5. Fair Share Allocation

As part of a Housing Element, the California Government Code requires that each local jurisdiction accept responsibility for its share of the regional housing needs within the area affected by its General Plan. The Code further requires that regional Councils of Government prepare a determination of each local jurisdiction's fair share of the regional housing demand and that these projections be included in each local jurisdiction's Housing Element.

Table R-14 contains data excerpted from SACOG's December 1990 update of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan pertaining to Sutter County, Sutter County unincorporated area, Yuba City and Live Oak. This data is different from the housing unit, household and new construction need data found earlier in this chapter on Tables R-1 to R-3. Tables R-1 to R-3 have been updated as part of the Comprehensive General Plan Revision, using 1995 SACOG projections. The Regional Housing Allocation Plan's projections were based upon revised population growth rates that have occurred in Sutter County between 1988 and 1990.

One interesting point about the projections shown on Table R-14 is that the distribution shown reflects a change to the Yuba City Urban Area development policies which have occurred over the last twenty years. Those policies resulted in the concentration of higher density housing in Yuba City, while allowing lower density suburban subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the Yuba City Urban Area. This has resulted in a disproportionate percentage of housing in Yuba City in the very low and low income ranges when compared to Sutter County unincorporated, i.e., 45.40% for Yuba City compared to 35.40% for Sutter County unincorporated in 1989. The 1990 Regional Housing Allocation Plan attempts to correct this by setting the 1989 to 1996 goals for new very low and low income housing at 42.66% and 57.77% for Yuba City and the Sutter County unincorporated area, respectively.

TABLE R-14
1989 TO 1996 HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION NEED

Source: SACOG and State Department of Housing and Community Development

Based upon the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, the unincorporated area's new construction needs between 1989 and 1996 are 599 very low income housing units, 452 low income housing units, 426 moderate income housing units, and 346 above moderate income housing units. (Between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 1990, Sutter County issued building permits for 740 dwelling units. No estimate of the income range distribution of these units is available.) In order to meet the 1989 to 1996 new construction need, the unincorporated area will require approximately 58 acres of land available for high density, multiple-family housing and 205 acres of land available for low density, single-family residential development. The December 1990 survey of vacant lands in the Yuba City Urban Area indicated sufficient low density residential lands were available to meet the housing needs until at least 2005 and sufficient medium density residential lands were available to meet the housing needs until at least 1999.

In 1990, the California Coalition for Rural Housing reported that Sutter County had achieved less than three percent of it's fair share goal from the previous fair share allocation period. That report appeared not to take into account the low and very low income housing units added to the unincorporated community by the Housing Authority, the Mahal Plaza project, and other housing options such as farm employee mobile homes added in the agricultural area and Farmer's Home Administration rural residential home loan program.

6. Special Housing Needs

Every community has segments of its society which have a special or unusual housing need. Those needs in the Yuba City Urban Area generally can be categorized as falling into one of three classes -- those groups requiring special living arrangements, those groups requiring modified dwelling requirements, or those groups requiring emergency or temporary shelter. The following discussion centers upon the principal need groups -- the elderly, the handicapped, the single-parent household, the large family household, farm workers, and the homeless.

a. Elderly

The single largest identifiable group with a special housing need is the elderly. In the unincorporated area, the 1980 Census identified 1,779 households where the householder was 65 years of age or older. Of these households, 1,401 are owner-occupied and 378 are renter-occupied. By 1990, householder's in this age group had increased to 2,456 with 2,118 being ownership units and 338 being rental units.

The percentage of the population as a whole has also been increasing. The last three federal census have shown an increase in the County's 65 and over population from 8.3 percent in 1970 to 10.3 percent in 1980 and 13.8 percent in 1990. The unincorporated area's 1990 65 and over population was 13.4 percent of the population. The graph on the following page entitled, "Population Distribution", illustrates the aging of the population. Two distinctive features shown by the graph are the clear "bulge" of population from the post-war (World War II) "baby-boomer" and the distinctive increase as a percentage of the population of the over 65 years of age population. Both of these features are contributing to the aging of the population as a whole and can also be seen in the median age of the County's population which increased from 29.9 years in 1980 to 34.6 years in 1990.

The physical distribution of the over 65 years of age population narrowed significantly by 1990. In 1980, a significantly higher portion of this population group was located in the City of Yuba City. By 1990, only a minor concentration of elderly persons appeared to be located in the Yuba City area. This minor concentration in Yuba City appears to be the result of several centralizing factors. The first, and one of the most important, is that Yuba City offers a concentration of services -- medical, social and emotional -- on which the elderly rely more heavily. A second factor is that all facilities for elderly housing have located in either the cities of Live Oak or Yuba City since those are the areas that until just recently contained sanitary sewer and water services that were necessary to support higher density, multiple-family housing.

