0.6 20.72 24.1a r 12.05 15.32 CIT! Of TRACY 1960 1!78 DECADE NUMBRR NUMBER NET % CHANGE 107 2.1 579 11-4 17�a 687 13.6 1388 1429 20.2 41 3.0 B82 900 17.8 10 2.0 1490 1367 27.0 -123 -8.3 3760 5069 1309 34.8 15.58 10.13 RA )P PLANNING AREA 196015 ) DECADE NUER MB NUMBER s NET % CHANO$ 423 5.3 1243 15.6 3171 1505 18.9 2162 1986 24.9 -176 -8.1 1361 1159 14.5 -202 -14.0 1921 1658 20.8 -263 -13.7 5444 7974 2530 46.5 14.11 14.11 11.77 TRACY Pi_.ANN2NC ARM 72 I 3.4 NF `G CHANGE NUMBER NUhLBER X 9.1 179 NUMBER % NET 254 11.9 781 10.9 1901 59C 27.'.' 941 13.1 701 495 2084 2019 28.0 -65 -3.1 1583 1395 19.4 -188 -11.9 2354 1881 26.1 -473 -20.1 6021 7196 4399 1175 19.5 15.85 18.41 -29.4 12.05 PIS.. ,.ori -- - -1970 DSCADL+ I 72 I 3.4 1960 1970 202 9.1 528 NUMBER % NET 254 11.9 256 5.8 696 59C 27.'.' -106 -15.2 701 495 23.:' -206 -29.4 864 514 24,2 -350 -40.5 2266 2127 8.8 -139 -6.1 15.06 19.07 -9.6 2642 4399 1757 66.5 10.14 -29.4 CITY OF MANTI A 1960 1970 _ ECADE NUMBER NUMBER % NET % CHANGE 256 5.8 670 15.2 1848 1 y<< 1 21.0 1313 1245 28.3 -68 -5.2 567 617 14.01 50 8.8 762 689 15.7 -73 -9.6 2642 4399 1757 66.5 10.14 12.82 -3.44 m in N W DISTRBUTiON CF YEAR ROUND HOUSING UNITS BY AGE SB"W 1969-M4RCH 1970 1965-1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR FORMER TOTAL MEDIAN AGE % 1960 UNITS LA5T 1969 -MARCH 1970 1965-1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR FORMER TOTAL MEDIAN AGE % 1960 UNITS LOST 1969 -MARCH 1970 1965.1968 1960-1964 1950-1959 1940-1949 1939 OR FORMER TOTAL HEOIAN AGE % 1960 UNITS LOST UNINCORPORAT MANTECA ;TFiROP PLANNING AREA btCAflB % MET % CHANGE 1960 1' NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 167 4.7 166 573 16.0 1323 194 583 16.3 849 741 20.7 -108 -12.7 794 542 802 1159 969 1475 2802 3575 20.80 16.9` 16.2' -7 1960 RIPON P! 1 % 1.9 1960 19 -30 NUMBER NUMBER % 24 166 9.8 SS 194 11.3 306 290 17.3 367 337 19.6 802 673 39.1 1475 1723 -140 20.80 24.41 40.4 1960 1' 1 % 1.9 NUMBER NUMBER 10 -30 SB 10.9 -16.1 24 4.5 Be SS 12.7 162 68 12.7 334 306 57.3 584 534 -69 21+ 31+ 10.4 NET I %CHANGE 415 92 -8 2.6 -30 -8.2 -129 -16.1 248 16.8 -8.6 -11.32 NET CMANGE 92 DECADE -20 -22.7 -94 -50.0 -28 -8.4 -50 -8.6 205 -24.32 ESCAWN 1 NNING AREA 1960 M DECADE % CHANGE NUMBER NUMBER % NET 71 3.1 205 9.1 537 261 13.5 465 396 17.5 -69 -14.8 556 416 10.4 -140 •25,2 921 914 40.4 -7 -0.0 1942 - 2263 321 16.5 19.10 24.71 11.12 1pCK$FORD-CLI !NTS P1,4NNIN %REA 1960 19 DECADE NUMBER NUMBER % NOT X CHANGE 80 4.8 180 10.9 476 216 13.1 237 240 14.5 3 1.3 306 269 16.3 -37 -12.1 782 668 40.4 -114 -14.6 1323 1653 328 24.0 21+ 24.11 11.17 LINDEN-PETEA PLANNING AR 1960 14 DECADE % CHANGE fU148ER5 NUMBERS % NET 31 3.0 90 8.7 176 55 5.3 220 105 L8.0 -35 15.9 227 169 16.4 -58 25.6 501 500 48.5 -1 -0.2 948 1030 62 8.6 20.54 29.11 -9.92 DISTRBUTION CF YEAR ROUND HOUSING U N ITS BYAGE SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960, Table H-1, 1970, Table H -I1 Housing Characteristics, 1960, Tables 23, 261 Detailed Housing Characteristics, 1970, Tables 53, 58 1960 1' RNNING AREA I DWAO! NUMBERS mum ERS 15 `1i 2.4 NET % CHANGE 1464-14ARCH 1970 1965-1968 18 2.9 81 1960-1964 48 7.6 1950-1959 129 167 26.6 38 29.5 1940-1949 199 145 23.1 -54 -27.1 1939 OR FORMER 329 235 37.4 -94 -20.6 TOTAL 657628 -29 -4.4 MEDIAN AGE 20.02 24.5'_ % 1960 UNrrS LOST -16.74 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960, Table H-1, 1970, Table H -I1 Housing Characteristics, 1960, Tables 23, 261 Detailed Housing Characteristics, 1970, Tables 53, 58 0 F w z W_ d �i W Z 0 a 0 W J TABLE 24ME b 0 iA U a1 r'!* cDOaovOooM OO N Mr.-Io1I`M T R.i a ri ri M n .-1 .i T Ln O N a h N �.�N RIDTONTN@r- 4 4 .+ .r O 7 M N F 0 M V O: c0 O O N R h•.-1 •in %o O Ln -t O M M N ri ri 1O In V' M 10 h 7 N a d7 m M T M 1P 1D 0 115 N N m r mM M .-1 N OR —MIA Mri OM+ -1r r ra M O O a h M M C! 07 q w O -0 %P CD In '1 '40 lT an O M M4 4-4 M min In M N N m N 0 qt T Min rrl�h 1d71nF T.iR107D10 O 1150 rl M 070a a N N1Na r'1 r4 r4 N M .4 M-4 111 0 m T 7 .-I 6+ 07 10 N F W C O M M M N R•In•M •7P �O N O ri NrN RPt In ar[v 10 Nn rM..O7olnbNhhuSN O M F 10.-1 r ma O+VI ItNM O M N N N N N N 1D 1"1 M 007 4a%C4ON h7ORF OW iA WW 111 Ln N M T•M•N• O ri N .4 M N ri 111 N l+ r 111 N M 10 r IP of 05 N CO T m 10m o1 M o'1 M r1 R rl 0] O W o5F M1 10r TM W01n 07 ri rl N M V a M R N .i W M M u OM 1P MM ri iO Il %D r7 ino1 0 NSC �h r! Q 11'1 r1 111 O M•M• O ri N M M M M T T M0701PaMMMRO T 1n TN 40NlD-qTMlnoa00 N O N h a r In Ui kn 7%0 F 10 w .i N M N to F 0 1-1 R .i 1D M 0,� 807 T 777 7010105 UU O T T T 7 7 T 7 7 T Q 0V 7-0 7 qp 7 7 7 7 a U, TNah 7aaT oo 0 M ri •-I M N M R 0: eA4oO000OnoOcz J-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9-4tQinnh0 r"Lf1n0tniin0A 4 r! r1 N N M 1n a y -154- o u+n�uloFM�.iaN Q C - R�O�0�M �m �r �m O O O M ri N M H rr V M 1D O .i 0 0 N R N .