County of Sutter
General Plan 2015
Housing Element
COUNTY OF SUTTER
Community Services Department
1130 Civic Center Boulevard
Yuba City, CA 95993
For the 2002- 2007 Period
Adopted on September 28, 2004
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... ..... i
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... . iii
Foreword....................................................................................................................... ................ iv
Chapter One - Housing Needs ......................................................................................................... 1
Population ............................................................................................................................... ... 1
Employment ............................................................................................................................... 1
Households and Housing Units................................................................................................... 4
Households..................................................................................................................... ....... 4
Housing Units......................................................................................................................... 5
Housing Stock Condition .................................................................................................. 6
Units Needing Rehabilitation .......................................................................................... 10
Units Needing Replacement ............................................................................................ 10
Affordability.................................................................................................................. ...... 11
Payment vs. Ability to Pay .............................................................................................. 12
Five- Year Projected New Construction Needs ......................................................................... 15
Regional Housing Needs Plan.............................................................................................. 15
Special Housing Needs ............................................................................................................. 16
Elderly ............................................................................................................................... .. 16
Persons with Disabilities ...................................................................................................... 17
Female Single- Parent ........................................................................................................... 18
Large Family ........................................................................................................................ 20
Overcrowding.................................................................................................................. 20
Farm Workers....................................................................................................................... 21
Homeless and Emergency Shelters ................................................................................. 24
Special Housing Problems ........................................................................................................ 27
Conversion of Rental Units to Condominiums .................................................................... 27
Conversion of Mobile Home Parks...................................................................................... 28
Chapter Two - Inventory of Land Suitable for Residential Development..................................... 29
Vacant Sites.......................................................................................................................... .... 29
Zoning ............................................................................................................................... .. 34
Public Facilities and Services............................................................................................... 39
Chapter Three - Constraints on Housing ....................................................................................... 41
Governmental Constraints......................................................................................................... 41
Land- use Controls ................................................................................................................ 41
Growth Controls .............................................................................................................. 41
Open Space Requirements............................................................................................... 41
Codes and Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 42
Development Requirements ................................................................................................. 43
Fees and Exactions ............................................................................................................... 43
Processing and Permit Procedures ....................................................................................... 44
Provision of Services............................................................................................................ 44
Local Efforts to Remove Governmental Constraints ........................................................... 45
Non- governmental Constraints ................................................................................................. 45
ii
Financing Cost and Availability........................................................................................... 46
Land Cost and Availability .................................................................................................. 46
Construction Cost................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter Four - Energy Efficient Housing...................................................................................... 48
Chapter Five - Existing Assisted Developments at Risk ............................................................... 50
Chapter Six - Housing Program..................................................................................................... 51
Identification of Adequate Sites................................................................................................ 51
Multifamily Rentals.............................................................................................................. 51
Factory- built and Mobile Homes ......................................................................................... 52
Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing .................................................................... 52
Farm Worker Housing.......................................................................................................... 53
Development of Low Income & Moderate Income Housing.................................................... 53
Mitigation of Governmental Constraints .................................................................................. 53
Conservation and Improvement of Affordable Housing Stock................................................. 53
Promotion of Equal Housing Opportunities.............................................................................. 53
Preservation of Assisted Housing for Low Income Households .............................................. 54
Consistency with General Plan ................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Seven - Public Participation ............................................................................................. 55
Program........................................................................................................................ ............ 55
Participants................................................................................................................... ............ 55
Chapter Eight - Review of Previous Housing Element ................................................................. 57
Effectiveness and Review of Results ........................................................................................ 57
Progress in Implementation ...................................................................................................... 70
Appropriateness of Goals, Objectives and Policies .................................................................. 71
Chapter Nine - Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 2002 revision............................................. 72
Quantified Objectives................................................................................................................ 82
ATTACHMENTS.................................................................................................................... ... 83
Figure 1. Vacant Sites with Potential for Development Between 2002- 2007 ( Live Oak Area)... 83
Figure 2. Vacant Sites with Potential for Development Between 2002- 2007 ( Yuba City Area) .85
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015..................................... 2
Table 2. Employment Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015.................................. 2
Table 3. Ratio of Persons to Local Employment, 2000- 2015........................................................ 2
Table 4. Household Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015..................................... 5
Table 5. Households by Tenure, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007. ......................................................... 5
Table 6. Housing Unit Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015................................. 5
Table 7. Housing Units by Tenure, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007...................................................... 6
Table 8. Housing Units by Type, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007......................................................... 6
Table 9. Housing Condition Survey Results, 1999........................................................................ 8
Table 10. Housing Condition Survey Comparisons, 1989 and 1999............................................. 10
Table 11. Affordable Housing Definitions. ................................................................................... 11
Table 12. Income Limits, Countywide, 2001. ............................................................................... 12
Table 13. Median Income, Home Value and Median Gross Rent, 1990 & 2000.......................... 12
Table 14. Households by Target Income Group, 1990 & 2000..................................................... 13
Table 15. Households Paying over 30% of Gross Income for Housing. ....................................... 13
Table 16. Households Paying over 50% of Gross Income for Housing. ....................................... 13
Table 17. Affordable Housing by Target Income Groups. ............................................................ 14
Table 18. Housing Needs Allocations, 2000- 2007. ....................................................................... 15
Table 19. RHNA Reductions Based on Affordable Units Built During 2000 & 2001.................. 15
Table 20. Revised Housing Needs Allocations, 2000- 2007. ......................................................... 16
Table 21. Non- Institutionalized Persons with Disabilities, Countywide....................................... 17
Table 22. Single Female- Parent Households. ................................................................................ 19
Table 23. Day- Care Centers by Zip Code, Countywide. ............................................................... 19
Table 24. Large- Family and Overcrowded Households, 1990 & 2000......................................... 21
Table 25. Number of Migrant Families per School District, Countywide..................................... 22
Table 26. Persons in Regional Emergency/ Homeless Shelters. .................................................... 25
Table 27. Parcels with Potential for Residential Development, 2002- 2012. ................................. 29
Table 28. Potential Housing Units Based on Available Land, 2002- 2012. ................................... 30
Table 29. Parcels with Potential for Residential Development, 2002- 2007. ................................. 31
Table 30. Potential Housing Units per Income Group, 2002- 2007. .............................................. 32
Table 31. Recent Low- and Medium- Density Residential Developments. ................................... 33
Table 32. Potential Developable Acreage per Income Group, 2002- 2007. ................................... 33
Table 33. Acreage and Potential Units per Housing Type, 2002- 2007. ........................................ 33
Table 34. General Plan Land- Use Designations. ........................................................................... 34
Table 35. Residential Zoning Provisions....................................................................................... 34
Table 36. Structural Land- Use Controls. ....................................................................................... 36
Table 37. Housing Units by Year of Construction. ....................................................................... 48
Table 38. Quantified Objectives .................................................................................................... 82
iv
FOREWORD
California State law requires each local government to revise its General Plan Housing Element
not less than every five years. Government Code section 65588( e)( 3) established June 30, 2002
and June 30, 2007 as the deadlines for Sutter County to submit the third and fourth adopted
revisions of the County’s Housing Element. Thus the planning period covered by this current
revision is July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2007. For consistency with the Sutter County General Plan
and the previous Housing Element, however, this revision addresses certain housing issues
through 2015.
Population and housing projections in this document are based upon existing land- use policies as
adopted and currently included in the General Plan. The County has generally based data in this
document on 1990 and 2000 U. S. Census data; however, several other data sets were also
utilized, including the March 15, 2001 projection series developed by the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments ( SACOG), the 1999 Sutter County Housing Condition Survey, and
various reports produced by the State Department of Finance and the Employment Development
Department. Tabular data throughout this document, therefore, may reflect inconsistencies
among the various data sets. The County did not attempt to reconcile such inconsistencies, in that
each data set may contain both statistical and sampling errors and the various data sets may also
differ due to varying sampling times or periods. Furthermore, any such reconciliation would be
statistically insignificant and would not affect the conclusions reached. Additionally, decimal
values in this document are generally rounded to the nearest tenth or whole number.
Because Sutter County’s previous Housing Element has been deemed in compliance with state
housing law by the Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD), this Housing
Element revision is considered by HCD as an amendment to the previous element. Nonetheless,
the organization and formatting of the current revision differ from the previous element for three
reasons:
1. The previous element analyzed housing in the incorporated cities of Live Oak and Yuba City
to a substantial degree. The current revision focuses on the jurisdictional or unincorporated area
of Sutter County, and therefore most of the analyses in the previous element have been discarded
in favor of discussions germane to housing within the County’s jurisdiction. For purposes of
comparison, however, some projections and discussions encompass the entire County, including
the incorporated cities. Unless indicated otherwise, tables portray data for the unincorporated
County; and
2. The scope of the revised element tracks that of the Sutter County General Plan, in that the
Housing Element now focuses, as do other General Plan elements, on the unincorporated
County. In addition, the revised element utilizes up- to- date word- processing formats in order to
facilitate editing of the current and subsequent revisions; and
3. The revised format allows reviewers to locate state- mandated sections with greater facility.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
1
CHAPTER ONE
HOUSING NEEDS
POPULATION
In March 2001 the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG) released new
projections for Sutter County for each five- year period until the year 2025. SACOG estimated
total County population for the year 2000 to be 78,510, a 21.9 percent increase over the 1990
U. S. Census population of 64,415. By comparison, the U. S. Census 2000 tallied 78,930 persons
residing in the County. The 420- person disparity may result from temporal differences between
the two data sets, in that the SACOG numbers are for January 1, 2000 and the Census numbers
are for April 1, 2000. Moreover, the disparity represents a difference of approximately one- half
of one percent, which is not statistically significant. SACOG projects total County population to
be 109,280 in 2015, reflecting an anticipated 2.23 percent average annual growth rate for the
period 2000- 2015.
The 2000 population of unincorporated Sutter County, excluding the incorporated cities of Live
Oak and Yuba City, is estimated by SACOG to be 37,110. The 2000 U. S. Census, by
comparison, credited the unincorporated County with 35,943 persons, a 10% increase over the
1990 Census count of 32,658. SACOG projects population in unincorporated Sutter County to be
47,530 by the year 2015, reflecting an average annual growth rate of 1.67 percent. Table 1 lists
the SACOG population projections of the unincorporated County and the incorporated cities by
five- year intervals from 2000 to 2015, and extrapolates projections for the parameter years of the
current Housing Element revision, 2002 and 2007. The extrapolated data reflect average annual
growth rates for the five- year periods of 2000- 2005 ( 1.46 percent) for the year 2002, and of
2005- 2010 ( 1.56 percent) for the year 2007. During the five- year planning period of 2002- 2007,
population in the unincorporated County is expected to increase 7.7 percent, from 38,202 to
41,144.
The preceding population estimates unfortunately do not include the substantial Walton Avenue
Reorganization, which occurred in 2000 after the Census data was collected. This reorganization
added approximately 7,745 people to the population of Yuba City and therefore reduced
population in the unincorporated area by the same number. Thus, the population of
unincorporated Sutter County was reduced during year 2000 to a number probably between
28,198 ( based on SACOG) and 29,365 ( based on Census 2000). This reduction is not reflected in
the tables of this document so that the original relationship among Census 2000 population and
other data sets is retained.
EMPLOYMENT
The SACOG March 2001 projection series show that in 2000, County total employment was
24,600, a 45.9 percent increase over the 1990 total employment of 16,857. By the year 2015,
total County employment is expected to be 36,294, a 47.5 percent increase over the year 2000.
Total 2000 employment in the unincorporated area was 6,633, a 23.3 percent increase over the
1990 employment in the unincorporated area of 5,379. By the year 2015, employment in the
unincorporated area is expected to be 11,554, a 74.2 percent increase over the year 2000. Table 2
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
2
lists the SACOG employment projections for the unincorporated County and the incorporated
cities by five- year intervals from 2000 to 2015, and extrapolates projections for the parameter
years of the current Housing Element revision, 2002 and 2007. The extrapolated data reflect
average annual employment growth rates for the five- year periods of 2000- 2005 ( 2.01 percent)
for the year 2002 and 2005- 2010 ( 2.06 percent) for the year 2007. During the five- year planning
period of 2002- 2007, employment in the unincorporated County is expected to increase 10.6
percent, from 6,902 to 7,632. Table 3 compares the ratio of population to employment through
2015.
