Housing Element Cover - Sacramento County, California8-20 Sacramento County Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis – Beds. .... 8-21 8-21 Sacramento County Emergency Shelter Facilities

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y

HOUSINGELEMENT OF 2008-2013

County of Sacramento

Municipal Services Agency

Planning and Community Development Department

COUN

TYOF SACRAM

ENTO

C A L I F O RN IA

2008 – 2013 Housing Element UpdateCounty of Sacramento

Adopted December 17, 2008Resolution No. 2008-1296

Board of SupervisorsJimmy Yee, ChairpersonRoger DickinsonRoberta MacGlashanDon NottoliSusan Peters

County Administrat ionTerry Schutten, County Executive

Municipal Services AgencyPaul Hahn, Administrator

Planning and Community Development Department Robert Sherry, Planning Director

Housing Element Team:

Planning and Community Development DepartmentLeighann Moffitt, Principal Planner – Long Range Planning SectionTim Kohaya, Planner III - Project ManagerTim Tadlock, Planner IIShalini Singh, Housing Intern

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment AgencyEmily Halcon, Management Analyst

EDAW- Housing Element ConsultantJeff Goldman, PrincipalHeather Kyi, Project Manager

Febr uar y 2009

Sacramento County Housing Element 2008-2013

i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Housing Element .................................................. 1-1 Housing Element Contents ......................................................... 1-2 Public Participation ................................................................. 1-4 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements and

Strategic Planning Documents ........................................... 1-8 CHAPTER 2: FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Funding Sources ..................................................................... 2-1 Institutional Structure and Coordination ........................................ 2-7

CHAPTER 3: HOUSING ACTION PLAN – STRATEGIES, GOALS,

POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS Housing Element Goal .............................................................. 3-1 Format of Action Plan .............................................................. 3-1 Part 1: Description of Housing Strategies and Sub-Strategies ................ 3-3

Housing Strategy I: Adequate Supply of Land for Housing .................. 3-3 Housing Strategy II: Reduction of Constraints to Housing Production .... 3-6 Housing Strategy III: Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing

Housing and Neighborhoods ............................................... 3-8 Housing Strategy IV: Improvement of Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Groups ..................................................... 3-14 Housing Strategy V: Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock and Provision of Affordable Housing ............................ 3-20 Housing Strategy VI: Promote the Health and Safety of All Residents . 3-26 Housing Strategy VII: Promote the Efficient Use of Energy and Improve the Air Quality of Sacramento County ...................... 3-28

Part 2: Description of Policies and Programs ................................ 3-29 For Housing Strategy I: Adequate Supply of Land for Housing ........... 3-30 For Housing Strategy II: Reduction of Constraints to Housing Production ................................................................. 3-40 For Housing Strategy III: Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing and Neighborhoods ................................... 3-49 For Housing Strategy IV: Improvement of Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Groups ..................................................... 3-60 For Housing Strategy V: Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock and Provision of Affordable Housing ................. 3-76 For Housing Strategy VI: Promote the Health and Safety of All Residents ................................................................... 3-87 For Housing Strategy VII: Promote the Efficient Use of Energy And Improve the Air Quality of Sacramento County ................. 3-90

Part 3: Summary of Quantified Objectives ................................... 3-95

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF PRIOR ACHIEVEMENTS

Summary of Program Achievements .............................................. 4-1 Housing Strategy I: Adequate Supply of Land for Housing ................... 4-1 Housing Strategy II: Reduction of Constraints to Housing Production ...... 4-2 Housing Strategy III: Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing

Housing and Neighborhoods .............................................. 4-3


Table of Contents ii

Housing Strategy IV: Improvement of Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Groups .................................................... 4-4

Housing Strategy V: Provision of Affordable Housing ......................... 4-5 CHAPTER 5: POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Population Characteristics ........................................................ 5-2 Income Characteristics ............................................................. 5-7 Employment Trends ............................................................... 5-12 Housing Characteristics ........................................................... 5-15

CHAPTER 6: LAND INVENTORY

Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................. 6-2 Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis ............................................ 6-7 Methodology for the Land Inventory ............................................. 6-8 Housing Development Potential by Land Use Category (2006 to 2013) ... 6-12 Infrastructure Constraints ........................................................ 6-19 Environmental Constraints ....................................................... 6-21 Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing ................................. 6-21 Farmworker Housing .............................................................. 6-21 Summary ............................................................................ 6-22

CHAPTER 7: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

Governmental Constraints ......................................................... 7-2 Development Review and Permit Process ...................................... 7-37 Nongovernmental Constraints ................................................... 7-49 Conclusion .......................................................................... 7-58

CHAPTER 8: HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Housing Needs of Existing Residents ............................................. 8-3 Future Housing Construction Needs, 2006–2013 .............................. 8-12 Special Housing Needs ............................................................ 8-14

CHAPTER 9: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

General Design Standards ......................................................... 9-2 Energy Conservation Programs ................................................... 9-3 Conclusion ........................................................................... 9-8

CHAPTER 10: PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS

Assisted Housing Projects. ....................................................... 10-1 Preservation Options .............................................................. 10-2 Purchase of Affordability Covenant ............................................. 10-2 Transfer of Ownership ............................................................ 10-2 Rent Subsidy ........................................................................ 10-2 Replacement Costs/Cost Comparisons ......................................... 10-4 Resources for Preservation of Assisted Housing ............................... 10-5 Conclusion .......................................................................... 10-6

CHAPTER 11: COMMUNITY PROFILES

Income .............................................................................. 11-1 Housing Occupancy ................................................................ 11-3 Age Distribution .................................................................... 11-5


iii Table of Contents

Projections ......................................................................... 11-5 Households and Household Composition ....................................... 11-8 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................ 11-9

APPENDICES A Community Meeting Notes B Program Evaluation C Vacant Land Inventory D Vacant Land Inventory Maps E References F Adequate Alternative Sites/Affordable Units


Table of Contents iv

FIGURES 7-1 USB and UPA Boundaries ................................................. 7-5 7-2 Jackson Visioning Study Area ........................................... 7-6 7-3 Planned Communities .................................................... 7-7 7-4 Commercial Corridors .................................................... 7-8 7-5 New Growth Areas ....................................................... 7-10 7-6a Light Rail Transit Oriented Development Opportunity Sites ...... 7-11 7-6b Transit Oriented Development Districts .............................. 7-12 7-7 Percentage of Borrowers with Sub-Prime Loans .................... 7-55 11-1 Community Area Index Map ............................................ 11-2

TABLES 2-1 SHRA Budgeted Funding By Funding Source .......................... 2-1 2-1 SHRA Budgeted Funding By Funding Source .......................... 2-2 3-1 Quantified Objectives for 2008-2013 ................................. 3-91 5-1 Sacramento County Population Growth ............................... 5-3 5-2 Population Growth Projections, 2005–2025 ........................... 5-4 5-3 Comparison of Race by Cities, County, and State Population (2000) ......................................................... 5-5 5-4 Age Distribution (2000) .................................................. 5-6 5-5 Number of Persons per Household (2000) ............................. 5-7 5-6 Household Composition by Type (2000) ............................... 5-7 5-7 1990 Median Income versus 2000 Median Income .................... 5-8 5-8 Comparison of Median Incomes and Percent Low Income

by Community ............................................................. 5-9 5-9 Household Income (2000) ............................................... 5-10 5-10 Sacramento County 2000 Poverty Rates .............................. 5-11 5-11 Poverty Thresholds (2006) .............................................. 5-11 5-12 Largest Private Employers in the Sacramento Area

(Ranked by 2006 Employees) ........................................... 5-13 5-13 Occupational Employment (2006) and Wage Data

(First Quarter 2007) ..................................................... 5-15 5-14 Housing Estimates for Unincorporated Area of Sacramento County (2000–2007) ....................................... 5-16 5-15 Housing Estimates for Sacramento County (2000–2007) ........... 5-17 5-16 Building Permits Issued by Sacramento County ..................... 5-17 5-17 Multifamily Vacancy Rates (Second Quarter 2006 and 2007) ...... 5-18 5-18 Household Tenure by Race and Ethnicity in

Sacramento County (2000) ............................................. 5-19 5-19 Tenure by Age in Sacramento County (2000) ........................ 5-20 5-20 Tenure by Income in Sacramento County (2000) ................... 5-20 5-21 Unincorporated Sacramento County Age of Housing Units ........ 5-21


v Table of Contents

TABLES (CONTINUED) 6-1 Progress Towards Meeting RHNA ........................................ 6-2 6-2 Rehabilitation Unit Change .............................................. 6-3 6-3 SACOG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Summary

Unincorporated Sacramento County Projected Needs Between 2006 and 2013 .............................................................. 6-8

6-4 Proposed Build-out of Subdivisions - % of Maximum Capacity ...... 6-9 6-5 Examples of Approved Multifamily Projects with Densities

above 90 percent of Maximum Density in RD-20 Zones ........... 6-11 6-6 Characteristics of the Parcels that are Less Than One Acre in Size 6-12 6-7 Total Yield by Zoning Category (Unincorporated County) ........ 6-13 6-8 Zoning Category as a Percentage of Income Category’s Acreage 6-14 6-9 Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income (ELI &VLI) Housing

Development Potential ................................................. 6-16 6-10 Low-Income (LI) Housing Development Potential .................. 6-17 6-11 Moderate-Income (MI) Housing Development Potential ........... 6-18 6-12 Above Moderate-Income (AMI) Housing Development Potential . 6-19 7-1 Community Plan Status ................................................. 7-16 7-2 Zoning Classifications and Residential

Development Standards ................................................ 7-18 7-3 Permitted and Conditional Uses in Residential Zones ............. 7-20 7-4 Permitted and Conditional Residential Uses in

Nonresidential Zones ................................................... 7-21 7-5 Sacramento County Development Impact Fees ..................... 7-32 7-6 Sacramento County Development Impact Fees ..................... 7-34 7-7 Summary of Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities ........ 7-38 7-8 Planning Application Processing Times .............................. 7-40 7-9 Land Costs for New Single-family and Multifamily Homes ........ 7-50 7-10 Construction Cost Breakdown 2,000-Square-Foot

Single-family Home ..................................................... 7-52 7-11 Example Cost Breakdown Per Unit Colonia

San Martin Apartments ................................................. 7-52 7-12 Effect of Change in Interest Rates .................................... 7-53 8-1 Median Home Prices in Sacramento County ........................... 8-3 8-2 Median Home Prices by Zip Code (July 2005–July 2007) ............ 8-4 8-3 New Home Sale Prices (August 2007) .................................. 8-5 8-4 Gross Rent–Specified Renter-Occupied Housing Units

Unincorporated Sacramento County Area (1990–2000) .............. 8-5 8-5 Average Rents (2001, Second Quarter 2006–2007) ................... 8-6 8-6 Rental Rates by Number of Bedrooms

Sacramento Metropolitan Area–2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 ............ 8-6 8-7 2007 Rents at Selected Apartment Complexes in

Sacramento County ....................................................... 8-7 8-8 Affordability of Housing in Relation to Income (2007) .............. 8-8 8-9 Sacramento Area Affordability Index for Select Years .............. 8-9 8-10 Selected Monthly Owner and Renter Costs as a Percentage of

Income in Unincorporated Sacramento County (Census 2000) ... 8-10 8-11 Overpayment by Income and Tenure ................................. 8-11 8-12 Persons per Room by Tenure – Unincorporated Area (2000) ...... 8-12 8-13 Persons per Room in All Occupied Housing Units (2000) .......... 8-12 8-14 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2006–2013)

Unincorporated Area of Sacramento County ........................ 8-13 8-15 Sacramento County Population Pattern of Aging

(1990 and 2000) .......................................................... 8-15


Table of Contents vi

TABLES (CONTINUED)

8-16a Licensed Elderly Care Facilities from the State Department of Social Services ............................................................ 8-16

8-16b Location of Licensed Elderly Care Facilities from the State Department of Social Services .................................. 8-16

8-17 Large Families in Unincorporated Sacramento County (2000) .... 8-17 8-18 Sacramento County Farm Labor Camps .............................. 8-19 8-19 Sacramento County Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis – Pop. ..... 8-21 8-20 Sacramento County Continuum of Care Gaps Analysis – Beds. .... 8-21 8-21 Sacramento County Emergency Shelter Facilities .................. 8-22 8-22 Sacramento County Transitional Housing Opportunities ........... 8-23 8-23 Sacramento County Permanent Housing Opportunities Targeted

to Very Low-Income and/or Formerly Homeless Individuals and Families .................................................................... 8-24

10-1 At-Risk Housing Units, 2008–2018 ..................................... 10-3 10-2 Estimated Acquisition/Rehabilitation Cost .......................... 10-4 10-3 Potential Rent Subsidies ................................................ 10-4 10-4 Estimated Replacement Cost .......................................... 10-5 10-5 Affordable Housing Organizations Interested in Acquiring

At-Risk Rental Housing in Sacramento County ...................... 10-6 11-1 Income ..................................................................... 11-3 11-2 Housing Occupancy ...................................................... 11-4 11-3 Age Distribution .......................................................... 11-6 11-4 Projections 2005–2025 ................................................... 11-7 11-5 Household Composition by Type ....................................... 11-9 11-6 Race ...................................................................... 11-10

Sacramento County Housing Element 2008–2013

1-1 Introduction

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT

Sacramento County’s General Plan serves as a policy document to guide the development of the unincorporated area of the County. The Housing Element of the Sacramento County General Plan is one of seven required elements of the plan. The other six required elements are Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety.

State law requires the General Plan elements to be integrated and internally consistent, both among the elements and within each element. The goals, objectives, and policies of this Housing Element have been reviewed for consistency with goals, policies, and implementation measures of other General Plan elements. This Housing Element is consistent internally and consistent with the other elements.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all income groups and implementation strategies with measurable performance objectives to address those needs. The strategies are followed by a series of sub-strategies, policies and programs which facilitate the achievement of the strategies.

The State requirements for Housing Elements are based on the Legislature’s findings that:

■ The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.

■ The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels.

■ The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government.

■ Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

■ The legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the State in addressing regional housing needs.


Introduction 1-2

HOUSING ELEMENT CONTENTS

Government Code Section 65583 requires that a local government’s General Plan include a housing element that addresses the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. State Planning Law also requires a housing element to include:

1. An assessment of housing needs, and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting the needs. The assessment and inventory should include: an analysis of population and employment trends, an analysis of household characteristics, an inventory of land suitable for residential development, an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints to housing development, an analysis of any special housing needs, an evaluation of opportunities for energy conservation, and an analysis of subsidized housing projects which may be converted to market rate rentals.

2. A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

3. A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking, or intends to undertake, to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element. This includes the administration of land use and development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate Federal and State financing and subsidy program. The program should address:

■ Identification of adequate sites, through appropriate zoning and development standards, to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types.

■ Assistance in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-income and moderate-income households.

■ When appropriate, the removal or reduction of governmental constraints.

■ Conservation and improvement in the condition of existing housing stock.

■ Promotion of housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, and economic status. This includes promotion of housing opportunities for members of special needs groups, including female heads-of-household, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, homeless people, and large families.

■ Preservation of assisted housing development for lower income households.

This 2008 Housing Element is a revision of the 2004 Housing Element. This revision was prepared to comply with Section 65583 of the Government Code and to address revisions of other state laws since 2004 that address housing, planning, and zoning issues.


1-3 Introduction

The Housing Element is divided into 11 Chapters. These are listed below:

Chapter 1: Introduction: Provides an overview of the purpose and contents of the Housing Element, a description of the public participation process, and describes how the Housing Element is consistent with other planning documents.

Chapter 2: Financial Resources: This Chapter describes the institutional context and allocation of resources for implementing Housing Element policies and actions.

Chapter 3: Housing Action Plan – Strategies, Goals, Policies, and Programs: Contains the County’s proposed strategies, goals, policies, and implementation programs for the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing. Also, the County’s quantified objectives are included.

Chapter 4: Evaluation of Prior Achievements: Evaluates the County’s achievements in implementing the programs of the 2004 Housing Element. This Chapter evaluates which programs were successful, which programs need revisions to be successfully implemented, and which programs should be discontinued, as well as identifying new program needs.

Chapter 5: Population and Housing Characteristics: Provides information on population and household composition, income, and employment. This Chapter describes characteristics of the housing stock, including housing type, age, and condition.

Chapter 6: Land Inventory: Contains an analysis of vacant and underutilized land in the unincorporated area suitable for residential development. This analysis compares residential development potential on vacant sites with the County’s regional housing allocation, under the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Housing Needs Plan for the 2006 – 2013 period.

Chapter 7: Housing Constraints Analysis: Discusses governmental and non-governmental constraints that affect the cost and availability of housing, particularly for lower income households.

Chapter 8: Housing Needs Assessment: Describes current and future unmet housing needs arising from the cost and availability of housing, particularly for lower income households and special needs groups.

Chapter 9: Residential Energy Conservation: Describes opportunities for residential energy conservation that decrease the cost of building, maintaining, and occupying housing.

Chapter 10: Preservation of Assisted Units: Evaluates the potential for subsidized rental housing developments in the unincorporated area to convert to market rate rental housing and potentially displace lower income households. This Chapter analyzes the potential cost of preserving or replacing affordable rental housing units.

Chapter 11: Community Profiles: Summarizes and compares population and housing information for each of the County’s community planning areas.


Introduction 1-4

Appendices: Appendix A provides a compilation of public comments. Appendix B is an evaluation of each program in the previous Housing Element that has provided insight in the development of the updated programs. Appendix C is a parcel inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels in the unincorporated County that were used in summarizing the acreage and corresponding units available for residential development in Chapter 6. Appendix D provides maps of the location of the inventory of parcels. Appendix E provides references to the data used in this update.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The 2008 Housing Element was prepared with public outreach and participation. Cities and counties are required by State law (Section 65583[c][7] of the California Government Code) to “make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element.”

The County of Sacramento (County) invited participation from the general public, nonprofit organizations, County departments, and private development groups to ensure the broadest range of input during its community outreach process. The County used several strategies to encourage involvement, particularly among low-income and special-needs groups. Community outreach locations were chosen to be accessible according to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and located near public transportation routes. Opportunities for public involvement included the following:

■ Five community workshops were held to educate residents about the legal requirements, past accomplishments, and future goals of the Housing Element. Workshops took place in October and November 2007 in five communities in the County. Meetings were held at the North Highlands Community Center, the Florin Sheriff’s Service Center, Smedburg Middle School, Orangevale Community Center, and La Sierra Community Center.

■ Four focus group meetings were held at the County Administration Building in downtown Sacramento during January and February 2008. The focus groups discussed housing conservation and preservation, affordable housing, constraints to housing development, and special-needs housing.

■ Three targeted focus group meetings with major stakeholder groups were held in January 2008. The meetings were held with the Housing Subcommitte of the County’s Disability Advisory Commission, the Sacramento Housing Alliance, and the Building Industry of Superior California. These meetings provided the County with additional feedback on suggested goals, policies, and programs.

■ Two public workshops were held with the Policy Planning Commission in March 2008.

■ The draft Housing Element was presented to the Policy Planning Commission on May 27, 2008 and the Board of Supervisors on May 28, 2008. Both hearings were open to the public.


1-5 Introduction

The workshops and meetings were attended by the general public, representatives of various housing-related organizations and agencies, and local private developers. The following organizations participated in the focus groups:

■ Alchemist Community Development Corporation ■ Avondale Glen Elder Neighborhood Association ■ Californians for Disability Rights ■ Housing Now ■ MacKay and Somps ■ Mercy Housing of California ■ Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services ■ Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance ■ Sacramento County Department of Neighborhood Services ■ Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department ■ Sacramento Housing Alliance ■ Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency ■ Sacramento Mutual Housing Association ■ SBM Site Services, LLC ■ WALK Sacramento ■ Wasatch Property Management

The County notified participants about the outreach meetings by e-mail, newspaper ad, and direct mail. The General Plan Update e-mail list was used to distribute an informational flyer about the meetings. The flyer had a link to the Housing Element Web site, where meeting information was posted. A press release advertised the focus group meetings. Additionally, the South Sacramento Neighborhood Services Center mailed a copy of the informational flyer to community and neighborhood groups in South Sacramento.

The meetings provided the County with a variety of housing-related comments. Several important comments repeated in different meetings included:

■ The development process should be streamlined.

■ Fees are a constraint to affordable housing development.

■ The County should focus on conserving/preserving existing units over new construction.

■ Affordable housing needs to be located near transportation and services.

■ Barriers to creative housing types (e.g., boarding houses, limited equity co-ops) should be removed.

Recorded comments were organized based on five Housing Element goals - adequate supply of land, reduction of constraints to housing production, conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing and neighborhoods, improvement to housing opportunities for special needs groups, and provision of affordable housing. Comments from each category are provided below, along with a brief comment summary. A detailed list of public comments is located in Appendix A.


Introduction 1-6

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION COMMENTS

ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LAND FOR HOUSING

■ Promote infill development before developing agricultural land. ■ Work with property owners of underutilized parcels and small-lot owners. ■ Provide for transitions in scale.

Many comments identified infill development as being essential in meeting the County’s housing land supply needs. This includes transit-oriented development, which would be beneficial to seniors and low-income individuals who need reliable access to services and amenities. Some participants commented that greenfield development is still needed because new homes might not be visually compatible with older neighborhoods. Most participants were in support of having Infill development along existing corridors. Some participants stated that the County needs to work with owners of underutilized properties to promote the benefits of infill development. The County also needs to help owners of small lots with the permitting process. Small-lot owners need financial assistance (e.g., reduced permit fees, fast-track permitting) to provide the housing opportunities that meet the County’s goals.

REDUCTION OF CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION

■ Development fees are a constraint to all housing. ■ The second-unit ordinance is legally compliant, but not aligned with lender’s

requirements. ■ The County does not support small developers. Participants representing the local development community commented on the high cost of development fees, which increased dramatically with the accelerated housing market of the early 2000’s. They noted that fees have not been lowered as the housing market has slowed. Some participants believed that fees were not related to the actual cost of providing services and suggested basing fees on the marginal cost to provide services. The second-unit ordinance was identified as a means of providing more affordable housing. However, the current 400-square-foot maximum size limit (without a use permit) is below the minimum 600-square-foot requirement to quality for financing. The County’s lack of support for small developers was also mentioned as a constraint to affordable housing production. The County could offer fee reductions or waivers, relaxed parking requirements, and modified fee timing to reduce the high upfront costs of development.

CONSERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS

■ Emphasize conservation/preservation over new construction. ■ Create a rental inspection program to identify and address substandard units. ■ Increase ownership opportunities. ■ Convert underutilized commercial buildings to housing.

Most participants wanted to rehabilitate and conserve existing neighborhoods and housing in order to slow greenfield development. Some participants recommended that the County be proactive in maintaining neighborhoods by creating a program for the inspection of substandard housing. This program would be applied to


1-7 Introduction

limited geographical areas for a certain amount of time before moving on to other areas. The program could be linked with financial assistance programs that will help property owners and landlords maintain their units.

Some participants want some units of affordable apartments to be converted to affordable condominiums in order to provide low-income ownership opportunities. This could be applied in areas with large concentrations of affordable rental units. It was suggested that underutilized commercial buildings could be converted to high-density housing to further promote infill development.

IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL-NEEDS GROUPS

■ Locate housing near transit and other services. ■ Ensure that design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ■ Provide accessible and affordable units. ■ Develop housing for a variety of income levels.

Participants commented on the importance of housing location for special-needs groups. Seniors, veterans, disabled residents, and others often rely on public transportation and need housing with easy access to transit stops. Some participants emphasized that transitional housing should be designed to be compatible with its surrounding neighborhood to reduce opposition or NIMBYism (“not in my backyard”). Housing for special needs groups, such as senior group homes or cottages, is often compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods. Apartments could be renovated and converted into senior condominiums. Participants mentioned that available funding for accessibility improvements should be used to create accessible affordable housing rather than high-end renovations for residents without financial need. It was also mentioned that the percentage of accessible units required in new construction should be increased. Developing housing for a variety of income levels is important to create a safety net for residents who have a sudden change in income. It is important to keep these people close to their support network.

PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

■ Promote creative/alternative housing types. ■ Locate housing near transit and services. ■ Prevent segregating affordable housing from market rate housing.

To provide more opportunities for affordable housing, participants suggested that the County promote alternative opportunities for housing, such as boarding houses, limited-equity co-ops, buying foreclosed properties in bulk, and converting underutilized commercial buildings to housing. But, traditional affordable options are still needed. This includes the purchasing of land for mobile home parks. Most participants stressed the importance of the location of affordable units because most residents would need to be in close proximity to essential services or have access to public transit. Some participants were concerned that the affordable housing ordinance results in affordable housing being concentrated in one area of a subdivision rather than being integrated into the rest of the development. The participants were concerned that the in-lieu fee and the dedicated land options of the affordable housing ordinance contributes to this segregating of affordable units from the market rate units.


Introduction 1-8

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

State law requires that the Housing Element include a statement of how consistency was achieved with the other elements of the General Plan. The following analyses and actions conducted by the County ensure that the Housing Element is consistent with the other General Plan elements.

■ The goals and policies of the Housing Element are consistent with those of the Land Use Element. The County reviewed General Plan Land Use Element classifications and implementing ordinances (such as zoning, specific plans, and other regulatory documents) to ensure that there are adequate sites with appropriate zoning/specific plan designations to accommodate the County’s Regional Housing Needs allocation. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the SACOG Plan and the County’s land use inventory.) There is more emphasis on infill development and redevelopment in the new Housing Element than there is in the existing 1993 General Plan with strategies and policies that are more extensive than those in the 1993 Plan.

■ To have consistency with the Open Space and Agriculture Elements, the County did not include lands designated for open space or agriculture in the inventory (except lands zoned for agricultural/residential use). There are no sites identified in the County’s inventory for residential development that conflict with open space, conservation, or agricultural policies of the General Plan. For this reason, the new Housing Element is consistent with the Open Space and Agricultural Elements.

■ The County has policies in the Housing Element that are consistent with the Land Use, Circulation, and Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan. This includes policies pertaining to mixed use and infill development, accessibility of multifamily housing to transportation and services, and the provision of infrastructure. The emphasis on mixed-use development with access to transportation and services is consistent with both the existing and proposed Land Use Elements.

■ The County reviewed the growth assumptions underlying SACOG’s housing allocation for the unincorporated County, and the infrastructure and public services that would be necessary for the projected level of residential development through 2013. The growth assumptions of the housing allocation are consistent with the SACOG Blueprint Project’s Preferred Scenario. The draft General Plan growth assumptions are also consistent with the Preferred Scenario.

■ The projected residential development evaluated in the Housing Element is consistent with General Plan policies regarding the Urban Policy Area and the Urban Service Boundary.

■ No area proposed for residential development will conflict with General Plan policies for the conservation of natural resources or the protection of public health and safety.


1-9 Introduction

■ The Housing Element includes supportive services policies consistent with policies in the Human Services Element.

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS

In updating the Housing Element, the County consulted the following planning documents to ensure consistency:

■ The 2003–2007 Consolidated Plan, which contains strategies, policies, implementing actions, and quantified objectives for the use of Federal Community Development Block Grant, HOME Program, and Emergency Services Grant funds to address lower income housing, community development, and economic development needs. The County has also considered the draft 2008 – 2014 Consolidated Plan.

■ The Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness adopted by the County to address homeless needs.

■ Redevelopment project area implementation plans, which contain funding strategies, actions, and quantified objectives for housing replacement, residential relocation, housing rehabilitation, new housing development, and community revitalization in the several redevelopment project areas in the unincorporated area.


2-1 Financial Resources

CHAPTER 2:

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

This chapter presents information on funds and other resources that are available to support the County of Sacramento’s (County’s) housing programs. The County’s housing programs are funded through a variety of federal, state and local sources. These funds support the construction of new affordable housing, encourage housing rehabilitation, assist first-time homebuyers, support revitalization of lower income neighborhoods, and provide various other housing services to low- and moderate-income households. In addition to financial resources, the County makes use of the institutional capabilities of government agencies and nonprofit organizations.

FUNDING SOURCES

This section is a summary of funding sources used by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA). SHRA is the lead public agency for the City and County of Sacramento in affordable housing development, providing development funding, operating assistance and mortgage assistance for a variety of affordable housing types throughout the City and County. To help summarize resources available, Table 2-1 presents a summary of SHRA’s historical budgeted funding for housing programs, and Table 2-2 projects anticipated annual funding during the Housing Element period, based on historical averages.

TABLE 2-1. SHRA BUDGETED FUNDING BY FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING SOURCE 2006 2007 2008 AVERAGE

CDBG $2,413,289 $1,099,528 $1,120,678 $1,544,498

HOME $5,085,880 $3,545,009 $3,615,077 $4,081,989

HTF $2,313,257 $1,813,919 $744,690 $1,623,955

Public Housing $3,282,969 $3,014,280 $3,148,027 $3,148,425

Tax Increment $1,879,085 $2,035,215 $1,670,784 $1,861,695

HCV 1 $92,128,354 $89,115,431 $92,401,068 $91,214,951

TOTAL $107,102,834 $100,622,382 $102,700,324 $103,475,513

Source: Halcon, E. pers comm. 2008 1 HCV (“Housing Choice Voucher”) revenue amounts include total housing assistance payments for the

entire County, including all incorporated cities. Notes: CDBG – Community Development Block Grant, HTF – Housing Trust Fund, HCV – Housing

Choice Voucher

When considering the funding sources described in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 above, it is important to recognize the limitations and regulations associated with each. Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) funding represents a large amount of SHRA’s funding, but the uses of both are limited to maintenance of existing public housing units and HCVs, and in general, do not represent funding available for the provision of new housing units. In addition, while both CDBG and tax increment funding can be used for non-housing purposes, the amounts shown in the table above represent the budgeted amounts associated with housing programs and projects. In general, 20 percent of tax increment by law must be “set aside”


Financial Resources 2-2

for the provision of affordable housing. As of January 1, 2008, the unencumbered County tax increment “set-aside” fund was $33,256.1

TABLE 2-2. SHRA BUDGETED FUNDING BY FUNDING SOURCE1 FUNDING SOURCE HISTORICAL ANNUAL AVERAGE 2008-2013

CDBG $1,544,498 $7,722,491

HOME $4,081,989 $20,409,944

HTF $1,623,955 $8,119,776

Public Housing $3,148,425 $15,742,126

Tax Increment $1,861,695 $9,308,474

HCV 2 $91,214,951 $456,074,755

TOTAL $103,475,513 $517,377,566

Source: Halcon, E. pers comm. 2008 1 Includes prior year unallocated funds. 2 HCV (“Housing Choice Voucher”) revenue amounts include total housing assistance payments for the

entire County, including all incorporated cities. Notes: CDBG – Community Development Block Grant, HTF – Housing Trust Fund, HCV – Houisng

Choice Voucher

Revenues from Low/Mod Tax Increment, HOME and Housing Trust Funds, detailed in Table 2-2, are targeted for use under the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Multifamily Housing Lending Program. This program provides assistance for developers wishing to purchase and rehabilitate or construct affordable rental housing throughout the County. Guidelines for this program will be updated, prioritizing funding towards preservation of at-risk units and rehabilitation projects in redevelopment areas. FEDERAL SOURCES OF FUNDING

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Funds Public Housing The largest source of funding for affordable housing in Sacramento comes from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD supports the Housing Authority’s public housing units, new development and rehabilitation of affordable housing, and special needs housing through the provision of operating subsidies and capital funding. The County has 832 public housing units, which house some of the poorest residents of the County, with an average income of seven percent of area median income. Providing safe and secure housing for such an impoverished population is extremely expensive and requires an ongoing, dedicated operating subsidy. Recent cut backs to the public housing program at HUD are requiring public housing authorities nationwide to reconsider how they own, manage and maintain their public housing assets. In recognition of the declining federal resources, the County has approved SHRA’s asset repositioning strategy, which aims to rehabilitate and redevelop current public housing, with no net loss of subsidized units. 1 $20,500.94 of the unencumbered funds is associated with the joint City/County

redevelopment areas of Stockton Boulevard and Franklin Boulevard. Redevelopment funds for these two areas are not divided between the City and County, and, therefore, some or all of these funds may be used outside of the County.



Housing Choice Vouchers In addition to public housing, HUD also funds Housing Choice Vouchers formerly known as Section 8. Unlike public housing, which fixes the tenant’s rent to no more than 30 percent of their household income, Housing Choice Vouchers provide a subsidy to private landlords to pay the difference between what the tenant can afford with 30 percent of their family income and the fair market rent. The Housing Choice Voucher program aims to provide housing choices to lower income families, and to disperse lower income residents throughout the County. SHRA administers approximately 11,000 Housing Choice vouchers throughout Sacramento County, including the incorporated cities. The majority of these vouchers are “tenant based” – they travel with the tenant to wherever he or she wishes to reside. However, HUD allows housing authorities to “project base” up to 20 percent of their vouchers, ensuring that certain units within certain complexes are available and affordable to lower income families and enabling the development to achieve deeper income targeting. SHRA’s administrative plan envisions project basing at ten percent of its total vouchers.

Entitlement Funds As an entitlement county under HUD regulations, Sacramento County also receives Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds, Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and Housing for People with AIDS/HIV (HOPWA). Federal funds available in the federal fiscal year 2008 (July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009), are as follows:

■ CDBG − $6,161,383 ■ HOME − $3,961,464 ■ ESG − $255,339 ■ HOPWA− $1,003,4932

The estimated allocation from the Action Plan programs for fiscal year 2008 is over $11 million. These amounts are taken from the 2008 consolidated Action Plan, and include only new entitlement funds. They do not include any program income or existing unspent income, which is included in the budgeted amounts in Table 2-1.

CDGB The majority of CDBG funds are allocated for non-housing community development projects and each HUD funding source also allows for administrative costs. According to the 2008 County Action Plan, approximately $4.9 million of the total HUD entitlement will be allocated for housing development, preservation and homeownership in 2008. CDBG funds designated for housing primarily support rehabilitation and First Time Homebuyer programs. CDBG funds are also available for public service activities supporting homeless programs and transitional housing.

HOME HOME funds are used exclusively for the new construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing, covering both homeownership and rental properties. The County annually receives approximately $3.8 million in HOME funds, and repayments from outstanding loans are “revolved” back into the fund. While some HOME funds are used to support homeownership programs, most HOME dollars are used as “gap” loans for multifamily rental development and rehabilitation. SHRA has also set aside HOME funding for a supportive housing loan program that it operates in conjunction with the Department of Human Assistance (DHA), the

2 The County of Sacramento is the recipient of HOPWA funds for the counties of

Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, and Yolo



Department of Health and Human Services and Mercy Housing. These County departments serve persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

ESG and HOPWA The Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) program provides homeless persons with basic shelter and essential supportive services. ESG funds can be used for a variety of activities, including: rehabilitation or remodeling of a building used as a new shelter, operations, and maintenance of a facility, essential supportive services, and homeless prevention. The Housing for People with AIDS/HIV (HOPWA) program provides grant funds to design long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income people living with HIV/AIDS. HOPWA funds can be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing, rental assistance, and related supportive services. HOPWA funds are received by the County of Sacramento. The County Department of Human Assistance (DHA) administers the funds.

McKinney Vento Act Program Funding is available on an annual basis through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Super-NOFA which is typically published in the spring of each year. Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA) is the lead Agency (Grantee) in Sacramento County which coordinates the local application process. Funding is provided for services to chronically homeless individuals residing in transitional housing and permanent supportive housing developments. Priority had previously been for transitional housing programs. Recent emphasis has begun to shift towards providing funding for services through permanent supportive housing. Most existing programs are renewed on an annual basis. Funding for new programs is typically available in two ways: the Grantee (DHA) can apply for one new project (Samaritan Bonus) each year in addition to renewing existing programs or an existing program can either be de-funded or request a reduction in funding and those funds can become available to a new program.

Mortgage Revenue Bonds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits SHRA issues tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds on behalf of the County for housing developments that restrict a portion of their units for very low-income and low-income households. The basic federal requirements are that 20 percent of the units must be restricted to very low-income households (50 percent of area median income), or 40 percent of the units restricted to low-income households (60 percent of area median income). Agency policies require the 20 percent very low-income restriction. The funds raised as a result of the bond sales carry below market interest rates, and are often coupled with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to raise the equity needed for the project’s affordability and feasibility.

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program is a federal program which provides each state an allocation of tax credits based upon population to create affordable housing for low-income households. The tax credits are incentives for private business to invest in affordable housing. Within the federal tax credit program, there are two programs - the four percent and the nine percent tax credits. The nine percent tax credit program with its higher credit factor is more competitive and requires much deeper affordability targeting. The four percent tax credit program is used solely in conjunction with the mortgage revenue bond program. In addition to federal tax credits, California has created a state tax credit program to be used in conjunction with the federal credits, although the requirements of the program often limit its use and attractiveness.



Mortgage Credit Certificates The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) program provides financial assistance to first time homebuyers for the purchase of new or existing single-family homes. The MCC provides qualified first time homebuyers with a federal income tax credit, which reduces an individual’s tax payment(s) by an amount equal to the credit. The MCC program can be used to increase homeownership, especially in targeted neighborhoods

HUD 811 and 202 Programs The Section 811 program provides funding for the development of rental housing with the availability of supportive services for adults with disabilities. The Section 811 program allows for persons with disabilities to live as independently as possible in the community. The program also provides project rental assistance, which covers the difference between the HUD-approved operating costs of the project and the tenants’ contribution toward rent. The Section 202 program provides funds to finance the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition with or without rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons, including the frail elderly, and provides rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable. It provides very low-income elderly with options that allow them to live independently but in an environment that provides support activities such as cleaning, cooking, transportation, and other supportive activities.

STATE SOURCES OF FUNDING

Proposition 1C Funding Proposition 1C authorized about $2.85 billion in State funding for a variety of housing programs. Potential uses of Proposition 1C funds include brownfield cleanup and infill incentives, multifamily housing programs, implementation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), the state’s Homeowner Downpayment Assistance program, supportive housing, farmworker housing, emergency housing assistance, and programs for homeless youth.

Multifamily Housing Program The Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) is used to assist the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households. Special allocations have been made for supportive housing with associated health and social services for low-income renters with disabilities, people who are moving from emergency shelters or transitional housing, or people who are at risk of homelessness. MHP funding can be used by local governments, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, limited equity housing cooperatives, and individuals to construct, rehabilitate, or preserve permanent and transitional rental housing.

Mental Health Services Act Program Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Housing Program was established by Executive Order to fund permanent supportive housing (PSH) projects for people with psychiatric disabilities and children with serious emotional disturbance. In permanent housing, all services must be voluntary. PSH is defined to include all of the following: tenant holds a lease and has rights of tenancy, tenant has a private space that is locked and that only they have access to, and participating in supportive services is not a requirement of tenancy. Transitional housing and emergency shelters are not eligible for funding.



Housing Enabling Local Partnerships (HELP) HELP funding is provided to local government entities to tailor the affordable housing activities and priorities of the particular jurisdiction. HELP Program funds can be used for a wide variety of housing programs, including multifamily construction and rehabilitation and homeownership assistance. SHRA has used the HELP program in the County to provide acquisition financing for distressed rental properties targeted by the County Nuisance Response Team.

Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) BEGIN funding includes grants to local public agencies to make deferred-payment second mortgage loans to qualified buyers of new homes in projects with affordability enhanced by local regulatory incentives or barrier reductions. These grants are used to increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income residents.

CalHOME CalHOME funding includes grants to local public agencies and nonprofit corporations to assist individual households through deferred-payment loans. This program also provides direct, forgivable loans to assist development projects involving multiple ownership units, including single-family subdivisions. These grants are used to enable low- and very low-income residents to become or remain homeowners.

Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP) EHAP funding includes both operating grants and deferred loans for capital development. Grants can be used for facility operations of emergency shelters, transitional housing projects, and supported services for homeless individuals and families. Loans to local public agencies and nonprofit developers may be used for capital development activities for emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and families.

LOCAL SOURCES OF FUNDING

Redevelopment Area Tax Increment Revenues The County has four redevelopment project areas administered by SHRA: Mather Air Park, McClellan Air Park/Watt Avenue, Walnut Grove, and Florin Road. In addition, SHRA administers three joint City-County redevelopment areas: Franklin Boulevard, Stockton Boulevard and Auburn Boulevard.

Low- and moderate-income tax increment set-aside funding is the main source of housing funds used to support housing programs in redevelopment areas and fulfilling redevelopment goals. Under state law, at least 20 percent of tax increment funds collected in redevelopment areas must be set-aside for the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing.

Housing Trust Fund of the County of Sacramento The County of Sacramento adopted a local ordinance in 1989 that established an impact fee on new non-residential construction. The fees were based on an economic nexus analysis that determined that the construction of such commercial projects as offices, business parks, hotels, warehouses, and shopping centers played a major role in attracting new very low- and low-income workers to Sacramento. Because the workers are often unable to afford housing close to their



work sites, the fee-generated revenue is used to increase the supply of housing affordable to these income groups, creating the nexus or linkage between jobs and housing.

Annually, the County Housing Trust Fund provides approximately $1,000,000 for new construction of housing for people that are in or likely to be in the labor force. Housing Trust funds are most commonly used as “gap” loans, leveraging millions of dollars of outside resources to create affordable housing in the County.

In 2005 a housing trust fund nexus analysis was conducted for the City and County. Subsequently, the City amended its ordinance and updated its fees on new non-residential construction. The County did not proceed to update its fees.

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND COORDINATION

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (SHRA)

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is a Joint Powers Authority created as a public agency by the City and County of Sacramento in 1973. SHRA serves three essential functions for both the City and unincorporated County in its roles as the Housing Authority, Redevelopment Agency and housing department for both jurisdictions.

In its role as the Housing Authority, SHRA owns and operates 2,462 public housing units in the City and an additional 832 in the other portions of the County. It administers over 11,000 Housing Choice Vouchers throughout Sacramento County. As a redevelopment agency, SHRA administers four County redevelopment areas and three joint City-County redevelopment areas. In addition to these County areas, SHRA administers six City redevelopment project areas and jointly administers two additional areas with the City Economic Development Department. In this context, SHRA administers the County’s redevelopment housing set-aside funds, moneys that are required to be set-aside by state law in redevelopment project areas to fund housing programs and projects that benefit lower income households. Finally, SHRA acts as the County’s housing department, administering federal and state funding programs for the provision of affordable housing and implementing the County’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Several departments within the County of Sacramento assist in the planning and implementation of the Consolidated Plan. The agencies listed below focus on housing, infrastructure, and supportive services funded by federal grant programs. In addition to these departments/agencies, the Department of Finance, the Environmental Health Department, and the County Sheriff’s Department have important responsibilities for implementing actions under the Housing Element.

Municipal Services Agency The County Municipal Services Agency is the umbrella agency for a number of County departments which includes Planning and Community Development, Neighborhood Services, Transportation, Water Resources, Animal Care and other departments. The Agency’s services include garbage collection, animal care, land use and community planning, road protection, building permits and development services, open space conservation, regional parks and numerous other services.



Planning and Community Development Department The Planning and Community Development Department serves the County by administering the County’s land use planning programs. These programs include:

■ Long-range planning services, including updating of the Sacramento County General Plan.

■ Specific and Community planning services, including preparation and adoption of a series of Specific and Community Plans.

■ Current Planning and Zoning services, including zoning information and review of private development projects and processing to the various hearing bodies.