-1 1n m T.+11'1N �0RYtMO.+ M ao1RaN 0J N 1D M O h F m 1P M q' O �p M1 N N OO mtn0 Ln to CD 0 n �0 O R lir mm 1D M1N7N77115 115 N V N . O Q M N O] OS O T MNR W 7D 1D rM O M r O Y1 m 1D M w h R N 10 VO C e 1u .a r ui a1 c n1 0 1n N 0N q' N M 1P 71n 1D ON O MR to T kn .-11D r r 10 0 a ri O119 1D M .i N O F M 78 01 al. 00 R Io OMM 10 mm.i 0 O ri +n M 1O Mr at -11D ri a0 of os MNN rr o1/V u+0 MRN 1O F M4 -i c4 M In R YtN 7 N 10 N C 10 ri R037qr. N7 OMF O ri kn F O M oa N W 7 M O� O ri 0 In R 111 .a ri N N O T 10 IN 0 R o1 r 115 r M M 14 0700 N T R N N M a 10 in Yf M M N M 1P ri O M N v O m a M O M In 7 o .+ ri 1D C d r: ill A) N O ri MRC705@R.aN V Mrih C, M M 1D h � 4 1A IM U07777iT7T77 p uvTTaaT7T77 Q10nn071Nar-MV V M Q 0 Q SC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a a Q> m�000000000oz MO O O O O O O O O O R am0kA0 in0in0a00* r 'a0 r- N1Ah0 Nvs0R aw— ri ..! .i N N M o1 S N VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, 1970 rowtvel SPECIFIED OWNER OCCUPIED LESS THAN $ 5000 $ 5000 UNINCORPORATE) MART ECA ESCALON PLANNING AREA # X RIPON PUNNING AREA # % CITY OF RIPON UNINCOMRATLI RIPON * X OCKEnRD-CLEMENPS PUNNING AREA # # % # % SPECIFIED OWNER OCCUPIED 20000 - 24999 25000 - 34999 LESS THAN $ 5000 1460 100.0 774 100.0 791 100.0 548 100.0 243 100.0 561 100.0 $ 5000 - 7499 14 1.0 14 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 1.6 7500 - 9999 91 6.2 53 6.0 51 6.4 39 7.1 12 4.9 22 3.9 10000 - 12499 108 7.4 69 8.9 53 6.7 38 6.9 15 62 38 6.8 12500 - 14999 157 10.8 102 13.2 103 13.0 69 12.6 34 14.0 51 9.1 15000 - 17499 206 14.1 07 11.2 123 15.5 98 17.9 25 10.3 58 10.3 17500 - 19999 147 10.1 134 17.3 108 13.1 00 14.6 28 11.5 55 9.8 20000 - 24999 100 12.3 04 10.9 118 14.9 113 20.6 5 2.1 81 14.4 25000 - 34999 295 20.2 137 17.7 108 13.7 63 11.5 45 10.5 Be 15.7 35000 - 49999 180 12.3 70 9.0 91 11.5 31 5.7 60 24.7 119 21.2 50000 OR MORE 70 5.3 14 1.0 36 4.6 17 3.1 19 7.0 27 4.8 MEDIAN VALUE OF UNITS 4 0.3 10 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 2.3 17597 116157 16505 15938 $20278 18966 SPECIFIED OWNER OCCUPIED LESS THAN $ 5000 $ 5000 - 7499 7500 - 9999 10000 - 12499 12500 - 14999 15000 - 17499 17500 - 19999 20000 - 24999 25000 - 34999 35000 - 49999 50000 OR MORE MEDIAN VALUE OF UNITS SOUTH DELTA 'I.ANNING AREA N 96 40 7 2 1 3 8 7 8 2 2 19600 100.0 17.5 5.0 2.5 7.5 20.0 17.5 20.0 5.0 5.0 LINDEN-PMERS 'UNNING AREA # I % 253 30 0 20 5 16 46 10 25 60 20 13 17875 THORNTON PUNNING AREA 100.0 125 100.0 11.9 0 0.0 3.2 13 10.4 7.9 16 12.8 2.0 20 22.4 6.3 4 3.2 18.2 16 12.8 4.0 5 4.0 9.9 26 20.8 23.7 10 8.0 7.9 7 5.6 5.1 0 0.0 $15234 Limited to one -family homes an less than 10 acres and no business on property Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970 MEDIAN HOME VALUES 1970 CENSUS TRACT 1 OWNER CCUPIEA UNITS 208 MEDIAN VAWE 10500 PERCENT OF AUNTY MEDIAN CENSUS TRACT OWNER CCUPIED UNITS 1435 MEDIAN VALUE 21300 PERCENT OF "UMTY MEDIAL CENSUS TRAGI 48 OWNER CCUPTE1 UNITS 255 MEDIAN VALUE 20000 PERCENT OF rUNTY MEDIAN 64 33.01 129 121 2 16 8800 53 33.02 1031 20500 124 Linden 3 140 13700 83 33.03 1089 21900 133 PA 4 1114 15800 96 34 176 25800 156 5 377 11900 72 35 805 26100 158 49 798 16300 99 6 218 10200 62 36.01 471 18600 113 Escalon 7 659 10600 64 36.02 315 17500 106 PA 8 180 8200 50 37 506 13200 80 9 1145 15200 92 38 368 12300 75 50 785 16400 99 10 1303 18400 112 Ripon 11.01 1284 16400 99 Stockton 1269 16000 97 PA 11.02 1174 15800 96 PA 12 1528 20800 126 51.01 439 14900 90 ►' 13 sn 1326 15200 92 39 40 19600 119 51.02 747 15600 95 6' 14 1007 16000 97 So. Delt 51.03 421 22300 135 15 1558 12800 78 PA 51.04 331 18200 110 16 341 11200 68 51.05 869 15500 94 17 503 9700 59 40 101 12000 73 51.06 133 19500 118 18 667 13300 81 Thornton 19 944 10800 FS PA Manteca 990 17200 104 20 551 13000 79 PA 21 331 15500 94 41.01 337 18700 113 22 790 10600 64 41.02 311 22500 136 52.01 258 18800 114 23 686 11300 68 42.01 1322 19900 121 52.02 138 21400 130 24 961 9400 57 42.02 1701 19500 118 53.01 348 16600 101 25 307 13300 81 43.01 683 23300 141 53.02 083 18200 110 26 144 12300 75 43.02 1350 19000 115 54 380 11300 68 27.01 857 10700 65 44 804 12300 75 55 244 12400 75 27.02 573 8800 53 45 433 13800 84 28 220 8900 54 46 425 14500 88 Tracy 451 16600 101 29 -- -- -- PA 30 -- -- -- Lodi 7366 18500 112 31.01 112 20900 127 PA 31.02 2014 23100 140 5,7 Count 8551 16500 100 32.01 1024 24400 148 47 541 19100 116 32.02 B11 23500 142 Lockefor SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 1970, Tabla fi-I . .. .......... . . ..... SS CENSUS TRACTS WITH MEDIAN HOW VALUES ABOVE 125% OF THE COUNTY MEDIAN CENSUS TRACTS WITH MEDIAN HOME VALUES BELOW 75% OF THE COUNTY MEDIAN C W-1,210 NVI03W AiNnOP 3Hi M0139 S3nivA 3WOH NVIM HiIM Si0M SMN30 ME "Wa0mve AIM334" NO AmMN91N ....