Pursuant to the discussion of the effects of the Walton Avenue reorganization on the previous
page, the absolute number of employed persons in the unincorporated county would reduce by
approximately the same percentage as the population reduction. However, since the exact figure
on employment in the annexed area is unknown, the tables below do not reflect the
reorganization.
Table 1. Population Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015.
Area 2000 2002 2005 2007 2010 2015
Unincorporated 37,110 38,202 39,890 41,144 43,090 47,530
Yuba City 35,860 36,915 42,030 43,352 47,880 53,570
Live Oak 5,540 5,703 6,600 6,808 7,400 8,180
County Total 78,510 80,820 88,520 91,304 98,370 109,280
Source: SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projections; Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 2. Employment Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015.
Area 2000 2002 2005 2007 2010 2015
Unincorporated 6,633 6,902 7,327 7,632 8,112 9,166
Yuba City 16,914 17,601 19,993 20,825 22,684 25,335
Live Oak 1,053 1,096 1,308 1,362 1,536 1,793
County Total 24,600 25,599 28,628 29,819 32,332 36,294
Source: SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projections; Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 3. Ratio of Persons to Local Employment, 2000- 2015.
Year 2000 2002 2005 2007 2010 2015
Population 37,110 38,202 39,890 41,144 43,090 47,530
Employment 6,633 6,902 7,327 7,632 8,112 9,166
Persons per Job 5.59 5.53 5.53 5.39 5.31 5.18
Source: SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projections; Sutter County Community Services Department
From Table 3 it is evident that the ratio of persons in the unincorporated County per local job
will slightly decrease over the five- year planning period of this revision, indicating a slightly
positive trend of developing employment opportunities in the unincorporated area. In 1990 the
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
3
ratio was 6.01 persons per local job, thus this trend is historical and is expected to continue and
somewhat increase over the life of the General Plan. Annual growth rates for employment
through 2015 are expected to remain approximately one- half of one percent higher than the
annual growth rates for population, but this continuing low margin indicates a relatively stagnant
relationship in the unincorporated County between population and local employment
opportunities.
Significant employment development may occur, however, within the South Sutter County
Industrial/ Commercial ( SSCI/ C) Reserve. The 10,500- acre SSCI/ C Reserve was identified in the
1996 General Plan update, and in 2000 the Board of Supervisors identified approximately 3,500
acres within the reserve for development of a specific plan area. Development within the South
Sutter County Specific Plan ( SSCSP) area will be industrial and commercial, with no provisions
for housing, which reflects the primary purpose of the SSCI/ C District: to provide employment
opportunities for Sutter County residents. Build- out of the specific plan area is expected to
provide 55,020 jobs.
The following paragraph excerpted from the Draft South Sutter County Specific Plan ( p. 3- 85)
describes anticipated impacts of development in the specific plan area on employment and
housing:
By the year 2022, a total of 55,020 jobs will have been created within the Plan
Area, if the Plan is implemented as currently proposed. The population for Sutter
County in 2022 is projected to be 127,030, representing an increase of 48,520
persons over the 2000 population estimate. Assuming 2.85 persons per household
in 2022 ( SACOG) and .92 jobs per housing unit ( SACOG) approximately 15,633
additional local jobs are predicted [ not including SSCSP development]. Based on
these figures, a substantial job surplus would result within Sutter County.
However, population growth in the adjacent areas of Placer and Sacramento
counties must be taken into consideration. The Plan Area is within easy commute
of a rapidly growing urban area [ Sacramento market area] that will add 621,483
persons by 2022, exclusive of Sutter County. This increase in population could
potentially more than absorb the 55,020 jobs that may be created. Further,
Sacramento County and Placer County are both projected to have significantly
more local jobs per housing unit than Sutter County in 2022 ( 1.23 and 1.28
respectively). Many of these jobs would be filled with persons commuting from
Sutter County, unless a more localized employment base is developed in Sutter
County. The data suggest that additional jobs are needed in Sutter County to
correct the current jobs/ housing imbalance.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
4
HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING UNITS
Sutter County and the State Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) define
“ household” and “ housing unit” based on the following compilation of U. S. Census Bureau
definitions:
Household: A household includes all of the people who occupy a housing unit. These equal the
count of occupied housing units in a traditional census. People not living in households are
classified as living in group quarters.
Housing Unit: A housing unit may be a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms,
or a single room that is occupied or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as a separate living
quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any
other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or
through a common hall.
Households
SACOG estimates that Sutter County will have 28,061 total households county- wide in 2000, an
increase of 21.4 percent over 23,111 total households in 1990. By the year 2015 County total
households are expected to number 39,121. Unincorporated Sutter County had 13,274
households in 2000, an 18.6 percent increase over 11,190 households in the unincorporated area
in 1990. By the year 2015 households in the unincorporated area are expected to number 16,989,
a 30 percent increase over unincorporated area households in 2000.
Table 4 lists the SACOG household estimates and projections of the unincorporated County and
the incorporated cities by five- year intervals from 2000 to 2015. As previously noted, SACOG
projection figures may differ from those same figures derived from the U. S. Census. Table 4 is
intended to provide a relative perspective among the various incorporated and unincorporated
areas of the County; but SACOG projections do not provide household- by- tenure data.
Table 5 provides 1990 and 2000 Census counts of households by tenure in the unincorporated
County and extrapolates for the planning period parameter years of the current Housing Element
revision, 2002 and 2007. To partially reconcile the Census and SACOG data sets, the
extrapolated data reflect SACOG- projection average annual growth rates for the five- year
periods of 2000- 2005 ( 1.4 percent) for the year 2002 and 2005- 2010 ( 1.55 percent) for the year
2007. During the five- year planning period of 2002- 2007, households in the unincorporated
County are expected to increase 7.5 percent, from 12,353 to 13,281. This increase indicates that
total households will grow faster during the 5- year planning period than during the 10- year
period between the two recent Census counts, when growth was 7.6 percent. During this same
10- year period, owner- occupied households increased in the unincorporated County by almost
9.3 percent, whereas renter- occupied households increased by only 2.7 percent. The relative
percent- of- total for owner- occupied households increased during 1990- 2000 from 76 to 77
percent, and renter- occupied households conversely decreased from 24 to 23 percent.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
5
Table 4. Household Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015.
Area 2000 2005 2010 2015
Unincorporated 13,274 14,233 15,364 16,989
Yuba City 13,112 15,415 17,564 19,658
Live Oak 1,675 1,940 2,207 2,474
County Total 28,061 31,588 35,135 39,121
Source: SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projections
Table 5. Households by Tenure, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007.
Households & Tenure 1990 2000 2002 2007
Total Households 11,157 12,014 12,353 13,281
Owner Occupied 8,456 9,240 9,508 10,293
Percent of Total 76% 77% 77% 77.5%
Renter Occupied 2,701 2,774 2,845 2,988
Percent of Total 24% 23% 23% 22.5%
Source: 1990 & 2000 Census; SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projection Series; Sutter County Community Services Department
Housing Units
The SACOG March 2001 projection series estimates year 2000 County total housing units at
29,077, an increase of 23.4 percent over 23,556 total housing units in 1990. By the year 2015
County total housing units are expected to number 40,550. Unincorporated Sutter County had
13,735 housing units in 2000, a 19.1 percent increase over 11,529 housing units in the
unincorporated area in 1990. By the year 2015 housing units in the unincorporated area are
expected to number 17,597, a 28.1 percent increase over unincorporated area housing units in
2000. Table 6 lists housing unit estimates and projections of the unincorporated County and the
incorporated cities by five- year intervals from 2000 to 2015.
Table 6. Housing Unit Estimates and Projections, Countywide, 2000- 2015.
Area 2000 2005 2010 2015
Unincorporated Area 13,735 14,735 15,918 17,597
Yuba City 13,608 15,996 18,225 20,394
Live Oak 1,734 2,009 2,284 2,559
Sutter County Total 29,077 32,740 36,427 40,550
Source: SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projection Series
Table 7 lists housing units by tenure in the unincorporated County for 1990 and 2000, based on
U. S. Census data. Relationship of the Census data to SACOG projections and extrapolation
methodology are similar to that noted in the text preceding Tables 5 & 6 above. SACOG’s
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
6
average annual housing growth rates, utilized to extrapolate housing for the parameter years of
2002 and 2007, are 1.42 percent for 2000- 2005 and 1.56 percent for 2005- 2010.
Table 7. Housing Units by Tenure, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007.
Area 1990 2000 2002 2007
Total Housing Units 11,667 12,589 12,949 13,738
Occupied Units 11,157 12,014 12,353 13,281
Vacant Units 510 575 596 457
Percent of Total 4.3% 4.6% 4.6% 3.3%
Owner Occupied 8,456 9,240 9,508 10,293
Percent of Occupied Units 75.8% 76.9% 77.0% 77.5%
Vacant Owner Units 387 137 459 354
Total Owner Units 8,843 9,377 9,967 10,647
Renter Occupied 2,701 2,774 2,845 2,988
Percent of Occupied Units 24.2% 23.1% 23.0% 22.5%
Vacant Renter Units 123 438 137 103
Total Renter Units 2,824 3,212 2,982 3,091
Source: Census 1990 & 2000; SACOG 3/ 15/ 01 Projection Series; Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 7 suggests that owner- occupied housing units have been increasing relative to renter-occupied
housing units, and that this trend is expected to continue through the five- year planning
period.
Housing unit types in the unincorporated County are predominantly conventional single- family
homes. Mobile homes represent the second most numerous type of unit, followed by multiple
family units, respectively 2- 4 and 5+- units. Table 8 lists housing units by type for the
unincorporated County for 1990, 2000, 2002 and 2007. Data for years 2000, 2002 and 2007 are
estimated using the distribution of types from the 1990 Census.
Table 8. Housing Units by Type, 1990, 2000, 2002 & 2007.
Type 1990 1990 % 2000 2002 2007
Single- Family 9,997 86% 10,826 11,136 11,815
Multiple- Fam., 2- 4 Units 206 2% 252 259 275
Multiple- Fam., 5+ Units 163 1% 126 130 137
Mobile Homes 1,301 11% 1,385 1,424 1,511
Total 11,667 100% 12,589 12,949 13,738
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
Housing Stock Condition
In July 1999, HCD awarded a Community Development Block Grant/ Planning and Technical
Assistance Grant to Sutter County. The County used part of this grant to contract with Laurin
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
7
Associates, Inc. to survey housing conditions in specified areas in the unincorporated County.
The resulting Housing Condition Survey allowed the County to identify areas most in need of
housing rehabilitation funds. The County identified twelve areas, including six rural
communities, two “ developed areas” and four “ miscellaneous areas.” The unincorporated rural
communities are Sutter, Meridian, Robbins, East Nicolaus ( including Nicolaus and Trowbridge),
Rio Oso and Tudor. The two developed areas are within the spheres of influence of the
incorporated cities of Yuba City and Live Oak. The survey defined “ developed area” as “ an area
that resembles an urban like space, such as a single family housing unit subdivision with a
density of four units per acre, but excluding larger ranchettes, such as a single family house on a
five or ten acre parcel.” The four “ miscellaneous areas” cover the smaller communities of Rio
Ramaza and Pleasant Grove as well as housing in agricultural areas covered by County
Assessor’s Map Books Number 8, 10, 34 and 35.
Laurin Associates, Inc. staff conducted the survey in August, 1999, inspecting every identifiable
residential dwelling in the twelve identified areas. Each dwelling unit was rated on a Housing
Condition Inventory according to structural criteria established by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development ( HCD). The criteria include five categories: foundation,
roofing, siding, windows and doors. Within each category the particular housing unit was
assigned a point- value based on ratings from “ no repairs needed” to “ replacement needed.” Staff
totaled the points in each category to arrive at one of the following designations for each housing
unit:
Standard: 9 or fewer points: no repairs needed, or only one minor repair needed such as
exterior painting or window repair;
Minor Repair: 10 to 15 points: one or two minor repairs needed, or only one minor repair needed
such as patching and painting of siding or roof patching or window replacement;
Moderate
Rehabilitation: 16 to 39 points: two or three minor repairs needed, such as those listed above;
Substantial
Rehabilitation: 40 to 55 points: repairs needed to all surveyed items: foundation, roof, siding,
windows and doors;
Dilapidated: 56 or more points: the costs of repairs would exceed the cost to replace the
residential structure.