Department of Human Assistance The Department of Human Assistance (DHA) operates the welfare programs for the County and serves as the lead agency for the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. DHA offers the following services to County residents:

■ Senior Volunteer Services.

■ Welfare Reform.

■ Homeless Assistance.

■ Employment Services.

■ Financial Assistance.

■ Medical Assistance.

■ Senior Nutrition.

Department of Health and Human Services Principal services offered through the Department of Health and Human Services include:

■ Alcohol and Drug Services.

■ Children’s Services.

■ Family Assistance.

■ Mental Health Services.

■ Senior Services.

■ Shelter and Homeless Assistance.

Neighborhood Services Department The Neighborhood Services Department was formed in March of 2004 as part of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisor’s commitment to provide residents and business owners of unincorporated Sacramento County improved services and



enhanced lines of communication with County staff. The Department offers programs to help residents:

■ Know what the County is doing in the various neighborhoods, from road repairs to land use, from economic development to landscaping;

■ Get answers from a single phone call, visit or review of the website;

■ Make resident opinions and priorities known to Sacramento County decision makers; and

■ Obtain services in convenient locations.

This department coordinates with various departments to deliver services and improvements to neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Services Department also provides code enforcement services administered by the Code Enforcement Division. The services include the enforcement of the Zoning Code and the abatement of public nuisances such as dangerous buildings, junk vehicles, and junk and rubbish.


3-1 Housing Action Plan

CHAPTER 3:

HOUSING ACTION PLAN – STRATEGIES, GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS

California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element contain a “statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.” This chapter contains Sacramento County’s goals, policies, and programs to implement the County’s housing program. Sacramento County’s Action Plan consists of a broad range of goals, objectives, policies, and programs that address the development of sufficient housing to accommodate population growth, and to encourage the production of units in a range of prices affordable to all income groups. Goals and objectives were developed in direct response to the observed needs for the Sacramento area based on housing need assessments conducted during the preparation of this Housing Element.

HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL

Promote an adequate supply of decent, safe and affordable housing to meet the needs of all residents of Sacramento County without regard to race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, family status or disability.

FORMAT OF ACTION PLAN

The Action Plan of this Element consists of three parts. The first part describes the seven strategies and their accompanying sub-strategies. Each strategy includes a statement of the goal for that strategy. Following each goal is a discussion of housing problems, obstacles to their solution, and one or more actions that may assist in resolving identified housing problems. Each sub-strategy has an objective statement and a description of the sub-strategy’s intent. The second part describes the policies and programs for each sub-strategy. For each policy there is an accompanying program or programs that will implement the policy. The implementation program lists the responsible agency, the funding sources, the program objective and the target date. Finally, the third part is a summary of the quantified objectives of the policies and programs.

The strategies and implementing actions contained in this chapter were developed after extensive public outreach and consultation that resulted in the identification of issues of concern and recommended approaches to address those issues. The County also conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of current housing programs through consultation with County staff responsible for program implementation, housing providers, community organizations, and the public. Finally, the County considered changes in state and federal laws, regulations, programs adopted in the County’s Consolidated Plan, and programs that affect planning and housing decisions and implementation of the programs contained in the Housing Element.

The terms used in this chapter to define strategies, substrategies, policies and programs are:


Housing Action Plan 3-2

Goal: General statement of purpose to indicate direction the County will take to address identified housing problems and needs.

Introduction: General discussion of housing problems, obstacles to solutions, and recommended housing programs (actions) to address issues.

Sub-strategy: A detailed or defined component of a proposed strategy to address a housing problem.

Objective: A general or qualitative statement of the desired outcome from implementation of a strategy or sub-strategy.

Intent: An explanation of the purpose of the policies and programs proposed to achieve a strategy or sub-strategy.

Policy: A general statement of a proposed action to guide decision-making and provide a framework for the operation of housing programs.

Housing Program: A detailed statement of the specific action that will be taken to implement a policy.

Responsible Agency: The County department or other lead agency responsible for implementing a proposed action.

Funding: Identification of the local, state, federal, or private source that may be used to pay for policy and program implementation.

Quantified Objective: A statement of measurable outcome, defined numerically whenever possible.

Target Date: The specific date or timeframe for initiation and/or completion of a housing program.



PART 1: DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING STRATEGIES AND SUB-STRATEGIES

HOUSING STRATEGIES

Sacramento County’s Housing Action Plan emphasizes seven strategies that, collectively, address the availability of, affordability of, condition of, and access to housing by its general population as well as special needs groups. The seven strategies are: 1) adequate supply of land for housing, 2) preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods, 3) reduction of housing costs, 4) improvement of housing opportunities and conditions for special needs groups, 5) providing and maintaining housing affordability, (6) promote the health and safety of all residents, and 7) promote the efficient use of energy through alternative and innovative conservation measures. The strategies, policies, and housing programs are described below.

HOUSING STRATEGY I: ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LAND FOR HOUSING

Goal Provide an adequate supply of suitable sites for the development of a range of housing that varies sufficiently in terms of cost, design, size, location, and tenure to meet the housing needs of all segments of the County’s population.

Introduction Housing cannot be constructed without land on which to build it. The availability of vacant land and sites with re-use or redevelopment potential, and the density at which the County will permit housing to be built, are the primary factors affecting the County’s ability to accommodate new housing to meet future needs. The amount of land designated for housing and the permitted residential densities of that land affect land costs and, ultimately, the cost of new housing units. According to Section 65583 of the California Government Code, “adequate” sites are defined as land with appropriate zoning and development standards, and services and facilities, including sewage collection and treatment, domestic water supply, and septic tanks and wells, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.

The intent of this strategy is to ensure the availability of adequate sites for future housing development to meet the needs of a growing population and changes in the composition of the population. Housing Strategy 1 relates directly to General Plan Land Use Element policies that establish classifications of land use and standards for residential density. This strategy also establishes a system to evaluate the availability and suitability of surplus public lands for affordable housing development. Housing Strategy 1 is critical to the County’s ability to provide appropriately zoned land to accommodate a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all residents at all income levels. This strategy also seeks the efficient use of urban residential land through policies that encourage residential development at minimum reasonable densities consistent with environmental and infrastructure capacity.



Sub-Strategy I-A: Adequate Land for Housing Objective: To ensure there is sufficient land to allow for the development of adequate new housing and to ensure the availability of housing for all households in Sacramento County. Intent: The capacity of Sacramento County to address its current and future housing needs is partly a function of the availability of adequate sites for housing. The Sacramento County General Plan establishes a framework to ensure that sufficient vacant land is available for the continued development of a variety of housing types and living arrangements to meet the needs of all residents at all income levels. The amount, location, and density of housing are determined primarily by policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The residential component of the General Plan emphasizes the development of distinct neighborhoods in accordance with traditional village planning principles, including emphasizing pleasant, pedestrian-oriented environs and a mix of housing types. Policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan seek to provide maximum diversity within a community, allowing developments from very large-lot rural residential areas, to well defined single-family subdivisions with medium density uses and multiple family subdivisions with medium- to high-density uses immediately adjacent to commercial uses and transit stops. Chapter 6 of the Housing Element, Land Use Inventory, concludes that the County’s General Plan provides sufficient land to accommodate the total demand for housing.

The assumptions of housing demand in this Element are based on the Final Regional Housing Needs Plan was adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Board of Directors on February 21, 2008. This demand is compared against a land use inventory of vacant residential and agricultural-residential zoned parcels. The vacant land inventory identifies a supply of 20,396 units as of April 2008. In addition, 1,228 units have been constructed between January 2006 and January 2008, resulting in an estimated oversupply of at least 6,464 units.

Sub-Strategy I-B: Inventory of Surplus Land Objective: To ensure that there is an inventory of surplus federal, state, and County land within Sacramento County to be used for affordable housing production.

Intent: The purpose of this strategy is to allow the County to develop and maintain a system to inventory surplus land, and to eventually determine the suitability of such land for affordable housing.

Sub-Strategy I-C: Use of Infill and Underutilized Sites Objective: To prepare an inventory of underutilized sites suitable for infill and reuse for residential development and to actively promote and facilitate the use/reuse of these sites.

Intent: Escalating housing costs, decreasing capacity to expand infrastructure at the urban fringe, pressures to preserve environmentally sensitive or agricultural lands, rising energy costs, the need to improve air quality and address climate change, and the need to strengthen older neighborhoods through redevelopment



and rehabilitation have prompted both public policy and market forces to increase focused attention on the development of vacant, underdeveloped, and underutilized land in the existing urban areas. Several strategies have been developed in the General Plan to facilitate additional residential development within such lands in the existing urban area. These strategies include infill (the build out of vacant land in largely developed communities), redevelopment and reuse, and revitalization of existing commercial corridors.

Infill. Numerous communities within the unincorporated area have significant amounts of vacant land that has been passed over for development. Many of these sites have been passed over due to their size, shape, lack of infrastructure, environmental constraints, and other factors that make them difficult and costly to develop. The General Plan seeks to maximize the use of undeveloped lands within existing unincorporated communities. Infill strategies emphasize reliance on existing public infrastructure and services that can accommodate additional development (with or without capacity upgrades and other improvements), such as roadways, sewer and water facilities, parks, and schools, before expanding public facilities and services to undeveloped areas. Changes in demographics and family structure, an economy based increasingly on services, and expanded interest in public transit accessibility has resulted in upward demand for residential units within the existing urban area. The intent of this strategy is to encourage and facilitate the use of infill sites, through various incentives, to contribute to the goal of accommodating housing for all income groups to meet community needs.

Reuse. The “reuse” strategy of the General Plan promotes the development of land that is currently underutilized with respect to environmental and zoning capacity. In contrast to redevelopment (i.e., when public agencies facilitate the development of underutilized or blighted land through the establishment of a redevelopment project area), reuse focuses on private initiatives facilitated through public incentives. Underutilization occurs when property improvement value is less than the full value of the land.

This strategy seeks to increase the efficient use of lands within the urban area. The strategy targets the reuse of older commercial and retail areas and older industrial or business office parks throughout the County that may not have been fully developed or have high vacancy rates due to: 1) limited and changing market demand, 2) a large oversupply of industrial-office and industrial zoning in the County, or 3) obsolescence. The reuse of a portion of such properties is targeted for higher residential densities, to be developed as mixed use projects or stand alone multifamily projects within commercial corridors. The reuse strategy would further allow for the conversion of access surface parking areas of large commercial centers for higher density residential or integrated mixed-use development, particularly for commercial corridors. The intent of the Housing Element is to support the reuse of older, marginal commercial and industrial properties and access surface parking areas of large commercial centers as a tool to increase the supply of residential lands and facilitate new housing construction.

Commercial Corridors. One of the proposed general plan’s growth strategies is to direct commercial and residential growth to existing commercial corridors. Fourteen commercial corridors are delineated in the proposed general plan. Commercial corridor planning will seek to develop infill sites and reuse underutilized sites as described in the previous paragraphs. These areas will



support higher density residential and mixed-use projects, and be consistent with the SACOG Blueprint and Principles of Smart Growth and Sustainable Development.

HOUSING STRATEGY II: REDUCTION OF CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION

Goal Removal, or reduction, of governmental and non-governmental constraints to facilitate the provision of affordable housing.

Introduction Chapter 7, Housing Constraints Analysis, identifies several factors that affect the cost and availability of housing to the consumer. These factors, which prevent or raise the cost of construction and/or improvement of housing, can be considered as constraints to the production of housing. Such constraints are divided into governmental or non-governmental constraints. Governmental constraints refer to the policies and regulation that a local government applies to the approval of land use proposals and enforcement of building codes. Since governmental constraints are deliberately imposed, it is assumed that such constraints can be mitigated by local action. However, the vast majority of governmental regulations are imposed on the production of housing primarily to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Non-governmental constraints are those factors that limit the availability of housing over which local government has limited or no control.

To address governmental and nongovernmental constraints, Chapter 7 identifies and evaluates perceived and actual constraints such as land availability for development, local land use regulations, building codes, permit processing times, residential development and permit fees, application processing times, utilities, financing, and land and labor costs. With the identification of such constraints and their severity, this strategy of the Housing Element presents several programs to remove or reduce those constraints without sacrificing the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Among the program or actions recommended to mitigate governmental and non-governmental constraints are a reduction in permit processing times, periodic review of residential development standards, and the review of residential development fee schedules.

Sub-Strategy II-A: Reduction in Permit Processing Times Objective To streamline the governmental review process to assist in the reduction of processing times associated with housing production.

Intent One way to reduce the cost of residential development, and therefore, the cost of housing to the consumer, is to reduce the time associated with the planning permit and environmental review process. The time it takes to process an application for development approval affects the cost of construction by increasing the developer’s carrying costs during this period. The County Planning and Community Development Department has monitored the length of time it takes for several different types of applications, from General Plan amendments to use permits, to reach final approval and has taken steps to shorten the process. The County must, however, still comply with procedural requirements set forth in State law that



specify certain timeframes, especially for the subdivision review process. State law establishes hearing requirements, review periods, public notifications, and time limits for various actions with which the County must comply.

The requirements are not only mandatory, but require a specific sequence in which each part of the process is to occur. The intent of this strategy is to allow the Planning Department to continue reviewing internal processing procedures to expedite processing time, and to develop criteria that would give priority to permit processing for lower income housing projects. The focus of this strategy is to speed approval of residential projects that include affordable housing and to develop programs to reduce processing time and overall costs of housing developments.

It is critical for the Planning and Community Development Department to solicit comments from all clients, especially from residential developers and homebuilders, to revise and improve application procedures to expedite permit processing times. This strategy involves the ongoing process of surveying the Department’s clients to solicit comments and suggestions as to how the County could more efficiently administer land use regulations and the permit process.

Sub-Strategy II-B: Review of Development Standards Objective To ensure that development standards continue to represent the best means to achieve land use policy objectives while reducing the cost of producing housing.

Intent The County of Sacramento exercises discretionary authority over residential development approvals through the administration of zoning and subdivision ordinances. These ordinances establish development standards to ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained and that adequate levels of street and facility improvements are provided. The intent of this strategy is to allow the County to periodically review residential development standards contained in the zoning and subdivision ordinances to determine whether they constitute constraints on development and/or improvement of housing. The intent of this review is to ensure that current standards continue to represent the best means to achieve housing and other public policy objectives. Development standards that are identified as being excessive constraints and nonessential to health and safety should be reduced or eliminated.

This strategy further supports the issuance and approval of Special Development Permits to accommodate projects that are unique or provide special housing arrangements. The zoning ordinance permits the application of alternative standards related to parking, setbacks, lot site, lot coverage and other standards through the issuance and approval of Special Development Permits. The primary intent of alternative zoning and development standards is to reduce housing costs. For example, the cost of land is a factor in the overall cost of housing development, and reducing allowable lot sizes and street widths can contribute substantially to a reduction in total housing costs.



Sub-Strategy II-C: Review Residential Development and Permit Fees Objective To reduce housing costs associated with permit and development impact fees while ensuring sufficient funding for public services and facilities.

Intent Residential developers encounter various costs associated with building homes in Sacramento County, ranging from application processing fees to the cost of actual public improvement. Agencies within the County are required to establish and collect fees based on cost recovery for the processing of development permits. Such fees are levied to cover staff time to process the permits. Included in the processing time are internal review and processing, public hearings, and inspections required to implement the County General Plan, Zoning Code, Improvement Standards, Building Code and applicable state laws, such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the passage of Proposition 13, and with the reduction in local government’s ability to finance capital improvements, new residential development is responsible for both public and private improvements directly associated with the development to a greater extent than previously. Off-site and on-site improvements are required primarily to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare and to mitigate environmental impacts. The County has established both public and private infrastructure standards for these purposes, while allowing developers to factor in those costs during the development design stage.

Although planning application and permit fees do contribute to the total cost of development, and therefore housing, their impact is not as significant for each housing unit in a development project. Impact fees (fees charged for capital improvements and connections to public service systems such as water and sewer service) typically have a more significant cost impact on housing development than permit fees. On- and off-site improvement requirements can add significantly to the cost of housing. The intent of this strategy is to ensure that the County will continue working with affected groups, including the building industry representatives, prior to the development of fee schedules, and will continue this practice when fee increases are necessary in the future (aside from annual cost indexed fee adjustments).

HOUSING STRATEGY III: CONSERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS

Goal Promote an adequate, safe, and decent residential environment by maintaining and improving the existing housing stock and community character through conservation and rehabilitation activities.

Introduction An effective means of preserving the condition of affordable housing in Sacramento County is to promote the conservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing supply. The conservation and rehabilitation of older housing stock decreases the demand for new housing production, but also helps maintain community character, identity, confidence, and marketability. The conservation and rehabilitation of existing housing also provides opportunities for expanded homeownership for low- and moderate-income households. Housing rehabilitation is just one aspect of



maintaining quality neighborhoods. Deteriorated housing not only contributes, but can also be the symptom of, neighborhood decline caused by other factors, such as a lack of public investment in neighborhood infrastructure and services, a high percentage of absentee single-family property ownership, and high crime rates.

The County of Sacramento provides housing conservation and rehabilitation assistance through a variety of programs. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) has been authorized by the County to implement such housing programs. The County’s programs target different income and population groups and facilitate both minor and major rehabilitation. Rehabilitation programs receive funding from state, local and federal sources and are designed to meet specific needs. Each funding source has its own goals and priorities, targeting criteria, and application procedures. SHRA is exploring targeted rehabilitation funding to neighborhoods undergoing other general revitalization activities.

The County’s strategy is to continue and expand housing rehabilitation programs administered by SHRA as new funding becomes available. The County will seek to expand rehabilitation programs through several funding sources, including programs receiving funding in the recently passed housing bond.

The actions recommended in this Housing Element to implement and expand programs for the rehabilitation and preservation of housing in the County are:

■ establishment and maintenance of programs for rental and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation activities,

■ zoning enforcement,

■ public facility improvements,

■ neighborhood revitalization,

■ code enforcement,

■ neighborhood preservation area designation, and

■ design review.

■ prevention of demolition activities.

Sub-Strategy III-A: Establishment and Maintenance of Programs for Rental Housing Rehabilitation

Objective Ensure the preservation and upgrading of rental housing units serving lower income households in need of rehabilitation and improvement.

Intent To promote the rehabilitation of substandard rental units, Sacramento County will continue to assist eligible property owners in rehabilitation activities using federal, state, local and private sources of funding. Owners of rental units serving primarily lower income residents may apply for low interest loans to upgrade rental



units needing rehabilitation. The rehabilitation work includes the correction of health and safety hazards repairs to alleviate interior and exterior deficiencies and weatherization. HOME, tax increment-housing-set-aside, mortgage revenue bond, and tax credit equity funds will continue to be available for multifamily housing rehabilitation loans. Rental property owners using these funds are required to restrict occupancy to very low- or low-income households and to sign a regulatory agreement to maintain affordability.

Sub-Strategy III-B: Maintenance of Programs for Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation

Objective To maintain current programs using federal, state, and local funding sources to assist homeowners, especially lower income owners, to repair substandard units in need of rehabilitation to prevent future displacement.

Intent To encourage the rehabilitation of substandard owner-occupied units, the County will continue to use public and private funds and provide financial assistance through low interest rates and deferred loans to assist lower income homeowners with housing rehabilitation. Such rehabilitation activities are to be accomplished primarily with HOME, State funds (such as CalHome), and local redevelopment funds as a primary leveraging resource. Funds will be provided to owner-occupants as a subsidy to reduce the cost of repairs, enabling the completion of rehabilitation work. The intent of this strategy is to use federal and local funds and to seek other funding resources whenever possible. The typical repairs that can be made with these loans include:

■ roof repair and replacement.

■ new plumbing,

■ replacement of water heaters,

■ heating and air conditioning systems,

■ repair of termite and pest damage, and

■ painting.

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency will assist homeowners in applying for loans, provide technical assistance in determining level of repairs required, and assist in selecting bids from qualified contractors and monitoring of construction work.

Sub-Strategy III-C: Rehabilitation of Older Motels Serving as Transitional or Permanent Housing

Objective Acquisition and rehabilitation of boarded motels for conversion to permanent affordable housing, including efficiency units.



Intent In the County, older motels often operate as temporary or permanent housing. These motels need substantial rehabilitation to remedy past deterioration as well as to provide for a proper conversion to residential uses. The strategy provides for consideration of the conversion of older motels as part of proactive, targeted redevelopment activities, and for the provision of financial assistance to qualified owners.

Sub-Strategy III-D: Conserve the Quality of Residential Neighborhoods through Zoning Enforcement and Code Enforcement

Objective To provide for conservation and rehabilitation activities through zoning and code enforcement programs.

Intent The intent of this strategy is to continue to enforce Zoning Code provisions relating to the proper use and development of properties throughout the community. Zoning Code Enforcement Division staff respond to, and investigate, alleged zoning violations such as illegal uses, derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and illegal structures in residential districts. These zoning violations not only pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of dwelling unit occupants, but also present an intrusive, incompatible and disruptive atmosphere, negatively impacting the stability and quality of the neighborhoods in which they are located. The intent of this strategy is to evaluate existing regulations pertaining to Zoning Code enforcement and to study the implementation of new programs to ensure the continued proper protection of existing housing stock.

The Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Neighborhood Services is responsible for reviewing current building code enforcement policies and practices to identify problems and solutions, as well as developing improved procedures and programs for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. The Code Enforcement Division is also responsible for providing training programs for code enforcement and other personnel involved in the code enforcement process. The implementation of a reactive code enforcement program will further allow this division to inform all owners of substandard residential units cited for health and safety violations of all resources available for structure rehabilitation and improvements to meet all standards.

This strategy also promotes the maintenance and improvement of existing neighborhoods within the unincorporated area through the designation of Neighborhood Preservation Areas (NPAs).

Neighborhood Preservation Area (NPA). Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan address the formation of NPAs as a tool to protect the character and identity of existing communities and neighborhoods. An NPA zone is established for neighborhoods with unique social, architectural, environmental or other characteristics. The NPA zone describes special regulations applied within the district in lieu of the requirements contained in the zone or zones with which the NPA zone is combined. The NPA zone may specify the extent of yard areas, lot area, lot width, public street frontage requirements, height limitations, or other development standards. The intent of this strategy is to support the preservation of neighborhoods with unique features and characteristics through the



implementation of regulations and standards developed and contained in the NPA ordinance.

Sub-Strategy III-E: Revitalization of Deteriorated Neighborhoods Through Public Facility Improvements

Objective Improve public facilities with priority for the revitalization of deteriorating and blighted neighborhoods.

Intent The County of Sacramento, through its appropriate departments, will continue to coordinate the planning and implementation of public facility improvements, such as those outlined in the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), to ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure facilities and services to existing and future residential communities. The intent of this strategy is to give priority in planning and implementation of public facility improvements to support the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods. The provision of infrastructure improvements and services such as water, sewer, solid waste, recreation, police and fire services will improve the physical condition of existing residential and nonresidential development and upgrade the quality of declining neighborhoods. Furthermore, the intent of this strategy is to allow the County to use Community Development Block Grant funds and/or evaluate the feasibility of establishing special assessment districts to provide infrastructure and services improvements such as landscaping, lighting, water, sewer, curbs, gutters and sidewalks for deteriorating neighborhoods.

Sub-Strategy III-F: Local/Private Sector Investment for Neighborhood Revitalization

Objective Local/private sector investment into areas where there is a need for neighborhood revitalization.

Intent The County shall encourage housing lenders, including mortgage loan companies, to invest in minority and low-income neighborhoods and in communities undergoing revitalization. The County will encourage lenders to participate in the Northern California Reinvestment Consortium, a five-county lenders’ consortium, and will give preference in the awarding of County deposits to lenders participating in the consortium.

The County will also review the record of local financial institutions with regard to their performance in meeting the credit needs of low-income and minority people, as required by the federal Community Reinvestment Act. The County will direct its investment into those local financial institutions that have a good Community Reinvestment Act record.

Sub-Strategy III-G: Reduce Loss of Housing Through Demolition Activities

Objective Reduce demolition activities by rehabilitating unused buildings.



Intent Deteriorating and vacant properties have an influence on a neighborhood, and can even adversely affect the long-term possibility of building replacement housing on a site. Programs are needed to mitigate the neighborhood impacts of substandard vacant and abandoned housing units and to rehabilitate unused housing for new occupants. The County should be prepared to respond promptly to information that a building is being abandoned and/or vandalized.

This strategy also proposes to provide a housing referral service for lower income households displaced as a result of demolition of unsafe, substandard dwellings, which cannot be economically repaired. Specifically, the program proposes the development of a brochure to be provided by the Code Enforcement Division to all displaced tenants. This brochure would provide information on available services that displaced tenants can utilize, including Section 8 assistance, federally assisted below-market-rate rental units, home sharing programs, self-housing, and homeless programs. Owners of dwelling units to be demolished or converted are required to provide such brochures to displaced tenants. Low-income households displaced as a result of privately funded demolition activities should qualify for priority treatment under housing authority policies for admission to subsidized housing.

Sub-Strategy III-H: Implement Design Review

Objective Conserve the quality of existing residential neighborhoods through design review.

Intent On August 29, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Commercial and Mixed Use Community Design Guidelines. The Design Review Program applies these guidelines to new development with the exception of residential projects in residential zones. The Design Review Program seeks to promote high quality design and compatibility between new development and surrounding development.

Many existing neighborhoods have interfaces with commercial and business districts. It is within this interface where a retail or office building may have a negative impact on an adjacent neighborhood because of poor design or a lack of compatibility between the proposed use and the neighborhood. Poor design and a lack of compatibility may result in the absence of entry points between the new development and the neighborhood, proposed buildings and accompanying lighting being visually intrusive upon nearby houses and an overall aesthetic design that visually clashes with the adjacent neighborhood. The implementation of the Design Review Program will prevent these negative scenarios from occurring.

In addition to the Design Review Program that pertain predominantly to commercial buildings, the County is developing interim multifamily design guidelines for new multifamily projects. The County is currently implementing these guidelines on an ad-hoc basis. Quality design is emphasized rather than strict development standards. Also, there is a focus on design elements adjacent to single-family developments, rather than large setbacks. Many multifamily projects are adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods and have either a positive or negative impact based on the design quality of the project. Neighborhood opposition to a proposed multifamily project often arises because of nearby poorly designed apartments. The Interim Multifamily Design Guidelines will



result in more multifamily projects having a positive impact on nearby neighborhoods and aid in neighborhood acceptance of higher density housing.

HOUSING STRATEGY IV: IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS

Goal Ensure the availability of adequate housing opportunities throughout the unincorporated area of Sacramento County for people with special needs, including: minority households, seniors, large households, female heads-of- households, persons with disabilities, farm workers, and the homeless.

Introduction Every community in the County has individuals with special housing needs. Special housing needs arise from unique physical, financial, or supportive service requirements that are not shared by the population at large. Examples of special housing needs include:

■ Large families requiring housing units with three or more bedrooms.

■ Farm workers and their families, some of whom migrate from one location to another during the year and need seasonal housing, but most of whom earn very low-incomes and often have large families.

■ Female heads-of-household, particularly single elderly women, who are often very low-income and need assisted living arrangements, and single women with children, who have extremely high poverty rates and often suffer from discrimination in housing.

■ Persons with disabilities who have special housing needs related to their physical and self-care capacities, low-incomes, and supportive service needs.

Although most households with special housing needs have low-incomes, even individuals with adequate incomes may find that the type of housing that best meets their lifestyle, physical, and supportive service needs is not readily available or conveniently located. Programs included in this strategy are designed to assist individuals and households with special needs, although the emphasis will be placed on programs for lower income households. The following section of the Action Plan establishes objectives, policies and programs for the provision of housing to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, seniors, farm workers, the homeless, persons facing discrimination, female-headed households, and large families.

Sub-Strategy IV-A: Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Objective Programs to expand opportunities for persons with disabilities to enable such individuals to reside in all communities within the County.

Intent The intent of this strategy is to recognize the universal need for accessibility to housing and community services for all persons. Universal access means more than designing buildings for those with mobility challenges. It also seeks to connect the



ability of individuals to live, work, travel, recreate, and engage in other personal activities as independently as possible within a community. Universal access seeks to increase housing options for individuals with all types of disabilities, whether physical, developmental, psychological, or illness-related. Greater accessibility to housing and community services can benefit all Sacramento County residents, regardless of their disability status.

At any one time, between 15 percent and 20 percent of Sacramento County residents have one or more conditions that represent a disability. At some point in our lives, however, each of us will require special living arrangements or design features in our homes to accommodate changing physical and self-care capacities. As our physical needs and capacities change, so does our ability to move within the community, access needed services, and interact with others.

With the passage of federal fair housing laws in the late 1980s, newly constructed multifamily units must accommodate the disabled population. Some apartments and condominiums are now required to be equipped with special features such as ramps, and wider hallways, entryways, and bathrooms to enhance accessibility for a disabled person. As of 1984, the State of California requires all ground floor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act and State regulations have no special provisions for the installation of such amenities for single-family homes, however. Accessibility for persons within single-family homes has generally been left to the individual under the assumption that they will choose whether or not to modify their homes. The County can have a role in providing information to homeowners and homebuilders regarding design options that can improve a home’s ability to accommodate the changing physical needs of its occupants.

The construction of new adaptable housing units is not prohibitively expensive since changes can be made in the design stage and be implemented early in the permit-processing phase. The adaptation of older homes to meet handicapped needs, however, is expensive. The intent of this strategy is to allow the County to implement a program, and seek proper funding sources, to assist owners of older homes increase the accessibility and function of such homes for those with limited mobility or perceptual impairments.

The intent of this strategy is to further allow Sacramento County to support alternative housing types and living arrangements, such as small-scale residential care facilities in all residential districts, to serve the needs of person with disabilities who are unable to live on their own. The County will seek assistance through the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities-Section 811 program (revised Section 202 Program) and the supportive Housing for the Homeless (McKinney Act) - Supportive Housing Demonstration Program. These programs provide funds to promote independent and supportive housing and special support services for the de-institutionalized mentally ill, developmentally disabled and handicapped persons. The activities eligible for program support include acquisition, substantial rehabilitation, new construction, moderate rehabilitation and annual operating costs of small group and independent living homes.

Sub-Strategy IV-B: Housing for Seniors



Objective Provide adequate and affordable housing for senior citizens.

Intent Seniors comprise about 11 percent of the County’s population, and those who will become seniors in the next ten years another 19 percent. Nearly three-quarters of seniors own their homes, but most are retired and have fixed incomes. As housing costs, including utilities and maintenance, continue to rise, it becomes increasingly difficult for senior residents to meet these costs. Low-income seniors tend to defer home improvements and maintenance, therefore increasing the cost of improvements when they actually occur. Continued deferment of needed repairs, upgrades, and modifications for greater accessibility may result in unsafe or unhealthy living conditions for senior home occupants.

The intent of this strategy is to continue promoting programs administered by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to assist eligible seniors in making high priority health or safety repairs to prevent dilapidation of their housing units. Among programs available to seniors through SHRA for housing preservation are the Emergency Repair Program and the Home Assistance and Repair Programs for Seniors (HARPS). These programs offer grants to seniors who meet low-income qualification requirements so that they can make repairs to their homes. Eligible repairs include attention to standard maintenance issues, replacement of water heaters, and modifications to make their homes more accessible for seniors with disabilities or impairments.

Senior renters, who comprise about one-quarter of the senior population in Sacramento County, also face financial difficulties in affording housing. The overwhelming majority of senior renters in Sacramento County are low-income, which limits their choices in the rental housing market. Some lower-priced (but not subsidized) housing is in high crime areas or is in poor condition.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is the only source of income for many seniors. After paying health care costs, and food and living expenses, these seniors can only afford to spend a minimal amount for housing. The intent of this strategy is to support and extend the independence of seniors by helping them continue living in their own homes as long as they wish to do so. The County will also cooperate with non-profit agencies and for-profit housing developers who propose to construct housing for older adults by providing assistance in applying for funding through various Federal, state, and local programs, offering density bonuses and other local incentives. Additionally, the County will develop siting criteria to help senior housing developers choose appropriate locations that are close to shopping and public transportation. There are many types of housing that could meet the needs of older adults, including rental housing apartments designed specifically for seniors, shared housing, second units, group homes, assisted living facilities, congregate care facilities, and mobile home park/manufactured housing subdivisions.

All of the above could be incorporated into a Senior Housing Master Plan that will be the overarching strategy in providing housing for seniors in the unincorporated County. As the senior population increases, there will be a growing need to have a comprehensive approach in dealing with the housing issues which seniors and the community face. A major objective of the Plan will be to identify the barriers to creating more affordable housing for seniors.



Sub-Strategy IV-C: Farm Worker Housing

Objective Provide housing for migrant and settled farm workers in Sacramento County.

Intent Agriculture in Sacramento County provides less than two percent of total employment. Until the 1980s, the farm worker population had been constant. The State projects that farm workers will decline in numbers in Sacramento County over the next ten years as occurred during the 1990s and early 2000s. Two major reasons account for this decrease: 1) continued urbanization and divisions of land in the unincorporated area formerly used for agriculture, and 2) the increased use of machines for what was previously labor intensive farming activities.

Farm workers comprise two groups with distinct needs: migrant farm workers and permanent residents employed in agriculture. Migrant farm workers need seasonal housing during times of year in which their labor is required. Permanent residents employed in agriculture need the same type of housing as other workers, depending on their household composition and income.

The condition of permanent farm labor housing is difficult to determine due to difficulties in identifying those units occupied by farm laborers. The intent of this strategy is to ensure that migrant farm labor housing is maintained to provide healthy and safe living quarters, and to encourage agricultural producers to use various U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Services and other Federal, state, and local programs. This strategy is also intended to ensure that programs focused on increasing the supply of affordable housing includes housing affordable to farm worker families who are permanent residents of Sacramento County.

Sub- Strategy IV-D: Housing for the Homeless

Objective Reduce homelessness in Sacramento County through the provision of a continuum of affordable housing opportunities and comprehensive supportive services.

Intent Homelessness is a multifaceted problem that affects men, women and children of all ages and ethnicities; veterans; the disabled; and those who are employed. To address this problem, the County of Sacramento has developed a comprehensive Continuum of Care that offers emergency, transitional and permanent housing coupled with intensive, supportive and employment services that assists over 3,000 homeless men, women and children on a daily basis to resolve their homelessness. Despite this concerted effort to end homelessness in Sacramento County, there continues to be an unmet need for all levels of housing along the Continuum of Care.

To meet this on going need and to work to eliminate homelessness, the County of Sacramento will:

■ strongly advocate for, seek, and secure State and Federal funding for additional housing opportunities and supportive services for those who are homeless;



■ continue the long-standing partnership with, and support of, existing community organizations that provide services to those who are homeless;

■ work to ensure the Continuum of Care offers housing opportunities to all homeless persons, including the elderly and disabled; and

■ work with County residents to achieve greater acceptance of programs that serve the homeless in the communities and neighborhoods.

Sub-Strategy IV-E: Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Programs

Objective Ensure equal housing opportunities for all residents of Sacramento County.

Intent Equal access to housing plays an important role in maintaining Sacramento’s diversity. Discrimination in housing still exists in the County and limits the opportunities of many residents to rent or purchase decent, safe, and habitable housing. Groups that have been affected by discrimination actions include racial and ethnic minorities, families with children, persons with disabilities, and seniors. This strategy of the Housing Element advocates that actions resulting in illegal discrimination in the renting or sale of housing violates State and Federal laws and should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation. All discrimination complaints generated within the County should be referred to the Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission. Information will also be distributed in proper locations (i.e., community centers, apartment complexes and grocery stores) and printed in several different languages to inform the public of County policies on discrimination and methodology for reporting any violations.

Sub-Strategy IV-F: Housing Needs of Female Heads of Households

Objective Ensure adequate housing for families with female heads of households.

Intent Female heads of households have been steadily increasing in number and as a percentage of total households in the County of Sacramento. The majority of female-headed households consist of single women, many of whom are seniors, and women with children and no husband or father present. Female-headed households represent a special needs group because they have high rates of poverty or are low-income, often lack access to adequate child care and other supportive services for independent living, and frequently face discrimination in housing.

Sub-Strategy IV-G: Housing Needs of Large Households

Objective Provide adequate housing for large households.

Intent Large families (family households with five or more persons) increased from 10 to 12 percent of all households in Sacramento County between 1990 and 2000. Although most large families (60 percent) own homes, a significant percentage of



lower income large families cannot afford to purchase a home. These families are most likely to experience problems of overpayment and overcrowding since the supply of affordable rental housing with three or more bedrooms is limited. The intent of this strategy is to address the housing needs of large households by increasing the supply of assisted rental housing to meet the needs of large households, priority permit processing for residential projects containing three or more bedrooms, and priority in the selection of projects for local financial assistance.

Sub-Strategy IV-H: Increase the Supply of Affordable Rental Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households

Objective To achieve no net loss of existing rental housing affordable to extremely low-income households and to increase the number of affordable rental housing units.

Intent Most of the government assisted multifamily rental housing constructed in the early 1970s in Sacramento County was rent restricted for 30 years or less. Many of the Federal and State funding programs under which these units were constructed permitted property owners to pre-pay their loans, thereby “opting out” of the rental restrictions imposed by the subsidy program which funded their projects. Since the early 1990s, hundreds of affordable rental housing units have been lost in the unincorporated area (an exact count is difficult since records prior to the 1990s were not always precise). Over 581 additional subsidized rental housing units are at-risk of losing their rent restrictions over the next ten years. Such housing is in limited supply and represents a valuable resource that should be preserved, if possible.

The unincorporated area also has a large supply of older non-restricted rental housing units and mobile home park spaces that provide lower-cost housing for thousands of additional Sacramento County residents. These housing units should also be preserved for their affordability, if possible. Strategy III, Conservation and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing and Neighborhoods, addresses the affordability and condition of these older, non-rent restricted housing units.

Extremely-low-income households are also assisted through portable housing vouchers that pay the difference between a specified percentage of a participating household’s income and the gross rent (contract rent plus utilities) for an eligible rental unit, up to a pre-determined amount called the “fair market rent.”

The intent of this strategy is to preserve the affordability of subsidized rental housing for extremely low-income households, with the ideal of no net loss of such housing. The extent that a no net loss objective can be achieved will depend on the availability of State and Federal subsidies, and local incentives that Sacramento County can offer, to entice property owners to maintain rents on their units at levels affordable to lower income households. This strategy is also intended to increase affordable rental housing choices for special needs groups through expanded use of Federal rent subsidy programs.



HOUSING STRATEGY V: PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK AND PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Goal Ensure the availability of affordable housing for all households in Sacramento County.

Introduction A housing issue of equal concern to both public and private organizations is the supply of affordable housing for a growing workforce, senior population, and those with special needs. The private housing market cannot address these affordable housing needs without public direction, incentives, and financial assistance. Affordability is defined based on an acceptable percentage of income expended to obtain decent, safe and sanitary housing. The California Department of Housing and Community Development considers rental units to be affordable when the expenses associated with rent plus utilities are less than 30 percent of a household’s monthly gross income. Residential units that provide ownership are considered affordable if ownership expenses including principal, interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance do not exceed 30-35 percent of the gross monthly household income. Chapter 8, Housing Needs Assessment, concluded that the need for affordable housing has grown significantly over the past decade as the gap between the type and cost of housing produced and the housing needed by low- and moderate-income households has grown. Specifically, the County has found that:

Housing prices for new and existing homes outpaced gains in household income by over half, decreasing the percent of Sacramento County residents who can afford a median-priced home. Rents also increased rapidly between the late 1990s through 2001.

As indicators of rapid increases in housing costs during the late 1990s, the 2000 Census reported that overcrowding and overpayment among lower income households increased between 1990 and 2000.

Sacramento County will need to plan for, and accommodate, 15,160 new housing units between 2006 and 2013. Of these housing units, 37 percent (5,632 units) should be affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the Sacramento County median income and 18 percent (2,700 units) to households earning 80 to 120 percent of median income.

Family incomes have lagged compared to non-family households. Low-income families with children, especially large families, are at greatest risk of experiencing overcrowding and overpayment. Among family households, female-headed households with children are most at-risk of suffering these housing problems due their extremely low-incomes and high poverty rates.

The population 65 years and older increased by 25 percent in Sacramento County between 1990 and 2000 and could increase another 20 percent over the next decade. The County will need to accommodate additional housing with supportive services for seniors, affordable rental housing for low-income seniors, market rate housing designed for accessibility, and financial assistance in rehabilitating and modifying homes owned by seniors.



To address the affordability issue, this strategy seeks to utilize available public funds to leverage financing from private sources to support a variety of housing construction programs. Although state and local governments and private industry play important roles in the provision of assisted housing, federal funding of existing and/or new housing programs should be sought for the provision of affordable housing to address the needs of lower income households. Local government can also facilitate the provision of affordable housing by encouraging mixed use development, second unit dwellings, manufactured housing, co-housing opportunities and density bonus program. Local government can also facilitate the provision of affordable housing by requiring housing developers to fulfill the requirements of an affordable housing program such as Sacramento County has done since the previous Housing Element.

Sub-Strategy V-A: Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock

Objective Pursue federal, state, and local programs and funding sources that provide opportunities to preserve existing affordable housing stock.

Intent Paramount to the County’s ability to house lower income households is the maintenance of existing regulated units. Such units would include those financed with a variety of mortgage programs administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as those financed with low income housing tax credits and tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These units provide stable and reliable housing for lower income residents of the County, but most have regulatory requirements that last between 15 and 55 years. As those regulatory restrictions approach expiration, developer/owners must decide whether to continue offering affordable housing or to convert the units to market rate housing. It is the County’s intention to continue affordability restrictions and to encourage additional investment in the properties through “preservation”, refinancing and rehabilitation.

Sub-Strategy V-B: Utilization of Federal, State, and Local Programs for the Provision of Affordable Housing

Objective Pursue federal, state, and local programs and funding sources that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households.

Intent The County of Sacramento offers a comprehensive affordable housing program that assists in the financing of new construction of single-family and multifamily units for low- and moderate-income residents in the County. SHRA has been authorized by the County to implement housing programs on its behalf.

Many of the County’s affordable housing programs are driven by the availability of specific federal, state, and local funding sources. These federal, state, and local programs provide low-cost financing or subsidies for the production of low- and moderate-income housing. Each of these funding sources has its own housing goals and priorities, specific target population, application procedures, and varying availability of funds. Certain programs require an application and participation by the local public agency, such as SHRA, while other programs are for use by non-



profit housing agencies and housing authorities. The remaining programs require application and direct participation by a private developer. It is this patchwork of funding and the Agency’s aggressive pursuit of affordable housing goals that has largely driven the type and viability of affordable housing in Sacramento.

Sub-Strategy V-C: Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing

Objective Provide incentives to promote the construction of affordable housing units.

Intent State law requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives for the development of lower income housing. A density bonus allows more units to be built on a parcel than otherwise permitted by zoning if the developer commits to reserving a specified percentage of units for lower income households for a specified period of time and cost. Density bonus policies are also used to provide housing for the elderly. The State’s density bonus law formerly provided up to a 25 percent density increase if a residential project had 10 to 20 percent of its units being affordable. Few developers took advantage of this provision because of the relative high percentage of affordable housing required to receive a bonus.

Significant changes to the State law were made in 2004 through the passage of SB1818. One change was that the proportion of affordable units needed to obtain a density bonus depends on which income group the units are affordable to. Developments are eligible for a 20 percent density bonus if they contain:

■ Five percent of units affordable to very low-income households, or

■ Ten percent of units affordable to low-income households, or

■ Ten percent of units affordable to moderate-income households if all of the project’s units are for-sale units.