••....... N3CINI1 6• d21O33)001 't. $9 II V:)31NV W CO IC Inc zasc VO1 7015 ' ss tic zo,zc zo If Ms..,Milo zu•zc L Q t im 61 V1130 I in :CHANGES IN VAUJES OF HOMES • 1960.1970 MEDIAN VALUE IF OWNER -OCCUPIED UNITS MED: ' VALUE CENSUS INCREASE PERCENT INCREASI3 TRACT 1960 2500 1 8000 8800 2 7200 33.02 3 0300 33.0 4 1500 4300 5 8000 11900 6 7100 35 7 7400 43.7 8 5200 3200 9 1100 8200 10 3200 37 11.01 4100 36.9 38 2400 5200 L1.02 r r L2 6400 Ln 13 1600 i .4 1500 4400 .5 0500 15200 16 7800 39 L7 6200 39.1 8 9100 4300 .9 7800 11200 !0 7300 51.05 !1 1800 56.5 !2 7000 4200 !3 7900 10800 !4 5800 PA 15 6800 78.1 !b -- 3700 !7.01 41.01 10600 !7,02 6100 41.02 ".8 5400 43.0 42.01 9400 3600 62,1 42.02 13300 11.01 95.6 43.01 11.02 5200 -- 12.01 10700 4600 12.02 s�s� 7300 s�www 1970 INCREASE PERCENT INCREASI3 CENSUS TRACT 10500 2500 31.3 33.01 8800 1600 22.2 33.02 13700 3400 33.0 33.03 15800 4300 37.4 34 11900 3900 48.8 35 10200 3100 43.7 36.01 10600 3200 43,2 36.02 8200 3000 57.7 37 15200 4100 36.9 38 18400 5200 39.4 16400 4000 32.3 Stockton 15800 3400 27.4 PA 20800 4400 26.8 43.3 15200 3600 31.0 39 16000 4500 39.1 So. Delt2 12800 4300 50.6 PA 11200 3400 43.4 51.05 9700 3500 56.5 40 13300 4200 46.2 Thornton 10800 3000 38.5 PA 13000 5700 78.1 15500 3700 31.4 41.01 10600 3600 51.4 41.02 11300 3400 43.0 42.01 9400 3600 62,1 42.02 13300 6500 95.6 43.01 12300 -- -- 43.02 10700 4600 75.4 44 8800 2700 44.3 45 8900 3500 64.8 46 -- -- -- Lodi 20900 5700 37.5 PA 23100 7900 52.0 24400 7100 41.0 47 23500 6200 35.8 Lockeford PA SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1960, Table H-2, 1970, Table H-1, 1960 5400 0500 9600 7900 7400 0900 1900 3600 4000 9000 9600 7300 2500 9500 F OWNER 1970 21300 20500 21900 25800 26100 18600 17500 13200 L2300 1,6000 19600 L2000 L8700 12500 19900 19500 !3300 19000 12300 .3800 .4500 X8500 .9100 CV PI ED 1CREASE sw' 5900 5100 6500 5600 9000 7900 5300 4900 5100 5800 0600 6300 5900 9300 5000 3300 $200 7200 50DO 3600 sus! IITS PERCENT NCREASI 38.3 33.1 42.2 27.3 93.8 82.3 67.1 66.2 46.8 57.1 89.1 46.3 43.4 66.4 35.7 36.7 43.8 98.6 48.0 101.1 MEDIAN VALUE OF OWNER -OCCUPIED UNITS ERCENT C Erl S US TRACT 1960 1970 I14CREAS 3CREASI -- 48 -- 20000 -- Linden PA 49 9400 16300 6900 73.4 EScalon PA 50 9700 16400 6700 69.1 Ripon PA 51.01 14900 4500 43.3 51.02 15600 5200 50.0 51.03 22300 1900 114.4 51.04 0400 18200 7800 75.c 51.05 15500 5100 49.c 51.06 19500 9100 87,5 4anteca 0400 17200 6800 65.4 PA 52.01 18800 0700 132.1 52.02 8100 21400 3300 164.2 53.01 16600 5100 44.3 53.02 1500 18200 5700 58.3 54 7800 11300 3500 44.9 55 -- 12400 - -- Cracy 1100 16600 1500 49.5 A 3,1 (bunty 0700 16500 i800 54.2 { r rn 0 1 :MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT BY CENSUS TRACT 197O CENSUS TRACT RENTER CCUPIEI UNITS 948 MEDIAN F E"T PERCENT F COUNT MEDIAN 69 CENSUS TRACT RENTER DCCUPIEI3 UNITS MEDIAP r E' T 146 PERCENT )F COUNTY MEDIAN 174 CENSUS TRA CT 1 58 33.01 1051 48 2 150 43 51 33.02 669 145 173 Linden 3 311 98 117 33.03 303 160 190 PA 4 873 88 105 34 192 137 163 74 5 527 77 92 35 128 103 123 49 6 425 67 80 36.01 203 82 98 Escalon 7 831 FS 77 36.02 100 74 88 PA 8 312 55 65 37 248 79 94 9 404 97 115 38 386 78 93 50 10 181 132 157 Ripon 11.01 364 126 150 Stockton 22588 91 108 PA 11.02 418 126 150 PA 12 475 116 138 51.01 13 806 96 114 39 157 66 79 51.02 14 721 122 145 so. Delta 51.03 15 745 77 92 PA 51.04 16 339 77 92 51.05 17 557 70 83 40 243 58 69 51.06 18 348 82 98 Thornton 19 642 73 87 PA Manteca 20 361 87 104 PA 21 105 88 105 41.01 305 66 79 22 962 65 77 41.02 153 67 80 52.01 23 680 70 83 42.01 306 130 155 52.02 24 677 65 77 42.02 901 07 104 53.01 25 520 60 71 43.01 121 125 149 53.02 26 100 77 92 43.02 532 96 114 54 27.01 500 74 88 44 878 80 95 55 27.02 278 68 81 45 699 75 89 28 135 fi7 80 46 240 67 80 Tracy 29 12 75 89 PA 30 -- -- -- Lodi 4135 85 101 31.01 342 L40 167 PA 31.02 695 163 194 SJ County 32.01 276 L44 171 47 301 73 87 32.02 69 138 164 Locke ford PA SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1970, Table H-1 L,--..