Table 9 lists the results of the survey by each of the twelve areas. Numbers in the “ Percent of
Total” column are generally rounded to the nearest whole number to facilitate comparison with
the housing condition survey results from the previous Housing Element. A few numbers in this
column have been rounded to the nearest half- percent so that the area percentage will total 100,
and numbers less than one- half of one percent are not counted in the area totals but are noted in
the percentage column as “(< 0.5).” It is important to note that since the Housing Condition
Survey did not cover the entire unincorporated area, totals in the following tables will not agree
with previous housing unit totals based on U. S. Census counts or on SACOG projections.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
8
Table 9. Housing Condition Survey Results, 1999.
CONDITION NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL
Sutter
Standard 687 80
Minor Repair 93 11
Moderate Rehabilitation 56 7
Substantial Rehabilitation 10 1
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 11 1
SUB- TOTAL 857 100
Meridian
Standard 53 56
Minor Repair 23 24
Moderate Rehabilitation 9 10
Substantial Rehabilitation 1 1
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 9 9
SUB- TOTAL 95 100
Robbins
Standard 28 47
Minor Repair 23 38
Moderate Rehabilitation 9 15
Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 60 100
East Nicolaus ( including Nicolaus & Trowbridge)
Standard 55 62
Minor Repair 19 21
Moderate Rehabilitation 7 8
Substantial Rehabilitation 4 4.5
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 4 4.5
SUB- TOTAL 89 100
Rio Oso
Standard 34 90
Minor Repair 1 2
Moderate Rehabilitation 0 0
Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 3 8
SUB- TOTAL 38 100
Tudor
Standard 21 78
Minor Repair 4 15
Moderate Rehabilitation 0 0
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
9
CONDITION NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL
Substantial Rehabilitation 2 7
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 27 100
Yuba City Developed Area
Standard 6285 89
Minor Repair 467 7
Moderate Rehabilitation 276 4
Substantial Rehabilitation 11 (< 0.5)
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 6 (< 0.5)
SUB- TOTAL 7045 100
Live Oak Developed Area
Standard 127 56
Minor Repair 81 35
Moderate Rehabilitation 21 9
Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 229 100
Miscellaneous Area Book 8 ( Northwest)
Standard 64 58
Minor Repair 30 27
Moderate Rehabilitation 15 13
Substantial Rehabilitation 2 2
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 111 100
Miscellaneous Area Book 10 ( Between Yuba City & Live Oak)
Standard 560 87
Minor Repair 12 2
Moderate Rehabilitation 73 11
Substantial Rehabilitation 2 (< 0.5)
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 647 100
Miscellaneous Area Book 34 ( Southwest)
Standard 17 40
Minor Repair 6 14
Moderate Rehabilitation 20 46
Substantial Rehabilitation 0 0
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 43 100
Miscellaneous Area Book 35 ( Southeast)
Standard 37 25
Minor Repair 47 31
Moderate Rehabilitation 63 42
Substantial Rehabilitation 3 2
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
10
CONDITION NUMBER OF UNITS PERCENT OF TOTAL
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 0 0
SUB- TOTAL 150 100
Unincorporated Sutter County Total
Standard 7,911 84
Minor Repair 854 9
Moderate Rehabilitation 554 6
Substantial Rehabilitation 33 (< 0.5)
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 33 (< 0.5)
TOTAL 9,385 100
Source: 1999 Sutter County Housing Condition Survey
The previous Housing Element contained a table of results from the 1989 Housing Condition
Survey. Table 10 compares the overall County totals and percentages of the 1989 and 1999
Housing Condition Surveys. The 7,346 housing units surveyed in 1989 represent 63% of the
11,667 housing units from the 1990 Census. The 9,385 housing units surveyed in 1999 represent
approximately 75% of the 12,589 housing units reported by the 2000 Census for the
unincorporated County.
Table 10. Housing Condition Survey Comparisons, 1989 and 1999.
CONDITION 1989 TOTAL 1989 PERCENT 1999 TOTAL 1999 PERCENT
Standard 5,002 68 7,911 84
Minor Repair 1,011 14 854 9
Moderate Rehabilitation 915 12 554 6
Substantial Rehabilitation 208 3 33 (< 0.5)
Dilapidated ( Replacement) 210 3 33 (< 0.5)
TOTALS 7,346 100 9,385 100
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Units Needing Rehabilitation
From Table 10 it is apparent that the condition of the housing stock has changed for the better, in
both relative and absolute terms, ostensibly as a result of the County’s various programs to
conserve and improve existing dwelling units. In 1989, there were 1,123 housing units requiring
moderate or substantial rehabilitation, which represented 15 percent of the units surveyed. In
1999, the number of units requiring moderate or substantial rehabilitation had been reduced to
587, representing less than 6.5 percent of the units surveyed.
Units Needing Replacement
In 1989, 210 housing units, representing three percent of the units surveyed, were sufficiently
dilapidated to warrant replacement. By 1999, only 33 housing units, representing less than one-half
of one percent of the units surveyed, were deemed dilapidated.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
11
Affordability
Both State and County law define affordability in terms of target income households and the
relative percentage these households must pay to purchase or rent decent and safe housing.
Target income households include the categories Very Low, Low, and Moderate income. Table
11 provides the Sutter County Affordable Housing Program ( Ordinance # 1225, § 1600- 200)
definitions of terms germane to the discussion of affordable housing.
Table 11. Affordable Housing Definitions.
Terms Definitions
Affordable Housing Housing that is available to target income households at a monthly cost
that does not exceed 30 percent of their monthly gross incomes.
Affordable Rent Monthly rent, including utilities and all fees for housing services, equal
to or less than 30 percent of the gross monthly income for the specified
target income household. Affordable rent shall be based on presumed
occupancy levels of one person in a studio unit, three persons in a one
bedroom unit, five persons in a two bedroom unit, and two additional
persons for each additional bedroom thereafter.
Affordable Sales Price The maximum purchase price that will be affordable to the specified
target income household. A maximum purchase price shall be
considered affordable only if each Monthly Housing Payment is equal to
or less than 30 percent of the gross monthly income for the specified
target income household. In setting the Affordable Sales Price, realistic
assumptions regarding down payment, mortgage interest rate and term
will be required and those assumptions must demonstrate that targeted
income families can reasonably qualify. Affordable Sales Price shall be
based upon presumed occupancy levels of one person in a studio unit,
three persons in a one bedroom unit, five persons in a two bedroom unit,
and two additional persons for each additional bedroom thereafter.
Affordable Unit Dwelling unit which is affordable to very low, low or moderate income
households as defined in this ordinance.
Low Income Household Household earning a gross income of more than 50 percent and not
greater than 80 percent of the median household income for Sutter
County, adjusted for household size, as periodically published in Section
6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
Moderate Income Household Household earning a gross income of more than 80 percent and not
greater than 120 percent of the median household income for Sutter
County, adjusted for household size, as periodically published in Section
6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
Target Income Groups Very low, low and moderate income households as defined in this
ordinance.
Very Low Income Household Household earning a gross income of not greater than 50 percent of the
median household income for Sutter County, adjusted for household
size, as periodically published in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the
California Code of Regulations.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
12
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Affordability is therefore relative to both household income and housing unit cost, whether the
unit is for sale or rent. The parameters of the target income categories are determined in relation
to the median household income for Sutter County, adjusted by household size. Area Median
Income, based on a family of four persons, is defined by federal law and HUD regulations as the
higher of:
1) the metropolitan area or nonmetropolitan county median family income; or
2) the statewide nonmetropolitan median family income ($ 38,600 for 2001).
Because the metropolitan area median family income for Sutter County ( Yuba City MSA) was
lower than the statewide nonmetropolitan median family income, HCD set $ 38,600 as the
official Area Median Income ( AMI). Table 12 lists the household income limits for Sutter
County, adjusted by household size. Table 13 summarizes the median values and relative
increases of income, single- family home value and monthly gross rent for 1990 and 2000.
Table 12. Income Limits, Countywide, 2001.
Income Number of persons in Family
Standard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very Low 13,500 15,450 17,350 19,300 20,850 22,400 23,950 25,500
Low 21,600 24,700 27,800 30,900 33,350 35,800 38,300 40,750
Median 27,000 30,900 34,750 38,600 41,700 44,800 47,850 50,950
Moderate 32,400 37,050 41,650 46,300 50,000 53,700 57,400 61,100
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development
Table 13. Median Income, Home Value and Median Gross Rent, 1990 & 2000.
Category 1990 2000 Percent Increase
Median Income $ 29,4001 $ 38,6001 31.3%
Median Home Value $ 111,5002 $ 132,5002 18.8%
Median Gross Rent $ 5163 $ 6483 25.6%
Source: 1990 Census; State Department of Housing & Community Development; Sutter County Community Services Department; Sutter County
Assessor; City of Yuba City Administration Department
1 Median Income figures are countywide
2Analysis of Median Home Value restricted to sales of homes in the unincorporated area on parcels no larger than 15 acres in 1990 & 5 acres in
2000, excluding sales between parents and their offspring.
3Median Gross Rent based on a 3- bedroom apartment in Yuba City due to lack of representative rental units in the unincorporated County
Table 13 indicates that growth of median income has outpaced median home value, representing
26.4 percent of median home value in 1990 and 29.1 of median home value in 2000.
Payment vs. Ability to Pay
Table 14 estimates the number of target income households and lists the percentage that each
target income group represents of the total number of target income households. Table 15
estimates the number of target income households where monthly housing costs exceed 30
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
13
percent of gross monthly income, and Table 16 estimates the number of target income
households where monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross monthly income. Because
Census 2000 data on housing costs as a percentage of income are not yet available, overpayment
estimates were extrapolated from the 1990 Census distribution of target income groups and
housing costs relative to income.
Table 14. Households by Target Income Group, 1990 & 2000.
Income Group 1990 % of Total Households % of Target Income Groups 2000
Very Low 2,403 21.5% 43.5% 2,583
Low 1,409 12.6% 25.5% 1,514
Moderate 1,713 15.4% 31.0% 1,850
TOTAL 5,525 49.5% 100% 5,947
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 15. Households Paying over 30% of Gross Income for Housing.
Income Group 30% of Income Owners Renters Totals
Very Low $ 482.50 266 165 431
Low $ 772.50 156 96 252
Moderate $ 1,157.50 190 118 308
TOTAL N/ A 612 379 991
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
The 991 households paying more than 30 percent of gross household income for housing
represent 16.6 percent of the total households of the three income groups listed. Of this 16.6
percent, 10.2 percent are owner- occupied and 6.4 percent are renter- occupied.
Table 16. Households Paying over 50% of Gross Income for Housing.
Income Group 50% of Income Owners Renters Totals
Very Low $ 804.00 44 30 74
Low $ 1,287.50 26 17 43
Moderate $ 1,929.00 32 21 53
TOTAL N/ A 102 68 170
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
The 170 households paying more than 50 percent of gross household income for housing
represent 2.9 percent of the total households of the three income groups listed. Of this 2.9
percent, 1.7 percent are owner- occupied and 1.2 percent are renter- occupied.
Table 17 estimates the number of for- sale and for- rent affordable housing units for each target
income group by tenure. The determination of affordable cost assumes income limits based on a
four- person family. Data are extrapolated from 1990 distribution of owner- occupied housing
units by value and contract rent paid in renter- occupied housing units.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
14
Table 17. Affordable Housing by Target Income Groups.
Income Group Owner Units Affordable
Price*
Renter Units Affordable
Rent
Total Units
Very Low 1,900 $ 76,000 1,204 $ 482.50 3,104
Low 1,024 $ 120,000 59 $ 772.50 1,083
Moderate 162 $ 160,000 8 $ 1,157.50 170
TOTAL 3,086 N/ A 1,271 N/ A 4,357
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
* Assumes 10% down payment, 7% interest, no points, good credit
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
15
Five- Year Projected New Construction Needs
Regional Housing Needs Plan
The California Department of Housing and Community Development determines state- wide
projected housing needs and allocates new housing unit target numbers to regional Councils of
Governments ( COGs). The Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG) determines
fair- share portions of state allocations for each of its member jurisdictions. These allocations are
contained in SACOG’s Regional Housing Needs Plan ( RHNP), which covers a seven and a half
year period including the planning period of this Housing Element revision, 2002- 2007. The
RHNP provides allocation targets, or basic construction needs, for four income categories. The
RHNP states that the “ allocation targets are intended to assure that adequate sites and zoning is
made available to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period and that
market forces are not inhibited in addressing the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community.” Table 18 lists the Regional Housing Needs Allocations ( RHNA) for unincorporated
Sutter County. The differences between 2000 and 2007 comprise the base new housing needs for
the five- year planning period, 2002- 2007.