■ In addition, there is a sliding scale that increases the density bonus amount with additional affordable housing units. The density bonus cannot exceed 35 percent. The sliding scale allows:

■ An additional 2.5 percent density bonus for each additional increase of 1 percent very low-income units;

■ An additional 1.5 percent density bonus for each additional 1 percent increase in lower income units; and

■ An additional 1 percent density bonus for each 1 percent increase in moderate income units.

■ Another new provision is that projects with at least 35 units available for seniors are eligible for a 20 percent density bonus. The previous law required at least 50 percent of the project be available for seniors in order to be eligible to receive the bonus.



The County is currently applying the new version of the State’s density bonus law on new residential developments and disregarding the current Zoning Code provisions that are based on the old density bonus law. Amendments to the Zoning Code is needed in order make it consistent with State law.

Sub-Strategy V-D: Mixed Use Development in Infill Parcels, Commercial Corridors and Near Light Rail Stations in Order to Provide More Opportunities for Affordable Housing

Objective Utilize mixed use development to increase supply of housing stock.

Intent The County of Sacramento encourages integrated mixed use developments. The General Plan designations of Urban Transit-Oriented Development and Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development require mixed use configurations. Integrated mixed use configurations are also appropriate in areas designated as Low-Density, Medium-Density and High-Density Residential, Commercial and Office, and Industrial Intensive, according to the provisions of the Zoning Code. For example, multifamily development is allowable in combination with commercial construction in Business & Professional (BP), Limited Commercial (LC) and Shopping Center Commercial (SC) (although development plan review and/or a Conditional Use Permit may be required). Special Planning Areas (SPA’s) can be established throughout the unincorporated area to provide for a greater range of mixture of uses in an area than would be permitted in standard land use zones, as described in the Zoning Code. Special conditions and regulations, such as a list of permitted uses, performance and development requirements relating to yards, lot area, intensity of development on each lot, parking, landscaping and other design standards are defined in the SPA zones, as established by ordinance. Special Development Permits may also be issued for mixed use developments as a means to encourage creative and efficient land use, maximize the choice in type of environment, including housing, available to the area residents, and to provide economy in housing opportunities. Commercial corridors as delineated in the proposed General Plan will provide many opportunities for mixed use development.

Mixed use developments reduce the consumption of land and construction materials to accommodate the same level of urban development, provide additional space for housing construction, encourage a more efficient use of land and reduce commute trips for shopping, work, entertainment and etc. The intent of this strategy is to support the development of integrated mixed use configuration as a means to expand housing affordability opportunities. The mix of uses, such as office and residential in the same building, creates an expanded opportunity for the provision of affordable housing that would not have occurred under normal circumstances.

Sub-Strategy V-E: Accessory Dwelling Units

Objective Utilize residential accessory dwelling units to provide affordable housing for lower income households.



Intent Provisions in the Zoning Code permit residential accessory dwelling units in any zone (with the approval of a use permit unless specific criteria including unit size are met), when incidental to a primary residence and located on the same lot or parcel. Residential accessory dwelling units are an innovative and cost-effective means of providing affordable housing opportunities. Accessory units increase the overall density of an area, while maintaining a single-family residential character.

The intent of this strategy is to support the use of accessory dwelling units to provide affordable housing opportunities and to meet the increasing demand for a variety of housing types within the Sacramento area.

Sub-Strategy V-F: Alternative Housing Types

Objective Increase homeownership opportunities.

Intent In an effort to increase ownership options for low- and moderate-income households, the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency will pursue options for assisting individuals and organizations in establishing alternative types of ownership.

Sub-Strategy V-G: Condominium Conversion

Objective Limit the loss of rental units due to conversion activities.

Intent This strategy directs the County to monitor condominium conversion activities within the unincorporated area. A condominium conversion ordinance was adopted by the County with the intent of assuring that condominium conversion projects meet basic standards of safety, comfort and utility. The ordinance was also designed in recognition that condominium conversions may have negative impact on the supply of rental housing in the unincorporated area, and the potential displacement of County residents, primarily, the elderly, disabled and lower income residents. The ordinance prevents the removal of rental housing stock by denying conversions that would severely reduce the number of low- and moderate-income rental units.

For a multifamily rental housing project to convert to condominium ownership, the Zoning Code requires the following standards to be met:

■ The approval of a use permit application.

■ A property report describing the condition and estimation of the remaining useful life of each element of the structure, such as roofs, foundations, paint, insulation, and mechanical systems.

■ A structural pest control report.

■ A building history report identifying the date of construction.



■ A rental history report detailing the size, in square footage, of each housing unit and building; the current or last rental rate; the name and address of each present tenant; the monthly rental rate for the preceding three years of each unit; and the average monthly vacancy over the preceding three years.

■ A detailed report describing the relocation and moving assistance information to be given to each tenant and the steps the application will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant.

■ A survey of all tenants in the conversion project indicating how long each tenant had been a resident of the project, how long each tenant had planned to live in the project, whether or not each tenant would be interested in purchasing a unit, to which community area would each tenant choose to relocate if the conversion took place and the tenant did not purchase a unit, and the extent of tenant approval in-principle of the conversion. Included in this survey is an estimate of the sales price for each unit, not including inflation and adjustments that would take place during conversion.

Sub-Strategy V-H: Self-Help Housing

Objective Provision of affordable housing through “self-help” housing construction programs.

Intent The County shall support self-help or sweat equity housing construction programs that provide homeownership to lower income families, who earn their equity through their labor. Self-help housing programs organize and supervise groups of low-income people to build their own homes or use volunteers to assist in the construction of homes. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency finances land and predevelopment costs for self-help projects.

Sub-Strategy V-I: Affordable Housing Program

Objective To ensure that new residential developments include a percentage of housing units affordable to very low- and low-income households or make alternative provisions for such housing.

Intent Over the past decade, the supply of housing affordable to very low- and low-income households in the Sacramento unincorporated area has declined significantly. The intent of this strategy is to increase the supply of affordable housing in new residential developments through a mandatory program, and to promote economic integration through such a requirement. The program utilizes a land dedication approach whereby market-rate residential developers will dedicate entitled and improved land to the County. The County, in collaboration with SHRA will then work with builders who specialize in affordable residential development to construct the regulated affordable units. The program allows in-lieu fees for small projects and other projects on a case-by-case basis in the event that suitable sites are not available within the market-rate residential project. The program also permits the market-rate residential developer to construct the affordable units or collaborate directly with a builder who specializes in affordable residential projects.



Sub-Strategy V-J: Locating Multiple-Family Projects Near Services

Objective To ensure that new multiple-family projects are located near existing and proposed services.

Intent Multifamily projects usually have higher proportion of senior citizens, single mothers, and large families than single-family developments. These are groups that tend to have lower incomes than the general population. Car ownership rates also tend to be lower for these groups because of the high cost of car ownership and/or the inability to drive (seniors, disabled). Because of the lower car ownership rates, it is important to have nearby services to be available for multifamily residents. These services include grocery stores and other retail services, schools, parks, community centers, day care and medical facilities. Transit service is crucial when there is a lack of any of these facilities nearby.

The County is responsible for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. For this reason the County should strive through its land use decisions to have multifamily projects be located near essential services.

Sub-Strategy V-K: New Funding Sources for Provision of Affordable Housing

Objective Identify additional funding sources to facilitate affordable housing construction.

Intent The need to generate additional funding sources to finance the construction of affordable housing have been growing in importance due to diminishing public funds, the lack of full subsidy to implement viable programs and the increasing reliance of local contribution to finance affordable housing projects. Although the County has established a housing trust fund, financed through fees imposed on commercial development, there is still a lack of adequate local resources to address the housing needs of the County. Traditional funding sources, such as Federal HOME funds, have fallen short in supplementing those needs. This strategy advocates for the creation of new funding sources for the County Housing Trust Fund. Additional funding sources recommended under this strategy include programs that have been successfully implemented by other jurisdictions.

HOUSING STRATEGY VI: PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL RESIDENTS

Goal Improve the health and safety of Sacramento County’s residents.

Introduction Recent statistics indicate that 53 percent of Californians fail to meet recommended guidelines for physical activity, putting them at high risk for illness and premature death. Limited physical activity is a primary risk factor for heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease – five of the top ten causes of death in California. It is also a primary risk factor for being overweight,



which now affects two-thirds of the adult population in California. Obesity, an advanced state of overweight, has reached epidemic proportions, now affecting more than 20 percent of adults in California. Medical experts agree that overweight and obesity increases the risk for a number of health hazards, including heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, and some cancers. The economic impact of overweight and obesity, including their influence on chronic disease prevalence, reaches $21.68 billion a year in California, including $10.2 billion in medical care, $11.2 billion in lost employee productivity, and $338 million in worker’s compensation costs.

The economic impact of obesity is also reflected in County General Fund expenditures. For example, in calendar year 2007, visits to County health clinics by County residents with diabetes and no health insurance cost the County $367,470, not including the cost of inpatient care, specialty services, overhead, or treatment for conditions that resulted from diabetes. More than 90 percent of diabetes in County residents is Type 2, which is generally linked to overweight.

In regards to public safety, fear of assault is a major reason people choose not to walk, use public transit, use recreational facilities, or allow their children to play outside. While many variables influence violence and crime in communities, aspects of the physical environment can be designed to discourage street crime.

The County is responsible for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and has the ability to do so through implementation of land use and transportation plans, policies, and programs to meet the needs of its communities. The built environment and land use decisions play an important role in shaping the pattern of community development and in either promoting or discouraging physical activity, nutritious food choices, and street safety.

Sub-Strategy VI-A: Promote Health through Community Design

Objective Master plans, residential developments and mixed use developments that are designed so as to promote the health of its residents.

Intent An emerging body of research points to community design as a contributing factor to the increased overweight and chronic disease rates over the past few decades. The overall picture is that when residential areas are low-density and segregated from commercial and employment areas, residents are forced to use private automobiles to travel the long distances between home and their daily destinations. This contributes to a sedentary lifestyle and health problems including those described above. The connections are illustrated by the following:

1. People living in automobile-oriented, single use areas are half as likely to get 30 or more minutes of daily exercise than those who live in highly walkable, mixed use communities (where residential, commercial, and office land uses are located near each other).

2. Unhealthy eating habits are primary risk factor for five of the top ten causes of death in California. Meanwhile, the state has four times as many “unhealthy” food outlets (e.g., fast food chains, restaurants, and convenience stores) as “healthy” food outlets (supermarkets, produce vendors, and farmer’s



markets). The result is neighborhoods that lack places where residents can buy fresh fruits and vegetables and other healthy foods. Residents in communities with a more “imbalanced food environment” (where fast food and corner stores are more convenient than grocery stores) have more health problems and higher mortality than residents of areas with a higher percentage of grocery stores, when other factors are held constant.

3. Polluted air is a primary trigger for asthma attacks and a major cause of asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, leukemia, and other illnesses. Between 2001 and 2005, the adult asthma rate increased by 12 percent in California, and the childhood asthma rate increased by 15 percent. Motor vehicles are the principal contributors of air pollution in Sacramento County. Vehicle exhaust includes gases that contribute to the formation of ozone, which damages the tissues of the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation. Particulate matter, another component of vehicle exhaust, is linked to cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and premature deaths.

Sub-Strategy VI-B: Promote Safety Through Community Design

Objective Discourage crime by applying certain design principles and techniques.

Intent Violence is a significant threat in some neighborhoods, while fear of violence causes great stress and deteriorates the pedestrian/bicycle environment. Better design can reduce the opportunity for (and fear of) street crimes.

HOUSING STRATEGY VII: PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY AND IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY

Goal Promote and implement standards that conserve energy in new and existing homes.

Introduction Keys goals of sustainable development and smart growth are to reduce the impacts of development on the environment, conserve natural resources, reduce air pollution, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect human health. The County’s proposed General Plan and this Housing Element encourage the implementation of many of the sustainable development and smart growth principles that will result in the attainment of the key goals. In addition, the County’s proposed General Plan and this Housing Element encourage the control of rising energy costs.

The byproduct of carbon-based energy production and consumption is air pollution. Air pollution is a major public health concern in California, particularly in the Sacramento Region. The Sacramento Region is currently designated as non-attainment for the one-hour Federal ozone standard, as well as the more stringent State ozone standard. Air pollution can cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. In addition to health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative impacts on our quality of life.



Sub-Strategy VII-A: Promote the Efficient Use of Energy and Reduce the Long-Term Operational Cost of Housing

Objective Reduce home energy usage by increasing energy efficiency.

Intent Energy is essential to maintaining the Sacramento Region’s existing quality of life and economic development and sustainability. The primary sources of energy in Sacramento County are electricity from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and gas from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E). At present, the Sacramento Region is dependent to some extent upon the importation of natural gas to produce electricity locally as well as the importation of electricity produced outside the region.

Reducing demand for electricity and natural gas is an important step to help meet the growing energy needs of the region. Purposeful planning of the type and amount of energy that will be used in the residential building sector is an essential strategy in reducing energy demands. Energy consumption can be reduced through the increase in energy efficiency, resulting in lower energy costs to the County’s residents. It is the County’s intent to promote energy efficiency early in the planning stages and consistently throughout the entitlement process.

PART 2: DESCRIPTION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

The following section describes policies and programs that will implement the goals and objectives of the strategies and sub-strategies listed in the previous section. Each of the programs described designates one or more responsible County agencies, the techniques that will be used to implement and/or promote the program, a timeline for implementation, one or more funding sources, and the anticipated objective to be achieved. Many of the programs contained in this section, including most of the programs for the rehabilitation, construction, and preservation of affordable housing, will be implemented by County departments or joint County-Sacramento City agencies other than the Department of Planning and Community Development. The various divisions, departments, and joint agencies are part of the County’s governmental structure or serve as instruments of the County. To effectively implement the Housing Element, one agency must oversee and coordinate the actions of these divisions, departments, and joint agencies. The Planning and Community Development Department is the lead agency pursuant to state housing regulations and therefore responsible for monitoring implementation of the Housing Element.

To implement the Housing Element, the Planning and Community Development Department will designate staff who will be responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Housing Element. This staff will meet with representatives of other County agencies, track the implementation of the programs in this chapter, report on progress and problems in implementation, and recommend revisions to implementation measures and techniques to improve the achievement of program objectives. The designated staff will meet with representatives of the various County divisions, departments, and joint County-City agencies as needed, but no less than annually, to review implementation progress and identify solutions to implementation problems.



As part of its role in coordinating the implementation of housing programs, the Planning and Community Development Department will also maintain links to the websites of other agencies responsible for implementation (such as SHRA and the Department of Health and Human Services) and provide referrals at the Department’s public counter to these other agencies.

HOUSING STRATEGY I: ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LAND FOR HOUSING (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-3)

Sub-Strategy I-A: Adequate Land for Housing (Description: PG. 3-3) Policy HE-1. The County will provide an adequate supply of land for housing affordable to all income groups with public services and facilities needed to facilitate the development of housing to accommodate projected housing needs based on the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan.

Programs HE-1(a): As part of the General Plan’s Annual Monitoring Process, the County will review the allocation of residential and agricultural-residential land in the Land Use Element in relation to projected demand for housing and, if appropriate, identify and rezone more land to ensure that adequate land continues to be available to meet the County’s assigned share under the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department.

Funding: County General Fund.

Objectives: Annually monitor, and periodically review, the allocation of residential land to ensure adequate supply for future housing development for all income groups.

Target Date: Annual monitoring program.

HE-1(b): Throughout the current Housing Element planning period, the Planning Department shall generate, and make available for public inspection and copying, reports of the inventory of sites, and provide a copy of such reports to housing providers and other interested parties. Each report shall identify changes to the inventory by parcel number, acreage, zoning and project number, and shall provide a summary of any additions or losses to the inventory. The County will design a tracking system that provides biannual updating of the inventory as development activity occurs, allowing the Department to produce update reports upon request.

The County will promote the availability of the sites’ inventory, particularly sites for low and very low income uses, by posting the inventory on the County’s website, notifying public and private entities that have constructed affordable housing in Sacramento County within the prior five-year period, and making copies of the inventory available at the Planning and Community Development Department’s public counter. The site inventory will note those properties that can be developed within the current Housing Element planning period in consideration of the existence, or likely availability, of public facilities and



services and the existence of environmental constraints or other physical characteristics affecting development potential.



Objective: Inventory monitoring and make available inventory information.

Target Date: Ongoing 2008–2013. The first report will be available to the public on August 1, 2009.

HE-1(c): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions that encourage multifamily and mixed use developments in the LC and SC zones at appropriate locations, subject to development plan review, with the approving authority determined by the number of dwelling units and conformance with applicable development standards and any future design review process. To ensure that an inventory of adequate sites is maintained in the unincorporated area according to Policy HE-1, the County will encourage LC- and SC-zoned properties to be developed with multifamily housing or a mix of multifamily housing and commercial uses. The County will provide regulatory and financial incentives to encourage housing in LC and SC zones as described in program HE-4(c). The County will also continue to apply inclusionary housing requirements to residential and mixed use projects on LC and SC zoned properties according to policy HE-52. Finally, it has been determined that over 21 percent of vacant LC and SC land has been developed with residential projects between 2003 and 2007. Based on these policies and current market trends, the County will assume for the purposes of the Vacant Land Inventory, Chapter 6 of this Housing Element that up to 25 percent of LC and SC sites will be developed with multifamily housing or mixed use projects.



Objective: 25 percent of vacant LC and SC sites to be used for multifamily or mixed use projects.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013.

HE-1(d): The County will continue to permit multiple family dwellings as a matter of right, subject only to development plan and/or design review to assure compliance with appropriate development standards in RD-15, RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40, LC and SC zones.


Funding: County General Fund and Application Fees.

Objective: Encourage the construction of multifamily uses in appropriate zones while allowing for review of the quality and design of such uses.



Target Date: Ongoing, 2008−2013.

HE-1(e): The County, in adopting infrastructure financing plans for any new growth areas, shall consider housing affordability and the need to identify and retain sites designated as multifamily in Specific and Comprehensive Plans. This will be in addition to other criteria established by the Municipal Services Agency, in the imposition and spreading of infrastructure costs and in the structuring of the payment of such costs. Specifically, such financing plans shall consider how fees and debt can best be imposed in compliance with State law and encourage retention of multifamily property and to foster housing affordability.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department; Infrastructure Finance.

Funding: County General Fund, developer fees and contributions.

Objective: Assure adequate infrastructure and services for sites in the County’s residential land inventory.


HE-1(f): The County through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) shall report to the State Housing and Community Development Department on the financing and construction timeline for the three preservation and one conversion projects, detailed in Programs HE-13(b),13(c),13(d) and 41(d) and used to fulfill the Alternative Adequate Sites Program.

Responsibility: SHRA.


Objective: Ensure compliance with State Government Code Section 65583.1(c)(4).

Target Date: July 1, 2010.

Policy HE-2. The County will preserve the supply of sites zoned for multifamily housing.

Programs HE-2(a): The County will preserve the supply of multifamily land needed to accommodate the County’s housing allocation for lower income housing under the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan, and to implement Policy HE-1, by not allowing multifamily-designated land to be developed for other land uses, unless certain findings can be made. This is to be consistent with State Government Code Section 65863 “No Net Loss Provision”. The findings are:

1. Other land can be designated to accommodate an equivalent amount of multifamily housing units at a comparable density, or

2. The County makes a finding that such land is not needed to accommodate the remaining SACOG allocation for households earning 80 percent or less of the



Sacramento County median income at the time of application for the proposed use, or

3. The County identifies one or more other strategies to accommodate lower income housing units equal in number to the number the County determines are developable on the proposed site. Other strategies may include, but are not limited to:

■ Identification of sites suitable for re-use or redevelopment that have equivalent development potential within the planning period covered by the Housing Element.

■ Identification of financial subsidies that can assist in the construction of an equivalent number of housing units affordable to lower income households.



Objective: Preserve the supply of multifamily zoned land to accommodate the County’s lower income housing needs.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013; biannually update inventory of multifamily sites.

HE-2(b): The County will adopt master plans, including specific and comprehensive plans, which provide a variety of residential densities, including those densities that support multifamily housing. The Planning and Community Development Department will propose that a minimum percentage of the proposed dwelling units in specific and comprehensive plans be developed at a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre (this will not be applied plans adopted prior to December 2008 or to the Florin Vineyard Comprehensive Plan). Subsequent rezoning will allow this minimum percentage of units to develop at 20 dwelling units or more per acre.


Funding: County General Fund, developer fees and contributions.

Objective: Adopt the Florin Vineyard Comprehensive Plan which provides a variety of residential densities, including those that support multifamily housing.

Support specific plans in the Jackson Highway corridor which will provide a variety of residential densities, including those that allow multifamily housing.

Propose a minimum percentage of the proposed dwelling units in specific and comprehensive plans be developed at a density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre.

Target Date: July 2011.



Sub-Strategy I-B: Inventory of Surplus Land (Description: PG. 3-4) Policy HE-3. Utilize appropriate surplus federal, state and County land within Sacramento County for affordable housing development.

Program HE-3(a): The Planning and Community Development Department, with assistance from the Department of Facility Planning, Architecture and Real Estate; shall develop and maintain a system for inventorying available surplus land and evaluating the suitability for affordable housing production. The County shall make that list available to interested public and private agencies that provide affordable housing. The County will consult with affordable housing providers to develop appropriate criteria for use in evaluating the suitability of sites for affordable housing and the development potential of such sites. The County will also identify and initiate needed regulatory changes to make such sites available for affordable housing development. The County will post the site inventory on its website and notify affordable housing providers of the availability of the site inventory.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Department of Facility Planning, Architecture and Real Estate.


Objectives: Complete inventory and list of surplus federal, state and County lands. Post the list on the Planning and Community Development Department website when inventory is completed and notify affordable housing providers.

Target Date: December 2010.

Sub-Strategy I-C: Use of Infill and Underutilized Sites (Description: PG. 3-4) Policy HE-4. Promote and facilitate the build-out of vacant and underutilized urban land through infill, reuse, and redevelopment activities, as appropriate, for housing including:

■ Support for a variety of housing types on vacant sites suitable for urban infill, in both residential only and mixed use developments.

■ Reuse of older commercial and retail properties, industrial and business office parks, and excess surface parking areas of neighborhood and community strip malls and commercial centers, to allow additional residential development within the existing urban area.

■ Ensure that infill development in the commercial corridors is consistent with the principles of the Blueprint Preferred Alternative. Such development shall include a variety of mixed uses, including medium to high density residential. Medium and high density residential development (as defined in the General



Plan) shall be encouraged along the commercial corridors, especially in areas within ½ mile of planned BRT or near light rail.

■ Provide incentives to encourage the development or reuse of infill lots, particularly in commercial corridors.

■ Within and adjacent to these higher density residential and mixed use sites, locate and develop additional parcels that are walkable, consistent with smart growth and sustainable communities’ principles (as defined by the County), including necessary physical and services infrastructure and amenities (i.e., sewer, parks, schools, retail, grocery, transit).

■ Complete Commercial Corridor and Transit Area Plans and Master EIR documents, defining land uses and densities to the greatest extent feasible, in order to expedite the development or redevelopment of infill lots. Include at a minimum a Financing Strategy, and preferably a Community Facilities District or similar Corridor Finance Plan in each Corridor Plan to identify public and private funding for needed infrastructure and incentives for development.

■ Develop a public education program specific to infill development to increase the public acceptance of quality residential and mixed use infill development.

Programs HE-4(a): The County will continue to fund an Infill Coordinator Position. The Infill Coordinator will develop and direct an infill development program. The primary responsibilities of this program will be:

■ Define what quality infill is.

■ Identify constraints and barriers to quality infill development.

■ Develop County-wide strategies and policies to minimize and where possible remove those constraints.

■ Develop and provide incentives for quality infill projects. [See Program HE-4 (c)]

■ Develop an outreach program for the County’s residents and hearing bodies that will help to educate them on the benefits of a quality infill project. [See Program HE-4 (h)]

■ Form a project “response team” that will work together to identify infrastructure challenges, coordinate construction of needed infrastructure in targeted areas and serve as a coordination/response team to identified key infill projects. [See Program HE-4 (i)]

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Municipal Services Agency.


Objectives: Continue to fund an Infill Coordinator position.



Target Date: The Infill Program has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors in May 2008. The accompanying policy document “Infill Program and Principles” defines what quality infill is, identifies constraints and barriers to quality infill development and contains County-wide strategies and principles to minimize and remove constraints to infill. There is an infill coordinator at the principal planner level.

HE-4(b): The County will develop an inventory of parcels that remain vacant or underutilized and are suitable for residential and/or mixed use development. The County will use computer-assisted analysis to locate urban infill and reuse parcels and provide an inventory of sites by acreage, condition, and development suitability. The inventory will provide information such as size, zoning, physical characteristics, and availability for development. The County will distribute the inventory to developers and post the inventory on the County’s website. With the parcel inventory list, an existing conditions infrastructure map within identified commercial corridors (initially 3 corridors plus the Folsom Boulevard Transit Area Plans) will be provided in order to facilitate development. The County will promote the availability of the inventory and the map through one or more development industry associations in order to encourage public/private partnerships.



Objectives: Develop an inventory of vacant infill, reuse and redevelopment parcels. Develop an existing conditions infrastructure map within identified commercial corridors and transit areas.


HE-4(c): The County will increase the provision of financial incentives for developing infill projects. An infill project would be required to meet two of three conditions to be eligible for incentives provided by the Infill Program. The conditions are as follows:

• The project is located in a commercial corridor, transit area planning area or transit oriented development.

• The project “itself” stimulates economic and social benefits to the community.

• It is a “Quality” project. A “Quality” project must meet all of the following.

o A development, redevelopment or reuse of a vacant or underutilized buildings and/or sites that is surrounded by urban uses. If present, it should eliminate blight and other conditions that deteriorate neighborhoods.

o Consistency with the County’s design guidelines and Infill Program and Principles.



o Enhances and makes positive contribution to the surrounding neighborhood.

o Consistency with the County General Plan.

o Close to transit (within ½ mile), or designated by Regional Transit as having transit available within the near future.

Current incentives include: pursuing grants (i.e. Prop 1C Grants, SACOG Community Design Grants), use of sewer credits, and tiered fee schedules (lower fees for infill projects). New incentives could include a different set of improvement standards for infill areas and projects, use of deferred improvement agreements for certain frontage and site improvements, amending deferred fee agreements in order to be less onerous for developers, creative use of funds and resources to reduce certain development costs, pre-approved residential plans [see Program HE-4(j)] and use of Smart Growth Incentive Measure A funds.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Municipal Services Agency.


Objectives: Increase the type and the amount of financial incentives for infill projects.


HE-4(d): The County will amend the Zoning Code or provide for in the new Development Code a mixed use zone. This mixed use zone will permit mixed use development including both vertical and horizontal mixture of uses. This zone provides for a variety of alternative housing types such as: single and multiple-family attached and detached, “pull apart” housing and co-housing, street-oriented ground floor commercial uses, generally with residential uses above, but allowing for office/retail and live/work or other combinations in select locations (especially in the commercial corridors). [Same as HE-46(a)]



Objectives: Amend the Zoning Code to establish a mixed use zone.


HE-4(e): The County will adopt a new Development Code, or form based codes or districts/special planning areas (SPA’s) to facilitate medium to high density residential and mixed use development within the commercial corridor areas. Form based codes allow for flexibility in uses, sets appropriate minimum densities and development standards while prohibiting certain uses that may have a detrimental effect on desirable uses for the district or SPA. Design standards are an important feature of form based codes. These districts or SPA’s would be consistent with principles of smart growth and sustainable communities in their design and function, as defined by the County. [Same as Programs HE-9(a) and HE-47(b)]





Objectives: Adopt form based codes or districts/SPA’s.

Target Date: January 2010.

HE-4(f): The County will adopt the final Florin Road, North Watt Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard Commercial Corridor Plans (and other corridor plans as they are completed) that will allow: a variety of housing types, reuse of older commercial, retail and industrial sites, and conversion of excess parking areas of older shopping centers to residential or mixed use. There will be at a minimum a Financing Strategy, and preferably a Community Facilities District or similar Corridor Finance Plan in each Corridor Plan to identify public and private funding for needed infrastructure and incentives for development. In addition, the County will adopt the Transit Area Plans for the Folsom Boulevard Corridor to support higher intensities and appropriate uses to support Transit-Oriented Development adjacent to the Light Rail Stations. These plans will be consistent with the Blueprint Preferred Alternative Plan, as well as consistent with principles of smart growth and sustainable communities in their design and function, as defined by the County.


Funding: County General Funds.

Objectives: Adopt the Florin Road, North Watt Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard Commercial Corridor Plans, the Transit Area Plans for the Folsom Boulevard Corridor, and other plans as they progress.

Target Date: Ongoing, in conjunction with commercial corridor studies and transit area plans, 2008–2013.

HE-4(g): The County will provide public education promoting the importance and benefits of quality infill as well as the benefits and principles of smart growth and sustainable communities. In striving to gain community acceptance of residential or other infill projects, the County shall facilitate community education by:

■ Preparing, conducting and presenting Power Point presentations to Community Planning Advisory Councils (CPAC’s), Community Planning Councils (CPC’s), Planning Commissions, community groups and organizations visually showing and educating the community on the goals and benefits of infill development.

■ Listening and responding to their concerns.

■ Ensuring high quality and safe design.

■ Include this type of development model into community visioning efforts occurring throughout the County in association with: general plan outreach, commercial corridor plans and other appropriate special planning outreach efforts underway.



The Planning Department and the Infill Coordinator will identify key, quality infill projects that set the standard for quality infill throughout the County and use this as a model of what the County seeks to achieve with infill projects.



Objectives: Increase the understanding and awareness of a greater regional need in the County to not “grow the development footprint.” Reduce NIMBYism and increase acceptance of quality infill projects as they are brought before the community for input.


HE-4(h): The County will increase opportunities for neighbors and community members to provide input on infill development projects. In gaining community acceptance of residential infill projects, the community needs to be informed and involved in the process. This involves:

■ Educating the community on the goals and benefits of infill as well as the associated benefits of smart growth and sustainable communities.

■ Listening and responding to their concerns.

■ Ensuring high quality and safe design.

The Planning Department and the Infill Coordinator will identify key, quality infill projects that set the standard for quality infill throughout the County and work with the community to gain input and acceptance of these projects and where appropriate, partner with community advocates supportive of quality infill principles.



Objectives: Attain neighborhood and community acceptance of quality residential or mixed use infill projects through a public outreach process developed by the Infill Coordinator.


HE-4(i): In order to facilitate quality infill projects through the entire development process and in recognition of the difficulty and challenges of infill, the County will develop an Infill Response Team that will be overseen by the Infill Coordinator. This team will facilitate the development of quality infill projects, including residential and mixed use projects and will be comprised of key personnel from the departments and agencies involved in project review and development. Infill facilitating will include:



■ Development of new policies and changes to administrative procedures that support infill.

■ Provide a higher level of coordination where infrastructure issues need resolution.

■ Help to leverage agency resources (best use of staff, funding, project scheduling to deliver a priority project).

■ Decide on what projects will be given priority status and the necessary special handling, resources and funding to insure that other projects are not slowed down.

■ Additionally the Infill Coordinator will be staff to the Infill Council comprised of the Deputy Agency Administrator, Planning Director, Transportation Director, DERA Director, County Engineering Director, Economic Development Director and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. This Council will assist and advise the Coordinator in facilitating the infill program and infill projects, and deciding on what projects will be given priority status and the necessary special handling and resources.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Municipal Services Agency, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objectives: Develop and Infill Response Team and an Infill Council.


HE-4(j): The Planning and Community Development Department will develop a technical assistance program to assist landowners or developers in designing a house for infill properties by utilizing “ready made” plans. A fee for these plans will accompany this program.



Objectives: Develop a technical assistance program to assist applicants in designing a house for infill properties.


HOUSING STRATEGY II: REDUCTION OF CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-5)

Sub-Strategy II-A: Reduction in Permit Processing Times (Description: PG. 3-6)



Policy HE-5. The County shall reduce uncertainty, risk, and delay in the planning, environmental, and permitting process.

Programs HE-5(a): The County will continue to consult with housing providers as part of an ongoing process to evaluate development approval timelines and to identify process improvements. The consultation process will be coordinated by the Planning and Community Development Department and will consist of annual meetings with housing providers to evaluate development approval procedures and timelines, and to provide recommendations for improvements. Staff will propose amendments to the Zoning Code based on these annual meetings.


Funding: Application Processing Fees and County General Funds.

Objective: Reduce uncertainty, risk, and delay in the planning, environmental, and permitting process.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013. County staff will meet with housing providers during July 2009 and will meet every July thereafter.

HE-5(b): The County shall continue its streamlining program which involves County staff and private industry representatives. The goal of this program is to help move customers from project concept to occupation smoothly while meeting the County's regulatory responsibilities. The first phase of changes included establishing turn around times for improvement plans and building permits, and improving communication with applicants.



Objective: Reduce uncertainty, risk, and delay in the planning, environmental, and permitting process.


HE-5(c): As part of the Development Code update, the County will review its criteria and decision-making authority for conditional use permits to clarify and streamline the approval process.



Objective: Reduce uncertainty, risk, and delay in the conditional use permit application process.




HE-5(d): The County shall continue to take steps to reduce delays in the evaluation of affordable housing projects. Examples of these steps include: applying targeted timelines for the planning, environmental and public review process; continuing the project manager approach to managing applications to ensure accountability by County staff; ensuring that project managers do not carry an excessively heavy load of projects; ensuring that routine projects are reviewed at the lowest hearing level possible; and use best efforts to schedule projects within 60-days of completion of a staff report.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Neighborhood Services Department.

Funding: Application Processing Fees and County General Fund.

Objective: Reduce delays in the approval of affordable housing projects.


HE-5(e): The County will prepare Master Environmental Impact Reports for commercial corridor plans. This will facilitate the expeditious environmental review of individual project applications within commercial corridors.

Responsibility: Department of Environmental Review and Assessment, Planning and Community Development Department.

Funding: Application Processing Fees.

Objective: Reduce delays in the environmental review of development proposals within commercial corridors.

Target Date: Ongoing, in conjunction with commercial corridor studies, 2008–2013.

HE-5(f): The County will include in its new Development/Zoning Code and as part of specific Commercial Corridor Plans a procedure that will grant general, rather than case-specific, administrative authority to the Planning Director to grant minor modifications from a variety of development standards for projects that are in commercial corridors. For example, a modification allowing 1 or 2 fewer parking spaces out of 100, or allowing an applicant to encroach an extra 12 inches into a 10-foot setback.


Funding: County General Fund, Application Fees.

Objective: Allow limited flexibility from development standards through administrative review and reduce processing times.


HE-5(g): The County will include in its new Development/Zoning Code and in Commercial Corridor Plans a procedure that will grant general, rather than case-



specific, administrative authority to the Chief Land Surveyor to grant minor modifications from a variety of development standards for projects that are in commercial corridors. For example, a modification allowing for rolled sidewalks and attached curbs where it is already in place and a master plan for another improvement plan does not exist, or allowing an applicant to eliminate a driveway where other access exists promoting safer walk-ability for pedestrians.

Responsibility: Land Division and Site Improvement Review (LDSIR), Planning and Community Development Department.


Objective: Allow limited flexibility from development and improvement standards through administrative review and reduce processing times, and ultimately overall development costs.

Target Date: Ongoing 2010.

HE-5(h): The County will allow flexibility regarding appropriate review level for multifamily projects. Development plan reviews for a multifamily project will require approval of the Project Planning Commission if it exceeds the unit threshold for the multifamily project’s category. Projects that do not meet the threshold will be reviewed by the Planning Director.

• A Category 1 multifamily project is a project that has at least 60% of its perimeter adjacent to properties having zoning that allows residential densities of 5 units or less per acre. Category 1 multifamily projects that have more than 80 units will need approval by the Planning Commission.

• A Category 2 multifamily project is a project that has at least 60% of its perimeter adjacent to properties having zoning that allows residential densities between 7 and 15 units per acre. Category 2 multifamily projects that have more than 140 units will need approval by the Planning Commission.

• A Category 3 multifamily project is a project that has at least 60% of its perimeter adjacent to properties having zoning that allows residential densities of more than 15 units per acre, mixed used zoning, commercial zoning and/or industrial zoning. Category 3 multifamily projects that have more than 200 units will need approval by the Planning Commission.

Adjacent properties do not include public or private streets.


Funding: Application Fees.

Objective: Allow flexibility in regards to appropriate review level based on the project’s community context.

Target Date: June, 2010.



Policy HE-6: Sacramento County shall target 45–60 days from the submission of a complete application as a maximum review time for multifamily projects that require staff level Development Plan Review. The Planning and Community Development Department shall provide expedited review, with no additional charge, for projects in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to very low- and low-income households, as certified by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Program HE-6(a): The County will implement a certification program through Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to expedite review of affordable residential projects. Certification will be provided for SHRA financed residential projects in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to extremely low-, very low- and/or low-income households.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: None.

Objective: Reduce the time and cost impact of discretionary permits on affordable and special needs housing.


Sub-Strategy II-B: Review of Development Standards (Description: PG. 3-7)

Policy HE-7. The County will encourage flexibility in density for residential projects.

Programs HE-7(a): The County will amend the Commercial Use Tables in the Zoning Code to eliminate an upper limit on density in commercial zones. The limit is currently 80 units per acre. A use permit will still be required for projects that have a density of over 20 units per acre in commercial zones.



Objective: Encourage higher density residential development in commercial zones than is currently allowed.


HE-7(b): The County will amend the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in density for the RD-20 zoning category. A range of densities will be allowed for this zoning category with a maximum density of 22 dwelling units per acre.





Objective: Encourage higher density residential development in the RD-20 zone.


Policy HE-8. The County will encourage flexibility in parking standards for residential projects. Parking requirements for certain types of residential projects will be reduced.

Programs HE-8(a): The County will use on-street parking to count toward overall parking standards where appropriate conditions exist, such as through site plans that create a fine-grained residential street pattern. This change would define prescribed circumstances, taking into account localized conditions, under which on-street parking could be counted toward parking standards through the administerial process.



Objective: Reduce on-site parking requirements by allowing on-street parking to count toward required parking.


HE-8(b): The County Planning and Community Development Department will propose to reduce parking standards for affordable units in multiple-family projects. The parking standards may be adjusted based on studies that document the car ownership rates of seniors and lower income families.



Objective: Reduce parking requirements for affordable dwelling units.

Target Date: June 2010.

Policy HE-9. Support the flexibility of development standards, or flexibility within the adopted development ordinances, to accommodate residential projects that are unique or provide special housing arrangements, including affordable housing for lower income households.

Programs HE-9(a): The County will adopt a new Development Code, or form based codes or districts/special planning areas (SPA’s) to facilitate medium to high density residential and mixed use development. Form based codes allow for flexibility in uses, densities and development standards while prohibiting certain uses that will have a detrimental effect on desirable uses for the district or SPA. Design standards are an important feature of form based codes. These districts or SPA’s



would be consistent with principles of smart growth and sustainable communities in their design and function, as defined by the County. [Same as Programs HE-4(e) and HE-46(b)]



Objective: Adopt form based codes or districts/SPA’s.


HE-9(b): The County will adopt the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines which will apply to residential projects at densities of eight units per acre and higher, including attached and detached homes. The emphasis will be on quality design and less emphasis on strict development standards. The Guidelines will focus on design elements adjacent to single-family development, rather than large setbacks. [Same as Program HE-23(a)]

Responsibility: County Planning and Community Development, Board of Supervisors.

Funding: Application Processing Fees, County General Funds.

Objective: Adopt the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines.


HE-9(c): During pre-application meetings and the initial project review process, encourage residential developers to apply for Special Development Permits or use other regulatory or incentive programs of the County (such as density bonuses and mixed use incentives in commercial LC and SC zones) that would allow flexibility in zoning and subdivision development standards to accommodate unique residential projects, where appropriate. The County will amend Section 305-14 of the existing Multiple-Family Development Standards to eliminate the reference to "exceptions" and instead focus on "Alternative Design". When it is determined that the project does not meet the required Zoning Code development standards, the applicant may make application for a Special Development Permit for an alternative design to be heard by the appropriate authority.



Objective: Issuance of Special Development Permits that focus on alternative design as a mechanism to ensure flexibility in development standards requirements contained in Zoning and Subdivision ordinances.


Sub-Strategy II-C: Review Residential Development and Permit Fees (Description: PG. 3-7)



Policy HE-10. Balance “full cost recovery” for planning and environmental review with the need to maintain reasonable fees that impact housing affordability.

Program HE-10(a): The County will consult with both for-profit and non-profit homebuilders prior to increasing planning and environmental review permit fees to determine the potential impact of fee increases on housing costs. The County will submit proposed fee increases to homebuilders and affordable housing providers for review and comment in advance of Board of Supervisor action.



Objective: Periodically review application processing and infrastructure fee schedules and mitigate the cost impact of fees.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013 (As fee schedules are revised).

Policy HE-11: The County will defer and/or waive development impact fees for residential projects that have at least a minimum number of housing units on site that are affordable to very low- and low-income households, as certified by Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency up to the approved annual quota of the number of units.

Programs HE-11(a): The County will continue to issue waivers for very low income units for development impact fees for residential developments in which at least 10 percent of the total units are affordable to very low-income households and on which affordability restrictions are subject to long-term (30 year or greater) regulatory agreements as certified by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency in accordance with the Affordable Housing Fee Waiver Program. Annually, the County will provide the greater of waivers for 200 units or 5 percent of the units issued residential building permits in the previous year for each of the following fees:

1. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Sewer Connection Fees.

2. County Sanitation District No. 1 (CSD-1) Sewer Connection Fees.

3. Roadway and Transit Development Fees.

4. Vineyard Development Fees (Roadway, Transit, Park, Fire, Library).

5. Antelope Development Fees (Roadway, Park, Water Mitigation, Drainage Mitigation).

6. Zone 40 Water Fees – excluding the administrative fee component.

7. Drainage Fees (Zones 11A, 11B, 11C).



Responsibility: Accounting and Fiscal Services, Land Division and Site Improvement Review (LDSIR), Infrastructure Finance, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, SRCSD, CSD-1, and Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA).

Funding: Affected fee programs.

Objective: To reduce the cost-impact of fees payments for qualifying very low-income housing units.

Target Date: Ongoing 2008–2013.

HE-11(b): The County will continue to defer planning fees for all units in residential developments in which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households or at least 49 percent of the units are affordable to low-income households and on which affordability restrictions are subject to long-term (30-year or greater) regulatory agreements as certified by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. The County will defer any fees until close of escrow for sale of single-family homes or close of permanent financing for multifamily projects, not to exceed 15 months for the following fees:

1. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) Sewer Connection Fees.

2. County Sanitation District No. 1 (CSD-1) Sewer Connection Fees.

3. Roadway and Transit Development Fees.

4. Vineyard Development Fees (Roadway, Transit, Park, Fire, Library).

5. Antelope Development Fees (Roadway, Park, Water Mitigation, Drainage Mitigation).

6. Zone 40 Water Fees – excluding the administrative fee component.

7. Drainage Fees (Zones 11A, 11B, 11C).

Responsibility: Accounting and Fiscal Services, Land Division and Site Improvement Review, Infrastructure Finance, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, SRCSD, CSD-1, and Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA).