<,... L_._.. RENTER PERCENT OCCUPIE MEDIAN OF COUNTY UNITS E MEDIAN 143 65 77 490 77 92 421 77 92 288 96 102 598 100 119 193 108 129 636 109 13n 631 90 107 75 78 93 '421 98 111 174 74 88 119 73 87 999 107 127 742 93 111 771 h4 76 90 60 71 395 8F 102 3291 84 100 00010 r R3 :GROSS RENT ASA PERCENTAGE CF INCOME 1970 SAN JOAQU I N I LrN INCURP . COUNTY STOCKTON P.A. CITY OF STOCKTON STOCKTON SPECIFIED RENTER OCCUPIED ANEA CITY OF LOUI 4106 100.0 UNITS' 33223 100. 22587 100.0 16576 100.0 6011 100.0 INCOME LESS TW $5000 15602 47. 11456 50.7 8750 52.7 2706 45.0 LESS THAN 20% 1141 850 810 227 694 115 116 35.M 20-248 1341 1003 32.1 794 32.3 209 25-348 3091 344 2241 211 1690 182 557 164 358 OR MORE 0423 6365 4887 1478 NOT COMPUTED 1674 19.0 1031 721 685 610 346 4 MEDIAN % OF INCOME 35.0+ 35. 35.0+ 35.0* 5.2 INCOME $5000-$9999 11023 33. 1040 31.2 4915 29.7 2123 35.4 LESS THAN 20% 6113 3097 2676 1221 20-248 2300 1459 1139 320 25-348 6141 1103 772 411 358 OR MORE 350 231 191 90 NOT COMPDTED 559 220 137 83 MEDIAN % OF INCOME 18.6 17. 17.4 16.5 INCOME $10000-$14999 4123 14. 2049 12.6 1971 11.9 87H 14.6 258 OR MORE 70 55 37 l8 NOT COMPUTED 205 102 56 46 MEDIAN % OF INCOME 13.7 12- 12.6 12.9 INCOME $15000 OR MORE 1795 5. 1242 5.5 940 5.7 302 5.0 258 OR MORE 5 0 0 0 NOT COMPUTED 99 50 38 20 LOD i PLANNING ANEA CITY OF LOUI 4106 100.0 3348 100.0 1827 44.5 1459 43.6 119 69 129 79 401 286 945 850 227 115 35.M 35.04 1344 32.1 1000 32.3 102 503 344 211 182 164 19 13 91 49 19.1 19.0 721 11.6 610 18.2 4 4 13.1 13.9 214 5.2 199 5.9 5 5 13 13 r m w n y GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF I N C 0 M E 1970 ` owlfnoed UC71C C.ORI TPACY P.A. MANT�:CA-LP1THROP P.A. ESCRMN PLAI�IIVINC AREA NI PON PUINNING AREA LOCKEFORD- CLKM4NTS P.A. or SPECIFIED RINIFR OCCUPIED UNITS 758 100.0 2420 100.0 I1178 100.0 467 100.0 435 1100.0E 301 100 INCOME LESS THAN $5000 368 48.5 898 37.1 318 27,0 l88 40.3 174 40.( 125 41 LESS "THAN 2C% 50 77 24 5 19 O 20-24% 50 105 15 17 6 6 25-34% 121 186 66 31 24 32 35% OR Nn;E 95 409 152 99 92 51 PDT CCNWIED 52 121 61 36 33 36 MEDIAN % OF INCOME 35.M 35.M 35.M 35. 35 , 0+ 35.0+ INCOME $5000-$9999 264 34.8 1040 43.0 532 45.1 172 36.8 171 39.3 105 34. LESS THAN 20% 119 605 350 104 109 50 20-24% 73 206 102 43 45 9 25-34% 18 133 54 6 5 0 35% OR MURE 6 17 6 6 -- 0 NOT COMPUTED 48 79 20 13 12 46 MEDIAN % OF INCOME 19.0 16.3 14.4 17.0 11.9 2 3 . 3 INCOME $10000-$14999 111 14.6 352 14.5 279 23.7 84 18,0 77 17.7 48 15. 25% OR MORE -- 0 101 0 NOT COMPUTED -- 21 32 18 5 0 MEDIAN % OF P40OW 11.8 -- 14.1 13.1 I 13.0 -- INCOME $15000 OR MDRE 15 2.0 130 5.4 49 4.2 23 4.9 13 3.0 23 7. 25% OR MORE -- 0 0 -- -- 0 110T COMPUTED -- 5 0 5 4 4 . GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME 1970 586waad SPECIFIED RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS INCOME LESS T W N $5000 LESS THAN 20% 20-24% 25-34% 35% OR MORE NOT COMPUTED MEDIAN % OF INCOME INCOME $5000-$9999 LESS THAN 20% 20-24% 25-34% 35% OR MORE NOT COMPUTED MEDIAN % OF INCOME INCOME $10000-$14999 25% OR MORE NOT COMPUTED MEDIAN % OF INCOME INCOME $15000 OR MORE 25% OR MORE NOT COMPUTED SOUTI! DELTA PiANN1NG AREA # % 163 100.0 54 33.1 7 L00.0 18 41.3 29 66.8 35 83 50.9 21 9 4 49 15 22 13.5 6 4 2.5 4 lExcludes one -family homes on ten acres or more LINDEN-PE"PERS PLANNING ARVA a 100.0 ' IORNTON sw 256 ;,.A, s 138 L00.0 57 41.3 171 66.8 -- 43 -- 38 10 15 14 37 33 38 ... 23. 62 44.9 65 25.4 53 47 3 9 0 -- 0 -- 15 16.9 13. 8 5.R 6 2.3 0 -- 0 11 8.0 14 5.5 0 -- 6 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 1970, Table H--2 PLANNING AREA POPULATION ALLOCATION 1970 1 1975 1 1900 1 1985 1 1990 R 1995 % : % % S.J. COUNTY HIGH 90,208 100.0 13,400 100.0 39,000 100.0 66,400 100.0 92,400 100.0 417.500 100.0 vwv 90,208 100.0 13.000 100.0 34,000 100.0 55.000 100.0 75,000 100.0 400.000 100.0 STOCKTON HIGH 76,218 60.71 99,061 60.31 93.201 59.94 18,124 59.5: 33.305 59.47 248.055 59.41 LJOW 16.210 60.11 68,814 60.31 30,903 60.1` 13,230 %0.01 25,149 60.03 240.032 60.00 TRACY HIGH 21,728 7.48 24,643 7.8E 27,904 8.25 31.730 B.6! 