Table 18. Housing Needs Allocations, 2000- 2007.
Year Income Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
2000 2,509 2,159 2,078 6,989 13,735
2007 2,954 2,560 2,338 7,368 15,220
RHNA 445 401 260 379 1,485
Percent 30% 27% 17.5% 25.5% 100%
Source: SACOG
Pursuant to State housing law, however, the county’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of
residential units constructed during the Interim Planning Period ( 2000 and 2001) if the Housing
Element demonstrates that the units subtracted from the very- low, low, and moderate- income
allocations are affordable to the associated income group. Based on building permit records,
sales prices and affordability relative to the median income of each year, Table 19 summarizes
the number of affordable units constructed.
Table 19. RHNA Reductions Based on Affordable Units Built During 2000 & 2001.
Income Group Income Limits
( 4- person family)
Affordable
Price1
Price Range of
Units Built2
Affordable
Units Built3
Year 2000: ( Median Income = $ 36,000)
Very Low (≤ 50% MI) $ 18,000 $ 48,787 $ 900-$ 43,200 8
Low ( 50%- 80% MI) $ 28,800 $ 78,059 $ 60,555-$ 77,682 3
Moderate( 80%- 120% $ 28,800-$ 43,200 $ 117, 089 $ 88,411-$ 116,016 20
Above Moderate >$ 43,200 >$ 117,089 $ 123,291-$ 311,629 67
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
16
Income Group Income Limits
( 4- person family)
Affordable
Price1
Price Range of
Units Built2
Affordable
Units Built3
Year 2001: ( Median Income = $ 38,600)
Very Low (≤ 50% MI) $ 19,300 $ 54,081 >$ 54,081 0
Low ( 50%- 80% MI) $ 30,880 $ 86,530 $ 62,101-$ 82,291 14
Moderate( 80%- 120% $ 46,320 $ 129,796 $ 90,827-$ 128,261 9
Above Moderate >$ 46,320 >$ 129,796 $ 135,797-$ 443,865 36
Total 2000 & 2001 157
Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development; Sutter County Community Services Department
1 Assumes 10% down payment, & 7% interest
2All VLI units and the lower range of LI units are mobile homes, some of which are previously- owned and sold at below- market
rates
3Units- per- income- categories are mutually exclusive so that no unit is allocated to more than one income category
Table 20 demonstrates the appropriate RHNA reductions and revises the RHNA based on the
relative affordability of dwelling units constructed during the Interim Planning Period.
Table 20. Revised Housing Needs Allocations, 2000- 2007.
Income Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Original RHNA 445 401 260 379 1,485
Interim Units Built 8 17 29 103 157
Revised RHNA 437 384 231 276 1,328
Revised Percent 33% 29% 17% 21% 100%
Source: SACOG; Sutter County Community Services Department ( see Table 19)
Special Housing Needs
Every community includes identifiable groups or household types that have special housing
needs. Persons in these groups may require special living arrangements, dwelling modifications
or emergency or temporary shelter. The principal groups with special housing needs in Sutter
County include the elderly, persons with disabilities, female single- parent households, large-family
households, farm workers, homeless, and those households needing emergency shelter.
Elderly
One of the largest identifiable groups with a special housing need is the elderly, although their
percentage of the unincorporated County population has slightly declined during the last Census
period. The elderly comprised 6.1 percent of the unincorporated population in 1990 and 5.8
percent in 2000. The absolute number of elderly persons, however, has slightly increased. In the
unincorporated area, the 1990 Census identified 2,464 households where the householder was 65
years of age or older. Of these households, 2,118 ( 86%) were owner- occupied and 346 ( 14%)
were renter- occupied. By the year 2000, householders in this age group had increased to 2,785,
with 2,498 ( 90%) units owner- occupied and 287 ( 10%) units renter- occupied. The trend of a
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
17
larger percentage of owner- occupied homes may indicate that housing for the elderly has become
slightly more affordable.
The 1990 Census revealed that 3,981 persons aged 65 and over resided in the unincorporated
County. 345 of these persons, representing 8.7 percent of the unincorporated area total, lived
below the poverty level. Although current census data is not yet available, this distribution
applied to year- 2000 elderly population could reveal that 380 persons aged 65 and over were
below the poverty level in 2000.
Housing developments for the elderly are presently all located in the incorporated cities, which
are more convenient to the elderly due to the availability and concentration of social and medical
services. The Consolidated Area Housing Authority does not currently maintain any housing for
the elderly or Section 8 sites in the unincorporated area.
Persons with Disabilities
A second large group of identifiable individuals with special housing needs are those non-institutionalized
persons with some form of disability. It must be noted that the previous Housing
Element estimated only 1,675 persons with disabilities. The previous element’s analysis of
housing needs for persons with disabilities stated that, “ The 1980 Census does not contain
housing related disability data and data on disabilities from the 1990 Census has not been
released yet.” For the estimates in the table below, however, full 1990 Census counts of persons
with disabilities were multiplied by the 10 percent population growth rate for the 1990- 2000
period. Table 21 estimates the number of persons with disabilities countywide.
Table 21. Non- Institutionalized Persons with Disabilities, Countywide.
Disability Type Live Oak Yuba City Unincorp. County Total County
16 to 64 Years:
Mobility or Self- Care 328 978 2,295 3,600
65 Years and Over:
Mobility or Self- Care 127 635 922 1,684
TOTAL 455 1,613 3,217 5,284
Source: 1990 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
Housing for persons with disabilities may require certain modifications from standard
construction specifications in order to allow persons with disabilities to live independently,
although not all disabilities require housing modifications. No existing apartments in the
unincorporated area currently provide all the features necessary for persons with disabilities to
live independently, but some individual apartments and houses have been modified to provide at
least some of those features.
As of September 15, 1984, the State of California required that all new apartment projects having
a minimum number of units provide some units fully accessible to the handicapped. The local
development community, however, reports that no apartments have been constructed in recent
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
18
years due to the relatively low profit margins in the development of multi- family housing. The
Consolidated Area Housing Authority of Sutter County ( Housing Authority) develops and
maintains housing for persons with disabilities in Yuba City under Article 34 authority, but no
such developments have occurred in or are planned for the unincorporated area.
The current revision of the Housing Element included a review of zoning policies, including
occupancy standards and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA), and staff
determined that the County Zoning Code fully complies with ADA and Fair Housing Law.
Residential zoning provisions and structural land- use controls are described in Tables 35 and 36,
following which is an analysis of whether these standards and controls pose any constraints on
the development of housing. The analysis demonstrates that reasonable accommodation for
individuals with disabilities is provided by way of either administrative appeals or entitlements.
Administrative appeals described in that section provide flexibility in the County’s
administration of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Affordable Housing Ordinance to provide
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities required by Chapter 671 ( Senate Bill
520) of the Statutes of 2001.
Furthermore, the Zoning Code reasonably accommodates both Residential Care Homes ( 6 or
fewer persons) and Residential Care Facilities/ Rest Homes ( 7 or more persons) in all residential
districts, including RE ( Residential Estates), R- 1 ( One- Family Residence), R- 2 ( Two- Family
Residence), R- 3 ( Neighborhood Apartment) and R- 4 ( General Apartment). A Residential Care
Home, defined in Zoning Code section 1500- 9881EE as, “ a home licensed by the State of
California and providing care or supervision to 6 or fewer unrelated individuals on a 24- hour
basis,” is a permitted use in all of the residential districts; and a Residential Care Facility/ Rest
Home, defined in Zoning Code section 1500- 9881E as, “ a structure or group of structures,
operated as a single unit, licensed by the State of California and providing care or supervision to
6 or fewer unrelated individuals on a 24- hour basis,” requires a use permit. Reasonable
accommodation of Residential Care Facilities proposing 10 or more units is provided by section
1600- 500 of the Sutter County Affordable Housing Ordinance (“ Development Incentives and
Regulatory Relief”), which provides fast- track processing, fee waivers, density bonuses,
reduction of design and development standards, accelerated infrastructure improvements and
technical and financial assistance.
Female Single- Parent
Since the early 1970s, a new special needs housing group has developed— the female single-parent
household. Female single- parent households generally face two major housing problems,
affordability and proximity to child day- care facilities. Affordability is the primary problem that
affects female single- parent households in that their income is generally about one- half of
incomes for either male single- parent households or married- couple households. The 2000
Census identified 997 female single- parent households in the unincorporated County, consisting
of 603 owner- occupied households and 394 renter- occupied households.
To determine day- care needs, Table 22 provides the distribution of these households by the age-range
of household children under 18 years of age.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
19
Table 22. Single Female- Parent Households.
Subject Number
Total SFP family households ( 2 or more related persons) 997
With related children under 18 years 666
With own children under 18 years 561
With own children 6 to 17 years only 405
With own children both under 6 and 6 to 17 years 92
With own children under 6 years only 64
Source: 2000 Census
From Table 22 it is evident that 156 single female- parent households in the unincorporated
County have children under six years old, the age group most in need of day- care. Multiplying
156 by 3.49, the average family size in the unincorporated County, and subtracting 156 single-female
parents indicates that these households may include 388 children, although this number is
skewed towards a worst- case scenario by not deducting for the unknown number of fathers in the
households.
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, R- 3 or R- 4 District. The Community
Care Licensing Division of the State Department of Social Services licenses three basic types of
day- care facilities, Day- Care, Family Day- Care and Infant Day- Care. Table 23 summarizes total
County day- care center types and capacity by zip code location.
Table 23. Day- Care Centers by Zip Code, Countywide.
Zip Code Community Day- Care Family Day- Care Infant Day- Care Capacity
95659 East Nicolaus 1 0 0 18
95668 Pleasant Grove 0 0 0 0
95674 Rio Oso 0 1 0 8
95676 Robbins 0 0 0 0
95932 NW County 0 0 0 0
95948 NE County 0 0 0 0
95957 Meridian 0 0 0 0
95982 Sutter 0 15 0 178
95953 Live Oak 6 11 1 396
95991 Yuba City 19 67 3 1,518
95992 Yuba City 0 1 0 6
95993 Yuba City 12 66 1 1,177
TOTAL 38 161 5 3,301
Source: Community Care Licensing Division, California State Department of Social Services
It is problematic to draw inferences regarding proximity to day- care centers from the above
table, in that there is no spatial data currently available relating the location of individual single
female- parent households to the location of day- care centers. Furthermore, the 2000 Census data
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
20
subjects “ Female householder, no husband present, with related children under 18 years” and
“ Female householder, no husband present, with related children under 6 years” do not indicate
the number of these children requiring day- care. There may be an unmet need for day- care in
those rural communities or areas that both lack licensed facilities and are relatively far from the
employment markets of the incorporated cities, e. g., Pleasant Grove, Robbins, Meridian and the
northwest County. Considering that from the discussions and table above there are only 218 slots
in unincorporated- area day- care centers to accommodate 388 children possibly requiring day-care
in this area, 170 children under six years of age remain for whom no care is available other
than in the incorporated cities.
Unmet day- care need is borne out by the waiting lists maintained by some existing facilities. For
example, the day- care center at the Mahal Plaza Apartments ( Housing Authority project in Yuba
City near the unincorporated area) is at full capacity of 93 enrolled children, but has a waiting list
of over 100. Several other facilities have waiting lists equal to or larger than capacity. All day-care
facilities were not polled, but several facility directors who were contacted by the
Community Services Department indicated that the largest unmet need is for infant care. Some
infant- care facilities did not have a waiting list, but directors of these facilities attributed this to
the relatively rapid turn- over as infants moved up to toddler or child day- care facilities.
Furthermore, certain day- care facilities offer pre- and after- school day care only, and thus are not
day- care centers per se. For example, the one facility in East Nicolaus, the Marcum- Illinois
Preschool, does not provide full day- care, and the director of the preschool confirmed that there
are no other day- care facilities in the entire South County.
Large Family
The 2000 Census identified 2,017 households in unincorporated Sutter County with five or more
persons, representing 16.8 percent of the total households in the unincorporated area. This figure
is up from the 1990 Census count of 1,624 large- family households, which represented 14.6
percent of total households in the unincorporated area. Thus in both relative and absolute terms,
large- family households are tending to increase.
Overcrowding
Another measure of the relative need for large- family housing is the number of households with
more than one person per room. The U. S. Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one
occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room ( excluding kitchens and bathrooms). Units with
more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Although by these
definitions two persons living in a studio apartment are overcrowded, comparisons of large-family,
persons- per- household and overcrowding trends may be useful for clarifying the need for
large- family housing in the County. Table 24 indicates the degree of such trends in the
unincorporated County.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
21
Table 24. Large- Family and Overcrowded Households, 1990 & 2000.