Funding: Affected fee programs.

Objective: To delay the cost-impact of fees payments for qualifying low and very low-income housing units until a housing project begins to generate revenue.


HE-11(c): The County will amend the enacting ordinances for the County Fee Waiver and Deferral Program to extend the deferral period to recognize the complexities and time needed to complete an affordable housing development.



The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) will work with local affordable developers to determine a realistic maximum timeframe from pulling of permits to conversion to permanent financing.

Responsibility: Accounting and Fiscal Services, Municipal Services Agency, SHRA, SRCSD, CSD-1, and the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA).

Funding: Affected Fee Programs.

Objective: To extend the allowed fee deferral period to better reflect the time period before a housing project begins to generate revenue.

Target Date: December 2008 for amendment.

Policy HE-12: The County should support legislation that reduces regulatory barriers to housing production, provides tax incentives and public subsidies for housing, and increases funding available for local infrastructure and services.

Program HE-12(a): The County will continue to monitor housing and land use related legislation, work directly with local legislators, propose legislation, and participate in associations of County governments to promote State legislation that supports the goals and objectives of the County’s Housing Element.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, County Executive.


Objective: To influence State legislation in support of the County’s Housing Element objectives.


HOUSING STRATEGY III: CONSERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-8)

Sub-Strategy III-A: Establishment and Maintenance of Programs for Rental Housing Rehabilitation (Description: PG. 3-9)

Policy HE-13. Utilize federal, state, local, and private funding programs offering low interest loans or grants, and private equity for the rehabilitation of rental properties for lower income households.



Program HE-13(a): The County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), will fund and administer rental housing loan programs for the rehabilitation of substandard housing and the acquisition and rehabilitation of substandard property for occupancy by lower income households. SHRA will pursue offering financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily properties, including financially troubled multifamily properties in foreclosure, to prevent further property and neighborhood deterioration.


Funding: HOME, CDBG, Housing Trust Funds (for boarded properties), Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, State of California Multifamily Housing Program (MHP).

Objective: 200 rehabilitated units annually, including units substantially rehabilitated and units preserved.


HE-13(b): SHRA shall enter into a legally enforceable loan agreement with InnerCity Housing Corporation for up to $4,150,000 in HOME and tax increment funding to acquire, rehabilitate and convert the Summerset Apartments into affordable housing.


Funding: HOME and Low/Mod Tax Increment.

Objective: Rehabilitate an existing problem property and create 119 affordable housing units.

Target Date: December 31, 2008.

HE-13(c): SHRA shall enter into a legally enforceable loan agreement with Greystone Apartments-Sacramento, L.P. for up to $4,170,000 in HOME and tax increment funding to acquire, rehabilitate and convert the Greystone Apartments into affordable housing.



Objective: Rehabilitate an existing problem property and create 119 affordable housing units.

Target Date: June 1, 2009.

HE-13(d): SHRA shall enter into a legally enforceable loan agreement with EPO Development for up to $4,000,000 in HOME and tax increment funding to acquire, rehabilitate and convert fourplex properties on Lerwick Road into permanent affordable housing.





Objective: Rehabilitate existing problem properties, transforming a street by creating 20 affordable housing units.

Target Date: December 31, 2009.

Sub-Strategy III-B: Maintenance of Programs for Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation (Description: PG. 3-9)

Policy HE-14. Encourage the rehabilitation and preservation of substandard homes in need of rehabilitation owned and occupied by lower income households, especially those in redevelopment areas and/or those left vacant due to foreclosure.

Programs HE-14(a): In an effort to preserve the existing single-family housing stock owned and occupied by lower income households, the County, through SHRA, will continue to provide low interest and deferred loans for rehabilitation activities required to bring a home into compliance with California health and safety standards.


Funding: CalHOME, CDBG, HOME and Tax Increment.

Objective: Substantially rehabilitate 100 homes for very low- and low-income households.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008-2013.

HE-14(b): SHRA will provide financial assistance for emergency repairs, painting, disabled retrofitting and other property improvements for homes occupied by lower income residents designed to achieve neighborhood improvement objectives. The County shall continue to use local funding and leverage these sources of funding with state and other competitive redevelopment funds, to the extent available.


Funding: CalHOME, HOME, CDBG, and Tax Increment.

Objective: Rehabilitate 400 homes for very low- and low-income households through Emergency Repair Grants and Retrofit Assistance Grants.


Policy HE-15. Support efforts to alleviate the individual and community problems associated with mortgage default and foreclosures.



Programs HE-15(a): The County will participate in a pro-active task force to address the property issues associated with foreclosures through code, law enforcement and legal actions. The task force will include representatives from Neighborhood Services, the District Attorney, Code Enforcement, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) and other key departments and will work cooperatively with the corresponding entities of the incorporated cities in the County.

Responsibility: SHRA, Neighborhood Services, Code Enforcement, District Attorney’s Office.


Objective: Participate in a pro-active task force to address the property issues associated with foreclosures.


HE-15(b): The County will continue to support the efforts of local HUD approved counseling agencies in their homebuyer education, counseling and post purchase counseling, including default/foreclosure counseling efforts.



Objective: Support homebuyer education, counseling and post purchase counseling.


Sub-Strategy III-C: Rehabilitation of Older Motels Serving as Transitional or Permanent Housing (Description: PG. 3-10)

Policy HE-16. Identify older motels suitable and feasible for conversion to permanent affordable housing.

Programs HE-16(a): As part of proactive, targeted redevelopment activities, the County will continue to identify older motels suitable and feasible for conversion to permanent affordable housing. Such conversions should also be considered in conjunction with commercial corridor studies and community plan updates.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: County General Fund and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Objective: Support revitalization of older commercial corridors with rehabilitation and provision of new housing opportunities.



Target Date: Ongoing, in conjunction with commercial corridor studies and community plan updates, 2008–2013.

HE-16(b): Assist new owners of motels to obtain financing for their acquisition, rehabilitation and/or conversion.


Funding: Low-income Housing Tax Credits, Redevelopment Tax Increment funds, Housing Trust Fund, and HOME Funds.

Objective: See program HE-13 (a) for acquisition/rehabilitation objective for rental housing.


Sub-Strategy III-D: Conserve the Quality of Residential Neighborhoods through Zoning Enforcement and Code Enforcement (Description: PG. 3-10)

Policy HE-17. Protect the quality and stability of residential neighborhoods through the enforcement of local regulations relating to the proper use and development of properties throughout the community.

Programs HE-17(a): The County shall actively enforce existing regulations and programs administered by the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Neighborhood Services regarding abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, to protect and improve the integrity and stability of existing neighborhoods. Storage and building violations will continue to be handled on a complaint basis, and vehicle abatement will continue to be addressed through responses to complaints and neighborhood patrols.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division.

Funding: County General Funds, Inspection Fees, Vehicle Registration Fee.

Objective: Reduce the number of abandoned vehicles and illegal structures from residential neighborhoods.


HE-17(b): The County will continue to enforce neighborhood nuisance abatement ordinances to assist the Sheriff’s Department and Code Enforcement Officers in more effectively addressing repeated nuisance complaints. The ordinances allow staff to prepare correction notices, fine and penalize owners for non-compliance, prosecute repeat offenders in criminal or civil proceedings, and summarily abate and lien property for costs of enforcement/abatement.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division, Environmental Health, Sheriff’s Department.



Funding: Fees and/or fines.

Objective: Increase neighborhood safety and eliminate blighting conditions.


HE-17(c): When necessary, initiate Special Planning Areas (SPAs) and Neighborhood Preservation Areas (NPAs) to fine-tune development standards in order to enhance and preserve unique communities.


Funding: County General Funds and Application Fees.

Objective: Enhance and preserve unique communities through SPA’s and NPA’s.


HE-17(d): Identify small, specialized target focus areas that are not in larger redevelopment or block grant areas as sites suitable for neighborhood revitalization efforts. The County will continue to coordinate the efforts of various agencies (SHRA, Planning and Community Development, Health and Human Services, County Sheriff, etc.) to revitalize targeted neighborhoods in low-income communities. The County and SHRA will identify priority investments in housing and infrastructure improvements in such neighborhoods, public services, and the purchase and/or renovation of privately owned affordable housing in such neighborhoods.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Neighborhood Services Agency.

Funding: Housing Set-Aside Funds, Tax Increment, CDBG, HOME, Mortgage Revenue Bond Funds.

Objective: The approval and implementation of the Florin Revitalization Strategy.


HE-17(e): The County will continue to apply Section 108.7 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which permits the use of alternate materials, designs and methods of construction. The County will apply this provision of the UBC to the rehabilitation of older residential structures to address health and safety requirements while not requiring more expensive compliance with current UBC requirements.

Responsibility: Building Inspection Division.


Objective: Ensure rental housing complies with health and safety codes.




HE-17(f): The County will develop and adopt a Crime Free Certification Program that will be implemented by the Sheriff's Department. Landlord training, review of physical security measures on site by the Sheriff's Department and annual tenant meetings are required for certification. The Planning and Community Development Department will require owners or managers of new multifamily projects to attain Crime Free Certification after planning entitlements and building permits have been attained and the construction of the multifamily project has occurred. The requirement to attain Crime Free Certification will be a condition of approval of the multifamily project's planning entitlement.

Responsibility: Sheriff’s Department, Planning and Community Development Department.


Objective: Adopt a Crime Free Certification Program. Require Crime Free Certification as condition of approval for multifamily project’s planning entitlement.


HE-17(g): The County will continue to refer complaints from mobile home park residents regarding park conditions and requests for inspections to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the State agency with jurisdiction over mobile home park inspections. The County will provide contact information for HCD’s Codes and Standards Division through a letter to be sent to residents.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division, Building Inspection Division, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Increase the level of State code compliance to improve mobile home park conditions.


HE-17(h): To help preserve the quality of residential neighborhoods and support sub-strategies III-A and II-B for the maintenance of housing, the County will conduct a sample exterior housing conditions survey using a methodology recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The County will establish the appropriate sample size for this survey and targeted neighborhoods in which to conduct the survey based on consultation with the Code Enforcement Division and SHRA.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development, Code Enforcement Division, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.




Objective: To obtain an accurate estimate of housing rehabilitation and replacement needs to assist the County and SHRA in implementing neighborhood preservation and housing maintenance strategies.

Target Date: Complete sample housing conditions survey by December 2009.

Policy HE-18. Promote efficient public outreach programs to enhance the rehabilitation of substandard housing.

Program HE-18(a): The Code Enforcement Division, with assistance from the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will distribute brochures to owners of residential rental units cited for health and safety violations. The brochures will provide information on SHRA rehabilitation assistance programs. The Code Enforcement Division will also continue to provide information to tenants on rental property owner and tenant responsibilities for property maintenance. The Division will provide a brochure that will be in English, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese, describing rental property owners and tenant responsibilities. The County will continue to provide information in annual billings to rental property owners on information and financial assistance resources.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Increase the level of property maintenance through tenant and property owner education, thereby reducing the need for code enforcement.


Sub-Strategy III-E: Revitalization of Deteriorated Neighborhoods Through Public Facility Improvements (Description: PG. 3-11)

Policy HE-19. Provide improved public infrastructure and services, including water, sewer, curbs gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting where these services will improve the physical quality of blighted or declining neighborhoods, or facilitate appropriate infill.

Programs HE-19(a): Provide for annual review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the County’s Capital Improvement Program to determine what special priorities are needed for capital improvement projects required to redevelop commercial corridors as described in the Draft General Plan. One of the goals of redeveloping commercial corridors is to increase housing opportunities for households of all income levels. Review of the CIP shall also include verification that areas needing improvement are scheduled for funding to address these needs at a specific time in the future.



Responsibility: Economic Development, County Executive.


Objective: Target infrastructure and public facility improvements to commercial corridors.


HE-19(b): Provide improved public infrastructure and services for the Florin Road Corridor in order to facilitate revitalization and increase housing opportunities.

Responsibility: Economic Development, County Executive.

Funding: County General Fund, Florin Road Property and Business Improvement District (Assessment District).

Objective: Target infrastructure and public facility improvements to the Florin Road Corridor.


Sub-Strategy III-F: Local/Private Sector Investment for Neighborhood Revitalization (Description: PG. 3-12)

Policy HE-20. Maintain local/private sector involvement in preserving and revitalizing older neighborhoods through local lending institutions and the Community Reinvestment Act.

Program HE-20(a): Continue to review the records of local financial institutions for their performance in meeting the credit needs of low-income and minority people, as required by the federal Community Reinvestment Act. To the extent funds are invested in institutions that have a good community reinvestment record, those institutions would be given credit for a predetermined percentage increase, over and above the actual rate of return, in the County’s investment decisions; while those institutions with a poor record would be given a predetermined percentage decrease.

Responsibility: Department of Finance, Treasury Division.


Objective: Increase investment in minority and low-income areas.


Sub-Strategy III-G: Reduce Loss of Housing Through Demolition Activities (Description: PG. 3-12)



Policy HE-21. Support mechanisms to prevent the loss of housing by demolition, conversion to other uses, long-term vacancy, arson, vandalism, or malicious mischief, and support programs that return vacant housing to residential use.

Program HE-21(a): The County will implement the Vacant House Monitoring Program which requires property owners to remove blight conditions such as graffiti, fencing in need of repair, and overgrown vegetation of over 12 inches. There is a gradated fee system for noncompliance. The Program allows the County to abate overgrown vegetation.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division.


Objective: Increase neighborhood safety and eliminate blighting conditions.


Policy HE-22. Assist lower income households displaced as a result of demolition of unsafe, substandard dwelling that cannot be economically repaired.

Programs HE-22(a): The County will develop an advertisement (e.g., brochure) that provides information to all displaced tenants of demolition activities on available services and programs including Section 8 assistance, public housing, and emergency shelters. The Code Enforcement Division will provide such brochures to displaced tenants.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency; Planning and Community Development Department.

Funding: CDBG and County General Funds.

Objective: Increase tenant awareness of assistance programs for those displaced by demolition activities.

Target Date: Publish new brochure by June 2012 and distribute thereafter.

HE-22(b): Continue the County program that pays for the relocation expenses of lower income residents displaced due to condemnation, demolition or vacation of units due to Building, Health and Safety Code violations. The Code Enforcement Division will require reimbursement by the property owner.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division, Board of Supervisors.

Funding: CDBG and County General Funds.



Objective: Paying for the relocation expenses of lower income residents and seeking reimbursement by property owner.


Sub-Strategy III-H: Implement Design Review (Description: PG. 3-13)

Policy HE-23. The County will require high quality design in residential projects.

Program HE-23(a): The County will adopt the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines which will apply to residential projects at densities of eight units per acre and higher, including attached and detached homes. The emphasis will be on quality design and less emphasis on strict development standards. The Guidelines will focus on design elements adjacent to single-family development, rather than large setbacks. [Same as Program HE-9(b)]

Responsibility: County Planning and Community Development, Board of Supervisors.

Funding: Application Processing Fees, County General Funds.

Objective: Adopt the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines.


Policy HE-24. Ensure that the structural design, aesthetics and site layout of new development is compatible and interconnected with existing residential development.

Program HE-24(a): Use the County’s adopted Design Review Program to ensure that new commercial and mixed use development within established communities is compatible with existing residential development and benefits the surrounding community through high quality design and the provision of services. The Design Review Administrator (DRA) and an administrative Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) review commercial and mixed use projects for Design Review conformance. The DRA and DRAC review occurs during the normal project review process.

Responsibility: County Planning and Community Development.

Funding: Application Processing Fees, County General Fund.

Objective: Ensure that new commercial and mixed use development is compatible with existing residential development by implementing design review.

Target Date: Ongoing 2008-2013.



Policy HE-25. Infill Projects, shall be integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods and communities to the greatest extent feasible.

Program HE-25(a): The County will develop and utilize design guidelines that are flexible with regard to infill, and yet are commensurate with the County Design Guidelines and Improvement Standards to achieve a balance between the goals for additional housing and/or commercial in established neighborhoods while addressing the community’s concerns for reinforcing cherished aspects of community character and identity. New infill development should help create desirable and attractive places. This involves:

Listing specific considerations in the design guidelines unique to infill (i.e. minimizing scale contrasts between existing development and new higher density development, considerations that the neighborhood may “desire a future different character” rather than being compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood).

Provide incentives for “quality projects” using sustainable products, quality architecture, energy efficiencies and on-site amenities, walkability and accessibility to off-site amenities.

Identify areas of the Improvement Standards that conflict with infill development and existing in-place infrastructure, identify opportunities in the application of the improvement standards and where appropriate, provide relief or administrative exemptions from some of these standards to better accommodate infill development.

Include in corridor plans identified areas for open space and attractive public spaces.



Objective: Ensure high quality and safe designs.

Target Date: 2009.

HOUSING STRATEGY IV: IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-13)

Sub-Strategy IV-A: Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Description: PG. 3-14)

Policy HE-26. Support efforts to improve accessibility for both dwelling units and residential neighborhoods to meet the special needs of persons with disabilities.



Programs HE-26(a): The Planning and Community Development Department will work with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) to publicize the Home Assistance and Repair Programs for Seniors (HARPS) and the Emergency Repair Program (ERP-A) programs which assist seniors and low-income households with necessary repairs or accessibility modifications. Information will be provided on the Planning Department’s and SHRA’s websites, at the Planning Department’s information counter and the Building Department’s permit counters. HARPS will be continued to be advertised in the Sacramento County Senior Resource Guide



Objective: Publicize the HARPS and ERP-A programs.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013. Information will be provided on the Planning Department’s website starting in January 2009. HARPS is currently advertised on SHRA’s website. Handouts will be provided at the Planning Department’s information counter and Building Department’s permit counters starting in March 2009. Handouts will also be provided at senior service centers throughout the unincorporated County starting in March 2009.

HE-26(b): The County will inform homebuilders regarding Universal Design features that can be incorporated into new houses, condominiums and townhomes. Information will be provided on Universal Design at the Planning Department’s website, at the Planning Department’s information counter and the Building Department’s permit counters.



Objective: Publicize Universal Design standards.


HE-26(c): Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e. modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to allow disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Although the County practices providing reasonable accommodation for housing intended for persons with disabilities, the County does not have a formal policy or procedure for processing such requests. For this reason, the County will adopt a reasonable accommodation ordinance and/or written procedures, detailing how the County will accommodate requests for exceptions and other special considerations during the planning process.



Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Building Inspection Division.


Objective: Adoption of a reasonable accommodation ordinance.

Target Date: July, 2009.

HE-26(d): In planning for new residential developments, the County will continue to require accessible pedestrian facilities such as accessible sidewalks, intersections with curb ramps, and audible signals at appropriate intersections, guide strips, and other access enhancements, as appropriate. In the targeting of public investments in existing neighborhoods, the County will address accessibility improvements to the extent permitted by available funding. The targeting of public investments will be coordinated with Sub-Strategy III-E, Revitalization of Deteriorated Neighborhoods through Public Facility Improvements.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Transportation Department.

Funding: CDBG, developer contributions.

Objective: Increase accessibility of residential structures and neighborhoods for persons with disabilities.


Policy HE-27. The County will encourage housing for people with disabilities near public transportation, shopping, medical and other essential support services and facilities.

Programs HE-27(a): The County will include specific requirements for provision of access for seniors and disabled persons in their transit master plans.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Transportation Department.


Objective: Specific requirement for disabled access in transit master plans.


Policy HE-28. Support activities that serve the housing needs of disabled low-income persons with a continuum of housing options, from independent living, to housing with supportive services, to institutionalized care.



Program HE-28(a): The County will continue to support a continuum of housing options for persons with disabilities, including accessible independent living, and the establishment of small-scale residential care facilities in all residential communities to serve the needs of persons with disabilities. The County will also seek funding and assistance from private, state, and federal programs. The County will continue to provide regulatory incentives for special needs housing for persons with disabilities through its Zoning Code, which permits group homes, residential care facilities, and other special needs housing alternatives with on-site supportive services. The County will continue to promote its regulatory and financial incentives for special needs housing through and printed information distributed to public and private community organizations serving special needs clients with disabilities.

Responsibility: Department of Human Assistance.

Funding: HUD’s Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities - Section 811 program, permanent housing for the Handicapped Homeless Program (part of the Supportive Housing Demonstration Program [McKinney Act], Low-Income Housing Fund Revolving Loan Fund, Cal-Mortgage Program (health facility construction loan program).

Objective: Support shared housing and development of small-scale residential care facilities, support for 1,250 individuals with HIV/AIDS annually (through the Breaking Barriers program), and housing assistance for 400 persons annually with HIV/AIDS.


HE-28(b): The County will amend the Zoning Code to list Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing as residential uses in the Zoning Code’s land use tables.



Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to have Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing as residential uses listed in the Zoning Code’s land use tables.


Sub-Strategy IV-B: Housing for Seniors (Description: PG. 3-15)

Policy HE-29. Provide adequate and affordable housing for senior citizens.

Programs HE-29(a): The County proposes developing a Senior Housing Master Plan. This Plan would be the overarching strategy regarding the provision of housing for seniors. The Plan would have at least the following goals:



• The County will encourage the provision of housing for older adults within well-planned, stable communities through maintenance, renovation and modification of existing homes.

• The County will encourage the development of new housing that meets the needs of seniors while complementing existing neighborhoods.

• The County will encourage the provision of affordable and diverse housing structures to meet the needs of low and moderate-income seniors.

• The County will form an advisory committee of realtors, developers, community residents and senior and housing advocates to help develop recommended policies and program elements for the Master Plan.

• The County will identify barriers to the development of senior housing.

• The County will develop design guidelines and siting criteria for senior housing and care facilities. [See HE-31 (a)]

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department; Department of Health and Human Services, Senior and Adult Services Division; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Develop a Senior Housing Master Plan.


HE-29(b): The County will encourage the development of affordable housing for seniors, including independent living, assisted living, and congregate care facilities.


Funding: Tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds, HOME and tax increment funding.

Objective: Promote incentives to builders to provide housing and care choices for seniors of all income levels. These incentives include grants and financial help for developers of senior housing, including multifamily developer assistance programs administered by SHRA.


HE-29(c): The County will support the current facilities providing temporary shelter for abused or neglected seniors.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.




Objective: Continue funding current facilities providing temporary shelter for seniors.


Policy HE-30. The County will encourage housing for seniors to be near public transportation, shopping, medical and other essential support services and facilities.

Program HE-30(a): The County will encourage senior housing throughout Sacramento County to be near neighborhood centers, public transportation, shopping centers, and parks by developing flexible design guidelines and siting criteria for senior housing and care facilities.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development, Transportation Department.


Objective: Develop flexible design guidelines and siting criteria for senior housing and care facilities.


Policy HE-31. Support activities that increase the ability of the elderly to remain in their homes or to locate other housing to rent or purchase.

Programs HE-31(a): The County will continue to provide assistance to older residents and enhance programs that make it possible for them to remain independent and in their homes.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department; Department of Health and Human Services, Senior and Adult Services Division; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Ongoing support of the In-Home Supportive Services program of the Department of Health and Human Services, Senior and Adult Services Division. Work with SHRA to publicize the Home Assistance and Repair Programs for Seniors (HARPS) and ERP-A programs which assist seniors and low-income households with necessary repairs or accessibility modifications.




HE-31(b): The County will continue to promote the adaptability and maximum accessibility of residential dwellings for disabled and elderly occupants.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Work with SHRA to publicize the Home Assistance and Repair Programs for Seniors (HARPS) and ERP-A programs which assist seniors and low-income households with necessary repairs or accessibility modifications.


Sub-Strategy IV-C: Farm Worker Housing (Description: PG. 3-16)

Policy HE-32. Ensure housing that is provided to migrant farm workers is decent, safe, and affordable.

Program HE-32(a): The County, through the Department of Environmental Health, will continue to annually inspect and license farm labor camps to ensure that they meet health and safety standards for migrant workers. The County will issue an annual report of its findings and enforcement actions, which will be made available to operators of farm labor camps, residents of those camps, and other interested parties.

Responsibility: Department of Environmental Health.

Funding: Inspection Fees.

Objective: Ensure suitable living conditions at farm labors camps.

Target Date: Annual inspections and reports.

Policy HE-33. Support the use of available federal, state, and local resources to provide and enhance housing opportunities for farm workers.

Programs HE-33(a): The County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will rely on Rural California Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to provide technical assistance for Federal and State farm worker housing grant applications. Farm worker housing projects are eligible for SHRA financing in conjunction with State and Federal programs.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency; non-profit farm worker housing organizations.



Funding: Rural Development Services 514/516 Rental Assistance Program, California Farm Worker Housing Program, Rural California Assistance Corporation.

Objective: Provide technical assistance for applications for loans through the Federal and State government to construct 50 housing units for farm workers.


HE-33(b): The County, through SHRA, will support and financially assist proposals within rural communities to participate in the funding of farm worker housing developments.


Funding: CDBG, HOME, Housing Trust Funds, Rural Housing Services 502, Rural Housing Services 514/516, California Farm worker Housing Program.

Objective: Assist in financing 50 units of housing affordable to farm workers.


HE-33(c): The County shall work with local growers and non-profit agencies to periodically review the housing needs of farm workers and propose actions to address those needs. Examples of actions that could be pursued are additional funding requests for farm worker housing projects, and programs and zoning changes to facilitate the construction of migrant farm worker housing.

Responsibility: Environmental Management Department, Planning and Community Development Department.


Objective: Biennially review housing needs of farm workers starting September 2009.


Sub- Strategy IV-D: Housing for the Homeless (Description: PG. 3-17)

Policy HE-34. Support programs that address long-term solutions to homelessness, including work skills assessment, job training/placement, and permanent housing with supportive services.

Programs HE-34(a): Sacramento County will sponsor and support the Policy Board to End Homelessness which was established in September 2006 by the County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council. The Policy Board is a collaborative effort of local business and neighborhood associations, homeless advocates,



homeless service providers, the faith community, County departments, law enforcement, Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, SHRA and various cities within the County of Sacramento. During the planning period, the Policy Board will implement the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness in addition to implementing the ongoing Homeless Continuum of Care Plan.

1. Develop 280 new permanent supportive housing units within five years.

2. Create 218 new housing opportunities for chronically homeless in leased units within 3 years.

3. Continue to use the Central Intake system to screen and place chronically homeless people into housing-plus-services programs.

4. Improve Sacramento’s Point-In-Time Homeless Count.

As part of the comprehensive, collaborative approach to homelessness, the County will continue to fund groups providing shelter and other services to the homeless, such as the Salvation Army, the Sacramento Area Emergency Housing Center, and Volunteers of America. The level of financial support will depend on the availability of State and Federal funds for homeless shelters and supportive services.

The Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness focuses on long-term strategies that create exits from homelessness by moving the homeless into permanent housing and independent living. To achieve the long-term objective, the Consolidated Plan will provide for supportive health care, case management, life-skills management, education, job training, and other services to assist homeless individuals and families achieve independence in permanent housing. The Plan will also recognize different strategies and programs needed to address various homeless sub-groups, such as women and children escaping domestic violence, homeless youth, seniors, working single adults, homeless veterans, individuals with substance abuse problems, persons with mental and other disabilities, and individuals with chronic illnesses.

Responsibility: County Department of Human Assistance; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: CDBG, HOME, Redevelopment Agency Housing set-aside funds, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), Runaway Youth Program, HUD McKinney Act Funding, HUD Shelter Plus Program, HUD Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless (SAFAH), State Emergency Shelter Program, State Transitional Housing Program-Plus, State and Federal health care funding for the homeless, State and Federal alcohol and drug counseling services, employment services and literacy training programs.

Objective: Develop affordable housing opportunities with supportive services for homeless persons in need; assist homeless men, women and children thorough the Continuum of Care



to achieve independent living in permanent housing, ending their homelessness.

Target Date: Ongoing participation on Policy Board, continue to implement the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, 2008–2013.

HE-34(b): Continue to provide transitional housing, job training, and employment counseling at Mather Field to help homeless people gain employment and long-term independence.

Responsibility: County Department of Human Assistance and Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: HUD McKinney Act, County General Fund, SETA, CalWORKs, Tobacco Litigation Settlement, Food Stamps, Program Fees.

Objective: Provide housing and comprehensive job training.


HE-34(c): The County will maintain an adequate supply of land where homeless shelters are allowed by right and where public services, infrastructure and facilities are available to facilitate the development.


Funding: Appropriate identified funding source.

Objective: Maintain an adequate supply of land for homeless shelters.


HE-34(d): The County’s Department of Human Assistance and Department of Health and Human Services will continue to support the LaVerne Adolfo Housing Programs for Former Foster Youth. This is a collaborative effort by local agencies and individuals to help young people emancipating from foster care. This program provides housing choices and services including counseling in life skills, legal consultation, as well as providing money for emergencies and expenses. Lutheran Social Services and Volunteers of America are under contract with the Department of Human Assistance to provide services.

Responsibility: County Department of Human Assistance and County Department of Health and Human Services.

Funding: HUD McKinney Act, State Transitional Housing Program-Plus.

Objective: Provide housing and services for emancipated foster youth.




HE-34(e): The County will continue to support the Winter Shelter Program which provides emergency overnight shelter for the County's homeless men, women and children when other local shelters are filled during the cold weather months. The goal of the program is to provide nightly dry shelter and two meals. Volunteers of America operate the housing and meal components under contract with the County Department of Human Assistance.

Responsibility: County Department of Human Assistance.


Objective: Provide emergency housing for the homeless.


HE-34(f): The County will continue to support the Shelter Plus Care (SPC) program which provides supportive housing for homeless disabled individuals and families. The County Department of Human Assistance administers this program.

Responsibility: County Department of Human Assistance.

Funding: HUD McKinney Act.

Objective: Provide supportive housing for disabled individuals and families.


HE-34(g): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions that permit homeless shelters in the GC and M-1 zones, subject to appropriate development, locational (near transit), and operations standards that address land use compatibility issues. Development standards will continue to be based on the type of permitted homeless use and not the clientele who will use any such facility.



Objective: Identification of appropriate zoning categories and land use designations.


HE-34(h): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions to permit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residential units, subject to appropriate development standards and locational requirements, in the RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40 and GC zones. The County will increase the number of zones that allow SROs.





Objective: Identification of appropriate zoning categories and land use designations. Increase the number of zones that allow SROs.

Target Date: Ongoing, 2008–2013. January 2010 for increasing number of zones for SROs.

HE-34(i): The County will amend the Zoning Code to list Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing as residential uses in the Zoning Code’s land use tables.



Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to have Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing listed as residential uses in the Zoning Code’s land use tables.


Sub-Strategy IV-E: Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Programs (Description: PG. 3-17)

Policy HE-35: The County shall continue to provide funding for equal housing opportunity programs such as those operated by the Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission and/or other fair housing enforcement organizations to support their mission and programs.

Programs HE-35(a): The County will continue to support a fair housing auditing/testing program. All complaints of housing discrimination shall be referred to the Sacramento County Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission or other fair housing providers, as appropriate, and State/Federal agencies involved in fair housing.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Fair Housing Commission.

Funding: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

Objective: Increase the resolution to housing complaints and reduce housing discrimination.


HE-35(b): The County will update the Analysis of Impediments to Housing by 2009 and will follow and implement its recommendations. As part of the Analysis, SHRA will continue to collaborate with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Legal Services of Northern California and other non-profit organizations to monitor and document discriminatory residential lending practices and refer discriminatory practices to the Human Rights and Fair Housing



Commission, District Attorney, State Fair Employment and Housing Commission, or HUD.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency; Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission.

Funding: CDBG.

Objective: Improve the level of reporting to measure success in reducing housing discrimination.

Target Date: 2009.

HE-35(c): The County will distribute information on fair housing in appropriate locations (such as community centers, apartment complexes and grocery stores) and such informational material will be printed in several different languages to inform the public of County policies on discrimination and methodology for reporting any violations. The County will promote fair housing information and complaint referral contacts through a website link to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Community Development Department, the distribution of fair housing information to residents during code enforcement activities, and the public outreach activities of the Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission and SHRA promotional activities.

The County, through SHRA, currently funds the Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission to conduct fair housing investigations and education. The Commission has a website located at www.hrfh.org that provides general information and copies of complaint forms. The Commission has prepared an informational brochure and also provides a lengthier landlord/tenant handbook.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement Division; Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission.

Funding: CDBG.

Objective: Increase the level of public awareness regarding County policies.

Target Date: Annual reports, 2008–2013; website link current and ongoing, 2008–2013; distribution of information during code enforcement activities current and ongoing, 2008–2013.

Sub-Strategy IV-F: Housing Needs of Female Heads of Households (Description: PG. 3-18)

Policy HE-36. Promote the construction of affordable housing that meets the needs of female heads of households.

Program HE-36(a): The County will consider the location of affordable housing projects in relation to accessibility to employment centers and services, including child care, public transit, schools and local retail uses, in zoning land and determining



appropriate locations for affordable family housing projects. The proposed Land Use Element Policy 12 which encourages the location of higher density housing affordable to low-income households to be located along commercial corridors with transit routes, also supports the objective of this program.


Funding: Application fees.

Objective: Appropriately located affordable housing to address needs of female heads of households.

Target Date: Ongoing through project review, 2008–2013.

Sub-Strategy IV-G: Housing Needs of Large Households (Description: PG. 3-18)

Policy HE-37: Support the development of housing to meet the needs of large households.

Programs HE-37(a): Utilize public resources to finance the development of housing for large families (units with three or more bedrooms). The County will encourage SHRA to continue giving appropriate priority in funding and technical assistance to residential development proposals that include housing units affordable to low-income large families. The County will support SHRA’s efforts with regulatory incentives described in Housing Strategy V, Provision of Affordable Housing. The County, through SHRA, will continue to collaborate through periodic meetings with providers of affordable family housing to determine the unmet need for such housing in Sacramento County.


Funding: Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds, Housing Trust Funds, HOME Program, Multifamily Housing Program (HCD), Federal Home Loan Bank – Affordable Housing Program, Tax Exempt Bonds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (State and Federal).

Objective: Annually develop 40 affordable housing units with three bedrooms or more for large families.


HE-37(b): Grant processing priority for multifamily residential development proposals if at least 20 percent of units are proposed to be affordable with three or more bedrooms units. The Planning and Community Development Department and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) will request the Building Division to grant assistance to “fast track” a multiple-family project during the plan checking and inspection phases if the project meets the above criteria.



Responsibility: Sacramento Planning and Community Development Department, SHRA, Building Division.


Objective: Increase the availability of large family housing.


HE-37(c): The County will implement comparable size requirements for all new development subject to the County Affordable Housing Ordinance. Under this program, for sale affordable units must be in size proportion (by number of bedrooms) to the market units, up to three bedrooms. Rental affordable complexes must include a minimum of 15 percent three bedroom units to meet the needs of large families.

Responsibility: Sacramento Planning and Community Development Department, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.


Objective: Increase the availability of large family housing.


Sub-Strategy IV-H: Increase the Supply of Affordable Rental Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households (Description: PG. 3-18)

Policy HE-38: Facilitate the development of new Extremely Low-Income (ELI) rental units.

Program HE-38(a): The County shall administer the "ELI buy-down" program as part of the County's Affordable Housing Ordinance. Through this program, SHRA must use available fees generated through the Affordable Housing Ordinance to buy down at least 20 percent of rental units within a project built to meet the Affordable Housing Obligation to an extremely low-income level. The amount of the buy down shall be established annually, and shall correlate with the additional subsidy needed to reduce a very low- income (50 percent area median income, adjusted by unit size) unit to an extremely low- income (30 percent area median income, adjusted by unit size) level.


Funding: Affordable Housing Program Fees.

Objective: Buy down at least 20 percent of rental units within a project built to meet the Affordable Housing Obligation to an extremely low income level.




Policy HE-39: Maintain and preserve existing stock of ELI units.

Program HE-39(a): The County will support SHRA in repositioning, redeveloping and rehabilitating its public housing stock. Through these actions, SHRA shall commit to a "no net loss" goal of its Annual Contribution Contract ("ACC") units. Preservation of the ACC units is vital to the County’s ability to house lower income families, including many extremely low-income families, although they are not net new affordable units.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Municipal Services Agency.

Funding: US Department of Housing and Community Development, HOME, Tax Increment, tax credits, mortgage revenue bonds.

Objective: Support SHRA in repositioning, redeveloping and rehabilitating its public housing stock.


Policy HE-40: Assist extremely low-income households through the use of portable and project based housing vouchers, including Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) and Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) vouchers. Such vouchers pay the difference between a specified percentage of a participating household’s income and the gross rent (contract rent plus utilities) for an eligible rental unit, up to a pre-determined amount called the “fair market rent.”

Programs HE-40(a): SHRA will maximize the use of the Housing Choice Voucher program, including "project basing" up to 10 percent of the vouchers to provide housing options to extremely low-income households.


Funding: US Department of Housing and Community Development.

Objective: Ensure availability and choice of housing for extremely low-income households.


HE-40(b): SHRA will use available housing resources, including project based rental subsidies, such as local Housing Choice Vouchers, federal Housing Assistance Payment vouchers and state Mental Health Services Act Vouchers for the provision of housing for extremely low income households.




Funding: Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Program, Federal Housing Assistance Payment Voucher Program, State Mental Health Services Act Voucher Program.

Objective: Ensure availability and choice of housing for extremely low-income households.


HOUSING STRATEGY V: PRESERVATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK AND PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-19)

Sub-Strategy V-A: Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Stock (Description: PG. 3-20)

Policy HE-41. Preserve the affordability of subsidized rental housing whenever possible through a combination of regulatory and financial incentives.

Programs HE-41(a): SHRA will continue to distribute financing and housing voucher program information to rental property owners and managers to ensure their understanding of options to the sale of HUD-assisted housing and its possible conversion to market rate.

Responsibility: Fair Housing Commission; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: Housing Set-Aside Funds, CDBG.

Objective: Preservation of existing affordable rental units.


Target Date: February 1, 2009.

HE-41(b): The County will mitigate the potential loss of low-income housing units potentially at risk of converting to subsidized rental housing projects to market-rate housing, through programs implemented by SHRA. SHRA will identify the types and characteristics of rental housing projects at risk, owners’ objectives for future operation of these rental properties, and entities with the capacity to acquire and maintain “at-risk” rental housing units as affordable to very low- and low-income households. SHRA will pursue the following actions:

SHRA will contact rental property owners two years before the earliest conversion date to determine their long-term intentions and financial objectives for continued ownership. If owners express a desire to maintain ownership, SHRA will provide information on State and Federal programs that provide incentives to maintain rents at levels affordable to lower income households. If owners express a desire to sell their properties, SHRA will attempt to locate a non-profit or for-profit entity



interested in acquiring and maintaining the affordability of the rental units. In either case, SHRA will provide technical assistance in accessing State and Federal funding. If necessary to preserve the affordability of existing rental housing, SHRA will consider the use of redevelopment housing set-aside funds for gap financing.

SHRA will monitor compliance with State and Federal noticing requirements for owners who desire to convert their rent restricted units to market-rate units. One year before the conversion date, the owner will be required to notify residents of the expected date of loan pre-payment or pay-off. The notice must also contain an estimate of rent increases at the time rental restrictions no longer apply. Residents moving into a housing development during this one-year period must also be notified of the pending conversion at the time they sign a rental agreement. SHRA will work with the County Counsel to postpone the sale of properties in cases where owners have not complied with State noticing requirements.


Funding: Housing Set-Aside Funds, HOME, Tax Credits, Mortgage Revenue Bonds.

Objective: Do not allow any affordable units to convert to market rate housing, preserve up to 500 units “at risk” of conversion through 2013.


HE-41(c): The Planning and Community Development Department and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment agency will propose an Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. This ordinance codifies HE-41(b) and will be consistent with state law. The ordinance can be aligned with rehabilitation programs and funding.



Objective: Preserve affordable housing that potentially converts to market-rate.


HE-41(d): SHRA shall enter into a legally enforceable loan agreement with Allied Pacific Development, LLC for up to $1,500,000 in HOME and tax increment funding to preserve the Shiloh Arms Apartments.



Objective: Preserve 106 low income housing units from conversion to market rate.



Target Date July 2010

Policy HE-42: Assist eligible owner-occupants to rehabilitate existing substandard mobile homes and assist mobile home park owners with a significant proportion of low-income residents to make improvements to park facilities.

Programs HE-42(a): Inform owners of substandard mobile homes of resources available through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency for structure improvement. SHRA will notify mobile home owners through the distribution of program information to mobile home parks. Qualified mobile homes should be advised of all available programs.


Funding: CalHOME.

Objective: Improve the condition of existing mobile homes.


HE-42(b): The County will continue to refer complaints from mobile home park residents regarding park conditions and requests for inspections to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the State agency with jurisdiction over mobile home park inspections.

Responsibility: Code Enforcement, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: Inspection Fees.

Objective: Ensure that mobile home parks are safe and well maintained in order to provide housing options for lower income residents.


Sub-Strategy V-B: Utilization of Federal, State, and Local Programs for the Provision of Affordable Housing (Description: PG. 3-21)

Policy HE-43. Support the use of federal, state, and local programs for the purchase of affordable housing (new and existing) and assist low- and moderate-income households to purchase such dwelling units. Promote a partnership between the public and private sector for the provision of affordable housing, with an objective of increasing homeownership for low- and moderate-income families.

Programs HE-43(a): Seek Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) allocations from the State of California and funding from the California Housing Finance Agency, the Federal HOME Program, redevelopment housing set-aside funds, the CalHome Program, and



the Federal CDBG Program to provide low interest loans and down payment assistance for first-time low- and moderate-income homebuyers.


Funding: Mortgage Credit Certificates, California Housing Finance Agency Tax-Exempt Bonds, Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program, CalHome Program, Federal HOME and CDBG, Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds.

Objective: Assist 175 households with MCCs and 200 households with First Time Homebuyer loans to become homeowners.


HE-43(b): Support the Sacramento County Home Loan Counseling Program, Sacramento Neighborworks, and programs offered by other non-profit organizations in their homebuyer education, counseling and post purchase counseling, including default/foreclosure counseling efforts.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (as the referring agency), non-profit organizations, and private lenders.

Funding: Programs Fees, CDBG.

Objective: Serve 600 households annually.


HE-43(c): Provide financial support for self-help (sweat equity) housing programs for low-income people who construct their own homes under the supervision of non-profit corporations.


Funding: CDBG, HOME and Tax Increment Funds, CHFA, California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Objective: Increase homeownership opportunities for low-income families – 10 homes over 5 years.


HE-43(d): Support developer applications to the BEGIN program through the State Department of Housing and Community Development, to provide dedicated downpayment assistance to development projects for buyers up to 120 percent of area median income.


Funding: BEGIN mortgage assistance through the State Department of Housing and Community Development.



Objective: 10 new homeownership units annually.


Policy HE-44. Support programs that provide assistance to developers who construct affordable rental units.

Programs HE-44(a): The County will use available local, state, and federal funding to provide gap financing to stimulate private nonprofit and for profit developers to construct rental affordable housing. Financing will primarily benefit low- and very low-income households and will carry long-term affordability restrictions. The County, through SHRA, will continue to promote affordable housing programs through the Agency’s Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Program and Investment Property Improvement Program, as well as through funding or program specific Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA), Requests for Proposals/Qualifications (RFP/Q) and Requests for Applications (RFA).


Funding: County Housing Trust Fund, HOME, Tax Increment Funds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Mortgage Revenue Bonds.

Objective: Assist 200 units financed per year (1,000 units over five years).