34.630 8.82 37.371 8.95 LOW 21,728 7.48 24,643 7.81 27.141 8.12 29.578 0.31 31,70 7 8.45 34,482 8.62 KANTECA HIGH 26.562 9.15 29,810 9.51 23,489 9.88 37,501 10.2: 10,616 10.35 43,599 10.44 vwv 26.562 9.15 19.815 9.53 12,626 9.71 15.075 9.81 37,298 9.95 40,185 10.05 L,CCKEFORD HIGH 5,139 1.77 5.570 1.71 5,969 1.76 6.399 1.74 6,799 1.73 7,209 1.71 v' 5.139 1.77 5.510 1.71 5,912 1.77 6.275 1.7E 6.622 1.76 7,029 1.75 THORN'lON HIGH 2,121 .73 2,176 .69 2.231 .65 2.206 .62 2,344 .59 2.404 .57 vw 2,121 .73 2.151 .68 2,183 .65 2.218 .62 2,253 .60 2.288 .57 L40DI HIGH 39,832 13.12 12.762 13.64 15.912 13.54 19.303 13.45 i2.663 13.42 55,933 11.39 LOW 39,832 13.12 12.699 13.64 15,323 13.56 18,068 13.54 50.73D kl,V 53.980 11.49 RIPON HIGH 5.362 1.84 5,690 1.81 6,050 1.78 6.420 1.75 6,810 1.73 1,224 1.13 Low 5,362 1.84 5.690 1.81 5.980 1.79 6,285 1.77 6.605 1.76 6.916 1.74 ESCALON HIGH 6,986 2.40 7.416 2.36 7.080 2.32 8,370 2.28 8.810 2.26 9,418 1.25 Low 6.906 2.40 1,416 2.36 1,194 2.31 8,192 2.30 8,610 2.29 9,050 2.26 LINDEN HIGH 1.017 1.03 3.092 .98 3.171 .93 1.251 .88 3.333 .84 3.418 .81 LOW 3.017 1.03 3.062 .97 3.107 .93 3.152 .88 3.200 .85 3.250 .81 HIGH 3.252 1.12 3.172 1.01 3.093 .91 3.016 .82 2.941 .75 2,669 .69 vw 3.252 1.12 3,140 1.00 3,031 189 2.927 .82 2,826 .75 2,728 ,68 12/26/72 REVIsun; 14 W- POPULATION PROJECTION 1970-995 BY AREA 15000 000 0. 43599 .21 39 - z48055 1176218 E Y an Stockton )aquin I aunty 1995 Population no 1970 Population Q 3418 3x17 24 212 Lodi +Manteca -j Tracy �Escalonj Ripon �Lockefor South Linden - Lathrop II Clements I Delta Peters -166- i m i EXISTING & NEW HOUSEHOLDS, 19604995 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 1960 TOTAL POPULATION 249989 STOCKY( LOOI PL.ANNiII IAM IN AREA AREA 155221 31903 TRACY 'UNNING A R M 19897 9N'TECA RTHROP LA NN IN, A R M 17305 ESCAUDN PLANNING AREA. RIPON PLANNING A R U LOCKFFV RD CLEMENTS PUNNING A R U 4012 SOUTH DELTA PLANNII ARIA LINDEN-' pE1'ERS THORWMI LANNING PLANNINi AREA AREA 5926 4574 5891 2679 2542 POP. IN HOUSEHOLDS 235170 147223 31460 18012 17192 5893 4574 3949 1795 2672 1985 % OF TOTAL POP. 94.1 94. 98. 90.5 99, 99 100.0 98.4 30.° 99.7 76.1 OCCUPIED H. u.s 74656 47645 10366 5409 4983 1165 1368 1186 539 842 553 POP. PER OCC, H. U, 3.15 1.09 3.03 3.33 3.40 3.34 3.33 3.33 3.33 jjj 3.17 3.59 1970 TOTAL POPULATION 290208 176218 39832 21728 26562 6986 5362 5139 3252 3017 I 2121 POP. IN HOUSEHOLDS 279644 169826 39148 21152 25517 6955 5281 5078 1686 3014 1879 % of TOTAL POP. 96.3 96, 98. 97.3 96. 99, 98.5 98,8 51.F 99.91 8H.6 OCCUPIED H. U,s 92372 57410 13261 6715 7617 2164 1630 1525 516 956 578 POP. PER OCC. H. U. 3.03 2.96 2.95 3.15 3.35 3.20 3.23 3.32 3.26 3.14 j 3.25 1975 f! TOTAL POPULATION 313400 1189061 42762 24643 29818 7416 5690 5570 3172 POP. IN HOU3EH01A5 102909 182675 42092 24079 28802 7387 5610 5506 1720 1089 1949 % OF TOTAL POP. 96.1 96. 98.- 97.7 96. 99. 98.6 98.9 54.2 99.1 89.6 OCCUPIED H. U,s 103075 62991 14769 7818 9291 2383 1821 1815 534 1026 607 POP. PER OCC, H. U. 2.94 2.90 2.85 3.08 3.10 3.10 3.08 3.00 1.22 3.01 3.21 1980 TOTAL POPULATTON 339000 203201 45912 27984 33489 7880 6050 5969 1093 3171 2231 POP. IN HOusf:"3.A5 328664 196815 45274 27429 32476 7853 5970 5908 1151 3168 2020 % TOTAL POP. 97.0 96.,. 58.1 98.0 97. 99. 98.7 99.0 56.6 99.1 90.5 OCCUPIED H, u,s 114363 68816 16463 9143 10972 2618 2003 2073 549 1089 637 POP. PER OCC. H. U. 2.87 2.86 2.75 3.00 2.96 3.00 2.98 2.85 3.19 2.91 3.17 1985 TOTAL POPULATION 366400 218124 49303 31730 37501 8370 6420 6399 3016 3251 2286 POP. IN HOUSEHOLDS 356203 211738 48657 31183 36491 8345 6340 6341 1768 3249 2091 % OF TOTAL POP. 97.2 97.0 58,' 98,3 97, 99, 98.8 99.1 58.6 99.9 91.5 OCCUPIED H. U.s 125988 75621 17823 10535 12412 2838 2179 2225 561 1124 670 POP. PER OCC. H. U. 2,83 2.80 2.73 2.96 2.94 2.94 2.91 2.85 3.15 2.89 3.12 1990 TOTAL POPUUTION 392400 233385 52663 34630 40616 8878 6810 6799 2942 3333 2334 POP. IN HOUSE14OLDS 362321 226999 52028 34090 39609 8855 6731 6743 1785 3311 2150 % OF TOTAL POP. 97.4 97.3 98,E 98.4 97. 99. 98.8 99.2 60.7 99.9 92.1 OCCUPTEO H. u,s 136393 81654 19199 11755 13565 3064 2353 2366 576 1161 700 POP. PER OCC. H. U. 2.80 2.78 2.71 2.90 2.92 2.89 2.86 2.85 3.10 2.87 1.07 1995 TOTAL POPULATION 417500 248005 55933 37371 43599 9418 7224 7209 2869 3418 2404 POP. IN HQ1)5FfVLP5 407554 241669 55308 36838 42595 9397 7145 7156 1796 3416 2234 % OF TOTAL POP. 97.6 97.4 98.1 98.6 97. 99. 98.9 99.3 62.6 99.9 92.9 OCCUPIED H. U,s 145824 86931 20484 12880 14688 3286 2525 2511 581 1194 742 POP. PER OCC. H. U. 2.79 2.78 1 2,70 2.86 2.90 2.86 2.81 2.85 1.08 2.86 3.01 m 00 I W ;OPTIMUM HOUSING NEEDS, 1970-1995 t 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 5 YEA TOTAL SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY TOTAL WYSIiiG STOCK 96563 [12964 124651. 13669: 47461 15723` FOR FOP. INCREASE 10703 11281 1162! 1040! 9431 53451 FOR LOSS 6115 3310 317! 304' 292' 280! 21383 MAINTAIN VACA1= RATE 888 382 40: 41: 361 33f 279C END OVERCRpNDING 4428 44ZE TOTAL NEED 11431 14395 14861 15081 13701 1257f 82055 STOCKTRN PA TOTAL HOUSING STOCK 59864 68798 7462" B1B7( BBil= 9357E FOR WP. INCREASE 5581 582! 