Measurement 1990 Percent of Total 2000 Percent of Total
Total Households 11,157 100% 12,014 100%
Persons in Households 32,465 99.4% 35,779 99.5%
Average Household Size 2.75 N/ A 2.87 N/ A
Large- Family Households* 1,634 14.6% 2,017 16.8%
Owner- occupied 1,049 9.4% 1,375 11.4%
Renter- occupied 585 5.2% 642 5.3%
Overcrowded Households 819 7.3% 914 7.6%
Owner- occupied 526 4.7% 623 5.2%
Renter- occupied 293 2.6% 291 2.4%
Source: 1990 & 2000 Census; Sutter County Community Services Department
* Includes large ( 5+ persons) non- family households
The slight increase in persons- per- household from 2.75 in 1990 to 2.87 in 2000 may indicate that
the supply of large- family housing has slightly diminished in proportion to need. An obvious
inference is that County programs to increase the supply of large- family housing have not kept
pace with demand. This inference is borne out by the Housing Authority’s identified need for
three- bedroom and larger housing units.
Farm Workers
Agriculturally- based Sutter County has a housing need for both resident and migrant farm
workers. Of all special group housing needs, however, those of farm workers are the most
problematic to assess accurately because of the extreme discrepancies among official estimates.
The previous Housing Element reported both a state- and countywide trend towards increasing
mechanization of farming, with a subsequent 14% decrease in the number of agricultural workers
in the unincorporated County between 1980 ( 2,129) and 1990 ( 1,813), based on U. S. Census
data. This trend is not reflected in State Employment Development Department ( EDD) estimates
from 1997, however, which attribute 3,415 peak- season hired farm workers to Sutter County. At
the far end of this spectrum, a study based on 1995 and 1996 EDD data and cited by SACOG in
the Regional Housing Needs Plan ( Larson, 2000. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Enumeration Profiles Study: California) estimated that countywide there could be from 11,050
to 14,177 peak- season farm workers.
U. S. Census counts for farm workers are probably low for a number of reasons, most
prominently that the Census is a one- time count that occurs in the non- peak agricultural month of
April, and some workers living in non- traditional housing ( cars, barns, sheds, river- bottom
camps, etc.) or in “ back- houses” ( dwellings not likely to be captured by the U. S. Census
sampling frame) may not be counted. In addition, resident workers may not be counted as
agricultural workers if they are intermittently employed in other industries. To illustrate the latter
point, the Yuba- Sutter Builders and Developers Association reports that unskilled agricultural
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
22
workers are increasingly integrating into better- paying construction labor jobs. EDD data,
therefore, probably provide an estimate of farm workers that is more realistic than the U. S.
Census count; but because of the great discrepancy among otherwise reliable data sources, the
County cannot accept the validity of one estimate over another. Prudent planning, however,
should consider the possibility that the actual number of farm workers may be in the upper range
of estimates.
Assuming that there may be a county- wide housing need for 14,177 peak- season farm workers,
the next step would be to estimate the relative farm- worker housing need to be allocated to the
unincorporated area. One approach is based on the spatial distribution of migrant families
throughout the County’s school districts. Table 25 summarizes the distribution with data
furnished by the Butte County Office of Education, which is a regional office also covering
Sutter County.
Table 25. Number of Migrant Families per School District, Countywide.
School District in Sutter County Number of Migrant Families
Brittan Elementary 3
Browns Elementary 9
East Nicolaus Joint Union High 12
Franklin Elementary 4
Live Oak Unified 193
Marcum- Illinois Elementary 10
Nuestro Elementary 4
Pleasant Grove Joint Unified Elementary 4
Sutter Union High 10
Winship Elementary 3
Yuba City Unified 888
TOTAL 1140
Source: Butte County Office of Education, Migrant Education
1,081 migrant families ( 94.8 percent) are represented in the Live Oak and Yuba City Unified
School Districts, which reflects the greater concentration of assisted and/ or higher- density
housing in or within the sphere- of- influence of the incorporated cities. Residence within these
school districts would also be more convenient for proximity to social, medical and commercial
services. Applying this percentage to the estimated 14,177 farm workers countywide suggests
that 13,439 farm workers may reside within the incorporated cities or their respective spheres- of-influence,
with the remaining 738 farm workers allocated to the unincorporated area beyond the
spheres.
A second approach to estimate the share of farm worker housing would be to allocate need
according to the unincorporated County’s percentage of total County population, which is
approximately 47.3 per cent. Thus, 6,705 farm workers ( 47.3 per cent of 14,177) may require
housing in the unincorporated County. Unincorporated County land in the Vacant Lands
Inventory could be developed to provide 1,427 higher- density dwelling units in areas zoned for
multi- family use ( R- 3 and R- 4). Conservatively assuming that these units would be occupied at
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
23
the average household size countywide ( 2.87 persons), 4,095 farm workers could be housed
within the five- year planning period on multi- family- zoned properties included in the Vacant
Lands Inventory.
For farm worker housing in the unincorporated County beyond the cities’ spheres- of- influence,
one important distinction to be made between farm worker and other types of special- needs
housing is that farm workers may find housing in any agricultural or residential zoning district,
with extensive potential housing in the General Agriculture ( AG) Districts that comprise over 90
percent of the unincorporated County. Pursuant to Section 17021.6 of the California Health and
Safety Code, the County does not require conditional use permits, zoning variances or zoning
clearances for agricultural- employee housing projects serving twelve or fewer people that are not
required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone ( See Policy 2.15 & Implementation
2.15.1). The County Zoning Code allows primary and secondary mobile homes for agricultural
employees by use permit or zoning clearance, and allows farm labor housing projects and farm
labor camps as a permitted use if the project or camp houses 12 or fewer persons and is licensed
to operate by the State of California. The County does not have a formal method for determining
the number of mobile homes in the AG District occupied by farm workers, but a reasonable
estimate is derived by the following analysis of use permit and zoning clearance application and
extension records.
Most use permits and zoning clearances for mobile homes in the AG District are issued for five-year
renewable periods; therefore any currently permitted mobile homes would be included in
the County’s log of extension applications for the last five years, 1997- 2001. Within this period,
six use permits and 66 zoning clearances for agricultural- employee mobile homes were
extended, representing 34 percent of the 211 total mobile home extensions granted. New mobile
home permits for the last four years ( 1998- 2001), however, are not reflected in the log of
extensions. In this period one new use permit and seven new zoning clearances were issued for
agricultural- employee mobile homes, comprising 15 percent of the 53 new use permits and
zoning clearances issued from 1998- 2001. The total of 80 new and extended agricultural-employee
mobile home use permits and zoning clearances could represent the minimum number
of mobile homes in the unincorporated County used for farm worker housing.
Extrapolated 2000 Census data, however, suggest that there are 1,385 mobile homes in the
unincorporated County, which means that most mobile homes have been allowed by building
permit as primary residences or are not currently permitted. It is reasonable to assume that the 15
percent figure for the proportion of use permits and zoning clearances issued in the last four
years for agricultural- employee mobile homes could also be applied to the total number of
mobile homes in the unincorporated County. Thus, 15 percent of 1,385, or 207 mobile homes
more probably represents the number of mobile homes in the unincorporated County used for
farm worker housing. Again conservatively assuming that these units would be occupied at the
average household size countywide ( 2.87 persons), mobile homes in the unincorporated County
could account for the housing needs of 594 farm workers.
Although farm labor family housing projects and farm labor camps not licensed to operate by the
State require a use permit, only one use permit is presently active and only accommodates 20
seasonal workers in the Meridian area from February to April. The State Department of Housing
and Community Development ( HCD) records indicate that Sutter County has 15 farm labor
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
24
camps that accommodate 250 seasonal workers. The County has not issued use permits for these
camps and cannot confirm which of the camps will be operating in the upcoming peak season,
although the County assumes that 250 is a reasonable number of workers accommodated by farm
labor camps, whether or not these camps are currently licensed by the State.
In summary, housing or potential housing is available for a conservative minimum of 4,939
farmworkers in the unincorporated County in multi- family housing districts, secondary mobile
homes, and farm labor camps. Whether this figure represents sufficient farmworker housing
unfortunately depends on the relative accuracy of the disparate data sources upon which the
County must rely. These sources, including the US Census, the State Department of Employment
Development, and SACOG, are generally accepted by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development as the bases for County determinations of general population,
employment, number of housing units, etc.; but when it comes to determining the number of
farmworkers in the unincorporated County, figures from these agencies applicable to the current
planning period, as discussed in the first paragraphs of this section, range from 3,415 ( EDD) to
14,177 ( SACOG) county- wide. The County believes that it is prudent to base planning efforts on
the higher number, and has explored two methodologies for determining the share of this figure
that should be allocated to the unincorporated area. The wide range of the results of these
methodologies ( 738 to 6,705) confirms the difficulty in accurately determining the County’s fair
share of farmworker housing needs. Again, the County is willing to use the higher figure for
purposes of prudent planning.
Therefore, the number of farmworkers in the unincorporated County is determined to be 6,705,
and the current housing potential in the unincorporated County may accommodate 4,939 of these
persons, leaving an unmet need of 1,766. Based on a conservative occupancy rate of 2.87
persons- per- unit, this figure represents an additional need of 615 housing units for farmworkers.
This need could easily be met by further development of single- family mobile homes for
agricultural employees on agriculturally- zoned properties, where such units are allowed by
zoning clearance or use permit, as discussed in the paragraph above regarding farmworker
mobile homes. The Sutter County Geographical Information System ( GIS) database indicates
that there are 1,612 agricultural parcels of sufficient size to accommodate agricultural- employee
mobile homes with development of on- site domestic water wells and sewage disposal systems.
At a potential occupancy rate of 2.87 persons per unit, these properties have the potential to
provide housing for 4,626 farmworkers. Thus, development of secondary mobile homes as
agricultural employee housing will easily accommodate the estimated 615 farmworkers requiring
housing in the unincorporated County. Incidentally, the Housing Authority reports that there is
no need for additional housing for migrant farmworkers and their families, and that the units
reserved for these persons have not had anyone on the waiting lists.
Homeless and Emergency Shelters
Housing for the homeless generally targets two groups: 1) local residents in need of emergency
and/ or long- term shelter and 2) transients. Transients requiring housing usually only require
short- term or emergency shelter; however, the previous Housing Element indicated that both the
Sutter County Sheriff’s Office and the Yuba City Police Department have indicated the
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
25
development of a semi- permanent transient, homeless population living along the Feather and
Sacramento Rivers in the unincorporated area. Estimates available in the fall of 1989 for this
population group indicated that it is between 35 and 50 people. The 1990 Census listed 63
homeless persons in Sutter County on Census date, all of them in the City of Yuba City and none
in the unincorporated area. The 1990 Census distribution was 22 homeless persons in shelters
and 41 visible in street locations. No data is available on what portion of this population were
families. The Yuba City Police Department estimates that the current permanent population of
persons outside of shelters and living in Yuba City and the river bottoms on the Yuba City side
of the Feather River is ± 50.
Similar data from the 2000 Census are not yet available, but the homeless population may be
estimated from combining the occupancy counts of local shelters with each shelter’s estimate of
unmet need for its services, summarized in Table 26 below. Because the shelters are nearly
always filled, occupancy count is synonymous with capacity. Furthermore, the two largest cities
of Sutter and Yuba Counties, respectively Yuba City and Marysville, are connected by two
bridges over the Feather River; thus the homeless population can easily migrate from county to
county. Totals in Table 26 therefore represent the bi- county region.
Table 26. Persons in Regional Emergency/ Homeless Shelters.
Shelter Type Location Capacity Unmet Need Total
Casa de Esperanza Women &
Children
( Domestic
Violence Victims)
Yuba City 40 20 60
Salvation Army Depot
Family Crisis Ctr.
Families,
Individuals with
Children,
Single Women
Marysville 58 62 120
Salvation Army Twin
Cities Rescue Mission
Single Men Marysville 45 30 75
House of Ruth
Transitional:
Women w/
children ≤ 5 yrs.