An additional factor leading towards the minor concentration of the elderly in the Yuba City area is the availability of smaller, low cost housing units. Although a significant number of the elderly tend to live in the same homes that they raised their families in, another large group tends to move towards smaller, less expensive housing units. This movement is caused by a combination of the need to reduce housing costs because of fixed incomes as well as a realization that when the children have moved away, or when a husband or wife has died, that one or two people no longer need a three or four bedroom house.

Most housing for the elderly is in dispersed units throughout the community. These units are either small single-family homes or apartments. A substantial portion of the single-family units owned by the elderly are owner-occupied. Two privately owned elderly housing complexes with a total of 124 units are located in Yuba City. In addition, the Housing Authority has approximately 180 units at Richland Housing Center and Section 8 sites scattered throughout the area for the elderly and handicapped. Another 24 units of elderly/handicapped housing was completed in the summer of 1984 on Joanne Way by the Housing Authority, with an additional 76 units approved under an Article 34 referendum still to be built when a site is selected and HUD approval is obtained or some other vehicle for financing maintenance is obtained. By July 1989, there were 190 units of elderly/handicapped housing approved for construction.

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION GRAPH

As in other communities, the rising cost of housing is greatly affecting those persons on fixed incomes. Emphasis on providing additional low-cost housing, convenient to services, should be made. Sutter County further encourages through its Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) the provision of additional assisted housing, via the Consolidated Area Housing Authority of Sutter County (Housing Authority), for the elderly; however, it must be understood that in recent years, the federal government has receded from public housing. Each year the County provides favorable comments to HUD under the 213 (A) clearinghouse procedures encouraging additional certificates and vouchers for Housing Authority programs.

In the last several years, the private market has shown an increased interest in housing for the elderly. Two examples of private market projects are Carl's Court and The Fountains. These two projects serve vastly different markets as can be seen in their 1990 monthly costs of $800.00 per unit for Carl's Court compared to $2,500.00 per month for The Fountains.

One option that should be further studied is the possibility of reducing County requirements on elderly housing projects in order to reduce the costs. For example, one method to reduce the cost per unit is to reduce parking standards for elderly housing projects. It appears from the 1980 Census that of the 551 households in Yuba City that were renter-occupied with at least one member over 65, almost one-half had no vehicle available. Therefore, requiring two vehicle parking spaces per senior housing unit may be unnecessary.

Another option available to both increase the number of units and decrease the cost of the unit for elderly housing is the use of the State's "granny housing" provisions or the County's second unit provisions. On those single-family residential properties where sufficient area exists and are located in neighborhoods where over-crowding is not a potential problem, granny housing and/or second unit housing should be encouraged in order to increase the supply of very low and low income housing.

As noted earlier, many elderly householders reside in dwelling units that are entirely too large for one or two people. Since they generally own these units, they are somewhat reluctant to sell. Costs continue to rise, further eating into fixed incomes. As a means of increasing the supply of housing available to the elderly and as a means to assist elderly householders with meeting monthly housing costs, several communities in the State have developed housing referral systems. The system attempts to make use of those "empty" bedrooms by matching up elderly householders with other elderly persons. Such a program should be considered locally, possibly as a joint venture with the Housing Authority.

b. Handicapped

A second large group of identifiable individuals with special housing needs are those non-institutionalized persons with some form of disability. The 1980 Census does not contain housing related disability data and data on disabilities from the 1990 Census has not been released yet; however, Table R-15 does contain estimates on public transit and work-related disabilities, from which housing disability status can be inferred.

Housing for the handicapped requires certain modifications from standard construction specifications in order to provide mobility, safety and convenience to allow handicapped persons to live independently. With the exception of the 24 units of senior/handicapped housing constructed by the Housing Authority on Joanne Way and 20% of the 50-unit Housing Authority project in Live Oak, no other apartment units in the urban area provide all desirable features necessary for the handicapped to maintain independent living. Some units have been modified by individuals to provide at least some of those features.

As of September 15, 1984, the State of California required that all new apartment projects meeting minimum size requirements provide a minimum number of units fully accessible to the handicapped. This requirement will help in providing housing for the handicapped; however, given the total number of individuals represented in Table R-15 as having some form of disability, this will not be enough to meet the existing need. Therefore, Sutter County must continue to encourage and support efforts to provide additional modified dwellings. To this end, the County has identified in its Housing Assistance Plan, a short-term need for additional senior and handicapped housing units. Additionally, the City has approved an Article 34 referendum allowing the Housing Authority to construct up to 100 units of senior and handicapped housing of which the 24 units on Joanne Way were the first phase. No similar Article 34 authority exists in the unincorporated area. Sutter County should encourage the adoption of Article 34 authority in the unincorporated area.