HE-44(b): The County will issue multifamily mortgage revenue bonds to finance affordable housing, subject to underwriting, overconcentration standards and construction standards as detailed in SHRA's multifamily lending guidelines.


Funding: Tax-Exempt Mortgage Revenue Bonds with and without Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.

Objective: Increase the availability of financing for new affordable housing construction through multifamily mortgage bonds.


HE-44(c): SHRA will support developers applying for state or federal funding programs such as Proposition 1C funds, the Multifamily Housing Program and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits with local gap funds and/or regulatory incentives.


Funding: HOME, Housing Trust Fund and Low/Moderate Redevelopment Tax Increment.



Objective: Increase housing opportunities for lower income households, and use locally controlled funding to leverage funding from state and federal programs.


Sub-Strategy V-C: Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing (Description: PG. 3-21) Policy HE-45. Continue to implement a density bonus ordinance that provides for a greater number of dwelling units and other incentives in exchange for housing units affordable to lower income households.

Program HE-45(a): The County shall update the County Zoning Code to incorporate changes to the State Density Bonus law into the local ordinance and to incorporate density bonus provisions of the County Affordable Housing Ordinance.



Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to incorporate changes to the State Density Bonus law.


Sub-Strategy V-D: Mixed Use Development in Infill Parcels, Commercial Corridors and Near Light Rail Stations in Order to Provide More Opportunities for Affordable Housing (Description: PG. 3-22) Policy HE-46. When feasible, integrate housing with compatible non-residential uses in an effort to locate affordable housing near employment opportunities and take maximum advantage of infill development opportunities.

Programs HE-46(a): The County will amend the Zoning Code or provide for in the new development code a mixed use zone. This mixed use zone will permit mixed use development including both vertical and horizontal mixture of uses. This zone provides for a variety of alternative housing types such as: single and multiple-family attached and detached, “pull apart” housing and co-housing, street-oriented ground floor commercial uses, generally with residential uses above, but allowing for office/retail and live/work or other combinations in select locations (especially in the commercial corridors). [Same as Program HE-4(d)]



Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to establish a mixed use zone.




HE-46(b): The County will adopt a new Development Code, or form based codes or districts/special planning areas (SPA’s) to facilitate medium to high density residential and mixed use development within the commercial corridor areas. Form based codes allow for flexibility in uses, densities and development standards while prohibiting certain uses that will have a detrimental effect on desirable uses for the district or SPA. Design standards are an important feature of form based codes. These districts or SPA’s would be consistent with principles of smart growth and sustainable communities in their design and function, as defined by the County. [Same as Programs HE-4(e) and HE-9(a)]



Objective: Adopt form based codes or districts/SPA’s.


HE-46(c): The County will ensure that there are mixed use zones in any master plan for the Jackson Highway new growth area.



Objective: Incorporate mixed use zones in any master plan for the Jackson Highway new growth area.

Target Date: Ongoing, in conjunction with development of master plans for the Jackson Highway new growth area, 2008–2013.

Sub-Strategy V-E: Accessory Dwelling Units (Description: PG. 3-23)

Policy HE-47. Support the development of residential accessory dwelling units as a means to increase the overall supply of housing.

Programs HE-47(a): Continue to implement Zoning Code standards to encourage homeowners to build second units to increase the availability of lower-cost housing.

The County will continue to promote its second unit standards on its website, through an insert in utility billings to single-family property owners, through a brochure at the information counter, and through pre-application meetings with residential developers who may desire to incorporate second units in new developments.





Objective: Encourage residential accessory dwelling unit construction. At least 100 will be constructed.


HE-47(b): The Planning and Community Development Department will propose to amend the Zoning Code to require accessory dwellings between 400 and 1,200 square feet to have a staff level design review instead of a use permit. The accessory dwellings must be located on parcels of at least 10,400 sq. ft. net lot area and at least double the minimum lot size for the parcel's zone.



Objective: Require staff level design review instead of use permits for accessory dwellings between 400 and 1,200 square feet.


HE-47(c): The Planning and Community Development Department will develop a technical assistance program to assist homeowners in designing an accessory dwelling unit for their properties. This will include providing “ready made” plans, community workshops, and a manual. The “ready made plans” and the manual will be advertised on the department’s website and will be available for purchase at the information counter.



Objective: Develop an accessory dwelling technical assistance program.


Sub-Strategy V-F: Alternative Housing Types (Description: PG. 3-23)

Policy HE-48. Support alternative housing types that provide for a variety of ownership opportunities through regulatory and financial incentives.

Program HE-48(a): Encourage and facilitate alternative housing types in residential and mixed use developments that provide ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Development proposals that incorporate housing units affordable to lower-income households will quality for density bonuses, regulatory incentives, and financial assistance. Ownership housing alternatives for moderate-income households will be facilitated through current zoning standards that permit a variety of detached and attached single-family and multifamily housing options throughout the unincorporated area.




Funding: CDBG, HOME, Housing Trust Funds, Redevelopment Tax Increment.

Objective: Develop incentives to encourage the construction of alternative housing types.


Sub-Strategy V-G: Condominium Conversion (Description: PG. 3-23)

Policy HE-49. Discourage the conversion of existing rental housing units, primarily those serving the needs of very low- and low-income households, to market-rate condominiums.

Program HE-49(a): If a conversion request comes before the County, enforce and implement the condominium conversion ordinance, which regulates the conversion of rental housing to condominiums. If a property owner requests to convert a rental property to condominium ownership, the County will analyze the potential impact of the conversion on the displacement of low-income tenants and require appropriate mitigation. Mitigation could include offering low- or moderate-income tenants an opportunity to purchase units at an affordable purchase price or providing relocation assistance.

Responsibility: County Planning and Community Development.


Objective: Reduce the conversion of market-rate rental housing occupied by lower income households to condominiums unless ownership opportunities are provided.


Sub-Strategy V-H: Self-Help Housing (Description: PG. 3-24)

Policy HE-50. Support the use of self-help or sweat equity programs, as a means of providing affordable housing opportunities for lower income households.

Program HE-50(a): The County will continue to support self-help housing as a means for low-income households to become homeowners through the supervised construction of their own homes. The County assists these programs by providing financing, through SHRA, to the sponsoring of non-profit corporations.

Responsibility: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, various non-profit organizations including Mercy Housing California.



Funding: CHFA, State Department of Housing and Community Development, CDBG, HOME, Tax Increment Funds, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program.

Objective: Assistance to ten low- and moderate-income households to build their own homes.


Sub-Strategy V-I: Affordable Housing Program (Description: PG. 3-25)

Policy HE-51. The County will continue to implement its affordable housing program which requires that 15 percent of new residential development to be affordable to extremely low-, very low- and low-income households.

Programs HE-51(a): The County will continue to implement a mandatory affordable housing requirement which is part of the zoning ordinance. The requirement applies to new residential and mixed use developments of 5 units or more. Residential projects of 5 units to 99 units have the option of providing units on site, offering land dedicated for affordable housing or paying in-lieu fees. Residential projects of 100 units or more are required either to provide units on site or provide dedicated land. Biennial reports on the Affordable Housing Program will continue to be prepared for review by the Board of Supervisors.


Funding: Development Fees.

Objective: Implement the Affordable Housing Program and prepare biennial reports.


HE-51(b): The County will adopt process and procedure guidelines, including for-sale guidelines, for the implementation of the Affordable Housing Ordinance.


Funding: General Fund.

Objective: Adopt process and procedure guidelines for the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Target Date: 2010.

Sub-Strategy V-J: Locating Multiple-Family Projects Near Services (Description: PG. 3-25)



Policy HE-52. The County will encourage the locating of multiple-family projects near public transportation, shopping, recreation and other amenities.

Programs HE-52(a): The Planning and Community Development Department will develop commercial corridor plans that will have multiple-family projects located in a mixed use setting or a single-use setting with nearby amenities. Amenities include transit and neighborhood serving commercial such as grocery and drug stores.



Objective: Develop commercial corridor plans with multiple-family projects located near amenities.

Target Date: Ongoing, in conjunction with development of commercial corridor plans, 2008–2013.

HE-52(b): The Planning and Community Development Department will discourage the clustering of multiple-family projects in one area of a community where services are limited. An exception to this will be transit stations and mixed use nodes along commercial corridors.



Objective: Avoid cluster of multiple-family projects in one area of a community where services are limited.


Sub-Strategy V-K: New Funding Sources for Provision of Affordable Housing (Description: PG. 3-25)

Policy HE-53. Identify new funding sources for the provision of affordable housing.

Programs HE-53(a): Explore new funding sources for the City/County housing trust fund and provide recommendations for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Examples of funding sources the County could explore are:

■ An increase in the current Housing Trust Fund fee as permitted under current ordinance.

■ Establishment or increases or capture of incremental increases of a document transfer tax, transient occupancy tax (hotel and motel fees), or other regular sources of revenue.



■ Use of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds to finance affordable housing developments.

■ Solicitation of private contributions to the Housing Trust Fund from major employers and others in Sacramento County.

■ “Location efficient mortgages” and “employer-assisted mortgages” as a County employee benefit program and/or with private sector employers.

■ Participation in the Housing Trust Fund matching program.

■ Lease-purchase bonds for single-family home ownership through pooled issuances and by considering participation in a statewide program.

■ Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, with or without Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (four percent noncompetitive program).

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department; Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

Funding: Private and public funding.

Objective: Identify new funding sources and increase the availability of funding to support affordable housing.


HE-53(b): The County will promote the use of Federal Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) in new construction or rehabilitation to provide a new financing source based on the differential between restricted and market (HCV) rents. The County will provide information on this option to affordable housing providers in seeking to construct or rehabilitate rental housing affordable to lower income households.


Funding: HUD HCV Program.

Objective: Use of local project-based voucher program to increase feasibility of affordability.


HOUSING STRATEGY VI: PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL RESIDENTS (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-26)

Sub-Strategy VI-A: Promote Health through Community Design (Description: PG. 3-27)

Policy HE-54. The County will develop regular channels of communication in the review of residential and residential mixed use development projects between County



health officials and the Planning and Community Development Department. County health officials will provide ongoing feedback and input during the development process.

Program HE-54(a): The Department of Health and Human Services will dedicate a staff position to review development plans of significant projects and participate in the development of new master plans with the goal of promoting community health.

Responsibility: Department of Health and Human Services.


Objective: Dedicate a staff person to review development plans with the goal of promoting community health.


Policy HE-55. The County will continue to encourage walking and bicycling and reducing auto dependency in order improve the health of its citizens and improve the region’s air quality.

Program HE-55(a): The County will continue to provide and promote the use of bicycle and pedestrian trails and sidewalks, through: master planning walk-ability principles and connectivity in residential project planning, capital projects and strategic partnerships. New residential and residential mixed use infill development should help create bicycle and pedestrian connectivity through:

■ Creating and providing open space connections for multiple residential projects utilizing stormwater quality, utility easements and other opportunities to integrate trails within urban development.

■ Invest in transit-oriented and non-motorized residential and residential mixed use development projects that promote urban density, economic vitality, street connectivity and attractive public transportation choices.

■ Trail system linkages to roads and park-and-ride facilities, sidewalk projects that create more walkable residential communities and safe bicycle lanes.



Objective: Provide and encourage walking, bicycling and use of transit in residential communities. Diminish auto dependency. Improve air quality and minimize environmental impacts.




Policy HE-56: The County will endeavor to protect homes from major sources of outdoor air pollution.

Program HE-56(a): Locate housing at least 500 feet from roadways that have 100,000 or more daily trips or implement mitigation measures in consultation with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.



Objective: Mitigate impacts of air pollution for residential projects.


Policy HE-57: The County will encourage the provision of safe, convenient opportunities to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables by ensuring that sources of healthy foods are accessible in all neighborhoods.

Programs HE-57(a): A study will be conducted through the use of GIS to determine which residential areas of the unincorporated County are underserved by grocery stores.



Objective: Comprehensive study to determine residential areas underserved by grocery stores.


HE-57(b): The County will expedite permitting for applications of new grocery stores in underserved residential areas.



Objective: Expedite permitting for new grocery stores in underserved residential areas.


HE-57(c): The Planning and Community Development Department will consider the provision of community gardens in open space areas of new multifamily projects as part of the new Multifamily Design Guidelines.





Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to requiring community gardens in multiple-family projects.


Sub-Strategy VI-B: Promote Safety Through Community Design (Description: PG. 3-27) Policy HE-58: The County will encourage residential subdivision and building design that help to reduce crime.

Programs HE-58(a): The Sheriff’s Department will continue to review development plans and recommend conditions of approval that pertain to crime prevention.

Responsibility: Sheriff’s Department.


Objective: Review of development plans to discourage crime.


HE-58(b): The Planning and Community Development Department will encourage its staff members to take classes in reducing crime through environmental design.



Objective: Review of development plans to discourage crime.


HOUSING STRATEGY VII: PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY AND IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY (DESCRIPTION: PG. 3-28)

Sub-Strategy VII-A: Promote the Efficient Use of Energy and Reduce the Long-Term Operational Cost of Housing (Description: PG. 3-28)

Policy HE-59. Whenever feasible, incorporate energy-efficient site design, such as proper orientation to benefit from active and/or passive solar heating and cooling, into master planning efforts.

Programs HE-59(a): The County will include SMUD energy system planners and energy efficiency specialists in appropriate pre-application discussions with property



owners and developers to identify the potential for solar orientation and energy efficient systems, building practices and materials.



Objective: Have SMUD staff participate in pre-application meetings.


HE-59(b): The County will develop Community Plans, Specific and Comprehensive Plans, Corridor Plans and Residential Design Guidelines that incorporate energy efficient configuration and design as primary goals.


Funding: Application Fees, County General Fund.

Objective: Incorporate energy efficiency as primary goals in master plans.


HE-59(c): The County will continue to provide a 25 percent density bonus to residential development projects if the following two conditions are met:

1. The project would result in an energy savings beyond those obtained with conventional design and construction techniques.

2. The amount of increased density is proportional to the amount of increased energy efficiency achieved that exceeds adopted regulations.



Objective: Provide up to a 25 percent density bonus for residential projects with increased energy efficiency.


Policy HE-60. The County will encourage residential developers/builders to maximize energy efficiency through building design and through the use of energy efficient materials, equipment, and appliances.

Programs HE-60(a): The Building Division will continue to require a Residential Title 24 Energy Analysis and enforce these requirements as part of building plan check procedures. Title 24 requires new residential buildings to meet a comprehensive set of standards for energy efficiency.

Responsibility: Building Division.



Funding: Building Permit Fees.

Objective: Require Residential Title 24 Energy Analysis for building permit applications.


HE-60(b): The County will develop a comprehensive Green Building Program. This program will consider Green Building rating systems as optional standards for builders to use for their energy analysis. This program will consider incentives for builders to construct homes that exceed Title 24 standards [See HE-61 (e)]. Also, there will be an educational component to this program [See HE-61 (d)].

Responsibility: Municipal Services Agency.


Objective: Develop a comprehensive Green Building Program.


HE-60(c): The County will develop a web page that will advertise the GreenPoint rating program and/or equivalent rating system. The web page will highlight residential developments that have homes that are certified by a third party to have exceeded requirements of Residential Title 24 Energy Analysis. For instance, a GreenPoint Rated residential development reflects construction practices that exceed California’s building and energy code requirements. A GreenPoint Rated home is graded on 5 categories – energy efficiency, resource conservation, indoor air quality, water conservation and community. If the home meets minimum point requirements in each category, it earns the right to bear the GreenPoint Rated label.



Objective: Prepare a web page that advertises the GreenPoint rating program and/or equivalent rating system and highlights residential developments that exceed Residential Title 24 Energy Analysis requirements.


HE-60(d): The County will participate in educating residents about Green Building and the promoting the use of Green Building rating systems.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Building Division.




Objective: Determine and implement 3 programs that educate residents about Green Building and promoting the use of Green Building rating systems.


HE-60(e): The County will consider offering incentives (e.g. density bonus, expedited process, fee reduction/waiver) to residential projects that attain rating of being a “Green Building” through independent third-party verification. Incentives will be considered and adopted through the County’s Green Building Program.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development Department, Building Division, Municipal Services Agency.


Objective: Offer incentives for the attainment of the GreenPoint Rated label.


HE-60(f): The County, in partnership with SMUD, will develop and distribute pertinent information about the benefits of energy conservation and available energy efficiency incentive programs to residents and developers and builders of housing.

Responsibility: Planning and Community Development.


Objective: Provide information on benefits of energy conservation and available energy conservation incentive programs.


HE-60(g): As part of the plan-check process for single-family and multifamily residential (3 stories or less), the Planning and Community Development Department will provide a line item to indicate whether the applicant is participating in SMUD’s Advantage Home rebate program, to achieve a 20 percent margin above the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards.



Objective: Ensure that an applicant for a new home will participate in SMUD’s Advantage Home rebate program.


HE-60(h): If a project’s applicants conducted a Residential Title 24 Energy Analysis and the project exceeded Title 24 energy efficiency standards, then Planning staff



will report this in the staff report and during presentations to hearing bodies. Planning staff will report the percentage that a project exceeds the State’s standards.



Objective: Report in staff reports and presentation the percentage that a project exceeds the State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards.




PART 3: SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

As required by State law governing Housing Elements, Table H 3-1 lays out the County’s quantified objectives for the development, improvement, maintenance, preservation of housing, and other housing activities for the period 2008-2013.

TABLE 3-1. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR 2008-2013

ELI TOTAL

VLI LI MOD ABOVE MOD

TOTAL

New Construction

Single-Family 0 25 50 25 6,828 6,928 Multi-Family 200 753 476 2,700 0 4,129

Rehabilitation Single-Family 0 250 250 0 0 500 Multi-Family 0 125 375 0 0 500

Preservation 200 150 150 0 0 500 Owner Assistance 0 0 305 70 0 375 Special Needs

New 0 0 0 0 0 0 Units Through Leasing 140 0 0 0 0 140

TOTAL Q.O. PRODUCTION 540 1,303 1,606 2,795 6,828 13,072

The Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) covers a seven-and-one-half-year period, while the Housing Element covers only a portion of the RHNA timeframe. The objectives contained in the following table cover the Housing Element period July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013.

While the RHNA lays out the County’s anticipated new growth and sets clear requirements for the County’s ability to accommodate that growth, the quantified objectives speak more to the County’s program and policy objectives. The quantified objectives aim to meet the RHNA growth projections, but also consider the rehabilitation and preservation needs of existing housing throughout the County. Finally, the quantified objectives is prepared in the context of funding availability, community desires and programmatic limitations, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of how the County anticipates balancing affordable housing development.


4-1 Evaluation of Prior Achievements

CHAPTER 4:

EVALUATION OF PRIOR ACHIEVEMENTS

A critical part of the County’s housing strategy is to assess the achievements of the 2003 Housing Element in relation to the goals and objectives of the Element. The purpose of this assessment is to determine the effectiveness of current housing policies and programs and whether modifications are appropriate. This evaluation provides valuable information on how successful these programs have been in achieving stated objectives and addressing local needs.

The review and evaluation of prior achievements is also a requirement of State law. California Government Code Section 65588 requires that the evaluation assess:

1. The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal;

2. The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives; and

3. The progress of the County in implementation of the Housing Element.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS

The following is a summary of the County’s achievements under the 2003 Housing Element. There is a more detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of each of the programs in Appendix B. The previous Element contained five Housing Strategies related to: 1) an adequate supply of land for housing; 2) preservation of existing housing and neighborhoods; 3) reduction of housing costs; 4) improvement of housing opportunities for special needs groups; and 5) provision of housing affordability. The County of Sacramento (County) and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) have achieved many key objectives of the existing Housing Element.


Elements of this strategy include:

■ Ensure an adequate supply of land for housing.

■ Inventory of surplus land.

■ Use of infill and underutilized sites.

Implementation of Sacramento County’s programs under this strategy included the rezoning of land to multiple-family zones to meet the County’s share of regional housing need for all income levels, as specified in Government Code 65583(c)(1). To ensure that the County continues to have an adequate supply of land for multiple-family development, there is an existing Housing Element program that requires multifamily-designated land to be developed with multifamily housing. Nonresidential projects could be developed if findings could be made that there is


Evaluation of Prior Achievements 4-2

excess land available for multiple-family. The County achieved the following goals during the planning period of the previous Housing Element.

• Sacramento County has rezoned a total of 134 acres of land with minimum RD-20 densities. This was done at the County’s expense. All but one of the rezoned properties are infill sites. These include parcels in commercial and transit corridors. Furthermore, the County has not permitted land zoned for multifamily development (RD-20 or higher) to be developed with non-residential uses.

• A commercial corridor land use study has been conducted for the General Plan Update. The development potential for each parcel was analyzed. The study provided an inventory of vacant land as well as underutilized and fully developed land that has the potential to be developed more intensely.

• Frequent (annual or quarterly) reporting of the vacant land inventory has been conducted by the County but it has been a challenge for the County. Program HE-1(b), which calls for quarterly inventories of vacant residential sites, will be revised to require biannual inventories.



■ Reduction of permit processing times.

■ Review of development standards.

■ Review of residential development and permit fees.

Program accomplishments under Strategy II have reduced constraints to housing posed by permit processing times, development standards, and fees. These include the following.

• Planning staff consults with SHRA staff on projects with an affordable housing component on a weekly basis. The Planning Department expedites affordable housing projects in order to meet funding deadlines. Furthermore, the County has recently begun a “Streamlining the Development Process Program,” which will provide a forum for stakeholder input, including special needs providers/advocates during the 2008-2013 period.

• The Planning Department has pre-application meetings with many residential developers. The Current Planning Division has encouraged the use of Special Development Permits, particularly for multifamily projects or mixed use projects, to vary from the strict development standards of the Zoning Code. Special development permits are less expensive and take less time to attain than variances.

• The County has not conducted an annual review of zoning ordinances to remove constraints, nor has the County implemented a program of



consultation with housing providers to evaluate the development approval process. However, a comprehensive update to the County’s zoning code and development standards is currently underway, and housing providers have given input to this update process. Furthermore, a new program with annual consultation meetings is proposed in the 2008-2013 period.

• Through the Affordable Housing Fee Waiver/Deferral Program, the County waives some development impact fees for affordable projects. Also the County defers payment until occupancy for affordable projects.



■ Establishment and maintenance of programs for rental housing rehabilitation.

■ Maintenance of programs for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation.

■ Rehabilitation of older motels serving as transitional or permanent housing.

■ Conservation of residential neighborhood quality through zoning and code enforcement.

■ Revitalization of deteriorated neighborhoods through public facility improvements.

■ Local/private sector investment for neighborhood revitalization.

■ Preservation and maintenance of mobile homes.

■ Housing quality survey.

■ Reduction of loss in housing through demolition activities.

The following programs assists in the conserving and improving of the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, as specified in Government Code 65583 (c)(4).

• A total of 1,911 multifamily units were acquired and rehabilitated by SHRA during 2004-2007.

• SHRA originated 86 single-family rehabilitation loans and 680 Emergency Repair and Accessibility Grants during 2002–2007.

• The County has converted two former blighted motels to permanent affordable housing: The former Dodge City Inn was converted to the 146 unit Ladi Senior Apartments in 2002. South Pointe Motel was converted into a 56 unit permanent supportive housing project (Saybrook) in 2003.

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding was allocated to support the activities of County Code Enforcement officers working in low-income neighborhoods. Residential units are inspected for health and



safety code violations and, if cited, are referred to the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency rehabilitation programs as well as other housing assistance agencies. During the reporting period, 2,571 residential units were inspected for health and safety code violations.

• A relocation assistance plan was adopted in 2006. This program requires the Code Enforcement Division to notify residential tenants of assistance options if housing units are demolished.



■ Housing for persons with disabilities.

■ Housing for seniors.

■ Farmworker housing.

■ Housing for homeless people.

■ Enforcement of anti-discrimination programs.

■ Housing needs of female heads-of-household.

■ Housing needs of large households.

■ Increase in the supply of affordable rental housing for special needs groups.

These programs promote equal housing opportunities (Government Code 65583(c)(5)), as well as supporting homeless shelters, transitional housing, and farmworker housing (Government Code 65583(c)(1). The County’s efforts to preserve existing affordable units at risk of conversion (Government Code 65583(c)(6)(D)) are also detailed in programs under Strategy IV.

• The County provides housing assistance to approximately 400 persons with HIV/AIDS annually and there are 60 emergency, transitional or permanent units available for people with HIV/AIDS.

• SHRA assisted in retrofitting 124 units with accessibility features through the Handicapped/Disabled Retrofit Grant Program during 2004-2007.

• The Human Rights Fair Housing Commission performed audits and investigated over 600 housing discrimination complaints during 2002-2007.

• The Department of Environmental Health continues to conduct annual checks of farm labor camps. Recently, use of existing farm labor camps has been declining, and rehabilitation and replacement may be a higher priority than creation of new units.

• Sacramento County serves approximately 6,000 people each year in emergency, transitional and permanent housing. An additional 1,500



people are served in the Winter Shelter Program (WSP). In the current contract year, the WSP has 27,192 bed nights.

• During 2003-2007, 34 newly constructed and 60 rehabilitated units for lower income families were financed.

HOUSING STRATEGY V: PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING


■ Utilization of Federal, State, and local programs for the provision of affordable housing.

■ Fair-share housing plan.

■ Density bonuses for affordable housing.

■ Tax-increment funds.

■ Mixed-use development.

■ Accessory dwelling units.

■ Non-profit housing organizations.

■ Alternative housing types.

■ Condominium conversions.

■ Self-help housing.

■ Affordable housing program.

■ Mixed housing in new residential developments.

■ New funding sources for provision of affordable housing.

These programs include regulatory concessions, incentives, and financing to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households, as specified in Government Code 65583(c)(2).

• The County adopted an affordable housing program on December 8, 2004. The program requires that new residential projects include 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low-, very low- and extremely low- income households. The program offers a variety of compliance options, including land dedication, off-site construction and in-lieu fees. The biennial report showed that, between 1-1-05 and 12-31-06, 211 affordable housing plans were processed by the County, resulting in the approval of approximately 4,006 affordable housing units. Of these 4,006 units, over 25 percent (1,082) will be ownership and 14 percent (567) will be affordable to households at extremely low-incomes. In addition to the 400 units to be built by developers or on dedicated land, the County anticipates collecting over $50 million in in-lieu and affordability fees.



• SHRA provided mortgage assistance to 815 homebuyers during 2002-2007.

• SHRA provided financing for construction of a total of 1,035 new multifamily units during 2004-2007.

• The County has permitted an additional 150-200 dwelling units in approved projects through application of density bonuses. An additional 700-800 density bonus units are planned in pending projects. The Affordable Housing Program gave impetus to developers to seek density bonuses.

• SHRA has provided financing for two supportive housing projects: Bell Street (2 units), and McClellan Cottages (83 units).

A program by program evaluation of the 2003 Housing Element programs is located in Appendix B.


5-1 Population and Housing Characteristics

CHAPTER 5

POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter evaluates existing and projected population, economic, and housing characteristics. Key findings related population, economics, and housing for the unincorporated area of Sacramento County include:

■ The population of unincorporated Sacramento County is estimated to have increased slightly (less than two percent) between 2000 and 2007 (after accounting for the incorporations of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which removed more than 100,000 residents from the unincorporated area). The estimated 2007 population is 561,951. Although several growth areas of the County have incorporated, population growth for the unincorporated area is expected in the communities of Antelope, Rio Linda and Elverta, the Florin-Vineyard area, the Highway 50 and other major transportation corridors, and other areas during 2008–2013. SACOG projects that 5-year growth rates between 2000 and 2025 will range from three percent to nine percent.

■ Unincorporated Sacramento County’s population is older, with a higher percentage (62 percent) of Non-Hispanic White residents than the County as a whole (53 percent).

■ According to the 2000 Census, approximately 44 percent of the unincorporated county’s households were low income, earning less than 80 percent of the median family income (MFI). Approximately 15 percent of unincorporated county residents had extremely low incomes (ELI), and 14 percent of unincorporated county residents lived in poverty in 2000. It must be noted that these conclusions are made from data that is not adjusted for household size – all incomes are compared against the median income of a family of four.

■ The jobs-to-housing ratio for the unincorporated county was approximately 1.04 in 2000, and this rate is expected to remain steady through 2024. Job growth of about one percent annually is expected in the unincorporated area. Since there were approximately 1.4 workers per household countywide in 2000, this ratio indicates more housing than jobs in the unincorporated area of the County.

■ About 58 percent of the County’s housing units were reported to be owner-occupied in the 2000 Census, slightly above the statewide level. However, the price of housing has risen more sharply than incomes, and the percentage of Sacramento households that can afford to purchase the median-priced home has declined from 51 percent at the end of 2001 to 13 percent in the first quarter of 2007. Although home prices have leveled off, and even declined in some areas of the County since 2005, the long-term gap between incomes and home prices is likely to continue once the housing market recovers, continuing the decline in housing affordability.

■ About 38 percent of the unincorporated County’s housing was more than 30 years old at the time of the 2000 Census. Older homes, especially older rental units, are more likely to be in need of maintenance, updating of utilities or interior amenities, rehabilitation, or replacement. An estimated 11–15 percent of the County’s housing units are estimated to be in need of rehabilitation, and an estimated one percent of housing units are estimated to require replacement.


Population and Housing Characteristics 5-2

Many of the comparisons in this chapter are those between the unincorporated areas of the County and the City of Sacramento. This was done because the unincorporated areas of the County contain traditional suburbs while the City is the urban core of the metropolitan area. A comparison between the two areas will illuminate differences in population and housing characteristics that are consistent with other similar analyses.

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

POPULATION TRENDS

Between 2000 and 2007, the population of Sacramento County grew by approximately 15 percent from 1,223,499 to 1,406,804 (Table 5-1). The population in the unincorporated county area declined by 15 percent during that same time with the incorporations of Elk Grove (2000 census-designated place [CDP]) population of 59,984) and Rancho Cordova (2000 CDP population of 55,060). Although a direct comparison of 2000 and 2007 population figures for the unincorporated county is difficult because of the incorporation activity, the population is estimated to have been stable or slightly increased (less than two percent) in the unincorporated areas between 2000 and 2007 when accounting for the removal of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova.

The largest percentage growth among the cities within Sacramento County occurred in the City of Elk Grove. The population of the Elk Grove CDP in 2000 may not be exactly comparable to the actual city limits due to boundary changes, but comparison of the 2000 CDP and 2007 city populations indicates a growth rate of approximately 127 percent. This was followed by the cities of Folsom and Galt, which experienced growths of 37 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Isleton showed a slight decline in population over the period of 2000–2007.

The largest numerical population growth was posted in the City of Elk Grove, approximately 76,000 residents, and in the City of Sacramento, which saw an increase of approximately 60,000. Table 5-1 shows that most unincorporated communities (except areas that are now part of Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove) experienced little population growth between 1990 and 2000. The primary growth areas were in the north county (North Highlands CDP and Antelope), the south county (Parkway-South CDP), Arden-Arcade CDP, and Rancho Murieta CDP.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) projects Sacramento County’s population growth to be in the single-digit range for each 5-year period between 2000 and 2025. The rate of population growth per 5-year period is anticipated to gradually decline, from nearly nine percent between 2000 and 2005 to about three percent between 2020 and 2025. SACOG projects similar, modest population growth in the unincorporated county area. Table 5-2 shows the SACOG population growth projections. SACOG projects a small increase in the average household size in the unincorporated area between 2005 and 2025, based on the assumption that housing development will attract more families with children. Conversely, SACOG projects slight declines in average household sizes for most of the cities in Sacramento County.



TABLE 5-1. SACRAMENTO COUNTY POPULATION GROWTH

JURISDICTION 1990 2000 20071PERCENT CHANGE,

1990–2000

PERCENT CHANGE,

2000–2007

Cities and County

Citrus Heights2 107,439 85,071 87,017 -21% 2%

Folsom 29,802 51,884 70,835 74% 37%

Galt 8,889 19,472 23,469 119% 21%

Isleton 833 828 815 -1% -2%

Sacramento City 369,365 407,018 467,343 10% 15%

Unincorporated 524,891 659,226 561,951 26% -15%

Entire County 1,041,219 1,223,499 1,406,804 18% 15%

Census-Designated Places3

Arden–Arcade 92,040 96,025 NA 4% –

Carmichael 48,702 49,742 NA 2% –

Elk Grove4 17,483 59,984 136,318 243% 127%

Elkhorn 1,458 1,591 NA 9% –

Fair Oaks 26,867 28,008 NA 4% –

Foothill Farms 17,135 17,426 NA 2% –

Gold River – 8,023 NA – –

La Riviera 10,986 10,273 NA -6% –

North Highlands 42,105 44,187 NA 5% –

Orangevale 26,266 26,705 NA 2% –

Parkway–South Sacramento 31,903 36,468 NA 14% –

Rancho Cordova5 48,731 55,060 59,056 13% 7%

Rancho Murieta 2,336 4,193 NA 79% –

Rio Linda 9,481 10,466 NA 10% –

Rosemont 22,851 22,904 NA 0% –

Wilton 3,858 4,551 NA 18% –

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000, California Department of Finance 2007. 1 The California Department of Finance only provides population projections for cities and counties. 2 Citrus Heights was not an incorporated city in 1990. This table shows the Citrus Heights population

separately to compare 1990 and 2000 population growth. The population of Citrus Heights in 1990 was based on census-designated place boundaries, which included a larger population than the incorporation boundaries at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census.

3 Census-designated places (CDPs) include unincorporated communities, with boundaries determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The CDP names and boundaries do not correspond with Community Planning Area names and boundaries, or city boundaries for Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova. The populations shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 will therefore differ from those shown in Chapter 11 for Sacramento County’s unincorporated communities. Furthermore, 2007 population estimates for Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove are not directly comparable with 2000 population totals for the CDPs.

4 Elk Grove was incorporated in 2000. Census information for 2000 does not reflect this change. 5 Rancho Cordova was incorporated in 2003. Census information for 2000 does not reflect this

change. NA = not available



TABLE 5-2. POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS, 2005–20251

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Population

Citrus Heights 91,350 91,650 91,775 91,575 91,125

Elk Grove 98,110 122,600 149,430 166,300 168,465

Folsom 62,900 74,185 76,333 76,333 76,333

Galt 23,450 26,490 29,210 31,620 33,790

Isleton 1,010 1,160 1,270 1,320 1,360

Sacramento City 446,960 485,420 512,060 523,200 528,880

Unincorporated 611,503 658,447 714,342 755,697 795,545

Entire County 1,335,283 1,459,952 1,574,420 1,646,045 1,695,498

Households

Citrus Heights 33,947 34,143 34,256 34,304 34,310

Elk Grove 33,050 41,916 51,633 57,955 59,448

Folsom 21,141 25,812 27,682 27,685 27,691

Galt 7,684 8,679 9,616 10,479 11,253

Isleton 393 450 493 512 526

Sacramento City 165,860 180,217 190,136 195,018 198,434

Unincorporated 234,279 251,813 271,986 286,817 300,579

Entire County 496,354 543,030 585,802 612,770 632,241

Persons per Household

Citrus Heights 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.65 2.63

Elk Grove 2.96 2.92 2.89 2.87 2.83

Folsom 2.64 2.60 2.50 2.50 2.50

Galt 3.03 3.01 2.99 2.97 2.96

Isleton 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55

Sacramento City 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.63 2.61

Unincorporated 2.57 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61

Entire County 2.54 2.54 2.55 2.55 2.55

Source: SACOG 2000 (latest SACOG data available, new data projected to be released in Summer 2008).

1 The City of Rancho Cordova is shown as part of the unincorporated area of the county because it was incorporated after the release of the 2000 SACOG projections.

ETHNICITY

Sacramento County’s racial and ethnic composition varies significantly among the various incorporated cities, and the unincorporated county area. In the unincorporated area, about 62 percent of all residents identified themselves as Non-Hispanic Whites in the 2000 U.S. Census. Persons of Latino or Hispanic origin composed the second largest population group, at 11 percent. Asian/Pacific Islander populations represented nine percent of the unincorporated county’s population, followed by Black/African American residents at seven percent of the



population. Some cities, such as Sacramento, Galt and Rancho Cordova, contain larger concentrations of minority residents than the County as a whole. In the Sacramento area more broadly, there is no “majority” or “minority” population. Table 5-3 compares the ethnic composition of the population in 2000 for the cities, the County, and statewide.

TABLE 5-3. COMPARISON OF RACE BY CITIES, COUNTY, AND STATE POPULATION (2000)1

RACE CITRUS HEIGHTS FOLSOM GALT ISLETON SACRAMENTO

CITY

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO

COUNTY CALIFORNIA

Non-Hispanic White 80% 74% 59% 56% 41% 62% 47%

Black 3% 6% 1% 1% 15% 7% 6%

Native American 1% <1% 1% 1% <1% <1% 1%

Asian/ Pacific Islander 3% 7% 3% 8% 17% 9% 11%

Other <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% 5% <1%

Two or More Races 3% 2% 3% 6% 4% 5% 3%

Hispanic or Latino 10% 10% 33% 27% 22% 11% 32%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 2000 Census data for unincorporated Sacramento County include Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova,

which had not yet incorporated.

AGE OF THE POPULATION

Persons ages 35–54 years old represent the largest segment of the population in all locations, ranging from 28 percent in the City of Sacramento to 36 percent in the City of Folsom (Table 5-4). The median age of the population within the cities in Sacramento County ranges from 31 to 39. By comparison, the unincorporated area of Sacramento County had a median age of 35 years in 2000. CDPs had slightly higher median ages, with Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Wilton, Gold River, and Rancho Murieta having the highest median ages—40 years old and over. These communities have experienced less population growth and household turnover or, in the case of Rancho Murieta, have developed community features that older households find attractive.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND COMPOSITION

One- and two-person households comprise the majority of Sacramento County’s households - 59 percent countywide and 56 percent in the unincorporated area. The City of Sacramento has the largest percentage of small households composed of one or two persons, 62 percent. The unincorporated area had a higher percentage of three- and four-person households, nearly one-third of all households, than either the entire county or the cities. These differences, the smaller percentage of one- and two-person households and the higher percentage of three- and four-person households, suggests that more families with children have moved to unincorporated communities and newly incorporated cities since 1990. Much of the difference is the result of population growth in Elk Grove, the



northern county areas (Antelope and North Highlands), and Rancho Cordova. Table 5-5 shows the number of households by persons per household in 2000.

TABLE 5-4. AGE DISTRIBUTION (2000) 1

UNDER 5 YEARS

5–19 YEARS

20–34 YEARS

35–54 YEARS

55–64 YEARS

65 AND OVER

MEDIAN AGE

Citrus Heights 7% 21% 22% 29% 8% 13% 35

Folsom 7% 19% 22% 36% 7% 9% 36

Galt 8% 28% 20% 29% 6% 9% 31

Isleton 6% 21% 16% 29% 12% 16% 39

Sacramento City 7% 23% 23% 28% 7% 12% 33

Unincorporated Sacramento County

7% 23% 21% 30% 8% 11% 35

California 7% 23% 22% 29% 8% 11% 33

Census-Designated Places

Arden–Arcade 6% 18% 22% 29% 8% 17% 38

Carmichael 5% 20% 17% 31% 10% 17% 40

Elk Grove 8% 28% 19% 32% 6% 7% 32

Elkhorn 6% 23% 17% 36% 10% 8% 38

Fair Oaks 5% 20% 16% 33% 12% 14% 41

Foothill Farms 9% 25% 23% 26% 8% 9% 31

Gold River 6% 20% 9% 38% 12% 15% 43

La Riviera 6% 16% 29% 30% 10% 9% 34

North Highlands 7% 25% 22% 26% 8% 12% 30

Orangevale 6% 24% 17% 33% 9% 11% 37

Parkway–South Sacramento 10% 29% 22% 23% 6% 10% 27

Rancho Cordova 8% 23% 23% 27% 9% 10% 32

Rancho Murieta 5% 15% 9% 32% 17% 22% 49

Rio Linda 7% 27% 17% 32% 8% 9% 34

Rosemont 7% 23% 26% 29% 7% 8% 31

Wilton 5% 23% 11% 37% 13% 11% 42





TABLE 5-5. NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (2000)

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY SACRAMENTO COUNTY SACRAMENTO CITY

1 Person 24% 27% 32%

2 Persons 32% 32% 30%

3 Persons 17% 16% 14%

4 Persons 15% 14% 11%

5 Persons 7% 7% 6%

6 Persons 3% 3% 3%

7 + Persons 2% 2% 3%


which had not yet incorporated. 2 Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Table 5-6 compares the household composition of the City of Sacramento to the unincorporated area of Sacramento County. The unincorporated County has a significantly higher percentage (50 percent versus 38 percent) of married couple families than the City of Sacramento. Likewise, Sacramento has a higher percentage of non-family households (41 percent versus 31 percent) than the unincorporated county. This is consistent with the discussion in the previous paragraph. It can be concluded that the unincorporated county with its suburbs tend to attract more traditional families while the City of Sacramento with its urban amenities tend to attract singles and other nontraditional households.

TABLE 5-6. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY TYPE (2000) 1

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT OF POPULATION

HOUSEHOLD TYPE UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO

COUNTY

SACRAMENTO CITY

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO

COUNTY

SACRAMENTO CITY

Married couple families 120,912 59,302 50% 38%

Other family, male householder 12,598 8,045 5% 5%

Other family, female householder 33,680 23,790 14% 16%

Nonfamily households 74,840 63,444 31% 41%

Total 242,030 154,581 100% 100%



INCOME CHARACTERISTICS

Median household incomes increased 36 percent countywide between 1990 and 2000. By comparison, household incomes in the City of Sacramento increased by 31 percent during the same period. Nonfamily households, typically composed of one or two persons, in the City of Sacramento experienced the largest increase in



household incomes (47 percent). By contrast, family incomes in both the County and City of Sacramento increased more modestly (27 percent and 34 percent). The lag in an increase in family incomes relative to nonfamily incomes suggests both a growing number of more affluent households without children and a growing number of lower income families with children. See Table 5-7 for a comparison of median household incomes in 1990 and 2000 for Sacramento County and the City of Sacramento based on the U.S. Census.

TABLE 5-7. 1990 MEDIAN INCOME VERSUS 2000 MEDIAN INCOME

JURISDICTION MEDIAN

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME

MEDIAN NONFAMILY

INCOME

PER-CAPITA INCOME

1990

Sacramento City $28,183 $33,087 $20,526 $14,087

Sacramento County $32,297 $37,841 $22,125 $15,265

2000 (With Percentage Increase)

Sacramento City $37,049 (31%) $42,051 (27%) $30,208 (47%) $18,721 (33%)

Sacramento County $43,816 (36%) $50,717 (34%) $31,035 (40%) $21,142 (38%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000.

Patterns of household income, as measured by median household income, vary by geography and household characteristics. It must be noted that this data is not adjusted for household size but rather are compared against a family of four. For this reason, the following data does not have maximum accuracy and should be viewed as being estimates only.

The highest income communities, such as Rancho Murieta, Gold River, and Wilton, had approximately twice or more the incomes of the lowest income communities, such as Parkway–South Sacramento, Foothill Farms, and the City of Rancho Cordova. Communities with significantly higher than average percentages of low-income households were North Highlands Arden-Arcade, South Natomas, Rio Linda–Elverta and the City of Rancho Cordova. Incomes by population group also vary considerably. Age is another important indicator of household income (Table 5-8).