Yuba City 20 20 40
TOTAL 163 132 295
Source: Casa de Esperanza; Salvation Army
Although the total number of persons needing emergency shelter ( shelter capacity + unmet need
= 295) represents the bi- county area, Sutter County’s homeless population may be roughly
estimated as half of the total, rounded to 148. By adding this number to the Yuba City Police
Department’s 50- person estimate of homeless persons not utilizing shelters, the countywide
homeless population could reasonably be estimated at 198. Assuming that available bi- county
emergency housing may provide shelter to 81 of these persons ( 50 percent of bi- county shelter
capacity), 117 homeless persons in Sutter County may still require emergency and/ or transitional
housing.
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
26
For County residents who require emergency shelter due to disaster or eviction, the Housing
Authority provides long- term housing assistance, with preference to those families and
individuals meeting certain financial requirements. Short- term emergency shelter, depending on
availability, may be provided by the agencies listed in the above table; but regionally there is an
unmet need for additional short- term emergency shelter. Reverend Robert Ash of the Salvation
Army especially identified a regional need for emergency housing for women. Casa de
Esperanza specifically serves the needs of women and children who are victims of domestic
violence, and is not a general homeless shelter. The House of Ruth is a privately- funded faith-based
facility for women and women with children up to five years old, and is likewise not a
general homeless shelter.
In the unincorporated County, emergency shelters are allowed by use permit on properties zoned
R- 4 ( General Apartment), the availability and location of which are discussed in the section on
Adequate Sites in the Housing Program. The only R- 4 District in the unincorporated County
suitable for development of an emergency shelter is Site # 17 ( APN # 19- 060- 066), a 26.22- acre
parcel at the western end of Bridge Street. This parcel is deemed suitable because it is near
public transportation, adjacent to sewer and water infrastructure, and is within walking distance
of medical facilities, grocery stores, “ big- box” outlets and other retail services. Obviously, only a
portion of this 26.22- acre R- 4 parcel would be required for development as a shelter.
The size of the portion required can be based on the density ( shelter capacity per acre) of the four
shelter facilities listed in Table 26 above, the average capacity- density of which is 69 persons per
acre. In order to meet the needs of the potential 117 persons requiring shelter in the
unincorporated area, 1.7 acres of Site # 17 would need to be developed as a shelter. Therefore, the
County’s R- 4 adequate sites inventory, for high- density multi- family residential development,
has been reduced by this amount, reflected in Tables 27 through 30 and Tables 32 and 33.
The County’s strategy for developing an emergency shelter is primarily to provide an R- 4 parcel
as close as possible to public transportation, medical facilities, employment opportunities and
retail outlets, for the convenience of both shelter occupants and staff. Furthermore, the parcel
must be of sufficient size to accommodate on- site drinking- water well development and sewage
disposal in the event that the shelter is not developed by connecting to city water and sewer.
Sutter County General Plan policies not only encourage development at the density required for
this shelter to connect to city infrastructure, but they also allow individual wells and septic
systems under certain circumstances. The following polices apply:
Policy 3. B- 2
The County shall approve new development based on the following guidelines for water supply:
A. Urban and suburban development should rely on public water systems. In cases of
existing lots where a public water system does not exist, or is not within 200 feet of the
property, individual wells may be permitted.
Policy 3. C- 3
The County may permit on- site sewage treatment and disposal on existing lots in areas
designated for suburban/ urban development if no public wastewater system is available to serve
the project. In cases where public systems are not available, design provisions will be required
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
27
and projects will be conditioned to connect to a public system at such time it becomes available
per UPC and/ or County ordinance. Additionally, it shall be demonstrated that other suitable
alternative systems have been considered and documented to be infeasible prior to using a
standard septic tank and leach field system.
Moreover, because homelessness is a regional problem ( see Table 26 and the discussion at the
beginning of this section), County strategy for shelter development necessarily involves a
cooperative approach among local governments and non- profit service- provider agencies. The
County participates in the Homeless Consortium, which also includes representatives from the
City of Yuba City, the Salvation Army, House of Ruth, Casa de Esperanza, and other service
providers attempting to address the needs of the homeless through development of a HUD-facilitated
Continuum of Care system, which should include development of emergency shelters
as well as transitional and permanent housing.
In the unincorporated County, the establishment of emergency shelters in the R- 4 District and of
transitional housing in the R- 3 or R- 4 Districts is allowed by use permit. Tables 35 ( Residential
Zoning Provisions) and 36 ( Structural Land- use Controls) fully describe the development
standards for these districts, and the tables are followed by an analysis of whether the standards
pose any constraints, in this case on the development of emergency shelters or transitional
housing. The analysis further describes that flexibility of the standards is provided by
administrative appeals or entitlements, including use permits. The use- permit analysis includes
an identification of the applicable hearing bodies.
Special Housing Problems
Special housing problems discussed in the previous element were limited to conversions of rental
units to condominiums and conversions of mobile home parks either to mobile home
subdivisions or to different uses. Furthermore, the previous element based discussions on
activities and conditions in Yuba City, which is not the intent of the current revision. Because
rental units and mobile home parks in Sutter County are concentrated in the incorporated cities,
the County has not experienced such conversions and does not anticipate requests for such
conversions during the planning period of this Housing Element revision. Nonetheless, the
possibility of conversion exists and is addressed in the following sections.
Conversion of Rental Units to Condominiums
The conversion of rental units may pose significant problems for renters. When rental units are
converted to condominiums, the stock of rental units is reduced. This reduction in supply
increases demand and may drive up rental rates. New owners, by raising rents or desiring to
occupy converted units, may in effect evict existing tenants. Eviction can cause particularly
severe hardships for the elderly and/ or low- income families, especially if it occurs with short
notice or at a time of relatively low vacancy rates in the rental market. The unincorporated
County, however, has historically not experienced such conversions due to the lack of rental
Chapter One – Housing Needs Page
28
units outside of the incorporated cities. In the event that such applications are received by the
County, Policy 2.6 of the current Housing Element revision states that,
Conversions of rental housing structures to condominiums shall only be approved
when adequate alternative rental housing is available, when the structures are
judged to meet acceptable health and safety standards, and when project
proponents have made reasonable provisions for the relocation of existing
tenants.
Conversion of Mobile Home Parks
Conversions of mobile home parks to a mobile home subdivision or to a different type of use
may cause the same types of problems associated with the conversion of rental units to
condominiums. Policy 2.5 of the current Housing Element revision states that,
Conversions of mobile home parks to other non- residential uses or to mobile
home subdivisions shall only be approved when adequate opportunity for
relocation is available and project proponents have made reasonable provisions
for the relocation of existing tenants.
Implementation 2.5.1 of the previous element subsequently required the Community Services
Department to:
Amend the Sutter County Ordinance Code to provide requirement tied to
minimum vacancy rates in other mobile home parks and health and safety
standards for the conversion of existing mobile home parks to owner- occupied
parks and/ or other uses.
Ordinance Number 1225 amended the Sutter County Ordinance Code by adding chapter 1600,
the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Section 1600- 400( d) addressed the affordability of mobile
home parks converted to subdivisions or cooperative parks by requiring that “… five percent
( 5%) of the spaces or lots within the mobile home subdivision or stock cooperative park shall be
available at sale prices or rental rates affordable to target income group households.” The
amendment did not, however, provide a requirement tied to minimum vacancy rates in other
mobile home parks or to health and safety standards. Health and safety standards for the
establishment of mobile home subdivisions, however, are included in the development and
performance standards established in Zoning Code Division 57, Mobile Home Subdivision
District ( M- H- S).
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
29
CHAPTER TWO
INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
VACANT SITES
The vacant sites inventory includes only those parcels that are either devoid of structural
improvements or minimally developed, and that are considered suitable for development within
either the five- or ten- year planning period. Within this inventory are agriculturally- zoned
parcels that may contain orchards or other crops but that lack primary dwelling units or
significant accessory structures, as well as residentially- zoned parcels that are either vacant or
contain only dilapidated housing units. Furthermore, only those sites that are suitable for
development within the five- or ten- year planning periods are included. Ten- year parcels must be
within one mile of city sewer and five- year parcels must be within 1,500 feet. All parcels in the
inventory are within the spheres- of- influence and near the city limits of the incorporated cities of
Yuba City and Live Oak. Table 27 lists the sites suitable for development within the 10- year
planning period, with corresponding distances to existing city sanitary sewer lines.
Table 27. Parcels with Potential for Residential Development, 2002- 2012.
Site APN General Plan/ Zoning Acreage Distance to Sewer
1 9- 110- 010 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.0 0’
2 9- 110- 011 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.30 0’
3 9- 110- 035 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.94 0’
4 9- 110- 036 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.60 150’
5 9- 182- 032 LDR/ R- 1- A 4.64 110’
6 9- 182- 034 LDR/ R- 1- A 3.25 700’
7 9- 181- 039 LDR/ R- 1- A 7.16 220’
8 9- 200- 004 HDR/ R- 4 1.24 400’
9 9- 200- 005 HDR/ R- 4 1.10 360’
10 9- 221- 007 LDR/ R- 1 22.73 1,350’
11 17- 065- 008 LDR/ R- 1- A 10.0 3,940’
12 17- 114- 034 MDR/ R- 3 7.88 2,200’
13 17- 115- 001 MDR/ R- 3 2.0 1,326
14 17- 115- 002 MDR/ R- 3 2.05 1,480
15 17- 115- 011 MDR/ R- 3 2.80 1,650’
16a 18- 091- 010 LDR/ R- 1- A 15.56 1,680’
16b 18- 091- 010 MDR/ R- 3 4.21 800’
17 19- 060- 066 HDR/ R- 4 ( portion of) 24.52 1,340’
18 19- 090- 007 LDR/ R- 1- A 15.36 480’
19 19- 090- 022 LDR/ R- 2- PD 4.0 440’
20 19- 090- 023 LDR/ R- 1- PD 12.0 985’
21 19- 090- 062 LDR/ R- 1- A 7.99 0’
22 19- 090- 080 LDR/ R- 1 0.90 1,420’
23 19- 090- 081 LDR/ R- 1 11.20 650’
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
30
Site APN General Plan/ Zoning Acreage Distance to Sewer
24 20- 054- 005 LDR/ R- 1- A 23.66 540’
25 20- 054- 021 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.45 0’
26 20- 054- 022 LDR/ R- 1- A 6.23 520’
27 20- 054- 027 LDR/ R- 1- A 20.92 0’
28 22- 050- 005 LDR/ R- 1 71.40 0’
29 22- 060- 013 LDR/ R- 1- A 9.54 2,000’
30 22- 060- 016 LDR/ R- 1- A 10.0 0’
31 22- 060- 027 LDR/ R- 1- A 24.01 2,210’
32 22- 060- 029 LDR/ R- 1- A 34.01 0’
33 22- 060- 032 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.54 1,150’
34 22- 060- 033 LDR/ R- 1- A, R- 1 17.05 0’
35 22- 060- 044 LDR/ R- 1- A 5.81 670’
36a 22- 072- 043 MDR/ R- 3 4.72 0’
36b 22- 072- 043 LDR/ R- 1 8.01 300’
37 26- 030- 024 LDR/ R- 1 6.70 1,480’
38 26- 080- 018 LDR/ RE 2.35 0’
Sub- Total HDR 26.86 HDR
Sub- Total MDR 23.66 MDR
Sub- Total LDR 363.31 LDR
TOTAL 413.83 Acres
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 28 indicates the number of housing units that could be constructed on the parcels
according to the development density ranges of the respective General Plan land- use
designations. Minimum and maximum potential units in Table 28 are derived by multiplying the
low and high density range figures ( allowable units- per- acre) by the amount of acreage available
in each land- use designation.
Table 28. Potential Housing Units Based on Available Land, 2002- 2012.
General Plan Density Range Acres Available Minimum Units Maximum Units
HDR 25- 45 Units/ Acre 26.86 HDR 671 1,208
MDR 8- 25 Units/ Acre 23.66 MDR 189 591
LDR 2- 8 Units/ Acre 363.31 LDR 726 2,906
TOTAL 415.53 1,586 4,705
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 29 lists the parcels that are within 1,500 feet of city sewer lines, representing the parcels
with potential for development within the planning period of the current Housing Element
revision. Parcels in the Live Oak ( Assessor’s Book 9) sphere- of- influence are included that are
within 1500’ of a minimum 8” sewer line. ( See Attachments, Figures 1 & 2). Sites 8 and 9,
however, are not included in Table 29 because the County does not consider that these sites will
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
31
be developed for high- density residential use, even though the sites are designated HDR in the
Sutter County General Plan. These parcels are adjacent to the Live Oak city limits, and are
designated Light Industrial in the City of Live Oak General Plan. Residential development of the
parcels would also depend on capacity upgrades to the Live Oak sewer system, which may not
be accomplished in this area within the 5- year planning period.