680! 603: 5277 29521 FOR IHSS 4387 2497 238, 227: 217F 2071 15797 MAINTAIN VACANCY PATE 432 195 20d 23E 211 185 1465 END OVERCROWDING 2726 2726 TOTAL NEED 7545 8273 841: 932( 8419 7539 49509 LODI PA TOTAL HQUSIN0 STOCK 13754 15962 17711 19126 20552 21884 FOR Pop, INCREASE 1508 1694 136C 1376 1285 7223 FOR W SS 417 200 191 194 191 188 1387 MAINTENANCE VACANCY RATE 192 55 61 44 50 41 454 END OVERCROWDING 453 453 TOTAL NEED 1062 1763 1952 1603 1617 1520 9517 TRACY PA TOTAL HOLEINrl STOCK 7178 8734 10107 11550 12814 13980 FOR POP, INCREASE 1103 1325 1392 1220 1125 6165 FOR LOSS 433 202 196 190 185 179 1385 MINTANVACANCY RATE 54 40 48 51 44 41 278 END OVERCROWDING 359 359 TOTAL NFFD 846 1345 1569 1633 1449 1345 8187 MART ECA-L,ATHRop PA TOTAL HOUSING .4TOCY 7904 10205 11947 13439 14634 15798 FOR ROP, INCRFASE 1614 1681 1440 1153 1123 7071 FOR LOSS 367 175 171 167 163 159 1202 MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE 62 61 61 52 42 41 319 END OVERCROWDING 424 424 TOTAL NEED 853 1910 1913 1659 1358 1323 9016 FSCAGON PA TOTAL HOUSING TTOCK 2262 2660 2904 3132 1366 3596 FOR POP, TNCRFASE 219 235 220 226 222 1122 FOR W S S 158 74 71 69 66 64 502 MAINTAIN VACANCY PATE 47 B 9 B 8 8 88 END OVERCROWDING 124 124 TOTAL NEED 329 301 315 297 300 294 1036 t i rn m 007 r� NORT11AUM HOUSING NEEDS, 1974-1995 RIPON PA TOTAL HOUSING STOCK FOR POP, 11� FOR WSS MAINTAIN VACANCY PATE END OVERCROWDING TOTAL NEED WCKEFORD-CLEMENTS PA TOTAL HOUSING STOCK FOR POP. INCREASE FOR WSS M I W T A I N VACANCY RATE END OVERCROWDING TOTAL NEED SOUTH DELTA PA TOTAL HOUSING STOCK FOR POP. INCREASE FOR IHSS MIW TAIN VACANCY RATE END OVERCROWDING TOTAL NEED LINDEN -PETERS PA TOTAL HOUSING STOCK FOR FOP, IVClRE1��E FOR LASS MAINTAIN VACANCY PATE END OVERCROWDING TOTAL NEED THORNTON PA 1910 1692 102 35 81 210 1637 82 21 99 202 561 56 17 48 121 1029 12 16 64 152 1975 2006 191 48 7 246 2078 310 39 11 360 645 18 23 1 44 1182 W 33 3 106 1900 2195 182 46 1 235 2325 238 30 9 205 661 15 24 1 40 1247 63 32 2 91 1995 w 2371 176 45 6 221 2483 152 37 6 195 613 I2 23 0 35 1283 35 31 1 67 1990 2557 174 44 6 124 2629 141 36 5 182 689 15 22 1 38 1121 31 30 1 68 1993 2. 735 112 42 6 220 2779 145 15 5 185 696 7 21 0 20 1355 13 29 1 63 TOTAL HOUSING STOCK 602 694 725 159 190 014 FOR WP. INCREASE 29 30 33 30 42 FOR LASS 41 17 16 16 15 15 MAINTAIN VACANCY PATE 12 1 1 I I 1 END OVERCROWDING 50 TOTAL, NEED mmmmmiw 103 47 47 50 46 59 tOntimum 00000000 housing stock assumes that neGda accumulated by the Interval year have been net by that year. 2Total housing stock for 1970 reflects existing housing stock. The needs Iisted below For 1970 are unmet needs, 5 YEAI TOTAL 095 127 67 81 1370 986 261 51 99 1409 61 171 20 40 306 218 227 24 64 553 164 120 18 50 352 o CURRENT HOUSING NEED! 1970 to 1973 ICurrent housing need reflects needs accumulated to 1975 including needs not met by 1970 THORNTON PI 50 1100.0 29 19.3 58 E 38.7 13 4 8.7 50 33.3 24.9 30 5 16.7 11 36.7 84 ! 280.O 1 3.3 25 83.3 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OCKEFORD-CLEMENT; PI STOCATON PA LINDEN -PETERS PA 258 W DI TRACY "A 100.0 2191 4ANTECA-LATHROP ESCALON PA PA % TOTAL NEED 464 106,0 % CAUSEt TOTAL NEED 25826 00.0 15818 100.D 2825 100.0 2191 100.0 2763 100.0 630 100.0 CAUSE: 21.5 el 49.1 105 40.1 VACANCY 41 9.1 32 5.1 POP. INCREASE 10103 41.4 5581 35.3 1508 53.4 1103 50.3 1614 60.6 219 34.8 [OSS 9425 36.5 6884 43.5 617 21.8 635 29.0 542 19.6 232 3618 VACANCY 1270 4.9 627 4.0 247 8.7 94 4.3 123 4.5 55 8.7 END OVERCROWDING 4428 17.1 2726 17.2 453 16.0 359 16.4 424 15.3 124 '-°•7 % TOTAL 1970 HOUSING 1970 I6 17.2 42 31.5 2 6.1 24 46.2 STOCK NEEDED 26 67 26.4 4 12.1 20.5 30.5 34.6 27.9 53 51.0 AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 5165 4 12.1 3164 53.8 565 438 553 126 80.4 UNITS ADDED 23 44.2 AVERAGE/YEAR 37 1 39.8 85 j 15.9 5 15.2 25 1970 2678 51.8 1883 59.5 345 61.1 102 23.3 233 42_1 2b 20.6 1971 3090 59.8 1974 62.4 350 61.9 155 35.4 432 78.1 48 38.1 1912 4046 78.3 1881 59.5 774 137.0 619 141.3 395 71.4 68 54.0 1973 3194 61.8 1806 57.1 S45 96.5 275 62.8 342 61.8 49 38.9 AVERAGE/YEAR 3252 63.0 1886 59.6 504 89.2 288 65.8 351 63.5 48 38.1 ICurrent housing need reflects needs accumulated to 1975 including needs not met by 1970 THORNTON PI 50 1100.0 29 19.3 58 E 38.7 13 4 8.7 50 33.3 24.9 30 5 16.7 11 36.7 84 ! 