Table 5-9 compares incomes by dollar level in 2000 for the unincorporated area, all of Sacramento County, and the City of Sacramento. According to Table 5-9, incomes rise with age and peak just before retirement. This was true in Sacramento County in 2000. The median income for households with a head of household under age 25 was about $21,000 in 2000. By age 35–44, the median household income rose to approximately $46,000 and peaked at approximately $55,000 for households age 55–64. Household incomes declined as heads of household entered retirement years, to about $40,000 for households age 65–74, and to $36,000 for households age 75 or more. Although household incomes decline later in life, accumulated wealth, particularly as measured by home equity, tends to peak at retirement (see the Housing Characteristics section of this chapter).



TABLE 5-8. COMPARISON OF MEDIAN INCOMES AND PERCENT LOW INCOME BY

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS

CITIES MEDIAN INCOME1 PERCENT LOW INCOME (ESTIMATE)2

Antelope $58,966 29%

Arden–Arcade $45,622 49%

Carmichael $48,557 45%

Citrus Heights $43,859 47%

Cosumnes $69,087 27%

Elk Grove3 $61,974 28%

Fair Oaks $63,210 32%

Folsom $73,175 25%

Franklin–Laguna $68,156 21%

Galt $45,052 48%

Isleton $33,958 60%

North Highlands $36,110 60%

North Natomas $65,000 26%

Orangevale CDP4 $53,371 30%

Rancho Cordova5 $47,245 47%

Rancho Murieta $77,236 23%

Rio Linda–Elverta $44,163 47%

Sacramento $37,049 56%

South Natomas $43,975 48%

Southeast $53,340 42%

Vineyard $43,550 33%

TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREA $43,816 44%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. CDP = census-designated place 1 Based on income reported in the 2000 U.S. Census. 2 Percent of households who earned less than 80 percent of the median family income for Sacramento

County based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s income guidelines in 2000.

3 County subdivision boundaries correspond approximately with Community Planning Areas before incorporation.

4 Census-designated place boundaries correspond approximately with Community Planning Areas. 5 Rancho Cordova was not incorporated at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census.



TABLE 5-9. HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2000) 1

INCOME

% OF TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS IN

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY


SACRAMENTO COUNTY


SACRAMENTO CITY

Less than $10,000 7% 8% 12%

$10,000–$14,999 6% 6% 8%

$15,000–$24,999 11% 12% 14%

$25,000–$39,999 13% 13% 14%

$35,000–$49,999 17% 17% 17%

$50,000–$74,999 21% 20% 19%

$75,000–$99,999 12% 11% 8%

$100,000–$149,999 9% 9% 6%

$150,000–$199,999 2% 2% 1%

$200,000 or more 2% 2% 1%

2000 Sacramento County Median Income: $43,816


which had not yet incorporated in 2000.

POVERTY

The poverty rate is a federally defined level of income for minimum subsistence. The poverty level is an important indicator of severe financial distress, and the rate of poverty in a community (the proportion of the population with poverty-level incomes or less) provides important information about individuals and families with the greatest financial need. The dollar threshold for poverty is adjusted each year by the federal government for household size and composition. In 2000, 14% of Sacramento County residents lived in households with incomes below poverty level.

In unincorporated Sacramento County the overall poverty rate was approximately 14 percent according to the 2000 U.S. Census, the same poverty rate as for the entire county. Poverty rates among specific communities ranged from two percent or less in the wealthiest communities (such as Rancho Murieta and Gold River) to 19 percent or more in the poorest communities (such as North Highlands and Parkway–South Sacramento). Most of the other communities had poverty rates between nine percent and 14 percent.

Age and family status are other important indicators of poverty. Individuals 65 years or older had the lowest poverty rate of any population group, while single mothers had the highest poverty rate. Most seniors are protected from poverty by Social Security and other retirement incomes, while many single mothers rely on incomes from minimum-wage jobs or public assistance, which typically pay less than poverty-level incomes.

Finally, ethnicity and poverty are linked in Sacramento County. In the unincorporated area, households that identified themselves as “White, Non-Hispanic” had a poverty rate of about 11 percent. Nearly all other ethnic/racial



groups had poverty rates of between 20 percent and 25 percent. (See Chapter 11 for community area profiles and more information on poverty rates by community.)

Table 5-10 lists 2000 poverty rates for various population groups in Sacramento County and the unincorporated area (relative to the 2000 poverty level). More recent data for Sacramento County as a whole indicate that in 2004, 183,173 residents (13.6 percent of the County’s population) lived in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). More detailed data from 2004 are not available.

TABLE 5-10. SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2000 POVERTY RATES1

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY

GROUP NUMBER BELOW

POVERTY LEVEL

PERCENT BELOW

POVERTY LEVEL

NUMBER BELOW

POVERTY LEVEL

PERCENT BELOW

POVERTY LEVEL

All Individuals 169,784 14% 77,398 14%

All Individuals 18 years and over 102,056 12% 45,914 10%

Individuals 65 years and over 8,628 7% 3,663 6%

Families 30,774 10% 6,199 5%

Families with related children under 18 years 26,079 15% 4,873 8%

Families with female householder, no husband present 14,580 23% 7,108 15%

Female householder with related children under 18 years 13,311 30% 6,542 40%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 2000 Census data for unincorporated Sacramento County include Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova, which had not yet incorporated.

POVERTY THRESHOLDS

Table 5-11 lists poverty level incomes by household size and composition for 2006, the most recent available year that has thresholds by age and household size.

TABLE 5-11. POVERTY THRESHOLDS (2006) HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SIZE INCOME HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SIZE INCOME

Single Person 65+ $9,669 Two Adults, One Child $16,227

Single Person Under 65 $10,488 One Adult, Three Children $20,516

Two Persons 65+ $12,186 Two Adults, Two Children $20,444

Two Persons Under 65 $13,500 One Adult, Four Children $23,691

One Adult, Two Children $16,242 Two Adults, Three Children $24,059

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007.



EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

Employment growth is one of the primary drivers of housing demand. Working-age individuals will often choose a place to live based on employment prospects in the local area. The rate of employment growth, and the types of jobs most likely to be created, will determine how much housing will be needed by type and cost. For example, an economy based on seasonal tourism will generate different housing needs for local workers than an economy based on government, education, research, and technology. Among the employment trends evident in Sacramento County over the past 10 years are:

■ The Sacramento County economy will continue to diversify, with decreasing reliance on state government employment on the long term.

■ Significant job growth will continue among companies that serve markets beyond Sacramento County.

■ New jobs will include higher-paying professional jobs and lower-paying service and retail jobs. The majority of new jobs in occupations with the greatest anticipated job growth will pay salaries below the Sacramento County median income.

■ Most employment growth will be centered within incorporated areas of the County. However, there will be an increasing potential for job growth through conversion and reuse of older commercial and industrial sites within unincorporated communities.

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT

The Sacramento County labor market is dominated by public agency employment, services, and retail/wholesale trades. According to the California Employment Development Department, Sacramento County had 655,300 people employed in July 2007. For the Sacramento–Arden Arcade–Roseville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, and Yolo Counties, the most recent available employment sector data are from 2004. In 2004, 24 percent of the total employment was in government, 14 percent in retail and wholesale trades, six percent in manufacturing, seven percent in financial/insurance/real estate services, and one percent in farming. Table 5-12 shows the diversity of jobs among private sector employers in the Sacramento region. Among all employers (public and private), the California Employment Development Department (EDD) found that state and local government agencies, health care and related services firms, educational establishments, utilities, and insurance firms are among the major employers in the Sacramento region.

The following table, Table 5-12, presents the largest private employers in the Sacramento area.



TABLE 5-12. LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN THE SACRAMENTO AREA1

(RANKED BY 2006 EMPLOYEES) COMPANY TYPE OF BUSINESS EMPLOYEES

Kaiser Permanente Health Care 7,734

Raley’s Inc. Retail Grocery 7,158

UC Davis Health System Health Care 6,897

Mercy/CHW Health Care 6,845

Intel Corp. Information Technology 6,800

Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region Health Care 6,026

AT&T California Telecommunications 4,697

Hewlett-Packard Co. Information Technology 4,000

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Retail Merchandise 3,503

Target Corp. Retail Merchandise 3,435

Wells Fargo & Co. Financial Services 3,167

Bank of America Financial Services 2,629

Cache Creek Casino Resort Casino 2,500

Health Net of California Health Care 2,300

PRIDE Industries, Inc. Manufacturing and Logistics 2,190

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Utility 1,697

EDS Information Technology 1,787

United Parcel Service Shipping 1,735

Blue Shield of California Health Care 1,671

Aerojet Aerospace 1,645

Vision Service Plan Inc. Health Care 1,586

McClatchy Co. Publishing 1,389

Franklin Templeton Investments Financial Services 1,200

DST Output Financial Services/Printing 1,153

Union Pacific Railroad Co. Inc. Freight Railroad 1,114

Source: Sacramento Business Journal 2006. 1 The Sacramento area includes Sacramento, Placer, and Yolo Counties.

JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE

An important indicator of the relationship between employment and housing is the ratio of jobs per housing unit. A ratio of less than 1 indicates that an area provides more housing than jobs. A ratio significantly above the number of workers per household (about 1.4 countywide in 2001) indicates that an area does not provide enough housing in relation to employment. SACOG reported that the Sacramento County unincorporated area had a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.04 in 2000. The ratio is projected to remain at approximately this level through 2025. By comparison, the countywide jobs-to-housing ratio was 1.19 in 2000 and increased to an estimated 1.22 by 2005. According to the measures of jobs, housing units, and workers per household, Sacramento County and the unincorporated area are roughly in balance.

The ratio of jobs to housing varies considerably within the County. The City of Sacramento had the highest jobs ratio—1.68 in 2000; yet, the City has about 1.2



workers per household. By these measures, Sacramento has more jobs than housing. The City of Folsom had the second highest jobs ratio at 1.33 in 2000, but had a ratio of workers per household of nearly 1.5. Other cities in Sacramento County had low job ratios in 2000: Galt, Elk Grove, and Citrus Heights each had ratios of less than 0.5 despite having worker-per-household ratios between 1.3 and 1.6.

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

Between 1990 and 2000, business services firms added nearly 38,000 jobs to the Sacramento economy. Manufacturing firms added another 21,000 jobs, followed by engineering and management service firms at nearly 5,000 jobs. Between 2000 and 2005, SACOG projects that unincorporated Sacramento County will experience an annual increase of 2,661 jobs, or about 13,000 jobs over five years. Annual job growth is expected to accelerate between 2005 and 2015 to more than 4,000 per year and then decline to about 1,400 per year by 2025. The rate of projected job growth in the unincorporated area, about one percent, is below the projected countywide level of 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2005. Much of the projected job growth will occur in employment centers located within the newly incorporated City of Rancho Cordova.

According to EDD, jobs with the greatest anticipated growth in the Sacramento region include health care services, education, food and retail trades, business and personal services, and clerical/administrative support. Significant job growth is also anticipated in computer and other technical specialties, law enforcement and emergency services, and transportation. Most of these jobs will pay salaries at low- to moderate-income ranges. Among the jobs that are expected to experience the most growth are food service, maintenance, personal care, and retail jobs that pay average wages of $8–$14 per hour, or approximately $17,000–$29,000 per year.

Table 5-13 lists jobs reported by EDD with the greatest growth potential and the mean, low end, and upper end of the salary ranges for these jobs.

EMPLOYMENT TRENDS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Much has been reported in local business journals and the general media about new trends for the Sacramento economy in the 21st century. Among these trends are the growth of biotechnology and other technology industries, arts and culture, and the migration of Bay Area businesses and workers to the region. Although there is evidence that these trends are occurring, their cumulative impact over the short term is not yet the predominant force in affecting housing needs and housing market trends over the next 5 years. Technology employment, while increasing regionwide, is still overshadowed by the government, retail, and services sectors of the economy. A small percentage (probably less than five percent) of the Sacramento County labor force works at jobs in the Bay Area, based on an analysis of 2000 U.S. Census data. Over the long term, these emerging trends could become much more important in shaping employment and housing demand, however.



TABLE 5-13. OCCUPATIONAL EMPLOYMENT (2006) AND WAGE DATA (FIRST

QUARTER 2007) 1

OCCUPATIONAL TITLE EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES

MEAN ANNUAL WAGE

25TH PERCENTILE

ANNUAL WAGE

75TH PERCENTILE

ANNUAL WAGE

Jobs with the Projected Greatest Absolute Job Growth in Sacramento County between 2004 and 2014

Retail Salespersons 27,420 $25,269 $17,430 $27,040

Cashiers 21,510 $22,427 $16,806 $23,774

Office Clerks, General 31,590 $29,125 $21,611 $36,109

Waiters and Waitresses 13,290 $17,347 $15,683 $18,096

Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, including Fast Food

14,740 $18,184 $15,766 $18,699

Registered Nurses 13,490 80,849 $66,830 $94,515

Teacher Assistants Unavailable $25,439 2 2

Carpenters 11,090 $51,170 $41,413 $60,258

Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand 12,720 $24,915 $19,261 $28,662

Customer Service Representatives 12,990 $33,565 $26,270 $39,499

Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education 10,000 $55,296 2 2

General and Operations Managers 12,140 $106,411 $67,558 $134,077

Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers 8,380 $23,274 $18,221 $25,293

Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 10,830 $24,730 $18,096 $30,722

Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop

5,260 $18,091 $15,808 $18,928

Source: EDD 2007. 1 Sacramento County Metropolitan Statistical Area—including El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento

Counties. 2006 Employment and first quarter 2007 wage information for the 15 occupations with the largest number of forecast job openings during the period 2004–2014 (EDD 2005).

2 For some occupations, workers may not work full-time year-round. For these occupations, it is not feasible to calculate an hourly wage.

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

HOUSING COMPOSITION AND COMPONENTS OF CHANGE

Two incorporations have occurred that affect housing unit totals in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County during the present decade. Elk Grove incorporated on July 1, 2000, resulting in an approximately nine percent decline in the number of housing units in the unincorporated county between 2000 and 2001 (the California Department of Finance measures housing units and population as of January 1). In 2003, Rancho Cordova’s incorporation resulted in about a 10 percent



decline in housing units between 2003 and 2004 totals. However, percentage growth in years not affected by incorporations ranged from 0.37 percent in 2006 to 2.04 percent in 2003. Since Rancho Cordova’s incorporation in 2003, the rate of housing growth has consistently been less than one percent, consistent with the removal of major growth areas from the unincorporated county. The low rate in 2006 is consistent with the broader decline in the housing market in the region and state.

The composition of the housing stock in the unincorporated county during the present decade has consistently been about 65 percent single-family homes, 32 percent multifamily units, and three percent mobile homes. The proportion of the growth in housing units made up of single-family versus multifamily units has varied from year to year, However, in the long term, the composition of the County’s housing stock seems to be relatively stable. In 1990, 68 percent of the housing stock in the unincorporated area of the County (which included what are now the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova) was made up of single-family units, compared to 65 percent in 2000 and 2007.

Tables 5-14 and 5-15 show the composition of the housing stock during 2000-2007 for the unincorporated area and the entire County respectively.

TABLE 5-14. HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000–2007)

HOUSING UNITS

SINGLE MULTIPLE YEAR TOTAL

DETACHED ATTACHED 2–4 5+

MOBILE HOMES OCCUPIED PERSONS PER

HOUSEHOLD

2000 251,397 163,200 16,529 16,385 46,628 8,655 242,030 2.69

20011 228,686 142,942 15,610 15,860 45,892 8,382 220,329 2.67

20021 231,342 145,596 15,612 15,860 45,892 8,382 222,890 2.68

20031 236,068 149,644 15,612 15,861 46,490 8,461 227,302 2.68

20042 212,409 136,702 13,588 13,882 41,165 7,072 204,876 2.70

20052 213,871 137,991 13,588 13,894 41,248 7,150 206,286 2.67

20062 215,964 139,127 13,590 13,902 42,154 7,191 208,305 2.66

20072 216,767 139,862 13,599 13,934 42,149 7,223 209,080 2.65

Source: California Department of Finance 2007. 1 Excludes the newly incorporated city of Elk Grove. 2 Excludes the newly incorporated city of Rancho Cordova and the city of Elk Grove.



TABLE 5-15. HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000–2007)

HOUSING UNITS

SINGLE MULTIPLE YEAR TOTAL

DETACHED ATTACHED 2–4 5+

MOBILE HOMES OCCUPIED

PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD

2000 474,814 297,063 32,245 36,309 93,713 15,484 453,602 2.64

2001 480,497 301,176 32,245 36,315 95,277 15,484 459,579 2.66

2002 490,601 309,405 32,263 36,396 97,050 15,487 469,395 2.68

2003 502,207 318,069 32,263 36,493 99,802 15,580 480,522 2.67

2004 512,864 327,481 32,278 36,407 101,114 15,584 490,806 2.69

2005 524,600 337,040 32,277 36,371 103,244 15,668 502,095 2.67

2006 535,788 345,444 32,297 36,496 105,842 15,709 512,870 2.66

2007 545,287 350,809 34,278 36,785 107,663 15,752 521,594 2.65

Source: California Department of Finance 2007.

Table 5-16 shows the number of building permits issued per year since 2000 by Sacramento County.

TABLE 5-16. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED BY SACRAMENTO COUNTY

YEAR SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED

2000 2,332 35 2,367

2001 3,210 13 3,223

2002 3,195 686 3,881

2003 1,646 290 1,936

2004 1,354 921 2,275

2005 1,042 252 1,294

2006 692 139 831

Source: Data provided by Kohaya, T. pers comm. 2007.

HOUSING OCCUPANCY AND TENURE

Vacancy

Rental vacancy rates in the Sacramento region have been stable since about 2003, in the range of 6 percent–7 percent (Hendricks and Partners 2007). This represents an increase from the 2000 vacancy rate (reported by Hendricks and Partners) of about two percent. A vacancy rate of five percent is generally considered adequate to allow for consumer choice and free movement in the housing market. A survey of rental properties with 30 or more units during the second quarter of 2007 indicated that the vacancy rate for rental apartments is about the same as in mid-2006.



U.S. Census data from 2000 indicated that housing vacancy levels countywide and in the unincorporated area were both about four percent. There were 21,212 vacant units countywide and 9,367 in the unincorporated area. The homeowner vacancy rate was approximately 1.25 percent, and the rental vacancy rate was 4.1 percent. Based on the 2006 American Community Survey data for Sacramento County, the homeowner vacancy rate was approximately 2.6 percent, and the rental vacancy rate was approximately 6.5 percent. More recent rental vacancy rate data are presented in Table 5-17, below. The homeowner vacancy rate may have risen slightly since 2006 due to an increase in foreclosures.

Table 5-17 shows vacancy rates by county area for the second quarter of 2006 and 2007 for rental properties of 30 or more units.

TABLE 5-17. MULTIFAMILY VACANCY RATES (SECOND QUARTER 2006 AND 2007)

AREA SECOND QUARTER 2006 VACANCY RATE

SECOND QUARTER 2007 VACANCY RATE

Antelope 6.7% 2.7%

Carmichael 5.2% 3.5%

Citrus Heights/Fair Oaks 7.2% 6.7%

Elk Grove/Laguna 6.3% 10.9%

Greenhaven/Pocket 6.8% 4.6%

North Highlands 8.9% 7.9%

Orangevale/Folsom 5.0% 6.1%

Rancho Cordova 7.1% 5.9%

Sacramento 6.0% 6.4%

South Sacramento 6.1% 5.4%

Total 5.9% 6.0%

Source: Hendricks and Partners 2007.

Tenure

Most Sacramento County households, 58 percent, are homeowners. Although the County’s homeownership level is slightly more than the level statewide (57 percent), the proportion of homeowners in Sacramento lags behind many other parts of the country. This is largely because of the rising price of homes in relation to incomes. Between 1990 and 2000, homeownership in Sacramento County increased slightly, from 57 percent to 58 percent. Rising incomes during the 1990s and low mortgage interest rates allowed an increasing percentage of residents to purchase homes. The slight increase may have also been affected by the influx of higher-income Bay Area residents purchasing homes in the County. Since the late 1990s, the rate of increase in home prices has greatly exceeded increases in incomes. As a result, the percent of Sacramento households that can afford to purchase the median-priced home declined from 51 percent at the end of 2001 to 14 percent in 2007. If this trend continues, the rate of homeownership could decline even further.

Homeownership in Sacramento County varies considerably by age, income, and ethnicity. As reported previously, non-White and Hispanic households tend to have lower incomes than White, non-Hispanic households, and thus have lower homeownership rates. In 2000, householders who identified themselves as White or



of Asian origin had homeownership rates of 62 percent and 58 percent, while all other ethnic groups had homeownership rates of less than 50 percent. Although fewer than half of non-White, non-Hispanic households own their homes, homeownership rates increased from 1 to 3 percentage points during the 1990s for members of these groups.

The percent of homeowners increases with age and typically peaks at retirement. As individuals age, they typically have rising incomes and accumulated wealth that allow a higher percentage to purchase homes. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, only 30 percent of householders age 34 or less were homeowners. By age 45, two-thirds of householders were homeowners. Homeownership peaked at 78 percent between ages 65 and 74. Among the changes between 1990 and 2000 were that homeownership increased slightly among householders under age 24 and over age 65, but declined slightly among all other householders (ages 25–64).

Household size is also associated with homeownership. Single individuals and large families of six or more have homeownership rates of 50 percent or less, while other households have homeownership rates ranging from 52 percent to 62 percent. Single-person households are most likely to be younger households or seniors over age 75, who cannot afford homes or who have sold their homes and live in rented housing. Large families include a high percentage of low- and moderate-income households who cannot afford homeownership.

Tables 5-18, 5-19, and 5-20 compare tenure by ethnicity, age, and income.

TABLE 5-18. HOUSEHOLD TENURE BY RACE AND ETHNICITY IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000)

RACE OWNERS PERCENT RENTERS PERCENT

White 201,475 62% 121,014 38%

Black or African American 16,547 40% 25,129 60%

Native American 1,796 40% 2,704 60%

Asian Origin 22,893 58% 16,692 42%

Pacific Islander 789 46% 938 54%

Other 11,354 46% 13,558 54%

Two or More Races 8,957 48% 9,756 52%

Total 263,811 58% 189,791 42%

Hispanic Origin 25,847 49% 26,772 51%




TABLE 5-19. TENURE BY AGE IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000)

AGE OWNERS PERCENT RENTERS PERCENT

15–24 3,169 12% 23,233 88%

25–34 29,486 35% 53,878 65%

35–44 62,411 57% 46,720 43%

45–54 61,831 67% 29,787 33%

55–59 22,072 72% 8,684 28%

60–64 19,415 74% 6,837 26%

65–74 34,683 78% 9,746 22%

75–84 24,897 77% 7,623 23%

85 and over 5,847 64% 3,283 36%

Total 263,811 58% 189,791 42%


TABLE 5-20. TENURE BY INCOME IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000)

INCOME OWNERS PERCENT RENTERS PERCENT

Less than $10,000 10,002 36% 27,898 64%

$10,000–$24,999 28,918 35% 52,867 65%

$25,000–$34,999 26,773 46% 31,798 54%

$35,000–$49,999 44,156 57% 33,477 43%

$50,000–$74,999 64,371 70% 27,783 30%

$75,000–$99,999 40,249 81% 9,261 19%

$100,000 or more 49,342 88% 6,707 12%

Total 263,811 58% 189,791 42%


AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK

The overwhelming majority of housing in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County was constructed after World War II. Before that time, only small numbers of residents lived outside the cities of Sacramento, Galt, Folsom, and Isleton in isolated villages and agricultural areas. Beginning in the 1940s, rapid suburbanization of Sacramento County resulted in the construction of more than 240,000 dwelling units.

After subtracting units in Citrus Heights, which incorporated in 1997, and Elk Grove, which incorporated in 2000, nearly 100,000 dwelling units are more than 40 years old and are the most at risk of becoming substandard. Another 50,000 are more than 30 years old and may show signs of deterioration if not adequately maintained. Although age does not always correlate with substandard housing conditions, neighborhoods with a preponderance of homes more than 40 years old, lower incomes, and a high percentage of rental housing are more likely than newer neighborhoods to have a concentration of housing in need of deferred maintenance, updating of utilities or interior amenities, rehabilitation, or replacement. Unincorporated areas such as North Highlands/Foothill Farms, and



Parkway–South Sacramento have both significantly lower incomes than the Sacramento County median and significantly higher percentages of rental housing more than 30 years old. Arden-Arcade also has a high percentage of older rental housing, although the median income of area residents is higher than in the other three communities. These communities are most likely to have higher concentrations of homes in need of deferred maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.

Table 5-21 shows the number and percentage of dwelling units by year constructed.

TABLE 5-21. UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY AGE OF HOUSING UNITS

YEAR NUMBER OF UNITS1 PERCENTAGE

1939 or earlier 4,599 2%

1940–1959 48,162 18%

1960–1969 42,955 16%

1970–1979 61,801 23%

1980–1989 48,613 18%

1990–1999 45,317 17%

2000-2006 15,807 6%

Total 267,254 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 2000-2006 data provided by Kohaya, T. pers comm. 2007. 1 Exclusion of dwelling units located in Elk Grove, which became a City in 2000, does not significantly

change the percentage of dwelling units constructed by decade between 1990 and 2000. The new City of Rancho Cordova is included in Table 5-22.

Housing in Need of Rehabilitation or Replacement

Sacramento County has a significant stock of older housing, including housing occupied by lower-income households that may need repair or replacement. However, the age of housing, by itself, it not necessarily an accurate predictor of the extent of housing rehabilitation or replacement need. The most accurate method to estimate this need is to conduct a housing condition survey. Because of the County’s size, such a survey was impractical for the preparation of this Housing Element.

The County’s code enforcement records are also of limited use for estimating countywide rehabilitation needs because these records do not specify the types of enforcement actions in a manner that can easily be analyzed for problems with housing conditions. In addition, the County’s code enforcement program is primarily complaint-based, so only those properties generating a complaint are visited by a code enforcement officer.

Another possible source of information for housing conditions is the County’s rehabilitation assistance programs, operated through SHRA. As with code enforcement, data on rehabilitated units would provide only partial information on housing conditions.

Due to the lack of survey, code enforcement, or other data to estimate housing conditions in the unincorporated area, the County must rely on statistical means to estimate housing rehabilitation and replacement needs. One way to estimate a



minimum need is by examining the relationship between age of housing, tenure, income, and housing type. For example, older, privately owned, non-subsidized multifamily rental housing occupied by households with the lowest incomes is more likely to need rehabilitation or replacement than newer, single-family housing owned and occupied by moderate- or above moderate-income households.

The most comprehensive source of data on tenure, income, age of housing stock, and housing type is from the 2000 Census.1 However, even census data is not complete enough to draw an accurate conclusion about housing conditions. Several statistics from the 2000 Census can help provide some insight into potential housing rehabilitation and replacement need.

According to the 2000 Census, about 3,240 owner-occupied housing units and 11,410 rental housing units constructed between 1940 and 1980 were occupied by households with poverty level incomes. These households—14,650 total—are least likely to have sufficient incomes to keep their homes in good repair or afford rental housing in good repair. The dwelling units they occupy (roughly 30 to 70 years old) are most likely to need varying levels of repair or rehabilitation. Therefore, the minimum housing rehabilitation need in the unincorporated County area is estimated to be 14,650 units.

Approximately 210 owner-occupied housing units and 400 rental units built before 1940 were occupied by households with poverty level incomes. These homes are most likely to suffer from conditions that make rehabilitation infeasible. Therefore, the minimum housing replacement need is 610 units.

The combined estimate of rehabilitation and replacement need represents about seven percent of the housing stock in the unincorporated area.

Reliance on these census statistics has the potential to both over-count and under-count the potential housing rehabilitation and replacement need. For example, a significant number of households below the poverty level of income live in government-assisted rental housing or in rental units in which a portion of the rent is paid for through the federal Housing Choice Vouchers. Government subsidized housing units are less likely to need rehabilitation than other housing units occupied by households with poverty level incomes. Conversely, it is highly likely that a significant number of lower-income households with incomes above the poverty level live in older, substandard housing, but there are no readily available census statistics to accurately estimate the number of such households. These uncounted households might balance out the potential over-count of households with poverty level incomes living in substandard housing.

Due to the lack of accurate data on housing conditions, the County will propose a program to conduct a housing condition survey during the period covered by this Housing Element.

1 The Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey has information related to poverty status and tenure, but this information is less detailed than the 2000 Census. Estimates based on 2000 Census data are for the unincorporated area only, excluding the Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove Census Designated Places (which are now part of the incorporated cities of Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove).


6-1 Land Inventory

CHAPTER 6:

LAND INVENTORY

Ensuring the availability of appropriately zoned land to accommodate housing for all income groups and special needs populations is one of the five strategies of the Housing Element. State law (California Government Code Section 65583) requires cities and counties to provide “adequate” sites (properties that are vacant and with redevelopment potential) with appropriate zoning and development standards, infrastructure, and public services to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels. This includes multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.

As part of the Housing Element update, Sacramento County has created a land inventory as mandated by state law. The Land Inventory identifies vacant and underutilized land available for residential development within the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. The Land Inventory is used to determine the number of new housing units the County can accommodate in the unincorporated area between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2013 in relation to the County’s “fair share” of the region’s housing needs.

The fair share is included in the Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted in February 2008 by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the six-county region (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties). SACOG determines each city and county’s “fair share” of the region’s housing needs under a methodology established by state law and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The methodology and resulting fair share assigned to each city and county in the region is in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation section of this chapter.

The SACOG Plan considers market demand for housing, population and employment trends, income differences among communities, vacancy rates, housing replacement need, and other factors when determining the allocation for each jurisdiction. The purpose of this is to avoid over-concentration of low-income households in any one community.

The “fair share” allocation for unincorporated Sacramento County is 15,160 new units which is approximately 13 percent of the 118,600 units assigned to the region. SACOG divided each city and county’s total housing allocation into four sub-allocations by income level:

■ Very low-income (up to 50 percent of median countywide income, which also includes extremely low-income at less than 30 percent of median countywide income);

■ Low-income (50 to 80 percent of median countywide income);

■ Moderate-income (80 to 120 percent of median countywide income); and

■ Above moderate-income (over 120 percent of median countywide income).


Land Inventory 6-2

The median income for Sacramento County was $71,000 per year for a family of four in 2008 according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development. Based on the income definitions, extremely low-income equals $14,900 for one person to $28,100 for an eight person household, very low-income equals $24,850 to $46,850, low-income equals $39,750 to $75,000, moderate-income equals $59,600 to $112,500, and above moderate-income $112,500 or more.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION

Of the County’s allocation of 15,160 housing units, 3,339 units should be affordable to very low-income households (including 1,669 for extremely low-income households), 2,293 units should be affordable to low-income households, 2,700 units should be affordable to moderate-income households, and 6,828 units should be affordable to above moderate-income households (see Table 6-1). Sites on which such housing might be constructed should permit adequate densities and contain infrastructure and services to increase the financial feasibility of producing housing affordable to low-income residents.

Table 6-1 shows the County’s progress towards meeting its projected housing need. A total of 1,563 housing units were built in 2006 and 2007. Also, 378 units will receive committed financial assistance from the County to be either preserved or converted to affordable housing. These new and existing units are credited towards the County’s projected need. The County’s remaining housing need for 2008-2013 is 13,219 housing units.

TABLE 6-1. PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING RHNA

INCOME CATEGORY RHNA UNITS PRODUCED IN 2006-071

ALTERNATIVE ADEQUATE SITES REMAINING NEED

Extremely Low 1,669 100 0 1,569

Very Low 1,670 165 92 1,413

Low 2,293 70 272 1,951

Moderate 2,700 457 14 2,229

Above Moderate 6,828 771 0 6,057

Total 15,160 1,563 378 13,219 Source: SACOG, 2008; County of Sacramento Planning Department, 2008. 1Details regarding the affordable housing units are located in Appendix F. ALTERNATIVE ADEQUATE SITES PROGRAM

Government Code Section 65583.1(c) permits jurisdictions to rely on existing units to fulfill up to 25 percent of their residential sites requirement (RHNA) in the Housing Element, pursuant to specified criteria. The following activities may be eligible:

■ Substantial rehabilitation of substandard rental housing

■ Conversion of multi-family rental units from non-affordable to affordable

■ Preservation of at-risk housing


6-3 Land Inventory

In addition to falling into one of the above categories, the projects under the alternative adequate sites provision must received “committed financial assistance” from the local government between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010. Sacramento County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), has committed to providing financial assistance to four rehabilitation projects through Board of Supervisors action that will result in legally enforceable loan documents with SHRA. As detailed below, three of the projects are preservation of at-risk housing and one conversion of multi-family rental unit from non-affordable to affordable. 92 very low income units (6%) and 272 low income units (12%) are being credited, well within the 25 percent legislative limitation.

Table 6-2 details each of the four projects, including total number of affordable units, date of funding approval by the Board of Supervisors, date of funding agreement and program or funding commitment that secures the committed assistance by June 30, 2010. Following the summary table is a brief description of each project, and Appendix G includes Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklists for each of the five projects. Programs 13(b), 13(c), 13(d) and 41(d) in Chapter 3 of the Housing Element obligate the County through SHRA to provide the committed assistance for each project. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1(c), the Count will report to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the status of each project no later than July 1, 2010. If the County has not entered into an enforceable agreement of committed assistance that further ensures construction within two years of commitment, the County will amend the Housing Element to identify additional appropriately zoned and suitable sites.

TABLE 6-2. REHABILITATION UNIT CHANGE

UNITS FUNDING AGREEMENT PROJECT ADDRESS

BOS FUNDING APPROVAL

DATE ELI VLI LI MI UN-RESTRICTED TOTAL DATE 1 DOCUMENTATION

ELIGIBILITY TYPE

Shilo Arms 3151 Notre Dame Drive

1/22/2008 & 9/30/2008

0 22 84 0 0 106 2/1/2009 Loan commitment letter, signed by developer & dated 09/18/2008

Preservation

Summerset Apartments

6267 MLK Boulevard

5/13/2008 & 9/9/2008


Conversion

Greystone 3545 41st Avenue

5/13/2008 & 10/31/2008


Conversion

Lerwick Road

various properties on Lerwick Road

6/3/2008 0 10 10 12 0 32 12/31/2009

Loan commitment letter, signed & dated 06/17/2008

Conversion

TOTAL 0 92 272 12 2 378

1 Funding agreement dates are the latest date for entering into a legally binding loan agreement with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency for the committed assistance. BOS = Board of Supervisors; ELI = Extremely Low Income; VLI = Very Low Income; LI = Low Income; MI = Moderate Income


Land Inventory 6-4

SHILOH ARMS APARTMENTS

Shiloh Arms Apartments is an existing housing project built in 1970 made affordable by a Section 236 loan and a project-based Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that covers all 106 units. Under the HAP contract, tenants pay 30 percent of their income for rent and the balance of the rent is paid by HUD. The contract is currently subject to annual renewals and the owner is willing to sell to a market rate developer.

Consistent with the County’s commitment to preserve existing affordable housing units (see Housing Strategy V on page 3-20), SHRA has committed $1.5 million in loan funding to ensure that the project remains affordable, as part of an overall financing pacakage including Mortgage Revenue Bonds and Four Percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits. At that same time, a relocation plan was approved, ensuring compliance with State and Federal relocation requirements by providing moving expenses and 42 months of rent differential for any displaced lower income families. Rather than selling to a market rate developer, Shiloh Arms Apartments will be purchased by Allied Pacific Development, LLC a subsidiary of Pacific Housing Advisors, Inc., who is an experienced developer of affordable apartment projects. Pacific Development, LLC intends to secure a new long-term HAP contract that would ensure continued rent subsidies for residents for a 20-year period. The Agency will require the developer to renew the HAP contract on the property after expiration of the initial contract as long as extensions are available.

Shiloh Arms Apartments was noted in the 2003 County Housing Element as at-risk of conversion to market rate, and, as part of the Board of Supervisors review and approval of the project, the staff report further noted its imminent risk of conversion. Upon transfer of ownership and re-financing with Mortgage Revenue Bonds, 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and SHRA financing, the project will provide 22 very low income and 84 low income units for 55 years.

SUMMERSET APARTMENTS

Summerset Apartments is located at 6267 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in the County portion of the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Area, a joint city/county redevelopment area. The renovation of Summerset is consistent with the County’s efforts to promote investment, eliminate blight, and promote the renovation of the existing housing stock in the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Area. This apartment complex is located in the heart of “the Avenues”; an area known for its multitude of multi-family complexes facing serious social and physical blight. County and SHRA staff are working closely to comprehensively address the challenges facing the neighborhood including crime related issues, infrastructure needs (lighting, etc.), code violations and housing related issues (including addressing boarded/abandoned units). The rehabilitation of this apartment complex fits into the above strategy of rehabilitating multi-family complexes and providing quality property management to stabilize and revitalize the area.

Consistent with the County’s efforts to rehabilitate rental housing (see Housing Strategy III on page 3-8), a limited partnership formed by the InnerCity Corporation and the Community Revitalization & Development Corporation, will be acquiring


6-5 Land Inventory

and rehabilitating the Greystone Apartments, converting it to permanent affordable housing for families. Community Revitalization & Development Corporation has extensive experience in the development, renovation and operation of multifamily housing with over 3,200 units developed, including four projects in the greater Sacramento area. Upon acquisition, 24 units will be affordable to very low income families and 95 units will be affordable to low income families for 55 years, with one unit reserved for an on-site manager. Currently, the Summerset Apartments has no rent or regulatory restrictions.

The Board of Supervisors approved $3.4 million in loans to InnerCity Housing Corporation in May of 2008 for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Summerset Apartments. At that same time, a relocation plan was approved, ensuring compliance with State and Federal relocation requirements by providing moving expenses and 42 months of rent differential for any displaced lower income families. On July 16, 2008, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) awarded issuance of up to $9 million in tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds for the project, completing the financing package. Since this award, economic uncertainty in the financial markets has produced stricter underwriting standards for both the bonds and tax credits. As a result, the Board of Supervisors authorized an additional $750,000 in loan funding on September 9, 2008. Consistent with CDLAC regulations, the bonds must be issued within 120 days of award, meaning that the funding must close by December 1, 2008 and per a commitment letter with SHRA, construction must start by December 31, 2008. Conversion of the Summerset Apartments will provide safe and secure housing for low income families, as well as provide revitalization of a blighted property in a County-targeted redevelopment area.

GREYSTONE APARTMENTS

Greystone Apartments is located at 3545 41st Avenue, in the County portion of the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Area. The renovation of Greystone apartments is consistent with the County’s efforts to promote investment, eliminate blight, and promote the renovation of the existing housing stock in the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Area. This apartment complex is located in the heart of “the Avenues,” an area characterized by numerous multi-family complexes facing serious social and physical blight. County and SHRA staff are working closely to comprehensively address the challenges facing the neighborhood including crime related issues, infrastructure needs (lighting, etc.), code violations and housing related issues, including addressing boarded/abandoned units. The rehabilitation of this apartment complex fits into the above strategy of rehabilitating multi-family complexes and providing quality property management to stabilize and revitalize the area.

Consistent with the County’s efforts to rehabilitate rental housing (see Housing Strategy III on page 3-8), Greystone Apartments-Sacramento, LP, a California limited partnership between Avalon Communities, LLC and DAVCO Development, LLC will be acquiring and rehabilitating the Greystone Apartments, converting it to permanent affordable housing for families. Greystone Apartments-Sacramento and its principals have developed 27 affordable projects with more than 3,000 units affordable to low-income households in California. Upon acquisition, 36 units will be affordable to very low income families and 83 units will be affordable to low income families for 55 years, with one unit reserved for an on-site manager. Currently, the Greystone Apartments has no rent or regulatory restrictions.


Land Inventory 6-6

The Board of Supervisors approved $4.17 million in loans to Greystone Apartments-Sacramento in May of 2008 for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Greystone Apartments. At that same time, a relocation plan was approved, ensuring compliance with State and Federal relocation requirements by providing moving expenses and 42 months of rent differential for any displaced lower income families. On July 16, 2008, the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) awarded issuance of up to $10 million in tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds for the project, completing the financing package. Since this award, economic uncertainty in the financial markets has produced stricter underwriting standards for both the bonds and tax credits. As a result, SHRA will be requesting Board of Supervisor authority on October 31, 2008 for an additional $550,000 in loan funding. Consistent with CDLAC regulations, the bonds must be issued within 120 days of award, meaning that the funding must close by December 1, 2008, and per a commitment letter with SHRA, construction must start by June 1, 2009. Conversion of the Greystone Apartments will provide safe and secure housing for low income families, as well as provide revitalization of a blighted property in a County-targeted redevelopment area.

LERWICK ROAD

Lerwick Road is a residential street just outside of the Auburn Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. Over the past few years, the Agency has made progress in bringing quality businesses and housing to the Boulevard including the Holiday Inn and Ladi Apartments. The Lerwick corridor has a documented history of crime and code violations and has been a drain on County Agencies. A major focus of the Agency is to improve the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Boulevard to encourage the additional development to create demand for the businesses.

Lerwick Road is located in close proximity to Auburn Boulevard, which is a major thoroughfare and currently is designated as a redevelopment area. Most of the fourplexes are owned by absentee property owners who have done little to maintain either the interior or exterior of these units. As of April 2008, the area has been hit hard with the housing market corrections and enforcement actions that continue to be an issue. As of April 2008, there were 14 open cases of housing code violations on the street, most of which are for exterior conditions. The Sheriff’s Department reports that in the last six months, 98 calls for service have been logged from residents.

SHRA and County staff believe that to substantially improve Lewick Road, property ownership and property management needs to be consolidated. An opportunity exists on Lewick Road currently with units in foreclosure and others for sale. Consistent with the County’s efforts to address the issues related to foreclosure (see Housing Policy HE-15 on page 3-51) and with the County’s efforts to rehabilitate rental housing (see Housing Strategy III on page 3-8), the acquisition of properties on Lerwick Road is seen as a positive first step in transforming this neighborhood from absentee ownership to having a responsible owner that takes pride in maintaining their properties and renting to quality tenants.

To help meet these goals, the County and SHRA will be working with EPO Development, a local development team with over ten years of experience in the acquisition and rehabilitation of rental properties in the County of Sacramento. The County has worked with EPO Development to improve units in other


6-7 Land Inventory

neighborhoods including properties on Fruitridge Road (Fruitridge Vista), Gaddi Drive, Apostolo Circle, 34th Avenue and Nedra Court, which were troubled and blighted much like Lerwick at the time EPO stepped in. On June 3, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved a loan commitment of up to $4 million to this project. Together with a $2 million bank loan and developer equity, these funds will be used for the acquisition and rehabilitation of properties on Lerwick Road. When the renovation has been completed, the Developer will obtain permanent financing for the properties.

Given the current market and availability of property on Lerwick, the developer and SHRA believe that at least eight buildings with 32 units can be acquired and rehabilitated. As of September of 2008, EPO is in contract for five properties, and actively pursuing three more. All properties to be purchased will be unoccupied, REO properties; therefore, relocation requirements will not be triggered.

Funding regulations will require at least 60 percent of the units to be affordable to lower income (60% AMI and below) families for 55 years although it is likely that due to the neighborhood market, many more will be. For purposes of the Housing Element, the County will use the conservative figures of 10 very low income units, 10 low income units and 12 moderate income units. Currently, properties on Lerwick Road have no rent or regulatory restrictions. Acquisition and conversion of the Lerwick Road fourplexes will provide safe and secure housing for low income families, as well as provide revitalization of a blighted property in a County-targeted area.