Table 29. Parcels with Potential for Residential Development, 2002- 2007.
Site APN General Plan/ Zoning Acreage Min. Units Max. Units
1 9- 110- 010 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.0 4 16
2 9- 110- 011 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.30 4 18
3 9- 110- 035 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.94 1 7
4 9- 110- 036 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.60 1 4
7 9- 181- 039 LDR/ R- 1- A 7.16 14 57
13 17- 115- 001 MDR/ R- 3 2.0 16 50
14 17- 115- 002 MDR/ R- 3 2.05 16 51
16b 18- 091- 010 MDR/ R- 3 4.21 33 105
17 19- 060- 066 HDR/ R- 4 24.52 613 1,103
18 19- 090- 007 LDR/ R- 1- A 15.36 30 122
19 19- 090- 022 LDR/ R- 2- PD 4.0 8 32
20 19- 090- 023 LDR/ R- 1- PD 12.0 24 96
21 19- 090- 062 LDR/ R- 1- A 7.99 15 63
22 19- 090- 080 LDR/ R- 1 0.90 1 7
23 19- 090- 081 LDR/ R- 1 11.20 22 89
24 20- 054- 005 LDR/ R- 1- A 23.66 47 189
25 20- 054- 021 LDR/ R- 1- A 0.45 1 3
26 20- 054- 022 LDR/ R- 1- A 6.23 12 49
27 20- 054- 027 LDR/ R- 1- A 20.92 41 167
28 22- 050- 005 LDR/ R- 1 71.40 142 571
29 22- 060- 013 LDR/ R- 1- A 9.54 19 76
30 22- 060- 016 LDR/ R- 1- A 10.0 20 80
31 22- 060- 027 LDR/ R- 1- A 24.01 48 192
32 22- 060- 029 LDR/ R- 1- A 34.01 68 272
33 22- 060- 032 LDR/ R- 1- A 2.54 5 20
34 22- 060- 033 LDR/ R- 1- A, R- 1 17.05 34 136
35 22- 060- 044 LDR/ R- 1- A 5.81 11 46
36a 22- 072- 043 MDR/ R- 3 4.72 37 118
36b 22- 072- 043 LDR/ R- 1 8.01 16 64
37 26- 030- 024 LDR/ R- 1 6.70 13 53
38 26- 080- 018 LDR/ RE 2.35 1 2
Total HDR 24.52 613 1,103
Total MDR 12.98 102 324
Total LDR 307.13 615 2,457
TOTAL 344.63 1,330 3,884
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
32
Table 30 summarizes the potential number of housing units that could be constructed on the
parcels listed in Table 29 during the five- year planning period, based on the revised relative
percentages of housing need per income group ( Revised Regional Housing Needs Allocation, see
Table 20). These percentages are based on methodology previously used by the County in
routinely determining the current supply of available land for 5- and 10- year needs of the target
income groups. The Board of Supervisors determined that this methodology was a reasonable
approach for determining housing distribution among different income groups. Furthermore, the
methodology utilizes the following assumptions, based on historical densities and development
trends:
• 5% of the development potential of lands designated LDR could serve the Very Low
Income Group ( based on LDR units constructed during the Interim Period, 5.1% of which
were affordable to the Very Low Income Group; see Table 19).
• 10% of the development potential of lands designated LDR could serve the Low Income
Group ( based on LDR units constructed during the Interim Period, 10.8% of which were
affordable to the Low Income Group; see Table 19).
• 85% of the development potential of lands designated LDR could serve the Moderate and
Above Moderate Groups ( based on LDR units constructed during the Interim Period,
84.1% of which were affordable to the Moderate and Above Moderate Income Groups;
see Table 19).
• 50% of the development potential of lands designated MDR could serve the Very Low
Income Group and the other 50% could serve the Low Income Group.*
• 50% of the development potential of lands designated HDR could serve the Very Low
Income Group and the other 50% could serve the Low Income Group.*
• Development potential is assumed to occur at 54% of the maximum potential, which
represents the average density of residential subdivisions approved over the past ten- year
period.
* Based on the previous Housing Element ( 1996 Technical Update, Table R- 27), which indicated 32.59
acres of R- 3 & R- 4- zoned land ( with sewer and water available) with a development potential of at least
140 units ( 54% of maximum potential). The only multi- family housing constructed in the unincorporated
County between 1989- 1996 was the Mahal Plaza, which provided 98 units of Very- Low- and Low- Income
housing. This illustrates that 50% of the development potential ( minimum 70 units) of the only developed
MDR or HDR site served the Very- Low- and Low- Income Groups.
Table 30. Potential Housing Units per Income Group, 2002- 2007.
Income Group RHNA RHNA Percent Potential Units
( Allowable Range)
Potential Units
( Historical Average)
Very Low 437 33% 389- 837 451
Low 384 29% 419- 959 517
Moderate 231 17% 215- 860 464
Above
Moderate
276 21% 307- 1,228 663
TOTAL 1,328 100% 1,330- 3,884 2,095
Source: SACOG; Sutter County Community Services Department
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
33
Table 31 provides examples of recent residential developments that demonstrate the
appropriateness of using historical averages to determine potential housing units per income
group.
Table 31. Recent Low- and Medium- Density Residential Developments.
Development GP/ Zoning Acres Potential
Units
Built
Units
Sales/ Rental
Cost
Affordability
Mahal Plaza MDR/ R- 3 8 64- 200 981 $ 496 ( 2 BR) VLI, LI, MOD
River Oaks # 7 LDR/ R- 1 4.51 9- 36 20 $ 132,000-
$ 135,500
LI, MOD
River Oaks # 12 LDR/ R- 1 14.81 29- 118 72 $ 134,700-
$ 243,400
MOD, AMOD
Infill SFRs
( Robbins)
ER/ R- 1 2.7 5- 21 92 $ 145,000-
$ 150,000
MOD
Source: SACOG; Sutter County Community Services Department
1 Project includes a 3,000 sq. ft. community center and a 3,800 sq. ft. day care
2Lot sizes range from 7,000 sq. ft. to 34,868 sq. ft.
Table 32 further applies the RHNP allocation percentages to the acreage available in each
zoning designation to determine the developable acreage for each income group.
Table 32. Potential Developable Acreage per Income Group, 2002- 2007.
Gen. Plan Zoning Acreage VLI LI Mod. Above Mod.
HDR R- 4 24.52 12.26 12.26 0 0
MDR R- 3 12.98 6.49 6.49 0 0
LDR R- 1, - 2 307.13 15.36 30.71 107.50 153.56
TOTAL 344.63 34.11 49.46 107.50 153.56
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Table 33 allocates developable acreage and potential housing units in each zoning designation to
each basic housing unit type, based both on the acreage- per- zoning district from Table 29 and
roughly on the distributions from Table 8, which summarizes existing housing units by type.
Table 33. Acreage and Potential Units per Housing Type, 2002- 2007.
Housing Unit Type Zoning Acreage Potential Units ( Range)
Single Family R- 1 or R- 2 272.42 546- 2,179
Multi- Family R- 3 12.98 102- 324
Multi- Family R- 4 24.52 613- 1,103
Mobile Homes R- 1 or R- 2 34.71 69- 278
TOTAL 344.63 1,330- 3,884
Source: Sutter County Community Services Department
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
34
Zoning
Appropriate zoning for residential development of vacant sites is currently in place for each
vacant parcel in the 5- year land inventory according to the General Plan designations in Table 28
above. The zoning classifications are all consistent with the General Plan land- use designations
covering the subject properties, and provide a framework to ensure that adequate land is
available for the development of affordable housing for all target income groups, especially very
low- and low- income. Table 34 summarizes the development standard densities and consistent
zoning for the General Plan land- use designations of High-, Medium- and Low- Density
Residential, and Table 35 summarizes the respective consistent residential zoning classifications
and the provisions of each classification that encourage particular varieties of housing types for
each income level. Table 36 describes the structural land- use controls, such as building setbacks,
height limitations, and parking requirements.
Table 34. General Plan Land- Use Designations.
General Plan Designation Density Range Consistent Zoning
High- Density Residential
( HDR)
25- 45 Dwelling Units/ Acre General Apartment ( R- 4)
Medium Density Residential
( MDR)
8- 25 Dwelling Units/ Acre Neighborhood Apartment ( R- 3)
Low Density Residential
( LDR)
2- 8 Dwelling Units/ Acre Residential Estate ( RE)
One Family Residence ( R- 1)
Two Family Residence ( R- 2)
Mobile Home Subdivision ( MHS)
Source: Sutter County General Plan 2015 Policy Document
Table 35. Residential Zoning Provisions.
Zone Permitted Uses By Use Permit or
Zoning Clearance
Minimum Lot Size
RE • Guest cottages/ servants quarters
• Mobile homes
• One- family residences
• Residential care homes
• Small family day care homes
• Day care centers
• Residential care
facilities
• Second residential
unit
• 40,000 sq. ft.
R- 1 • Mobile homes
• One- family residences
• One- family residences ( zero lot
line)
• Residential care homes
• Small family day care homes
• Day care centers
• Mobile home parks
• Residential parking
waivers
• Residential care
facilities
• Second residential
unit ( UP or ZC)
• 5,000 sq. ft. with
public sewer and
water systems;
• 7,500 sq. ft. with
private water or
sewer systems;
• 10,000 sq. ft. with
private water and
sewer systems
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
35
Zone Permitted Uses By Use Permit or
Zoning Clearance
Minimum Lot Size
R- 2 • Mobile homes
• One- family residences
• One- family residences ( zero lot
line)
• Residential care homes
• Small family day care homes
• Two- family residences
• Two one- family residences
• Day care centers
• Large family day care
homes ( ZC)
• Mobile home parks
• Residential parking
waivers
• Residential care
facilities
• 5,000 sq. ft. with
public sewer and
water systems;
• 7,500 sq. ft. with
private water or
sewer systems;
• 10,000 sq. ft. with
private water and
sewer systems
R- 3 • Condominiums
• Group residences
• Multiple- family residences
• Residential care homes
• Small family day care homes
• Townhouses
• Uses permitted in R- 1/ R- 2
except one- family or two-family
residences unless parcel
size prevents other residential
use
• Boarding houses
• Day care centers
• Large family day care
homes ( ZC)
• Mobile home parks
• Residential parking
waivers
• Residential care
facilities
• Transitional housing
• Uses requiring use
permits in R- 1/ R- 2
unless permitted
• 5,000 sq. ft. with
public sewer and
water systems;
• 7,500 sq. ft. with
private water or
sewer systems;
• 10,000 sq. ft. with
private water and
sewer systems
R- 4 • Condominiums
• Group residences
• Multiple- family residences
• Residential care home
• Small family day care home
• Townhouses
• Uses permitted in R- 1/ R- 2/ R- 3
except one- family or two-family
residences unless parcel
size prevents other residential
use
• Boarding houses
• Day care centers
• Emergency shelters
• Large family day care
homes ( ZC)
• Mobile home parks
• Residential parking
waivers
• Residential care
facilities
• Transitional housing
• Uses requiring use
permits in R- 3 unless
permitted
• 10,000 sq. ft.
MHS • One mobile home on a lot of
record
• 5,445 sq. ft.
( 6,000 sq. ft. for
corner lots) with
public sewer and
water systems;
• 10,000 sq. ft. with
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
36
Zone Permitted Uses By Use Permit or
Zoning Clearance
Minimum Lot Size
private water and
public sewer
systems;
• 15,000 sq. ft. with
public water and
private sewer
systems
Source: Sutter County Zoning Code
Table 36. Structural Land- Use Controls.
Zone Setbacks Max. Height Max.
Coverage
Parking Other
RE Front = 30’
Side = 10’
Rear = 30’
35’ 20% 2 spaces/ unit;
Garage & carport
entrances must
have 20’ setback
ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
R- 1 Front = 15’
Interior Side = 5’
Street Side = 10’
Rear = 25’ or
20% of lot depth,
whichever is less
2 stories, 35’ 40% 2 spaces/ unit;
Garage & carport
entrances must
have 20’ setback
ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
R- 2 Front = 15’
Interior Side = 5’
Street Side = 10’
Rear = 25’ or
20% of lot depth,
whichever is less
3 stories, 35’ 45% 2 spaces/ unit;
Garage & carport
entrances must
have 20’ setback
ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
R- 3 Front = 15’
Interior Side = 5’
Street Side = 10’
Rear = 20’
3 stories, 40’;
if within 25’
of an R- 1
District, then
2 stories, 30’
60% 1 space per studio,
1.5 spaces per 2-
BR unit, 2 spaces
per ≥ 3- BR unit, 1
guest space per 10
units; Garage &
carport entrances
must have 20’
setback;
landscaping
adjacent to and
within parking
areas
10’ minimum
distance between
main buildings
on same lot;
200 sq. ft./ unit
open space or
recreation area;
Lighting for
parking lots with
≥ 5 spaces; ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
37
Zone Setbacks Max. Height Max.