280.O 1 3.3 25 83.3 RIPON PA OCKEFORD-CLEMENT; PI SOUTR DELTA PA 165 100.0 LINDEN -PETERS PA 258 * % p % TOTAL NEED 464 106,0 100.0 CAUSEt POP. INCREASE 191 41.2 310 55.2 in 10.9 70 27.1 W S S 150 32.3 121 21.5 el 49.1 105 40.1 VACANCY 41 9.1 32 5.1 1B 10.9 19 7.4 END OVERCROWDING 81 I 17.5 99 11.6 48 29.1 64 24.8 % TOTAL 1910 HOUSING STOCK NEEDED 27.41 34.3 29.4 25.1 AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 93 112 33 52 UNITS ADDED 1 1970 I6 17.2 42 31.5 2 6.1 24 46.2 1971 24 25.8 67 59.8 4 12.1 25 48.1 1972 53 51.0 140 125.0 4 12.1 28 53.8 1913 54 58.1 90 80.4 9 27.3 23 44.2 AVERAGE/YEAR 37 1 39.8 85 j 15.9 5 15.2 25 48.1 ICurrent housing need reflects needs accumulated to 1975 including needs not met by 1970 THORNTON PI 50 1100.0 29 19.3 58 E 38.7 13 4 8.7 50 33.3 24.9 30 5 16.7 11 36.7 84 ! 280.O 1 3.3 25 83.3 TOTAL NEED 19751995 FOR POPULATION INCREASE FOR LASS TO MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE CURRENT AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 1970-1975 LANG -TERN AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 1975-1995 FOR POPULATION INCREASE. FOR toss TO MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE 56229 42749 11960 1520 5165 2011 2137 598 76 13691 6692 5996 6253 3940 5715 5062 5397 w� W 770 750 660 LONG-TERM HOUSING NEED, 1975-1995 104 196 3164 565 438 553 1685 335 300 LODI TRACY 286 253 270 SAN 5"IYJCKTON (LANNING PLANNING LANTECA- JOAQUIN PLANNING AREA PIAKMNG .ATHROP COUNTY AREA 'LANNING AREA TOTAL NEED 19751995 FOR POPULATION INCREASE FOR LASS TO MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE CURRENT AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 1970-1975 LANG -TERN AVERAGE ANNUAL NEED 1975-1995 FOR POPULATION INCREASE. FOR toss TO MAINTAIN VACANCY RATE 56229 42749 11960 1520 5165 2011 2137 598 76 13691 6692 5996 6253 3940 5715 5062 5397 8913 770 750 660 838 207 104 196 3164 565 438 553 1685 335 300 313 1197 286 253 270 446 13 9.;,. 38 33 42 10 j 9 10 ESCALON 'LANNING AREA 1206 903 270 33 126 60 45 14 2 �w RIPON LOCKEFORE 'LANNING Z�LEHCNTS AREA PLANNING AREA 906 704 177 25 93 45 35 9 1 847 676 146 25 112 42 34 7 1 ;OUTH DELT! PLANNING AREA 141 49 90 2 33 7 2 5 0 LINDEN - P LITERS 'LANNING ARPA 295 160 122 5 52 15 8 6 0 rrrr�� CHORNTDN 'LANNING AREA 202 135 62 5 30 10 7 3 0 I" V HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE !970-1995 SAN JQAQUIN COUNTY SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL S TOC E'T`ON SINGLES MULTIPLES ? VIML i.p D I SINGLES MULTIPLES r N TOTAL F T R'CY SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL 14ANTECA SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL ESCAWN SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL RIPON SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL WCKEFORD SINGLES MULTIPLES TOTAL � z 1960 '60-'70 41336 1970 '70-'80 1980 64.7 '80-' 95 35.3 93576 AUDITIONS 15560 71,1 ADDITIONS 28.9 21884 10000 72.1 3900 27.9 13900 12512 79.2 3286 20.0 ApD1TIUN5 3308 92.0 208 i- 3596 2453 69.7 282 10.3 2735 1654 95.5 125 4.5 2779 i9710 10964 96.4 13.6 8144 7745 51.3 77054 80.6 14271 50.1 9213: 73.' 17761 54, 10674 15999 40.7 18709 19.4 1381' - 49,; 3252: 26.; 14811 45. 96563 28092 .1465` 32511 11803 9487 81.5 18.5 3947 46.0 45750 76.4 5945 39,8 51705 69.1 9835 47. 1290 4627 8574 54.0 14114 23.6 9008 60.2 23121 30.1 9911 52. 59864 14963 74821 1Q 74 c 10310 700 93.6 6.4 1281 46.'. 11591 84.3 192' 48.1 13511 76. 204 49.216: L1010 1463 2744 53.: 15.7 2031 51.3 419 23. 212 51. 13754 396] 1771' 416 5634 387 93.6 338 29.2 5971 83,2 158{ 54.1 7561 74.1 2521 6021 6.4 819 70,E 120E 16.8 1341 45.1 254: 25 , . 65. 135: 34.1 34. 1157 717E 2926 1010, 387: 5185 259 95.3 4.7 1923 75.7 1108 89.0 2665 67.1 9773 81.2 2731 71.1 5444 617 2540 24.3 076 11.0 1298 32.E 2174 18.2 111; 28,5 7984 3963 11947 3851 1927 15 99.2 0.8 234 73.1 2161 95.5 609 94.9 2770 95.4 53E 77.1 1942 86 320 26.9 101 4.5 33 5.1 134 4.6 154 22.1 2262 642 2904 692 1451 24 98.4 1.6 144 66.4 1595 94.3 433 86.1 2028 92.4 425 70.7 1475 73 211 23.6 97 5.7 70 13.9 161 7.6 115 21.3 1692 503 2195 540 1306 19 90.6 1.4 282 90.4 1588 97.0 632 91.9 2220 95.5 434 95.6 1325 30 312 9.6 49 3.9 56 8.1 105 4.5 20 4.4 1637 688 2325 454 � z 109097 69.9 41336 30.1 157233 60544 64.7 33032 35.3 93576 15560 71,1 6324 28.9 21884 10000 72.1 3900 27.9 13900 12512 79.2 3286 20.0 15798 3308 92.0 208 8.0 3596 2453 69.7 282 10.3 2735 1654 95.5 125 4.5 2779 6 r 9 rn 1-0aU51Pt1Li UNITS BY TYPE 1970-1995 'Bont4a«vd 1960 #F % w '60-'70 ADDITIONS 9. 