SUMMARY OF ADEQUATE SITES ANALYSIS

Table 6-3 summarizes the sites inventory and compares this inventory to the County’s remaining RHNA obligation. The County’s inventory consists of over 4,300 sites that can accommodate 20,316 housing units, more than 7,000 units over the remaining RHNA obligation of 13,219 units. The sites are located throughout the County with the majority of sites located in the following communities: Vineyard (27 percent), Fair Oaks (10 percent), South Sacramento (9 percent), Orangevale (9 percent), and Rio Linda/Elverta (9 percent). Approximately 99 percent of the sites in the Land Inventory are vacant parcels with residential zoning. There are 12 sites that are underutilized, and 34 sites that have commercial zoning. More details of the sites are provided in the following two sections and in Appendix C.

Table 6-3 compares the projected supply of land and the new unit credit to the February 2008 adopted SACOG distribution of housing needs. The County has an adequate land inventory for all income categories including lower income households. Therefore, no additional land is proposed to be rezoned to accommodate this need.


Land Inventory 6-8

TABLE 6-3. SACOG1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION SUMMARY UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY PROJECTED NEEDS BETWEEN 2006 AND 2013

INCOME CATEGORY

REF. TABLE

INCOME LEVEL RHNA

VACANT LAND

(ACRES)

PROJECTED2 SUPPLY

UNIT CREDIT

UNIT OVERSUPPLY

Extremely Low

$14,900-$28,100

1,669 100

Very Low

6-9 $24,850-$46,850

1,670

1894 3,500

257

518

Low 6-10 $39,750-$75,000

2,293 150 2,373 342 422

Moderate 6-11 $59,600-$112,500

2,700 729 4,261 471 2,032

Above Moderate

6-12 $112,500 and above

6,828 10,202 10,182 771 4,125

Total -- -- 15,160 units

11,270 acres

20,316 units

1,941 units

7,097 units

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department data current as of April, 2008; Housing and Community Development Income Limits for 2008. 1 Sacramento Area Council of Governments adopted RHNA dated February 21, 2008. 2 Units are calculated at 85 percent of the total buildout and reflect average historical development patterns

within the County. RD 20 zoned sites are calculated at 90 percent of the total buildout and reflect average historical development patterns within the County.

3 Oversupply is determined by subtracting the remaining need from the projected supply. There is also 1,072 acres available within the GC and M1 zones for emergency shelters and SROs.

METHODOLOGY FOR THE LAND INVENTORY

The sites inventory summarizes the estimated residential unit yield from parcels within the County identified as being available for residential or mixed uses (see Appendix C, Land Inventory Table for parcel specific details and Appendix D for locations of these vacant parcels). Included in the inventory are parcels zoned AR-1/A-1 thru AR-10/A-10; RD-1 thru RD-40, RE-1 and 2, RM-1, LC, SC, GC and M1 (See Table 6-7).

The methodology for the current Housing Element land inventory was similar to that used for the previous Housing Element. The initial inventory assessment for the previous Housing Element included: viewing aerial photographs to assess whether parcels assumed for affordable housing were vacant; field checking a limited number of parcels; and meeting with application processing staff to assess zoning requirements such as: setbacks, height limits, easements, and access to services and infrastructure. The Assessor’s database was used to attain zoning, land use and size information for each parcel. Information was also provided by the


6-9 Land Inventory

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) regarding projects inventoried by the agency.

For the current inventory, the County took a similar approach. The County reviewed Assessor’ database and building department records, viewed aerial photographs and conducted field checks. The County also removed parcels that had approved planning entitlements or issued building permits. Much of the work was accomplished through desktop GIS. Key assumptions in this inventory include:

■ Residential unit yield in residential zones is based on 85 percent buildout of maximum capacity, except in the RD-20 zone. A survey of proposed and adopted subdivisions was recently completed where proposed buildout was greater than 85 percent of maximum capacity in almost all residential zones. (See Table 6-4). For this reason, the 85 percent yield assumption is reasonable. For the RD-20 zone, the County assumed 90 percent buildout relative to the zoned maximum because of proposals to increase the allowed maximum density in the RD-20 zone through zoning amendments and the Interim Multifamily Design Guidelines. Further elaboration of the assumed buildout for RD-20 parcels is in the next section.

■ 25 percent of the acreage of vacant LC and SC zoned parcels are assumed to be available for residential uses.

The commercial LC and SC zoning categories are included in the inventory because multifamily housing is permitted without a use permit in these zones. However, only 25 percent of LC and SC acreage is assumed to accommodate residential uses. The inventory includes 24 acres of LC and SC zoned properties over 1 acre in size. The County assumes that the 24 acres will be available for multifamily residential use (unless additional land above and beyond the inventory shortfall is identified and made available).

TABLE 6-4. PROPOSED BUILDOUT OF SUBDIVISIONS – % OF MAXIMUM CAPACITY1

ZONE TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS TOTAL ACRES UNITS PER ACRE % OF MAXIMUM

CAPACITY

RD-2 56 37.1 1.5 75.6%

RD-3 185 71.6 2.6 86.1%

RD-4 224 65.5 3.4 85.5%

RD-5 2,092 481.9 4.3 86.8%

RD-7 527 83.8 6.3 89.8%

RD-10 710 78.8 9.0 90.0%

RD-15 699 59.4 11.3 78.4%

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department, August 2008. 1 For each zone, total proposed units of proposed and adopted subdivisions with Affordable Housing

Programs was divided by the total acreage of the subdivisions to attain units per acre figure.


Land Inventory 6-10

RD-20 CAPACITY ASSUMPTION

The County’s Zoning Code allows multifamily projects to develop up to 20 dwelling units per acre in the Residential 20 (RD-20)1 land use zone. An extensive review of approved multifamily projects in this zone revealed that both market-rate and affordable projects develop at over 90 percent of maximum density (a minimum of 18 units per acre) in these zones. Projects have been able to exceed 90 percent of maximum capacity while being in compliance with Zoning Code standards pertaining to open space requirements, height limitations and parking requirements. Also, the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines will make it easier for projects to meet or exceed 90 percent of maximum density by allowing deviations from the prescriptive standards of the Zoning Code. For these reasons, the RD-20 zone is listed as being available for affordable housing with many of the parcels having assumed dwelling yields of 18 units per acre.

This analysis addresses the realistic capacity test as described in State Government Code Section 65583.2. Table 6-5 shows that multifamily projects have been developed at more than 90 percent of maximum density in the RD-20 zone.

To encourage greater densities in the RD-20 zone, a new program in this Housing Element will remove the existing 20 dwelling units per acre density limit. The program commits the County to amend the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in density for the RD-20 zoning category2. The maximum allowed density will be increased from 20 to 22 units per acre. There will be no stated minimum density. However, current General Plan Land Use Policy LU-4 requires residential projects of 10 or more units to have densities not less than 75% of zoned maximums. Also, the assumed development density for many of the RD-20 parcels will be 90 percent of the maximum allowed density. State Law requires that findings must be made if a project develops at a lesser density than what was assumed for the property in the Housing Element’s Vacant Land Inventory. For these reasons, it is reasonable to assume that many of the RD-20 parcels in the Vacant Land Inventory will develop at 18 units per acre or greater.

1 This density limit will no longer apply after the County adopts the Multifamily Design

Guidelines. 2 This change will occur as part of the County’s comprehensive Development Code update,

of which the adoption of the Multifamily Design Guidelines is a part.


6-11 Land Inventory

TABLE 6-5. EXAMPLES OF APPROVED MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS WITH DENSITIES ABOVE 90 PERCENT OF MAXIMUM DENSITY IN RD-20 ZONES

NAME STATUS TOTAL UNITS ACRES % OF MAX.

DENSITY

Alta Arden Residential Building Permit Issued 14 0.7 100.0%

Antelope Springs Townhouses Building Permit Issued 20 1 99.0%

Arlington Creek Building Permit Issued 148 7 104.8%

Camellia Park Building Permit Issued 10 0.5 92.6%

El Camino Residential Building Permit Issued 20 1.1 92.0%

Oaks at Hackberry Entitlement Approved 56 3 92.4%

Vineyard Point Entitlement Approved 176 8 116.9%

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department, March 2008.

UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS

For purposes of the Land Inventory, the residential holding capacity of an underutilized parcel zoned RD-20 or higher was assumed to be 25 percent of maximum holding capacity. A parcel is considered underutilized when it has multifamily zoning, is one acre or larger, and has one or two residences.

It is unlikely that all underutilized multifamily zone parcels will develop with multifamily projects during the planning period. However, it is realistic to assume that 25 percent of the acreage of current underutilized parcels will be developed as multifamily housing or receives planning entitlements during the planning period. In 2003, underutilized parcels zoned RD-20 or higher comprised 24.4 acres. By 2008, 24 percent of the original acreage had developed as multifamily housing or received planning entitlements for multifamily housing.

PARCELS LESS THAN ONE ACRE

For the purposes of determining dwelling unit yield for the Housing Element Land Inventory, parcels that are less than one acre in size and have multifamily zoning (RD-20, RD-25, RD-30 and RD-40) are assigned a residential holding capacity of one residence. However, there are some parcels less than one acre that were assigned a dwelling yield that was based on multifamily densities (see Table 6-6). These sites are assumed to be available to accommodate housing for lower-income households.

The following factors made it reasonable to assume that these small parcels could develop with multifamily densities:

■ The parcel is part of a group of parcels with common ownership.

■ The owner has expressed interest to the County to develop his/her parcel with projects with multifamily densities.

■ The parcel was part of the rezone program initiated by the County to remove the shortfall in the Land Inventory in the previous Housing Element. State


Land Inventory 6-12

Housing and Community Development (State HCD) had reviewed the small parcel and has determined that it is appropriate to assume multifamily densities for the parcel.

■ The parcel is larger than one acre according to the Assessor’s database but constraints reduced the developable area of the parcel to less than one acre.

■ The parcel is designated for multifamily uses in the land use plan for the North Vineyard Station Specific Plan.

Table 6-6 is a matrix of the applicable factors for each small parcel.

TABLE 6-6. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE

APN

PART OF GROUP WITH

SAME OWNERSHIP

OWNER EXPRESSED INTEREST IN

MFD

APPROVED BY STATE HCD

LARGER THAN 1 ACRE WITH

SOME CONSTRAINTS

PART OF SPECIFIC

PLAN

039-0072-012 X X X

043-0230-001 thru 004, 006 thru 016

X X X

051-0061-018 X

066-0210-011 X

066-0210-022 X

208-0142-022 X X X

220-0311-019 X X

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department, March 2008.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY LAND USE CATEGORY (2006 TO 2013)

Table 6-7 provides a summary of housing development potential by land use category without regard to affordability by income level. As shown in Tables 6-7 and 6-8, acreage is available in a variety of zones to accommodate different housing types. The Land Inventory identifies 12,316 vacant acres for residential development in the unincorporated County. The 12,316 vacant acres are comprised of zoned lands under General Plan land use categories and can accommodate over 20,098 dwelling units. The RD-5, RD-7 and RD-20 zones have the greatest residential capacities.


6-13 Land Inventory

TABLE 6-7. TOTAL YIELD BY ZONING CATEGORY (UNINCORPORATED COUNTY)

GP ZONING ASSUMED LAND USE ACRES AVAILABLE UNITS1 MAX DENSITY REALISTIC

CAPACITY AR AR10/A10 SF 2,621 382 10 8.5 AR AR-5/ A-5 SF 2,564 520 10 8.5 AR AR-2/A-2 SF 2,644 1,249 10 8.5 AR AR-1 SF 331 226 10 8.5 LDR RE-1 SF 0 1 12 10.2 LDR RE-2 SF 6 11 12 10.2 LDR RD-1/R-1 SF 49 62 12 10.2 LDR RD-2 SF 282 531 12 10.2 LDR RD-3 SF 67 184 12 10.2 LDR RD-4 SF 201 762 12 10.2 LDR RD-5 SF 1,516 6,005 12 10.2 LDR RD-7 SF 398 2,335 12 10.2 LDR RD-10 SF 152 1,410 12 10.2 MDR RD-15 SF 45 580 30 25.5

MDR RD-20 (<1 ac)

SF 36 102 30 25.5

MDR RD-20 SF MF 226 3,867 30 25.5 MDR RD-30 SF 16 78 30 25.5 MDR RD-30 MF 32 691 30 25.5 HDR RD-40 SF 1 6 50 42.5 HDR RD40 MF 15 508 50 42.5 LDR RM-1 MF 14 99 12 10.2 Commercial & Office

LC2 COM RES 11 195 20 17

Commercial & Office

SC2 COM RES 12 204 20 17

Subtotal 11,239 20,008 Parcels Available for Emergency Shelters and Single Room Occupancy Housing

Commercial & Office

GC Emergency

Shelters & SRO 76

No density limit, determined on a

case-by-case basis

NA NA

Industrial Intensive

MI Emergency

Shelters 996

No density limit, determined on a

case-by-case basis

NA NA

Subtotal 1,072 N/A Underutilized Parcels MDR RD-20 SF MF 5 84 30 25.5 MDR RD-30 SF MF 0 6 30 25.5 Subtotal 5 90 Total 12,316 20,0983 Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department, May 2008, data compiled in this format by EDAW, 2008. AR = Agricultural Residential SF = Single-family Residential LDR = Low Density Residential MF = Multifamily Residential MDR = Medium Density Residential HDR = High Density Residential 1 Units are calculated at 85 percent of the total buildout and reflect average historical development patterns within the County. 2 LC/SC zones projected buildout calculated at 25 percent of total supply. 3 Land Inventory also includes 218 units from vacant sites with approved entitlements, located mainly within the Vineyard and South Sacramento

communities. Total potential units is 20,316.


Land Inventory 6-14

TABLE 6-8. ZONING CATEGORY AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME CATEGORY’S ACREAGE

ZONING CATEGORY GEOGRAPHIC AREA DENSITY

VACANT LAND ACRES

PROJECTED SUPPLY

(DWELLING UNITS) (1)

PERCENT OF TOTAL ELI & VLI

ACRES

LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE

RD-20 Countywide 20 units/ac 117 1,901 62% 0% 0% 0%

RD-20 North

Highlands Town Center

20 units/ac 5 95 3% 0% 0% 0%

RD-30 Countywide 30 units/ac 23 507 12% 0% 0% 0% RD-40 Countywide 40 units/ac 15 508 8% 0% 0% 0%

LC Countywide 20 units/ac 11 195 6% 0% 0% 0% SC Countywide 20 units/ac 12 204 6% 0% 0% 0%

Underutilized RD-20, RD-30

Countywide 20 or 30 units/ac 5 90 3% 0% 0% 0%

RD-20 (SPA) North

Highlands Town Center

20 units/ac 7 132 0% 4% 0% 0%

RD-20 Elverta

Specific Plan 20 units/ac 20 365 0% 13% 0% 0%

RD-20 North Vineyard Sta. Specific

Plan 20 units/ac 48 857 0% 31% 0% 0%

RD-20 Vineyard 20 units/ac 22 390 0% 14% 0% 0%

RD-20 Vineyard Springs

Specific Plan 20 units/ac 7 128 0% 5% 0% 0%

RD-30 Antelope 30 units/ac 8 184 0% 5% 0% 0% RM-1 Countywide 8.5 units/ac 14 99 0% 9% 0% 0%

Vacant Parcels with Approved Entitlement with Units to be Build on Site

25 218 0% 16% 0% 0%

RD-5 Countywide 5 units/ac 379 1,501 0% 0% 52% 0% RD-7 Countywide 7 units/ac 100 584 0% 0% 14% 0% RD-10 Countywide 10 units/ac 152 1,410 0% 0% 21% 0% RD-15 Countywide 15 units/ac 45 580 0% 0% 6% 0%

RD-20 (< 1 Acre) Countywide 20 units/ac 36 102 0% 0% 5% 0% RD-30 (< 1 Acre) Countywide 30 units/ac 16 78 0% 0% 2% 0% RD-40 (< 1 Acre) Countywide 40 units/ac 1 6 0% 0% 0% 0%

AR-1 Countywide 1 ac/unit 332 226 0% 0% 0% 3% AR-2 Countywide 2 ac/unit 2,644 1,249 0% 0% 0% 26% AR-5 Countywide 5 ac/unit 2,564 520 0% 0% 0% 25% AR-10 Countywide 10 ac/unit 2,621 382 0% 0% 0% 26% RD-1 Countywide 1 unit/ac 49 62 0% 0% 0% 0% RD-2 Countywide 2 units/ac 282 531 0% 0% 0% 3% RE-2 Countywide 2 units/ac 6 11 0% 0% 0% 0% RD-3 Countywide 3 units/ac 67 184 0% 0% 0% 1% RD-4 Countywide 4 units/ac 201 762 0% 0% 0% 2% RD-5 Countywide 5 units/ac 1,137 4,504 0% 0% 0% 11% RD-7 Countywide 7 units/ac 299 1,751 0% 0% 0% 3% Total 11,270 20,316

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department, May 2008, data compiled in this format by EDAW, 2008.


6-15 Land Inventory

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BY INCOME GROUP

A total of 11,270 acres of vacant land are available for residential development in the unincorporated County. Of this acreage, 189.3 acres are available for extremely low- and very low-income housing, 150 acres for low-income housing, 729 acres for moderate-income housing, and 10,202 acres for above moderate-income housing. Tables 6-9 through 6-12 present summaries of available sites by income level. The County estimates that 20,316 new housing units at buildout could be accommodated during the Housing Element planning period (2006 to 2013).

There are 189.3 acres available for extremely low/very low-income housing (See Table 6-9). This acreage could accommodate 3,500 units. Also, 265 extremely low/very low-income units have been constructed since January 1, 2006 (the beginning of the planning period for the Land Inventory) and 92 existing extremely low/very low-income units were determined to be alternative adequate sites. These new and existing units reduce the housing need from 3,339 units to 2,982 units. When available acreage and new and existing units are taken into account, there is a surplus of 518 units for the extremely low/very low-income categories.

Most of the affordable housing units that will be constructed on the 189.3 acres will be financed by federal, state and local funds that are administered by SHRA. A developer using these funds must have a certain percentage of units be available for extremely low-, very low- and low-income households for a period up to 55 years. This requirement is recorded and acts as a lien against the property.

In addition, sites in the GC and M1 zones (268.3 acres) are available for emergency shelters and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing without having to attain a use permit. These types of housing are used by individuals or families that fall under the extremely low/very low-income categories. However, determining realistic holding capacity for the GC and M-1 sites is difficult because there is no predetermined minimum and maximum density. For this reason, sites available for emergency shelters and SRO’s are not included in Table 6-9.


TABLE 6-9 EXTREMELY LOW- AND VERY LOW-INCOME (ELI &VLI) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

ZONING CATEGORY

GEOGRAPHIC AREA DENSITY

PROJECTED SUPPLY

(DWELLING UNITS)1

VACANT LAND ACRES

PERCENT OF TOTAL VLI

ACRES

RD-20 Countywide 20 units/ac 1,901 117 62%

RD-20 North Highlands

Town Center 20 units/ac 95 5 3%

RD-30 Countywide 30 units/ac 507 24 12% RD-40 Countywide 40 units/ac 508 15 8%

LC Countywide 20 units/ac 1952 11 6% SC Countywide 20 units/ac 2042 12 6%

Underutilized RD-20, RD-

30 Countywide

20 or 30 units/ac

90 5 2.6%

Total Available 3,500 189.3 100.0% Demand 3,339 Deficit 0

Units Built After Jan. 2006 265 Alternative Adequate Sites 92

Oversupply 518 Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department records, April, 2008. 1 Units are calculated at 85% or 90% (RD-20) of the total buildout and reflect historical development

patterns within the County. 2 Projected buildout calculated at 25% of total supply. 2 Projected buildout calculated at 25% of total supply.

For low-income housing, there are 150 acres that can accommodate 2,373 units (See Table 6-10). This includes vacant parcels with approved inclusionary housing programs. Since January 1, 2006, 70 low-income units have been constructed. Also, there are 272 low-income units that meet the criteria for alternative adequate sites. These units reduce the projected need from 2,293 units to 1,951 units. The available acreage and the units result in a surplus of 422 units.

NORTH HIGHLANDS TOWN CENTER

In March 2008, the County approved the County approved the North Highlands Town Center Special Planning Area (NHTC SPA) which will change a predominantly commercial and light industrial zoned area to an area that is more residential in character. Transit Oriented Development, and mixed use infill with residential components are planned for the SPA. The NHTC SPA is expected to be built out in 30 years and will be 20 percent residential in the Gateway District, 75 percent residential in the Main Street District, and 44 percent residential in the Office/Residential District. Residential zones within this SPA allow 20 to 60 units per acre. Of the 95.9 acres covered by the SPA, 11.3 acres of the vacant parcels have the potential to be developed within this Housing Element period. The assumed dwelling yield for the 11.3 acres is 95 units for extremely low- and very-low income households and 132 units for low-income households.

Land Inventory 6-16


TABLE 6-10. LOW-INCOME (LI) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

ZONING CATEGORY


PROJECTED SUPPLY

(DWELLING UNITS)1

VACANT LAND ACRES

PERCENT OF TOTAL LI

ACRES

RD-20 (SPA)

North Highlands Town Center

20 units/ac 132 7 4%

RD-20 Elverta Specific Plan

20 units/ac 365 20 14%

RD-20 North Vineyard Sta. Specific Plan

20 units/ac 857 48 32%

RD-20 Vineyard 20 units/ac 390 22 15%

RD-20 Vineyard Springs Specific Plan

20 units/ac 128 8 5%

RD-30 Antelope 30 units/ac 184 8 6%

RM-1 Countywide 8.5 units/ac 99 14 9%

Vacant Parcels with Approved Entitlement with Units to be Build on Site

218 25 16%

Total

Available 2,373 150 100.0%

Demand 2,293

Deficit 0

Units Built After Jan. 2006 70

Alternative Adequate Sites 272

Oversupply 422

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department records, April 2008. 1 Units are calculated at 85 percent of the total buildout and reflect average historical development

patterns within the County.

There are 729 acres for moderate-income housing (See Table 6-11). This acreage could accommodate 4,261 units. The projected need as of January 1, 2006 was 2,700 units but 471 moderate-income units have been subsequently constructed or considered alternative adequate sites, reducing the need to 2,229 units. There is a surplus capacity of 2,032 units.

6-17 Land Inventory


Land Inventory 6-18

TABLE 6-11. MODERATE-INCOME (MI) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

ZONING CATEGORY


PROJECTED SUPPLY

(DWELLING UNITS)1

VACANT LAND ACRES

PERCENT OF TOTAL LI

ACRES


RD-7 Countywide 7 units/ac 5842 100 14%



RD-20 (< 1 Acre) Countywide 20 units/ac 102 36 5%



Total Available 4,261 729 100.0%

Demand 2,700

Deficit 0


Alternative Adequate Sites 14

Oversupply 2,032

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department records, April, 2008. 1 Units are calculated at 85% of the total buildout and reflect historical development patterns within the

County. 2 RD-5 and RD-7 zoning categories assumed to have 25% of its market for moderate-income housing. 3 Units on RD-5 or RD-7 zoned land and built from 01/01/06 to 01/01/08. 25% assumed to be MI or

Moderate-Income housing.

For above moderate-income housing, there are 10,201.9 acres which can accommodate 10,182 units (See Table 6-12). This exceeds the January 1, 2006 projected need of 6,828 units. In addition, 771 above moderate-income housing units have been constructed since January 2006. The initial surplus and the built units results in a current surplus of 4,125 new units.


TABLE 6-12. ABOVE MODERATE-INCOME (AMI) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

ZONING CATEGORY


PROJECTED SUPPLY

(DWELLING UNITS)1

VACANT LAND ACRES

PERCENT OF TOTAL LI

ACRES

AR-1 Countywide 1 ac/unit 226 332 3%

AR-2 Countywide 2 ac/unit 1,249 2,644 26%

AR-5 Countywide 5 ac/unit 520 2,564 25%

AR-10 Countywide 10 ac/unit 382 2,621 26%

RD-1 Countywide 1 unit/ac 62 49 0%


RE-2 Countywide 2 units/ac 11 6 0%



RD-5 Countywide 5 units/ac 4,5042 1,137 11%


Total Available 10,182 10202 100.0%

Demand 6,828

Deficit 0


Oversupply 4,125

Source: County of Sacramento Planning Department records, April, 2008. 1 Units are calculated at 85% of the total buildout and reflect historical development patterns within the

County. 2 RD-5 and RD-7 zoning categories assumed to have 25% of its market for moderate-income housing. 3 Units on RD-5 or RD-7 zoned land and built from 01/01/06 to 01/01/08. 75% assumed to be AMI or

Above Moderate-Income housing.

When all income levels are combined, there is an adequate supply of land to accommodate a total of 20,316 new residential units - a surplus of 5,156 new residential units over the original allocation of 15,160 units. Since the date of the original allocation, 1,941 units have been constructed or considered to be alternative adequate sites, reducing the housing need to 13,219 units. This results in the surplus increasing to 7,097 units.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS

There is sufficient water and sewer capacity for the parcels listed in the Vacant Land Inventory. Most residential and commercial zone parcels in the Land Inventory are located within the County Urban Services Boundary (USB) and the County Urban Policy Area (UPA). These parcels are also within the active service areas of a variety of public utility and service districts. Development on the parcels would increase the demands on public services to some degree, but not beyond the planned service capacities of the providers. The parcels located outside of the USB and UPA are either agricultural-residential parcels that do not require urban level of service or parcels located in small towns in the Delta community (Courtland, Walnut Grove) where there are sufficient water and sewer service for future residential development. The following is an analysis regarding the provision of water and sewer services.

6-19 Land Inventory


Land Inventory 6-20

WATER

All water purveyors would provide water service within the context of the Water Forum Agreement and under the guidance of the Water Forum Successor Effort (Water Forum 2005). In addition, the post-project water demand for the residentially zoned parcels would be similar to that anticipated under the General Plan and zoning used in water supply planning assumptions of the Water Forum Agreement, and groundwater management plans.

Although the sites are within existing service areas that have surrounding infrastructure, water purveyors serving the residentially zoned parcels may require infrastructure changes or improvements in order to serve various parcels. Because infrastructure exists nearby, the water service could be provided during the time of project development.

SEWER

The residential and commercial parcels in the Land Inventory are in the service areas of the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). SASD provides the local wastewater collection system for the unincorporated County and this system is connected to the regional conveyance system that was constructed by and is maintained by SRCSD.

Many of the infill parcels are located near existing collectors and trunk sewers. Those that are not currently being served by public sewer facilities will be provided service during time of project development if certain conditions are met (such as provision of easements and/or reservations for both SASD and SRCSD infrastructure and possible additional requirements).

Parcels in the Land Inventory that are in new growth areas are located either in the North Vineyard Station Comprehensive Plan area, the Vineyard Springs Specific Plan area or the Elverta Specific Plan area. The previous Housing Element referred to the proposed Bradshaw Interceptor as providing the extra capacity needed to serve ultimate development in the North Vineyard Station and Vineyard Springs areas. This interceptor is now in place. Trunk facilities are needed to serve new residential projects in North Vineyard Station and Vineyard Springs. The normal process for construction of trunk facilities is that developers of residential projects propose and construct the trunk facilities under the review and approval of SASD staff and are reimbursed by fee programs to ensure the fair distribution of costs. For this reason, it is reasonable to assume that sewer lines will be provided concurrent with development.

The Elverta Specific Plan was adopted in 2007. The previous Housing Element stated that the Specific Plan will be phased with ultimate service proposed via the Northwest Interceptor. However, because of capacity constraints downstream, initial service is proposed through a temporary system. This system would store flows on-site during wet weather conditions and release them on a regulated basis into a line that would connect to the regional sewer system. This system is will be made available as part of the normal infrastructure development process.


6-21 Land Inventory

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Fifty-four sites in the Land Inventory have various environmental constraints, as detailed in Appendix C. The following is a summary of the environmental constraints:

■ Oak trees;

■ Ditch;

■ Utility, sewer, and/or drainage easements;

■ Powerlines that run through portions of the site;

■ Sites containing natural resources such as wetlands and vernal pools; and

■ Locational issues such as a multifamily zoned site adjacent to single-family zoned sites or mobile home park.

Sites with environmental constraints have been taken into account in the Land Inventory through a reduction in developable area and resulting reduction in residential capacity of the site.

EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

There are 13.5 acres available in the GC zone and 254.8 acres in the M-1 zone for emergency shelters where a use permit is not required. Tables C-30 and C-31 in Appendix C list the vacant parcels that are available for emergency shelters. A detailed description of development standards for emergency shelters is provided in Pages 7-27 and 7-28.

There are two types of transitional/supportive housing in Sacramento County. The first type comprises of residential care homes that are usually located in existing single-family neighborhoods. No use permit is required if there is less than six adults in the care home. The second type comprises of apartments. Apartments used as transitional or supportive housing could be located in any parcel that is zoned for multifamily projects (See Table 6-6 or Appendix C Land Inventory Table). Like any other multifamily project, apartments with transitional or supportive housing would only need a development plan review. Currently, transitional and supportive housing are not listed in the County Zoning Code land use tables. However, Programs HE-28(b) and HE-34(i) will require an amendment to the Zoning Code to have these uses listed in the tables.

FARMWORKER HOUSING

Agricultural accessory dwellings are allowed by right in the Agricultural 20, 40, 80 and 160 zones (AG-20, 40, 80 and 160). There are at least 2,600 parcels encompassing over 10,000 acres that can accommodate agricultural accessory dwellings without a use permit. The number of possible sites and the acreage of these sites are more than sufficient to accommodate future farmworker housing.


Land Inventory 6-22

SUMMARY

The assumptions of housing demand in this Housing Element are based on the revised Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) delineated in correspondence from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) dated February 21, 2008. This correspondence provided the “fair share” distribution of the RHNA among the various jurisdictions including the allocation for unincorporated Sacramento County. This revised RHNA identifies a demand of 15,160 new residential units for the 2006-2013 planning period. This demand is compared with a land use inventory of residential and commercial zoned parcels. The parcels identified in the Land Inventory can provide 20,316 units. There is a 7,097-unit surplus in the assumed supply for all income categories.


7-1 Housing Element

CHAPTER 7

HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

Governmental and nongovernmental constraints are factors or conditions affecting the ability of housing providers to develop enough housing of a type and at a cost that meets the needs of current and future residents. Governmental constraints include fees, time, and costs associated with permit processing, and development regulations affecting the amount and type of housing that can be built. Nongovernmental constraints include factors that are not directly or primarily affected by government activity, such as land and construction costs, environmental conditions, and the cost of financing a home.

Both types of constraints are important, since they not only have the potential to increase the cost of housing, but also the potential to inhibit development, affecting the construction and maintenance of housing. The purpose of this section is to identify governmental and nongovernmental constraints in Sacramento County affecting housing availability and cost. By identifying these constraints, the County can take a first step towards removing them, and achieving the goals and objectives set forth in this Housing Element.

The analysis in this section has been used to evaluate whether the County has adequate sites to accommodate its share (15,160 units) of regional housing needs (118,652 units) between 2006 and 2013 under the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The analysis of adequate sites is part of Chapter 6.

Sacramento County is currently undertaking an update to its General Plan and its Zoning Code. A public review draft of the updated General Plan was issued on May 30, 2007. The County is also in the process of a comprehensive Development Code update that will affect the current Zoning Code and several other County codes. However, neither the General Plan nor the updated zoning code was adopted at the time this Housing Element was prepared. The analysis of constraints is based on current General Plan policies and zoning regulations, therefore.

Because low- and moderate-income households and those with special needs are most affected by changes in housing cost and availability, much of this section focuses on potential constraints to housing for these groups. The most influential governmental and nongovernmental constraints on the availability of housing affordable to these groups in Sacramento County are described below:

■ Land costs have risen by 100 percent or more over the past 5 years, and land costs make up about 29 percent of the cost of a new single-family home.

■ Construction costs (not including land) and fees for a 2,000-square-foot home are higher than the affordable home price for a family of four earning the 2007 Median Family Income of $67,200 in Sacramento County.

■ Parking, setback, and on- and off-site improvement requirements could pose a constraint, particularly in infill areas. However, proposed new multifamily design guidelines being prepared by the County would allow smaller setbacks and reduced parking requirements. Use of special development permits can also address this constraint.

■ County processing time for development applications is currently a constraint. The County has attempted to reduce the constraining effects of its regulations


Housing Element 7-2

and processing time through informal strategies that shift affordable housing projects to the head of the permit processing line. However, the addition of Community Council review for some projects has increased average processing times for all projects. The proposed design guidelines for multifamily housing, when adopted, will allow more permit decisions to be processed administratively, providing greater flexibility in the application of zoning standards and reducing processing times. In addition, the County is in the process of revising the Zoning Code. The revised code is expected to simplify the development process and help reduce the complexity of processing activities.

During the course of public outreach in the update of the Housing Element, representatives of organizations serving various housing and supportive services advocacy groups and commissions, including public agencies and private organizations serving special needs populations (such as homebuilders and designers, lower-income families, homeless, persons with disabilities, seniors, extremely low-income households, and low-wage workers). The County has also conducted extensive public outreach and consultation with organizations interested in housing and supportive services for special needs population through the General Plan and Development Code update processes. Input from these organizations and the public has been incorporated into this chapter and is summarized in Chapter 1.

GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

The term “governmental constraints” refers to the policies and regulations of the County that affect housing. While the County has little influence on market-oriented (nongovernmental) constraints and obstacles such as interest rates, cost of materials, land costs, and labor costs, County policies and regulations may constrain the free operation of the housing market. Local regulations play a legitimate role in protecting the overall public health, safety, and welfare of Sacramento County. However, the application of some regulations may restrict the market’s ability to construct housing. Governmental constraints may include land availability (as regulated by the County’s Land Use Element); zoning and other development regulations; building codes and enforcement; permit processing procedures; fees for permits, development impacts, and environmental mitigation; and County financing limitations.

Though typically uniform across a regional housing market, state and federal regulations can affect the availability of land and the cost of producing housing. While these laws serve legitimate public purposes, their cost impact on housing cannot be ignored. Examples of state and federal regulations that affect the cost and availability of housing are environmental laws, permit processes, prevailing wage requirements, building standards, workers compensation requirements, and liability and insurance laws. State and federal requirements disproportionately affect the cost and availability of housing affordable to lower income residents. Some, but not all, of the cost of housing production added by state and federal regulations is offset by funding and tax incentives from the state and federal governments for affordable housing.

The current environment of scarcity in local government finance results in limited opportunities for the County to fund affordable housing programs and projects from local revenues. One of the primary methods for generating local revenue is redevelopment, which has been used extensively by the County. Financial commitment to affordable housing on the part of the state and federal government is essential, because the production of most affordable housing requires significant subsidies beyond those that Sacramento County can provide. However, the amount


7-3 Housing Element

of available state and federal assistance is a small fraction of the necessary funding to fill the gap in affordable housing.

While Sacramento County recognizes that constraints exist at other levels of government, the County has little or no control over these regulations and no ability to mitigate them directly. Therefore, this section of the Housing Element focuses on policies and regulations under the County’s direct control.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE GENERAL PLAN

Discretionary control of development is exercised in accordance with the General Plan, community plans, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, and other implementing ordinances. An understanding of the County’s development regulations requires an understanding of the policy basis for those regulations. This section presents an overview of the County’s General Plan and how it affects specific development regulations for governing residential land uses and housing development.

The General Plan attempts to balance the need for available land against the need to provide infrastructure and services efficiently, and the need to protect agricultural and open space resources. The General Plan’s objective is not to restrict growth but rather to guide development in an efficient and cost-effective manner, while meeting the need for housing, economic growth, continued working agricultural practices, and habitat protection. The General Plan promotes efficiency by committing to a pattern of land use that concentrates development. More concentrated development protects valuable agricultural lands, helps to conserve natural areas and resources, reduces travel distance and air pollution emissions, conserves energy, and enhances the efficiency of infrastructure and services.

As part of the General Plan, the Housing Element seeks to accommodate the County’s housing needs for all income levels, and to remove regulatory barriers to meeting those needs, while also contributing to other General Plan goals and objectives for the protection of the environment, health and safety of residents, and the quality of life in Sacramento County.

Although the County is in the process of updating its General Plan and development codes, these updates have not yet been adopted as of the preparation of this Housing Element. The constraints analysis must be conducted based on the County’s current development policies and regulations, therefore. Whenever possible, this section describes changes to policies and regulations that could occur under the updated General Plan and development codes and their potential to influence future residential development.

1993 General Plan

The location of housing and the density of development are determined primarily by policies in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. The authority to specify both the location and density of residential development is the most important power available to the County in determining the supply and type of housing developed within its political jurisdiction.

The 1993 County of Sacramento General Plan (General Plan) (County of Sacramento 1993) is a design for action that provides long-term guidance, usually 20 years, for the community’s growth. Generally, all land use regulations, actions or approvals must be consistent with general plan policies; however, the general plan may be amended to respond to unforeseen changes or needs and to reflect current land use capabilities.


Housing Element 7-4

2007 General Plan Update

The County is currently updating the 1993 General Plan that will guide the County through 2030. A draft General Plan policy document was released for public review in May 2007. The Land Use Element identifies four strategies that will guide future in the County through 2030 (Section II of the draft Element), including future housing development. These four strategies are summarized below.

Logical Progression of Urban Development The County proposes to expand the Urban Policy Area (UPA) and Urban Service Boundary (USB) to meet the County’s share of projected regional development needs (including housing needs) through 2030. The UPA and USB are the backbone of Sacramento County’s urban planning philosophy. These growth boundaries are intended to protect the County’s natural resources from urban encroachment, as well as to limit costly sprawling development patterns. While the USB is intended to be a permanent boundary, the UPA is adjusted incrementally as needed to ensure that the County can accommodate anticipated growth over the next 25-year planning cycle. The area between the two lines is reserved for future urbanization and is only to be developed when lands within the existing UPA can no longer accommodate projected growth. Figure 7-1 shows the proposed UPA and USB boundaries. Figure 7-2 shows the proposed UPA expansion area and the Jackson Visioning Area where urban development is proposed for the Jackson Highway and Grant Line Road corridors.

Growth Accommodation The County’s will accommodate projected population and employment growth with a focus in areas where public infrastructure and services are or will be available during the planning period. Recognizing that growth will occur to some extent in both urban and rural settings, the County’s strategy includes both urban growth and rural growth. The County’s urban growth strategy focuses on infill development in existing unincorporated communities, build out of planned communities (some of which are currently being developed), re-use of older commercial corridors, and development in several new growth areas for which planning has not yet begun or is in the early stages. The urban strategy is described below.

■ Buildout of infill sites. The County’s overall objectives is to achieve buildout of vacant and underutilized infill parcels at existing zoned densities, while recognizing that individual projects may be approved or denied at higher or lower densities based on their community and site suitability.

■ Buildout of planned communities consistent with their approved plans. These communities are Elverta, East Antelope, Florin Vineyard “Gap,” North Vineyard Station, and Vineyard Springs. Figure 7-3 shows the locations of these planned communities.

■ Re-use of older commercial corridors. These corridors will include a mix of retail, employment, and housing. Older commercial corridors targeted for re-use by the County include Franklin Boulevard, Stockton Boulevard, Fulton Avenue, Watt Avenue, North Watt Avenue, Manzanita Avenue, Greenback Lane, Auburn Boulevard, Folsom Boulevard, Fair Oaks Boulevard, and Florin Road. Corridor plans are presently underway along North Watt Avenue, Fair Oaks Boulevard, and Florin Road. Figure 7-4 shows the County’s commercial corridors.


Figure 7-1

7-5 Housing Element


Figure 7-2

Housing Element 7-6


Figure 7-3

7-7 Housing Element


Figure 7-4

Housing Element 7-8


7-9 Housing Element

■ New growth areas. The updated General plan anticipates several new communities with a mix of housing, jobs, and retail development configured in a compact and transit supportive manner. Among the planned communities are the “West of Watt” area near McClellan Park, the Easton Planning Area, the Jackson Highway Corridor, and the Grant Line East Area. Of particular note is the Easton Planning Area along Highway 50 and the Sunrise/Folsom Light Rail line. Of the new growth areas, Easton is planned for the highest densities and most urban character. Figure 7-5 shows the planned new growth areas.

The County’s rural growth strategy is based on the historical rate of Agricultural-Residential development and assumes that this rate will continue through 2030. The updated General Plan anticipates the expansion of existing Agricultural-Residential communities such as areas now surrounded by urban uses (small areas in Fair Oaks, South Sacramento, and North Highlands), in the path of urban development (Rio Linda, Orangevale, and Sheldon), and well beyond the USB (Wilton, Alta Mesa, Clay, and Herald).

Growth Management and Design Through this strategy, the County will reduce the impacts of development by emphasizing compact growth and quality development that reflects the character and identity of established neighborhoods and communities. While Strategy II is concerned with how and where growth will be accommodated, this strategy addresses the design, type and form of future development.

The County has embarked on several efforts to address the quality and design of development. The corridor plans described above will address the form and function of re-use and infill in these areas. The County has also adopted design guidelines for commercial and mixed-use development that are being applied to developing areas as well as infill areas of the County. Finally, the County has launched a major overhaul of its development codes to focus less on land uses and traditional tools to regulate development and more on the quality, design, form, and function of new and infill development. The Development Code update includes the preparation of residential and neighborhood design guidelines that will address multifamily, mixed-use residential, small-lot single-family, and other single-family development. The County expects that the new development code will include a mixed-use zoning district, which the County lacks at present. Among the areas of policy focus are:

■ neighborhood compatibility;

■ the creation of “complete” communities with a mixture of housing of various types, retail, and employment uses;

■ mixed-use, compact development along commercial and transportation corridors;

■ energy efficient development;

■ transit-oriented development and communities;

■ walkability and neighborhood accessibility; and

■ housing affordability and mixed-income housing opportunities.

Figures 7-6a and 7-6b show light rail transit oriented development opportunity areas and transit oriented development districts identified by the County.


Figure 7-5

Housing Element 7-10


Figure 7-6a

7-11 Housing Element


Figure 7-6b




Built Environment Preservation and Enhancement Enhancing quality of life in every community, as well as utilizing vacant and underutilized lands to accommodate future economic and population growth are two primary objectives of the General Plan update. This strategy recognizes that each of the County’s unincorporated communities has special needs and offers unique opportunities.

General Plan Land Use Categories

The Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram (1993, revised 1997) in the General Plan designate particular areas within the unincorporated County for residential development. To accommodate a variety of housing types, the Land Use Element and Diagram provide for both urban and rural communities. Urban communities are substantially developed with a variety of residential land uses, such as low-, medium-, and high-density residential development. These areas are served by, or are planned to receive, such urban infrastructure as public water service, collection and treatment of wastewater, storm drainage, arterial streets, and transit service.

Urban communities will accommodate the great majority of new residential development in the unincorporated area. Rural communities have historically served as a focus of activity for surrounding agricultural areas, including agricultural-residential housing on 1- to 10-acre lots that rely on individual wells and septic systems. The General Plan is intended to accommodate rural residential demand within existing rural communities, with limited expansion into adjoining lands. This helps to maintain active agricultural lands, and to protect and conserve open space and natural resources. Residential land use designations are described in more detail in this section. These designations are illustrated on the County’s Land Use Diagram, and provide for a variety of types of residential development within urban and rural communities.