Coverage
Parking Other
R- 4 Front = 15’
Interior Side = 5’,
but when next to
R- 1 or R- 2, add
2’ per story > 1;
Street Side = 15’;
Rear = 10’, but
when next to R- 1
or R- 2, 15’
4 stories, 48’;
if ≤ 35’ from
R- 1, 3
stories, 40’;
if ≤ 25’ from
R- 1, 2
stories, 30’
60% 1 space per studio,
1.5 spaces per 2-
BR unit, 2 spaces
per ≥ 3- BR unit, 1
guest space per 10
units; Garage &
carport entrances
must have 20’
setback;
landscaping
adjacent to and
within parking
areas
200 sq. ft./ unit
open space or
recreation area;
Lighting for
parking lots with
≥ 5 spaces; ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
MH
S
Front = 15’;
Interior Side =
5’;
Street Side = 10’
Rear = 20’
40% 2 spaces/ unit,
plus 1 guest space
per 5 units;
Garage & carport
entrances must
have 20’ setback
ROW
dedication,
utility
easements,
improvements
Source: Sutter County Zoning Code
Land- use controls such as building setback, height limits and parking requirements are typical of
those standards imposed by other jurisdictions, and neither the development community nor
third- party reviewers provided any indication during the public participation process that the
standards and required improvements posed constraints on development. Section 1500- 8015( b)
of the Sutter County Zoning Code states that,
The word ‘ improvement’ shall mean the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
and street paving as are required by the Sutter County Public Works Department
on that side of the centerline of the street which adjoins such lot. Improvements
shall also mean the installation of, and/ or the extension of, water and sewer lines
as provided for in the General Plan… Road widths and utility easements are
established in the General Plan to adequately protect the traveling public and
property owners entering and exiting public thoroughfares as well as providing
sufficient paving width to appropriately accommodate emergency
vehicles… Utility easements are required and sized in order to facilitate
appropriate services available to the land and improvements situated thereon.
Additional rights- of- way appropriate to maintain the paved portions and afford
adequate parking are also established in the General Plan. Installation of curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and water and sewer services similarly implement related
general plan policies and enhance various protections available to the land and
structures… as well as [ to] those persons who will use them by affording safe
pedestrian access, drainage, protection from errant vehicles, fire safety, and
appropriate sanitary and public health provisions.
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
38
Nonetheless, the County may grant waivers pursuant to the Affordable Housing Ordinance or
may provide relief from Zoning Code standards through administrative appeals or entitlements,
such as variances, planned- developments, or conditional use permits. Section 1600- 500( d) of the
Affordable Housing Ordinance states that,
The Planning Commission, upon request by the project applicant, may modify the
following design and development standards for development projects providing
on- site affordable housing units:
( 1) Setbacks
( 2) Lot Size
( 3) Lot Configurations
The Variance process is a mechanism whereby the Planning Commission may grant relief from
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. The Sutter County ordinance governing the issuance
of variances is harmonious with state law and requires the findings as established by Government
Code section 65906. A variance may be granted for requested deviations from physical or
structural standards, but not for a use that is not otherwise authorized by the applicable zoning
district. The county offers a half- price fee for variance applications involving existing single-family
dwellings, e. g., where setback reductions are required in order to accommodate wheel-chair
ramps or other structural modifications required for access by disabled persons. Variance
approval normally requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission, which takes
between 60- 90 days following receipt of a complete application. However, pursuant to
Government Code § 65901( b), the Sutter County Zoning Code permits an administrative grant of
variance, without a public hearing. Section 1500- 8018( i) states that,
The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance to facilitate the purposes of this
subsection where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships [ e. g., for persons
with disabilities] or results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this
subsection may result from the strict application of certain area, height, yard and
space requirements. The Zoning Administrator may grant a variance for such
area, height, yard and space requirements up to 20% of the standard contained
within the corresponding section of this Chapter.
The Planned Development process also provides relief from certain development standards; but
is a legislative action ( rezoning), requiring Board of Supervisors approval at a public hearing,
that creates a Planned Development Combining District with any basic district. For example,
where the basic district is R- 4, the process would create an R- 4- PD ( General Apartment- Planned
Development Combining) District. Zoning Code § 1500- 6312 states that the purposes of the
Planned Development are:
( a) To encourage creative and more efficient approaches to the use of land
through lot design, use of open space, mixture of land usage and/ or densities,
adjustment of setbacks or other means to create a better environment; or
( b) To allow development whose type, or design, requires special
consideration in order to assure compatibility with adjacent land use.
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
39
The Planned Development process allows any and all uses that are permitted in the basic district,
including those uses that are only allowed by use permit, as well as additional uses otherwise not
permitted in the basic district as long as the additional uses are clearly intended to serve the
development and are consistent with General Plan polices applicable to the area. A development
plan is required, but may propose smaller minimum lot size, shorter minimum lot width, greater
maximum percentage of lot coverage, greater maximum building height, smaller minimum yards
( setbacks) and reductions of other development standards otherwise applied in the basic district.
Planned Development approval requires an initial public hearing before the Planning
Commission, which provides a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the final public
hearing. Both hearings are generally conducted within 90 days of receipt of a complete Planned
Development application.
Use permits are appropriate for proposed uses that may have the potential to negatively affect
adjacent parcels and/ or uses. The use permit process ensures a more comprehensive review that
may include environmental analysis and also provides a mechanism by which to apply
conditions of approval to the project, if necessary, to mitigate potential negative effects. Single
use permit applications are subject to approval by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing, which is held within sixty days after the application is determined to be complete.
When a use permit application is submitted in concert with one or more other applications that
require Board of Supervisors approval, e. g., rezonings, the Planning Commission acts as an
advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and forwards a recommendation only.
Use permit applications involving existing or proposed dwelling units ( up to four units) are
considered minor use permits by the County and are subject to an approximately forty- six ( 46)
percent fee reduction. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines
thereof, use permits that involve existing facility alterations, replacement or reconstruction, and
new construction or conversion of small structures ( including up to three single- family
residences and six multi- family dwelling units in urbanized areas) are categorically exempt from
the provisions of CEQA ( Guidelines sects. 15301- 15303). These exemptions significantly reduce
the application processing cost and review periods of eligible housing projects.
Public Facilities and Services
Public facilities include sewer, water, roads, drainage, parks and public landscaping, and
libraries. These facilities either currently exist at the parcels available for residential
development or are reasonably near enough to permit development of the parcels within either
five or ten years. State, county and incorporated city policies require any development within
200 feet of public sewer lines to connect to the public sewer rather than utilize on- site sewage
disposal systems. In addition, the City of Yuba City adheres to a City Council policy that
requires new development that proposes connection to city sewer to be annexed to the city.
Existing development connections to city sewer are considered on a case- by- case basis and may
not require annexation. On March 22, 2001, the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)
approved Yuba City’s request to be able to supply water to anywhere within their sphere of
influence ( LAFCO Resolution 2001- 1) without requiring annexation. The City of Live Oak
Chapter Two - Inventory Of Land Suitable For Residential Development Page
40
likewise lacks a municipal code provision that requires annexation in order to connect to public
sewer, but the City Council reserves the option to either grant or deny public sewer connection to
parcels outside city limits.
Services are provided by County and quasi- public agencies, and include police, fire and
emergency services, general government, health and social services, and the courts and criminal
justice system. Provision of such services to new developments is in part funded by development
impact fees ( see the Provision of Services discussion in the Constraints on Housing,
Governmental Constraints section).
Chapter Three – Constraints on Housing Page
41
CHAPTER THREE
CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING
The ability of the housing market to supply an adequate number of new dwellings to meet annual
demand is affected by a variety of factors, or constraints. These constraints may be generally
classified as governmental and non- governmental ( private market).
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Local governmental constraints on the provision of new housing fall into one of six categories:
land- use controls, codes and enforcement, development requirements, fees and exactions,
processing and permitting procedures, and provision of services.
Land- use Controls
Because of Sutter County’s dependence on agriculture, one of the principal historical goals of the
county has been the continuation of a strong, viable agricultural community. Toward this end,
Sutter County General Plan policies encourage or require urban residential development to locate
in urbanized areas. Efficient land use in the urbanized areas is necessary to preserve agricultural
land, therefore County policies and ordinances have been developed to increase densities and to
focus housing development in non- agricultural areas.
Descriptions of development standards and structural land- use controls specific to each zoning
district are provided in Tables 35 and 36, following which is an analysis of whether these
standards and controls constrain development of housing, including affordable housing.
Zoning
Implementation 2.2.2 of the previous Housing Element required the Community Services
Department to “ initiate the rezoning of sufficient land area with adequate services to fulfill the
five- year new construction need of the Regional Allocation Plan.” The County subsequently
initiated rezoning actions to ensure a 5- year supply of appropriately zoned land for residential
development. The County has periodically reviewed the supply of such land and found the
supply to be sufficient for both 5- and 10- year planning periods through at least 2012.
Development standards are specific to the individual zoning districts as described in the Sutter
County Zoning Code. Descriptions of the standards, including both zoning provisions and
structural land- use controls, are contained in Tables 35 and 36.
Growth Controls
Sutter County has not adopted any growth controls.
Chapter Three – Constraints on Housing Page
42
Open Space Requirements
Requirements for open space or recreation areas apply only to multi- family developments in R- 3
( Neighborhood Apartment) and R- 4 ( General Apartment) Districts. Two hundred square feet of
open space are required per housing unit in either zoning designation according to the following
criteria contained in Zoning Code sections 1500- 2814( 1) and 1500- 3114( 1):
A) To qualify as open space an area must be a minimum of 6 feet by 10 feet
located between the required front yard, street side yard and rear property
line.
B) Areas that may be included are private or common balconies, patios or
decks; recreation rooms, roof areas designed to accommodate recreation
or leisure activities, swimming pool/ spa areas, other types of recreation or
leisure area, landscaped areas.
C) Areas that do not qualify are front and street side yards, driveways and
parking areas and associated required landscaping, clothes drying areas,
walkways between buildings and entryways.
D) At least 20 percent of the open space/ recreation area shall be
landscaped.
The County believes that rather than being a constraint on the development of multi- family
housing, the above open- space requirements provide essential social and recreational benefits to
residents of higher- density developments.
Codes and Enforcement
Building permit applications are initially reviewed by Planning Division staff to determine
whether a proposed housing unit( s) or development project complies with the County Zoning
Code. Subsequent reviews by Environmental Health and Building Inspection Division staff
scrutinize any project for compliance with applicable sections, respectively, of the State Health
& Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. Sutter County utilizes the most recent edition of
the Uniform Building Code with no amendments or added requirements. The County’s current
code enforcement effort is based upon personnel in the Planning, Environmental Health and
Building Inspection Divisions responding to complaints received by the Community Services
Department.
Chapter Three – Constraints on Housing Page
43
Development Requirements
Development requirements for streets, paving depth, sidewalks, etc. are important in relationship
to residential projects since these requirements substantially affect housing costs. In 1982, in an
attempt to both reduce housing costs and to establish comparable development requirements, the
County and the City of Yuba City reviewed their respective development standards and
subsequently altered the standards to unify and reduce the requirements for both jurisdictions.
Local builders, developers and realtors asked to provide input on governmental constraints did
not offer any opinions that current development requirements in Sutter County unduly constrain
housing development.
Fees and Exactions
In 1995 the County of Sutter and the City of Yuba City cooperatively developed a Fee
Justification Study, pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 1600, that established a
rational and substantial nexus between new development and the corresponding increase in the
need for public facilities and services. The Study determined fees to be levied to mitigate impacts
to County general government, the court and criminal justice system, health and social services,
libraries, the Sheriff’s Department and to fire and emergency services. The revised fee structure
is consistent with the Transportation and Circulation Element and Public Facilities and Service
Element of the Sutter County General Plan and the Yuba City Urban Area General Plan of the
City of Yuba City. Revenues raised by development impact fees are placed in a separate account