1970 '70-'80 ADDITIONS # % 1980 '90-'95 1995 MDITIOYS # % 1TH DELTA TINGLES 494 84.6 30 LOO + 524 93.4 137 100 + 661 100.0 35 00.0 [ULTIPLES 90 15.4 -53 37 6.6 -37 0 0 0 0 70TAL 504 -23 561 100 661 35 696 1DEN TINGLES 940 .00.0 77 95.1 1025 99.6 196 09.9 1221 97.9 96 88.9 1317 97.2 [ULTIPLES 0 -- 4 4.9 4 0.4 22 10.1 26 2.1 12 11.1 38 2.8 'OTAL 948 81 1029 218 1247 108 1355 ORNTON TINGLES 647 98.4 -113 534 88.7 143 100 + 677 93.4 96 08.1 173 92.7 [ULTIPLES 10 1.6 50 LOO + 68 11.3 -20 48 6.6 13 11.9 61 7.3 'OTAL 657 -55 602 123 725 109 834 700 ! "i3 a&• IRM dI a Lathrop 7 Escalont Ripon -174- l 23.3 b 9 511 59864 [San Stockton uin ounty 1995 Housing Stock 1970 Housing Stock Q I .ockeforA South I Linden Thorntonl Clementsi Delta I Peters I NEED DETERMINATION FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE S. J. Ccunty(Total Stockton Planning Area Lodi Planning Area Tracy Planning Area Manteca Planning Area Escalon Planning Area Ripon Planning Area Lockeford Planning Area Linden Planning Area Thornton Planning Area South Delta Planning Area Need Renter Homeowner % Total Need Total 27.573 100.0 17.777 9.796 11.761 5,894 17.655 64.0 2.720 1,307 4,027 14.6 1,061 694 1.755 6.4 1.011 878 1,889 6.9 358 281 639 2.1 215 214 449 1.6 209 254 463 1.7 187 177 164 1.1 103 48 151 0.5 132 49 181 o.7 04 g, WE Q` C4 r IL V a W TAKE j 71 3" Cl CO d LR i N N 1A C M ll ff O1 OI V� C1 OI Vi L C1 u P+ C� C p� ? `+ Y L L T= Y G — G C C Y C jz C O C C L o �= 02 �� q 2 �� 2. r2 � m c n c m y m 1nu N d J0. Ma Ya W d OC1 J6 Nd Jd Hd -176- J C� Y Y P N 01 C N Cl Pl iti ll� N Y� Q z n W b �D c S m� k a b Cl CO d LR i N N 1A C M ll ff O1 OI V� C1 OI Vi L C1 u P+ C� C p� ? `+ Y L L T= Y G — G C C Y C jz C O C C L o �= 02 �� q 2 �� 2. r2 � m c n c m y m 1nu N d J0. Ma Ya W d OC1 J6 Nd Jd Hd -176- J J J EMPLOYMENT BY SEX & AGE IN SAN JGAQUIN COUNTY Source: U.S. Census General, Social and Economic Character] stics, California Table 8r TOTAL SPANISH SURNAME 16,137 NEGRO Hale 16 and Over 99.903 4,832 In Labor Force 72,939 12.128 2.648 Percent of Total 73.0 75.2 54.8 Percent In Labor Force 16 - 17 31.2 28.8 21.1 6 - 19 56.0 56.0 28.9 20 - 21 69, 1 81.4 60.5 22 24 82.8 82.7 71.9 25 34 92.5 91.5 85.9 35 - 44 93.4 91.8 89. 1 45 - 64 85.5 85.5 72.4 65 and Over 20.9 28.5 22.6 Females 16 and Over 102,893 151519 4,934 In Labor Force 18,428 5,510 1,819 t of Total 37.3 31.2 36.3 Percent In Labor Force b - 17 16.8 14.4 15.8 18 - 19 40.5 36.2 14,5 20 - 2 1 45.6 43, 1 30.7 22 - 24 46.6 31.2 40.8 25 - 14 41.6 14.9 49.8 35 - 44 48, 1 40.4 53.2 45 - 64 43.7 17.1 40.1 65 and Over 7.4 9.0 10.9 Source: U.S. Census General, Social and Economic Character] stics, California Table 8r IMALE &FEMALE WORKERS BY WEEKS WORKED 1969 IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FEMALE R 1 % of Total MALE n :; of Total 16 Years and Over 49,005 100.0 16 Years and Over 30.166 100.0 50 52 weeks 18.993 38.1 50 - 52 Weekr 48.600 60.6 27 49 12.300 24.9 27 - 49 10,555 23.1 26 or Less 18,442 37.0 26 or Less 12,931 16.4 16 - 24 Years 12.695 25.5 16 - 24 Years 16,471 20.5 50 - 52 Necks 2.370 18.7 50 - 52 Weekr 4,875 29,E 27 - 49 3,272 25.2 Median Weeks Worked 33.1 26 or Less 7,053 55.6 25 - 39 Years 11,471 27.0 25 - 64 Years 59,292 73.9 50 - 52 Weeks 5,131 38.1 50 - 52 weeks 42,'05 71.2 27 - 49 3,396 25.2 27 • 49 13,125 22. 1 26 or Less 4.941 16.7 26 or Less 3.962 6.7 40 - 59 Yeirs 19,616 39.5 65 Years and Over 4.401 50 - 52 Weeks 9,686 49. 1 Median Weeks Wotkrd 40.6 5.6 27 - 49 4, 806 24.5 26 or Less 5,144 26.2 60 Years 01 d and Over 4.003 8.0 Median Weeks Worked 46.0 Source: U.S. Census of Poi,ulatioo Ceneral, Social and Economic Characteristics, California, 1570 Table 86 ' -'ar1:74 . r!W7 ONE wif a.r,A-,'4r" 70120r; 4WIR login 10 to 141, OR t IBM MINE r1m an h i", -„[ f - r,'�,^s cwt-:p�'4s, �.F°'S{x' a u'' r'�.: •"^-y, A,. �.,, ;.. �• ys'.. .. a �iw `p n � r '�. `' ,�F„� ��e � a I'-� z. k s F � �" 3 �r � n yn, ?dam r � s y • �. k FY N`^iyRi_,:k �.-kr$ 3k:.flx£.S` y `�i 4k,a�. .4.-.. - .. - -r� d•,y ' ' Rte'-�"' �7 �k � + rrir��GcB ,s.::_ ✓ �i .�+fr y��` 'f z � - Tj a'i , � `rJ?{i. ✓:� ,fes � � 'a+..'-.:`^. �f ��?�''ii.. `u�Nt _ _ �d£��d 4 .� .- T - x w _ of ANY, ONE wif a.r,A-,'4r" 70120r; 4WIR login 10 to 141, OR t IBM MINE r1m an h i", -„[ f - r,'�,^s cwt-:p�'4s, �.F°'S{x' a u'' r'�.: •"^-y, A,. �.,, ;.. �• ys'.. .. a �iw `p n � r '�. `' ,�F„� ��e � a I'-� z. k s F � �" 3 �r � n yn, ?dam r � s y • �. k FY N`^iyRi_,:k �.-kr$ 3k:.flx£.S` y `�i 4k,a�. .4.-.. - .. - -r� d•,y ' ' Rte'-�"' �7 �k � + rrir��GcB ,s.::_ ✓ �i .�+fr y��` 'f z � - Tj a'i , � `rJ?{i. ✓:� ,fes � � 'a+..'-.:`^. �f ��?�''ii.. `u�Nt _ _ �d£��d 4 .� .- . x w ;-�.iz ...a �t 'k^ K1 '�-rj 1,. �"' ?�e.&. ^Fkh k • d s w