The Housing Authority has indicated a reluctance of non-handicapped individuals to rent handicapped modified or constructed units. The problem is those usable by the handicapped are very inconvenient for non-handicapped people; therefore, any such units should be designed for use by both handicapped and non-handicapped individuals if they are to be successful in the economic market.

TABLE R-15
DISABILITY STATUS OF NONINSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS

Source:Sutter County Community Services Department estimate using 1980 and 1990 Census

Section 504 of the Fair Housing Act of 1989 will provide additional relief as new rental units are constructed. This section also requires new rental units to be handicapped-accessible.

c. Single-Parent Households

Since the early 1970's, a new special needs housing group has developed. That group is the single-parent household. Table R-16 summarizes 1970, 1980 and 1990 single-parent households.

Single-parent households generally face two major housing problems. The first is the affordability issue and the second is finding housing which has conveniently located child day care facilities nearby.

The affordability problem primarily affects female single-parent family heads. Table R-17 lists mean 1979 income levels for all families by household head. From Table R-17 it is apparent that those families most in need of assistance are single-parent households with a female household head. Their family income is generally about one-half of either their male counterpart's income or of the married couple's income.

TABLE R-16
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS

Source: U. S. Census

TABLE R-17
1979 MEAN FAMILY INCOME BY HOUSEHOLDER TYPE

Source: 1980 Census

The second issue related to single-parent households is the availability of child care services. Single-parent households with young children generally require some form of child care in order for the parent to work. The State has recognized the need for increased child care facilities through its exemption of family day care centers serving less than 12 children from local zoning regulations.

Sutter County allows full day care centers by use permit in any R-1 or R-2 District or as a permitted activity by right in any commercial, industrial, or R-3 or R-4 District. Table R-27 and the map that follows that table lists properties totaling 197 acres on which such a facility could be allowed.

d. Large-Family Households

Another group with a recognizable special housing need is the large family households. The 1990 Census identified 1,624 households in the unincorporated area of Sutter County with five or more persons per household (14.6 percent of the unincorporated area's household total). This figure is down slightly from the 1980 figure of 1,655 households.

Another inference of the degree of large family need can be gleaned by examining Census data on the numbers of households with 1.01 persons per room. The 1.01 persons per room standard is generally considered the threshold level for overcrowding. Table R-18 compares overcrowding data from 1970, 1980 and 1990.

One of the more interesting points in examining Table R-18 is that the absolute number of overcrowded households in Sutter County remained almost the same from 1970 to 1980, but increases significantly by 1990. The number of overcrowded units for either Yuba City or the unincorporated area should not be used for a comparison of what was happening in the area since these numbers are skewed by the annexation of approximately 600 dwelling units from the unincorporated area to the City of Yuba City during the 1980's decade. (The majority of these units were located in the Richland Housing Center Annexation.) The total number of overcrowded units appears to correspond to the characteristics of the population distribution chart. The decade of the 1970's saw the last period of decline in population per household as the "baby-boom" generation was still just moving into their prime child bearing years and major immigration into California had not reached its peak yet. During the decade of the 1980's both of these factors reached a peak and caused an increase in population per household in the State and locally caused a leveling out of population per household at 2.75 persons for both the 1980 and 1990 Census.

In 1980, there were 674 overcrowded units in the unincorporated area. By 1990, this number had increased to 819. A great number of these units are also reflected in Table R-8 as units paying more than 25% or 30% of the monthly household income for housing costs, since overcrowding is often associated with overpaying and low-income households.

The local office of California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) has indicated that they believe that there exists a significant remaining need for large family housing in the area. CRLA points to the Housing Authority's waiting list for large family housing as an example of unmet need. However, the Housing Authority's waiting list from May 2, 1990, which the Housing Authority indicated is fairly typical, lists 63 households as needing four bedroom units and 5 households as needing 5 bedroom units. These units represent 6.35% of the Housing Authority's total waiting list (See Table R-19).

TABLE R-18
HOUSEHOLDS WITH 1.01 OR MORE PERSONS PER ROOM

Source: 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census

The inclusionary housing program discussed under the Affordability section will help to reduce this problem in the future. This program, as well as a County density bonus program, is to be developed as part of the Housing Element's work program and may potentially include incentives to provide large family housing. Additionally, as funds are made available from State and Federal sources, the County will work with local housing providers to develop additional large family housing.

During the public hearing process on the Housing Element testimony was received concerning another problem related to large-families. Representatives from California Rural Legal Assistance noted that many large-families are denied housing opportunities due to discrimination based, in whole or in part, on family size.