The 2007 General Plan update does not propose any significant changes to the three residential land use categories contained in the current General Plan. Rather, the most significant changes under the General Plan update will be in mixed used and transit-oriented development categories, as described below. These new/revised land use categories will promote greater mixed-used development in infill areas, along major transportation and commercial corridors, and in new growth areas near transit.

Residential Categories Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential designation provides for predominantly single-family housing with some attached housing units (such as duplexes and halfplexes). It allows urban densities between one and 12 dwelling units per acre. Typical low-density development includes detached single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, townhomes, lower density condominiums, cluster housing, and mobile home parks.

Medium Density Residential. The Medium Density Residential designation provides for attached units, including apartments, condominiums, and townhouses along transit corridors and throughout the urban area. These uses are appropriate near commercial areas, transportation and transit corridors, and employment centers. This designation establishes urban densities between 13 and 30 dwelling units per acre.

High Density Residential. The High Density Residential designation includes higher density units, primarily along transit corridors. High-density development includes multi-floor apartments and condominiums, including mixed-use developments.



High-density uses are appropriate within the central portion of intensive commercial areas, along transit/transportation corridors and stops, and near major employment centers. This designation establishes urban densities ranging between 31 and 50 dwelling units per acre.

Agricultural-Residential. The Agricultural-Residential designation provides for rural residential uses, such as animal husbandry, small-scale agriculture, and other limited agricultural activities. This designation is typical of established rural communities, and densities between 1 and 10 acres per unit are allowed, resulting in a development density of 2.5 to 0.25 persons per acre.

Mixed Use Categories Transit Oriented Development. The current and proposed General Plan identifies two mixed-use categories linked to transit (Transit Oriented Developments, or TODs. Areas designated as TOD call for high-intensity, mixed-use development close to public transit services. These developments emphasize neighborhood support services at street level, with other employment along the transit trunk and feeder line networks. The mix of uses can occur within a TOD in a variety of ways; office or residential uses can be included in the same building or possibly above retail.

The first category, “Urban TOD,” allows mixed-use developments of relatively high residential densities and nonresidential intensities, with residential densities ranging from 7 to 50 units per gross acre. The secondary residential areas surrounding the TOD core are expected to have a minimum average density of six dwelling units per acre.

The second category, “Neighborhood TOD,” allows mixed-use communities at moderate densities ranging from 7 to 30 units per gross acre. As with Urban TOD, the secondary area of Neighborhood TOD is to have a minimum density of six units per gross residential acre.

The proposed General Plan update includes policy guidance for the mix of land uses in TODs, expressed as a percentage range for four categories of land use:

Land Use Minimum % Maximum %

Commercial 10% 30%

Office 20% 60%

Residential 20% 60%

Public 10% 30%

Mixed Use Corridor. The proposed General Plan update includes a new mixed use category: “Mixed Use Corridor.” The Mixed Use Corridor designation covers 14 commercial corridors targeted by the County for revitalization with retail, employment, and residential uses that are both compact and transit oriented. Reinvestment in these identified corridors is a key strategy to enhance existing communities, achieve the County’s smart growth objectives, and accommodate the County’s growth allocation in a compact manner (as defined by the SACOG Blueprint Vision). The County will initiate individual planning processes for these corridors to plan for improvements in a holistic manner, with a specific focus on implementation. Three corridor plans were in process at the time this Housing Element was prepared: North Watt Avenue, Fair Oaks Boulevard, and Florin Road.



“Holding” Land Use Categories The proposed General Plan update identifies two “holding” designations: the Jackson Corridor Planning Area and the Urban Development Area. The Jackson Corridor Planning Area designation covers an area along Jackson Highway, and the Urban Development Area designation is applied to the “West of Watt” and Easton areas. Master plans with a cohesive mix of land uses must be completed for these areas prior to development or changes in land use designation.

Jackson Corridor Planning Area. The Jackson Corridor Planning Area designation indicates the area where the County will initiate and lead a strategic, comprehensive and multi-disciplinary visioning effort to ensure that high quality and cohesive development patterns are achieved consistent with regional smart growth objectives. The resulting vision will guide all future master-planning efforts to create a cohesive, long range vision for the area that addresses issues relating to development, infrastructure and the environment. All subsequent master plans (such as a Specific Plan or comprehensive plan) must be consistent with the adopted vision. Urban development and/or rezones will not be approved until a master plan is adopted and the Jackson Highway designation is removed.

Urban Development Area. The Urban Development Area (UDA) designation indicates where the County will conduct studies leading to the appropriate configuration of urban land uses for the area. These are areas that will be converted to urban uses to accommodate the growth that is projected to occur during the 25 year planning period. Two areas are shown as UDA on the Diagram – the West of Watt area (between McClellan Park and Watt Avenue North) and the Easton area (south of Highway 50 between Rancho Cordova and Folsom). Urban development and/or rezones cannot occur in these areas until a master plan has been approved and the UDA designation has been removed.

COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS AND COMMUNITY PLANS

Community Plans

The description of the proposed 2007 General Plan update includes an explanation of the County’s urban growth strategies, which includes accommodating development as infill in existing communities and their commercial corridors and large new developments new planned communities. The latter strategy includes both the build out of previously planned “new” communities and new communities that are currently being planned.

There are distinct, identifiable communities within both the urban and rural portions of Sacramento County. While the General Plan outlines countywide goals and objectives for the general nature and direction of urban development, it does not contain the necessary details for effectively identifying and addressing the problems and needs of the distinct communities. To fulfill these needs, a community planning program was initiated in 1975. Sacramento County prepared community plans to provide more specific local planning than found in the General Plan.

These 1970s community plans could be described as community preservation and infill plans, rather than new growth plans, as they seek to protect existing community character while allowing for infill development to varying degrees in older communities. One of these older communities, Citrus Heights, later incorporated.

The County also embarked on an effort, beginning in the early 1990s, to identify and plan for new growth communities. Two of these communities, Elk Grove and



Rancho Cordova, later incorporated and included former community plan areas as part of the new cities.

Not every unincorporated community has an adopted community plan. However, for planning purposes, the County has identified 25 community planning areas. These are described below.

Twenty-Five Community Planning Areas The county area was divided into 25 community planning areas for the purpose of analysis and community planning. Seven of the community planning areas are entirely located within the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, and Sacramento. Another seven community planning areas include portions of four cities (Galt, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento). The City of Isleton is located wholly within the Delta community planning area (number 20). The County has no jurisdiction over community planning areas, or portions of such areas, located within incorporated cities.

The County has adopted community plans to guide development for 12 of the unincorporated community planning areas. Table 7-1 lists the community plans. Two communities, Arden-Arcade and Carmichael, also adopted action plans, in 2006. Three specific plans have been adopted in the county, East Antelope (in 1995), Mather (in 1997), and North Vineyard Station (in 1998). A specific plan is currently underway in Elverta. A comprehensive plan was adopted in Vineyard Springs in 2000, and a comprehensive plan is currently underway in Florin Vineyard Gap.

TABLE 7-1. COMMUNITY PLAN STATUS COMMUNITY LAST ADOPTED

Antelope 1985

Arden–Arcade 1980

Carmichael 1975

Delta 1983

Fair Oaks 1975

North Highlands/Foothill Farms 1974

Orangevale 1976

Rio Linda/Elverta 1998

Southeast 1976 (map only)

South Sacramento 1978

Vineyard 1985

Source: Sacramento County Community Development Department 2007.

The goals and objectives outlined in each community plan are developed through combined County and citizen efforts. Development proposals within a community plan area must be consistent with both the community plan and the General Plan. Community plans are more specific than, and represent a refinement of, the policies in the General Plan, but must be consistent with those policies.

Closely tied to the County’s community planning approach is the designation of Community Planning Advisory Councils (CPACs) and Community Planning Councils (CPCs). Community Planning Advisory Councils advise the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on planning and development matters such as community plan amendments, zoning matters, subdivision requests, and use permits. Community

http://www.saccounty.net/planning/specific/fair-oaks/fair-oaks.html

http://www.saccounty.net/planning/specific/orangevale/orangevale.html



Planning Councils have the same role as the countywide planning commissions within their unincorporated communities. The roles of CPACs and CPCs are described in greater detail in the Development Review and Permit Processing section included later in this chapter.

ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES

Sacramento County exercises discretionary authority over the residential development entitlement process by implementing zoning and subdivision ordinances. These ordinances establish development standards to regulate all residential construction within the county. Table 7-2 provides a summary of the County’s residential development standards.

The County adopted these development standards to ensure that minimum levels of design and construction quality are maintained, and that adequate levels of street and facility improvements are provided. While these standards generally apply to all developments, standards can be modified using special development permits to accommodate projects that are unique or provide special housing arrangements. For example, the zoning ordinance permits density bonuses to lower income housing developments, and also permits the relaxation of standards related to parking, setbacks, lot site, and lot coverage (sections 110-110 through 114 of the Zoning Code). Allowing flexibility within the County codes and ordinances is intended to reduce development costs. The County zoning code also allows for the more efficient use of land by allowing variances to typical size, height, and bulk requirements for conventional dwellings as a combination of different land uses that compliment each other, contrary to existing zoning regulations.

Although the County codes and ordinances are flexible to allow for varying housing types and densities, the codes and ordinances can potentially act as a constraint on the construction of affordable housing, particularly on housing for very low- and low-income households. The County has attempted to reduce the potentially constraining effects of its regulations through informal preferential processing for affordable housing projects. Proposed new design guidelines for multifamily and mixed-use projects increase the number of permit decisions that can be made administratively, and provide greater flexibility to vary from the strict application of zoning standards. In addition, the County is currently in the process of updating its Zoning Code. One goal of the revised code will be to reduce the potentially constraining effect of the requirements on low-income housing.

Table 7-2 summarizes permitted and conditional uses in residential zones, while Tables 7-3 and 7-4 summarize residential permitted and conditional uses in nonresidential zones.

County Zoning Requirements

Given land and development costs, multifamily zoned areas and commercial areas permitting multifamily housing have the greatest potential to accommodate housing affordable to very low- and low-income households. This is particularly true if financial subsidies are provided to a developer and/or affordable housing is included as part of a large, master planned development with a range of housing types and costs. Although the County has sufficient land zoned to accommodate housing affordable to lower income households, the application of specific zoning requirements can affect the feasibility of producing such housing at a cost affordable to very low- and low-income households.



TABLE 7-2. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

TYPE OF USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE

MINIMUM LOT AREA (SQUARE FEET)

MINIMUM LOT WIDTH (FEET)

Single-family RD-1 1 1 acre 75

Single-family RD2 2 20,000 75

Single-family RD-3 3 10,000 65

Single-family RD-4 4 8,500 65

Single-family 5,200 (interior lot) 6,200 (corner lot)

52 62

Duplex

RD-5 5

8,500 80

Single-family 4,000 (interior lot) 5,200 (corner lot)

40 52

Duplex

RD-7 7 6,200 (interior lot) 8,500 (corner lot)

62 80

Single-family 4,000 (interior lot) 5,200(corner lot)

40 52

Duplex 6,200 (interior lot) 7,200 (corner lot)

62 72

Multifamily

RD-10 RD-15 RD-20 RD-25 RD-30 RD-40

10 15 20 25 30 40 5,200 (interior lot)

6,200 (corner lot) 52 62

Mobile home RM-2 N/A 5,200 (interior lot) 6,200 (corner lot)

52 62



TABLE 7-2. ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

MINIMUM FRONT YARD

SETBACK

MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK

MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK

MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS

MINIMUM OPEN SPACE

REQUIREMENTS

OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS

STANDARD STREET WIDTH CURBS AND GUTTERS

20 ft (1) Lots equal to, or more than 125 ft in depth—25 ft

(2) Lots less than 25 ft in depth—20% of the average depth

(3) In no event shall rear yard setbacks be less than 10 ft for one-story buildings and 15 ft for two-story buildings

(4) Main building, may project into rear yard, if equal area is provided within buildable portion of lot

(1) One- or two-story building— 5 ft

(2) Three-story buildings—25 ft

(4) Zero lot line allowed with provisions

(5) Corner lots, a side street yard of at least 12.5 ft

30 ft. or two-story (40 ft or three story with special provisions)

10 feet for roofed structures

Minimum 25% of site (1) One-story

building— 10 ft of yard

(2) Two-story buildings— 15 ft of yard

(3) Three-story building— 20 ft of yard

Single-Family/Duplex: (1) Not less than two

spaces (2) Spaces may be in a

garage or carport of dust free surface

(3) Minimum 9 ft in width and 19 ft in length

Multifamily: (1) 1.5 spaces per one-

bedroom unit (2) All other units—two

spaces per unit (may be reduced to 1.5 spaces per unit based on projected demand, provision of open parking, shared parking, and other considerations)

(3) 0.6 spaces per unit for guests

(4) At least 9 ft in width and 19 ft in length

(5) 0.5 spaces per senior unit plus 0.5 spaces per unit for overflow parking

(1) 40 ft street, minor residential 4 ft sidewalks, used for less than 99 residential units

(2) 50 ft street primarily residential 4 ft. sidewalks, for 99–399 residential units

(3) 56 ft street, collector 4 ft sidewalks, >400 residential units

(4) 60 ft street collector, 6 ft sidewalks, multifamily developments of >400 units1

(1) For single-family residential subdivisions, roll curb required

(2) For multifamily developments, vertical curb required

Source: Sacramento County Zoning Code 2007. 1 These regulations apply to applicable residential zones: RD-1, RD-2, RD-3, RD-4, RD-5, RD-7, RD-10, RD-15, RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, and RD-40.2 in the vicinity of parks, schools, etc.



TABLE 7-3. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES LOW DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY HIGH DENSITY

DWELLING RD-1 RD-2 RD-3 RD-4 RD-5 RD-7 RD-10 RD- 15/20 RD- 25/30 RD-40

Single-family (excluding mobile homes) X XX X X X X X X X X

Single-family (over two stories or 30 ft) CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP X X X X

Duplex and halfplex X X X X X X X

Two family, more than two stories or 30 feet CUP CUP X X X X

Multifamily apartments CUP DPR DPR DPR

Condominiums CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP

Townhouse, row house, or cluster development CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP DPR DPR DPR

Residential care home for more than six children CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP X X X

Boarding house CUP DPR DPR DPR

Residential care home for more than six adults CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP X X X

Child day care center for more than eight children CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP X X X X

Family day care home1 X X X X X X X X X X

Accessory guest houses or employee quarters CUP CUP CUP

Residential accessory dwelling2 X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP X/CUP

Mobile homes, as primary residence on a single lot with approved foundations system X X X X X X X X X X

Single room occupancy residential units DPR DPR DPR

Convalescent hospital, adult day health center, congregate care facility CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP

Social rehabilitation center CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP

Source: County of Sacramento Zoning Code, 2006. 1 Permitted not to exceed 12 persons including those receiving day care and children of the resident family who are under 12 years of age. Permitted for over 12 persons subject to the issuance of a

conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator. 2 Accessory dwellings less than 400 square feet in size are allowed without a conditional use permit on residential lots with greater than 5,200 square foot net area. X—permitted use Blank—not permitted DPR—development plan review CUP—conditional use permit



TABLE 7-4. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES

DWELLING BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE (BP)

SHOPPING CENTER LAND USE ZONE (SC)

LIMITED COMMERCIAL LAND USE ZONE (LC)

GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC)

COMMERCIAL RECREATION (CO)

DELTA WATERWAYS AND HIGHWAY TRAVEL

COMMERCIAL (DW, TC)

Apartment-Multiple Family Dwellings1 CUP DPR/CUP DPR/CUP CUP

Condominiums CUP CUP CUP CUP

Residential Care Homes X X X X CUP

Travel Trailer/RV Parks CUP CUP X

Residential Care Homes for Adults (or Children) X X X X CUP

Emergency Shelters2 X

Single Room Occupancy Residential Units DPR

Congregate Care Facilities CUP X X X X

Social Rehabilitation Center CUP CUP CUP

Source: Sacramento County Zoning Code 2006. 1 Less than 150 units are permitted in SC and LC zones with development plan review. More than 150 total units or 20 units/acre requires a CUP. 2 Emergency shelters are also permitted in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone. X—Permitted Use Blank—Not Permitted DPR—Development Plan Review CUP—Conditional Use Permit



The County has adopted strategies to address the cost impact of its zoning and other development regulations (see Chapter 3), while recognizing the legitimate role of such regulations in protecting public health and safety. The County is in the process of revising its Zoning Code to create a new Development Code and is using interim design and development guidelines for multifamily and small-lot single family projects. These guidelines provide greater flexibility to address challenging site design issues and allow for greater densities, reduced yards and setbacks, and reduced parking.

Zoning requirements that typically have the greatest impact on housing cost and availability are discussed below, following tables 7-2 through 7-4. More information on the County’s interim design guidelines and Development Code update can be found at:

http://www.planning.saccounty.net/Multifamily%20Guidelines/Interim%20Multifamily%20Guidelines.htm

Density The County’s multifamily zones permit densities of up to 40 dwelling units per acre (up to 50 units per acre in urban mixed-use zones) before density bonuses. This is a sufficient range of densities to permit the construction of various types of affordable housing. Under the interim design guidelines, there is no upper limit on density for multifamily projects on residential sites that are mostly surrounded by RD-20 or higher density residential, commercial, or industrial zoned properties.

Parking Parking requirements add to the cost of development because of land requirements for parking spaces and access, the cost of parking structures in high-density multifamily projects, and the cost of paving. If a high ratio of parking is required, a developer may not be able to achieve the number of dwelling units otherwise permitted by zoning without constructing multistory buildings.

The County permits three-story multifamily structures, so the land needed to accommodate required parking does not prevent a developer from achieving the maximum density permitted under the County’s Zoning Ordinance (30 or 40 units per acre, depending on the zoning district). Even if a proposed residential project contains a high percentage of two- and three-bedroom units, 40 units per acre could easily be accommodated within a three-story structure with sufficient space for parking, landscaping, common areas and recreation spaces, and utility buildings.

Off-street parking and loading spaces are required for all land uses in sufficient number to accommodate the vehicles using a given location. For single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, halfplexes, and mobile homes on individual lots, at least than two parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. The parking spaces may be within a garage, under a carport, on an open dust-free surface, or any combination thereof. The County has found that these minimum parking requirements do not pose a constraint, even on smaller lots, since homebuilders typically provide at least two covered parking spaces in new homes as a matter of convention.

Parking may be provided in open areas, which reduces the land needed for parking and its cost. The cost impact of required parking on affordable housing projects can be mitigated through financial subsidies and/or reductions in parking allowed under the County’s density bonus ordinance, which permits regulatory incentives (such as parking reductions) in addition to, or instead of, a density bonus.



For residential care homes providing care for six or more adults, 1.5 parking spaces must be provided for every six adults receiving care in the home. Boarding houses and group care facilities with sleeping rooms must provide at least one parking space for every two occupants. These ratios are consistent with actual parking demand experienced by the County for such uses, and do not impose an unreasonable constraint since the additional parking may be uncovered.

For multifamily dwelling units (e.g., apartments, condominiums, townhomes, row houses, and cluster developments), parking must be provided as follows:

■ The County requires at least two parking spaces for each dwelling unit plus 0.6 parking spaces per unit for guests.

■ Studio and one-bedroom units may provide 1.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit.

■ The number of required parking spaces may be reduced as a condition of development plan review to not less than 1.5 spaces per unit (average) if the applicant can demonstrate reduced parking demand or alternate parking provisions (such as shared parking).

■ For senior housing, 0.5 spaces per unit of fixed parking and 0.5 spaces per unit of overflow parking are required. Overflow parking can be provided on an aggregate basis.

The County provides flexibility through its density bonus program for affordable housing. This flexibility includes reduced parking requirements as an incentive for providing affordable housing. The interim design guidelines also include reduced parking standards, ranging from one space per unit for studios to one or two spaces for two bedroom units, depending on the setting and availability of transit. Guest parking requirements are reduced from 0.6 to 0.5 spaces per unit, and may not be required where parking spaces are not assigned.

Lot Coverage The maximum permitted lot coverage ranges from 40 percent to 75 percent in the single-family residential districts. In multifamily residential districts, buildings may not cover more than 75 percent of the site. These lot coverage ratios are sufficient to achieve maximum unit densities permitted by County zoning, plus density bonuses. In fact, it is unlikely that a multistory residential development would exceed 50 percent lot coverage, even in consideration of common areas and recreation and utility buildings.

Lot Sizes: Minimum lot sizes range from 1 acre in the RD-1 zone to 4,000 square feet for a single-family home on a lot in zones RD-7 through RD-40. In multifamily zones, the minimum lot size is 5,200 square feet. Minimum lot size requirements do not impose an unreasonable constraint to the production of affordable housing in relation to the size of vacant lots/parcels remaining for residential development. The minimum single-family lot sizes permitted by the County are less than in many comparable urban and suburban locations. The minimum lot sizes required for multifamily housing allow the use of small, infill lots for multifamily development.

Unit Sizes The County does not impose minimum dwelling unit sizes in its multifamily zones.

Height No building in the single-family residential zones RD-1 through RD-4 can have a maximum height greater than two stories, or 30 feet. Residential buildings can be three stories with a conditional use permit in zones RD-5 and RD-7, and as a



permitted use in zones RD-10 through RD-40. Maximum densities in these residential zones range from 10 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Since the County allows lot coverages of up to 75 percent in multifamily zones, three stories are sufficient to achieve these densities, plus allowed density bonuses, for affordable housing projects with a mix of unit sizes.

Under the interim design guidelines, the height limit for multifamily projects on sites that are mostly surrounded by any combination of RD-7, RM-1, RM-2, RD-10, and/or RD-15 zoned properties is four stories and 55 feet. Multifamily projects on sites mostly surrounded by RD-20 and higher density residential, commercial, or industrial zoned properties have no height limit

Yards and Setbacks In the single-family zones, there must be a front yard of not less than 20 feet, a rear yard of not less than 25 feet, and a side yard of 5 feet for one- or two-story buildings, and 25 feet for three-story buildings. The 20-foot setback requirement for multifamily projects could pose a constraint for a small, multifamily project on an infill lot as noted above, reducing the achievable density to between 15 and 20 dwelling units per acre. This constraint can be addressed through a special development permit, which allows the County to approve variations of the strict application of residential development standards to encourage economy in housing opportunities and greater creativity and flexibility in project design. The required setback between residential and commercial has also proven to be an obstacle for mixed use development in the past.

Under the interim design guidelines smaller setbacks are permitted for both multifamily and mixed-use developments. These setbacks can be as low as 6 feet for front and rear yards and 3 feet for side yards for multifamily projects on sites primarily surrounded by RD-20 and higher residential density, commercial, and industrial zoned properties. Residences in Commercial Zones The County’s zoning code allows various types of residential uses in commercial zones as summarized in Table 7-4. Multifamily uses are permitted in the Business and Professional Office (BP) and GC zones under similar development standards to R-40. In the SC and LC zones, multifamily uses are permitted with up to 80 dwelling units, subject to development plan review by the Planning Director; with 81 through 150 units, subject to development plan review by the Project Planning Commission; and with over 150 units, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit. The permitted residential density in these zones is up to 20 dwelling units per acre, unless a conditional use permit is approved (see the following section on permit procedures for more information on the County’s permit criteria and processes). In most instances, the County’s development standards permit similar multifamily densities and types of housing as in the RD-30 and RD-40 zones.

As part of the Development Code update, the County will create new mixed-use zones for its commercial corridors and for neighborhood and regional centers.

Second Residential Units The zoning code allows several types of accessory residential structures with a conditional use permit, when these structures are incidental to a primary residence located on the same lot or parcel. This includes guesthouses, accessory mobile homes, and residential accessory dwellings. The County requires a minimum lot size of 5,200 square feet for second units, and only one habitable residential accessory structure is permitted per lot. One parking space per second-unit bedroom must be provided, although these spaces need not be covered. Front, rear, side, and side-street yard setbacks of the zone apply, and a minimum of 10 feet is required between a separate accessory dwelling and the primary residence.



Unless otherwise approved, an accessory unit should not exceed one story, or 16 feet in overall height.

The County allows second units of up to 400 square feet in all residential zones (subject to the minimum lot size of 5,200 square feet). Larger second units (up to 1,200 square feet) are subject to approval of a use permit. The relatively low minimum lot size (5,200 square feet) provides many opportunities for such units throughout the county. The County has revised its regulations for accessory dwellings in response to Assembly Bill 1866 and has changed regulations that were identified as potential constraints on the development of second units in the previous (2002) Housing Element.

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Facilities The zoning code allows the development of, or conversion of buildings to, SRO residential units in the RD-20, RD-25/30, RD-40, and GC zones subject to development plan review by the Planning Director. The zoning code provides development standards relating to common facilities, facility size, security, manager’s office, parking, and development plan review. The County’s zoning standards provide considerable flexibility to developers in constructing SRO units, which are often an affordable housing alternative for low-wage workers.

Residential Care/Assisted Living Facilities State-licensed residential care homes for six or fewer persons are a permitted use in all residential zones, and all commercial zones that allow residences. The County does not distinguish or regulate occupancy any differently than for other households. Larger residential care facilities (seven or more) are permitted as conditional uses in the AG through RD-10 zones, subject to development plan review by the Planning Director and subject to the same development standards as the single room occupancy residential facilities. Facilities of seven to 20 residents are permitted without a conditional use permit in the RD-15 through RD-40, and facilities of 20 or more are allowed in these zones with a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Director. All types of residential care facilities are allowed by right in commercial zones that permit residences. The County’s requirements for residential care facilities allow for a wide range of group homes in every zone that permits residences and significant opportunities for such uses to be permitted by right (without a conditional use permit) in many residential and commercial zones. Even those zones that require conditional use permits for large group homes allow for administrative review by the director.

Homeless Shelters The zoning code provides for the development or conversion of emergency shelters in the General Commercial and Light Industrial zones as permitted uses. Emergency shelters must comply with specified development standards. The standards for emergency shelters are the minimum necessary to ensure the health and safety of the occupants and reasonable transportation access to and from the facility. The zoning districts in which emergency shelters and transitional housing may be located provide adequate opportunities to locate such facilities on vacant sites or through the conversion or redevelopment of existing land uses.

County standards ensure that emergency shelters can locate in the unincorporated area under reasonable requirements. These standards are as follows:

(1) Emergency shelters must comply with development standards for institutional uses (Section 320-01 of the County’s zoning code), such as minimum lot area, parking for staff, setbacks, and height limits



(2) These uses are subject to development plan review and approval by the Planning Director before issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit. The director’s review focuses on the following issues:

■ provision of telephone(s) for use by clients,

■ on-site personnel during hours of operation when clients are present,

■ adequate interior and exterior lighting,

■ secure areas for personal property, and

■ recommendations from the sheriff’s department before approval of development plans.

(3) Off-street parking must be provided in the ratio of one space for every 10 adult beds, plus an additional space designated exclusively for the manager. All parking is required to be off-street and on-site.

(4) A maximum of 100 beds may be provided in any single emergency shelter. A use permit by the Board of Supervisors is required to exceed the 100-bed limit. (Note: the maximum number of beds does not apply in situations of disaster or catastrophic conditions).

(5) Facilities must establish, maintain, and post set hours for client intake/discharge.

Emergency facilities must be located within one-half mile of a designated transit corridor or existing bus route. If a facility is not within one-half mile of a transit corridor or bus route, evidence must be provided to the planning department, in conjunction with development plan review, that transportation will be provided by the management of the site between the facility and a transit corridor or bus line.

There are location restrictions for certain emergency shelters that do not apply to other uses in the same land use zone. Shelter programs serving single adults must be more than 1,000 feet from any other similar program, a public park, a public or private K-12 school, an indoor or outdoor recreational facility primarily designed to serve persons under 18 years old, a child care facility or a single-family residential zone. The 1,000 feet is measured from property line to property line. If a shelter serving single adults is within 1,000 feet of the listed uses, then a use permit must be approved by the Board of Supervisors.

There is sufficient land available for emergency shelters even with the location restrictions. Tables C-30 and C-31 in Appendix C contain lists of the parcels where only a development plan review is required for an emergency shelter.

Transitional Housing Depending on the type of services provided, transitional housing might be treated either as standard multifamily development, or as a congregate care facility under Section 130-48.7 of the zoning code. Congregate care facilities are allowed in Commercial Recreation (CO), SC, LC, and GC commercial zones by right and in the BP zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. According to the County ordinance, these facilities are residential complexes that offer independent living accommodations oriented to the particular needs of a segment of the population and include a variety of common facilities, equipment, or services available to the tenants. As a minimum requirement, a congregate care facility must maintain congregate cooking and dining programs and may also offer a variety of congregate recreation, social, transportation, health maintenance or counseling programs.



Neighborhood Preservation Area (NPA) Some areas of the County have unique social, architectural, environmental, or other characteristics that require special regulations not found in the basic land use zones. These can be protected and preserved by the use of an NPA zone in combination with the basic zone. The NPA zone describes special regulations applied within the district in lieu of the requirements contained in the zone or zones with which the NPA zone is combined. The NPA zone may specify the extent of yard areas, lot area, lot width, public street frontage requirements, height limitations, or other development standards. The intent of this strategy is to preserve neighborhoods with unique features and characteristics by implementing regulations and standards developed and contained in the NPA ordinance. Depending on the specifics, an NPA zone can function as a constraint to the development of low- and medium-cost housing if there are significant neighborhood resources or characteristics that require unique development standards or design considerations to protect those resources. The County can use the process of establishing NPA standards to ensure that such standards do not violate state or federal requirements for affordable or special needs housing or create unreasonable constraints on the development of such housing.

Special Planning Area (SPA) The SPA zoning designation is designed to regulate property in areas that have unique environmental, historic, architectural, or other features that require special conditions not provided through standard zoning regulations. This designation is often used to provide for a greater range or mixture of uses in an area than would be permitted in the standard land use zones of the zoning code. Special conditions and regulations, such as a list of permitted uses, performance and development requirements relating to yards, lot area, intensity of development on each lot, parking, landscaping, and other design standards are defined in the SPA zone, as established by ordinance. Special development permits may also be issued for mixed-use developments to encourage creative and more efficient use of land; to maximize the choice in type of environment, including housing, available to the area residents; and to provide economical housing opportunities. However, depending on the specific requirements, the SPA designation could also function as a constraint on the development of low- and medium-cost housing. In practice, the use of this designation has not constrained the provisions of affordable housing because most of the SPAs designated by the County provide for greater flexibility in the application of zoning standards. As with Neighborhood Preservation Areas, the County can use the process of establishing SPA standards to ensure that such standards do not violate state or federal requirements for affordable or special needs housing or create unreasonable constraints on the development of such housing.

Open Space The County zoning code designates 17 Open Space zones 14 of which are Agricultural, two are Recreational, and one is Urban Reserve. In addition, several combining land use zones are designated as Open Space, including Flood Combining, Planned Development Combining, Parkway Corridor Combining, and Food Processing. The zoning code also includes a variance procedure to govern the issuance of variances to open space zones. This zoning does not appear to be a constraint at this time or over the balance of the SACOG regional housing allocation period (through 2013) in view of other available land for development of multifamily housing available to low-income families.

Affordable Housing Ordinance

The County of Sacramento adopted the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Inclusionary Ordinance) on December 1, 2004, which requires that developers of new residential developments in the unincorporated County of Sacramento include an affordable



housing component in their developments. The basic requirement under the ordinance is construction of three percent of the total project units affordable to extremely low income households, six percent affordable to very low income families and six percent affordable to low income families. However, the ordinance contains a variety of compliance options and partnership opportunities, which result in these “typical” compliance methods:

• Projects under 100 units pay an in-lieu fee;

• Projects over 100 units either:

o Dedicate land to SHRA and pay an affordability fee; OR

o Construct rental units on or off-site equal to ten percent very low income and five percent low income, allowing SHRA to “buy down” up to 20 percent of the very low income units to extremely low income; OR

o Constructing for sale units on or off-site equal to fifteen percent low income.

An inclusionary housing requirement has the potential to constrain housing production by adding to the cost of building housing if developers must build the required affordable housing at less than cost, donate land, and/or pay in-lieu fees. The County has sought to reduce the cost impact of its ordinance by:

■ Excluding housing rehabilitation projects, mobile home parks, density bonus units, market rate units in a mixed income development and small projects of four or fewer units;

■ Meeting extremely low income obligations through a “buy down” of very low income units with SHRA assistance and dedicated financing;

■ Allowing for alternatives to the on-site construction of affordable units for all developments, including off-site construction, land dedication, and in-lieu fee payment;

■ Providing alternative construction options for developer driven options, depending on tenure of the affordable project (i.e. affordable for-sale affordable only at low income and affordable for-rent affordable only at low and very low income);

■ Providing a “tiered” in-lieu fee for projects of 20 units or fewer; and

■ Offering incentives to reduce the cost of complying with the ordinance, such financial assistance in constructing affordable units and density bonuses.

As an example, a single-family development required to comply with the Affordable Housing Ordinance could choose to incorporate its inclusionary units on or off site as low income for sale units or could cause to be constructed (often through partnerships with affordable housing developers) a multifamily rental apartment complex off-site of the single-family development. As an alternative to constructing, the development could also dedicate land to SHRA for construction of a multifamily rental apartment complex or, in some cases, pay an in-lieu fee to SHRA. If the project were to dedicate land to SHRA, the market rate builder could “recapture” units that would have been permitted on the dedicated site in the remaining land, increasing the overall density of the market rate project.



By providing multiple compliance options and incentives, the County believes its Affordable Housing Ordinance does not constrain housing production.

Building Codes

Building codes establish minimal standards and specifications for structural soundness, safety, and occupancy. The state law (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) requires cities and counties to adopt minimum residential construction standards based on industry uniform codes. In addition to meeting the requirements of the state law, local governments enforce other state requirements for fire safety, noise insulation, soil reports, earthquake protection, energy conservation, and access for the physically disabled.

Enforcement of the County building codes is performed on a systematic basis by referral from the Environmental Health Department and fire department or field inspectors and by complaint. The County regulations on building construction adhere to the most recently approved edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, and the National Electrical Code. Only two County amendments to the codes have been adopted, neither one adding significantly to the cost of a housing unit. The first amendment requires gravel to be placed under concrete slabs for drainage purposes. The second amendment requires a 100-ampere (amp) main disconnect in all residential structures.

Sacramento County Building Inspection Division, within the Municipal Services Agency, is primarily responsible for enforcing the UBC. Building code enforcement is conducted through scheduled inspections of new construction, remodeling, and rehabilitation projects. Inspections are also conducted in response to public complaints or an inspector’s observation that construction is occurring without proper permits. The usual process after the receipt of a complaint is to conduct a field investigation. If the complaint is found to be valid, voluntary compliance is elicited through a combination of letters and phone calls and/or site visits. In extreme cases where deficiencies are severe and appeals for voluntary solutions to alleviate problems are unsuccessful, the County may declare the unit as a safety and health hazard and legal compliance may be forced through action taken by the County Counsel’s office.

By adopting the uniform codes, the County does not significantly affect the cost of housing. In some instances, adopting new codes may reduce the overall cost of residential construction by, for example, allowing for new cost-saving construction techniques or materials usage. Enforcement of building codes is also typical of all California jurisdictions and, therefore, is not a significant governmental constraint.

On- and Off-Site Improvement Requirements

Street, Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Requirements The County requires standard street widths for most development projects, such as:

■ 40-foot street width with 4-foot sidewalks for residential developments with 99 or fewer units,

■ 50-foot street widths with 4-foot sidewalks, for development of 100 to 399 units,

■ 56-foot collector streets with 4-foot sidewalks for developments with more than 400 units, and



■ 60-foot collector streets with 6-foot sidewalks for multifamily developments of over 400 units, near parks and schools.

For single-family residential subdivisions, a rolled curb is permitted. For multifamily development, vertical curbs are required.

Infill projects often have a difficult time meeting the above standards while maximizing density and the improvement requirements represent a potential constraint on the development of housing in Sacramento County. However, the County’s updated General Plan focuses strongly on infill development as a growth strategy, and pending revisions to the County’s codes in response to the updated General Plan are expected to remove this constraint.

Water and Sewer Connections

For sewer service, the developer must construct all lines within the subdivision and pay a trunk connection fee to the local sanitation district per dwelling unit. Fees vary within the county based on the location of the development, the specific water or sewer district that is to serve the development, and the type of development (single- or multifamily). In addition to the connection fee, the developer must pay a fee to the regional sanitation district for each single-family unit constructed. If the development is located in an area of the county where annexation to the sanitary district becomes necessary, an additional annexation fee is required. Water fees also vary depending on the exact location of the lot and the water purveyor providing the service. The County’s service providers do not restrict the number of water or sewer connections, but the County does not have a formal structure to grant priority to connections for affordable housing units.

PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

Permit and development impact fees are necessary to finance the government services and public facilities that new residential developments require. The cost of these fees can significantly affect housing affordability if they represent a disproportionate share of total housing cost. Tables 7-5 and 7-5A summarize development impact and permit fees for a typical single-family home and a typical multifamily development within unincorporated Sacramento County. In the urbanized area of Sacramento County, water and sewer service is provided by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, which charges connection and impact fees for capital improvements. The text following Table 7-5 explains various County fees. School districts also charge fees that vary depending on the areas they serve.

On average, permit and development impact fees range from $37,616 to $88,754 per single-family home and $27,225–$60,123 per unit in a multifamily development in unincorporated Sacramento County. These fees represent a significant increase in cost (more than 100 percent) since 2002. The County’s development impact fees represent a potential constraint to housing development. Sacramento County has adopted several strategies for mitigating the impact of fees on affordable housing, including fee deferrals, discounts for affordable projects, and subsidies arranged through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. The County is also committed to increasing infill development activity, and infill areas have some of the lowest fees in the County.

SEWER AND WATER FEES

Installation and connection fees for water and sewer facilities vary within the County based on the location of the development, the specific water or sewer district that is to serve that development, and the type of development (single or



multifamily). For sewer service, the developer must construct all lines within the subdivision and pay a trunk connection fee of $1,645 per single-family residence and $491.25 per multifamily unit if the development is within the County Sanitation District 1. In addition to the fees required for connection to the local sanitation district, the developer must also pay a $2,770 fee to the regional sanitation district for each single-family unit constructed and $2,055 for each multifamily unit. If the development is located in an area of the County where annexation to the district becomes necessary, an additional annexation fee is required. Other local or regional district fees vary. Water fees also vary depending on the exact location of lot and the water purveyor providing the service.

Tables 7-5 and 7-6 summarize development impact and permit fees in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County.

DRAINAGE FEES

Drainage facilities and maintenance within the unincorporated area of Sacramento County are provided by the Sacramento County Water Agency and the Metropolitan Storm Drainage Maintenance District. Each agency has different functions and responsibilities, and both are administered by the Water Resources Division of the Sacramento County Department of Public Works. Zone 11 of the Sacramento County Water Agency facilitates the construction of drainage facilities while the Metropolitan Storm Drainage Maintenance District is responsible for the maintenance of drainage facilities and provides minor improvements to existing drainage facilities. Funding sources differ for construction and maintenance of drainage facilities. Construction of facilities is financed by property owners. Drainage fees are collected (pursuant to Ordinance No. 1 of the Sacramento County



TABLE 7-5. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SOUTH SACRAMENTO CARMICHAEL EAST ANTELOPE NORTH VINEYARD STA.

Estimated fees for a 2,000-square-foot single-family residence on a 0.2-acre lot, RD-5

Building Permit Processing/Plan Check Fees 6,364.94 6,364.94 6,364.94 6,364.94

Broad-Based Development Impact Fees

Sewer—CSD-1 or local 1,645.00 1,645.00 2,268.60 2,268.60

Sewer—SRCSD or regional 2,770.00 2,770.00 7,145.00 7,145.00

Water 2,800.00 4,439.65 7,582.00 11,988.00

Drainage 2,575.40 1,991.40 2,808.60 2,917.60

Roadway 2,298.00 2,814.00 NA 2,298.00

Transit 312.00 232.00 312.00 312.00

Parks (Quimby, in-lieu, etc.) 1,460.00 1,679.00 5,110.00 5,840.00

Fire protection/public safety 1,400.25 1,400.25 1,400.25 1,400.25

School facilities mitigation 10,440.00 4,280.00 16,300.00 10,440.00

Electrical service NA NA 1,050.00 1,050.00

Affordable housing in-lieu fee 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Area Specific Development Impact Fees

Roadway/traffic NA NA 12,307.00 18,840.00

Transit NA NA NA 740.40

Parks NA NA 4,319.00 5,080.60

Library NA NA NA 795.20

Drainage mitigation NA NA 185.00 NA

Water mitigation NA NA 21.00 NA

Administration NA NA NA 1,272.80

TOTAL single-family fees $42,065.59 $37,616.24 $77,173.39 $88,753.39



TABLE 7-5. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES SOUTH SACRAMENTO CARMICHAEL EAST ANTELOPE NORTH VINEYARD STA.

Estimated per-unit fees for a 3,600-square-foot multifamily residence on a 0.2-acre lot, RD-20

Building Permit Processing/Plan Check Fees 2,081.33 2,081.33 2,081.33 2,081.33

Broad-Based Development Impact Fees

Sewer—CSD-1 or local 491.25 491.25 567.15 567.15

Sewer—SRCSD or regional 2,055.00 2,055.00 5,336.25 5,336.25

Water 765.00 2,402.58 4,078.25 8,799.00

Drainage 882.90 595.50 834.45 882.90

Roadway 1,748.00 2,136.00 NA 1,748.00

Transit 635.00 473.00 635.00 635.00

Parks (Quimby, in-lieu, etc.) 1,220.00 1,403.00 4,270.00 4,880.00

Fire protection/public safety 936.69 936.69 936.69 936.69

School facilities mitigation 4,698.00 1,926.00 6,300.00 4,698.00

Electrical service 2,725.00 2,725.00 2,725.00 2,725.00

Public facilities

Solid waste

Affordable housing in-lieu fee 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Area Specific Development Impact Fees

Roadway/traffic NA NA 12,307.00 10,492.75

Transit NA NA NA 1,720.10

Parks NA NA 4,319.00 3,302.35

Library NA NA NA 516.85

Drainage mitigation NA NA 185.00 NA

Water mitigation NA NA 21.00 NA

Administration NA NA NA 801.60

TOTAL multifamily fees $28,238.16 $27,225.35 $54,596.11 $60,122.96

Source: Kohaya, T. pers comm.2007. CSD = County Sanitation District; SRCSD = Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District



TABLE 7-6. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

APPLICATION TYPE1 TOTAL FEE APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 25,245 PARCEL MAP WAIVER—CONDO—PC 4,513

Residential to Commercial/Industrial 3,734 SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP—PRJ (1–25 Lots) 13,882

Agricultural to Urban 6,432 26–100 lots—additional fee 1,791

COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 18,655 Each 100 over first 100—additional fee 988

COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONE 21,625 SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP—BS (1–25 Lots) 16,486

REZONE 21,606 26–100 lots—additional fee 1,671

SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATION 10,198 Each 100 over first 100—additional fee 1,017

VARIANCE—ZA 5,816 SUBDIVISION RESUBMISSION—PRJ (1–25 Lots) 9,086

VARIANCE—BS 10,433 SUBDIVISION RESUBMISSION—BS (1–25 Lots) 11,658

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW—PLAN DEPT 4,091 26–100 lots—additional fee 1,275

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW-SINGLE FAMILY 2,926 Each 100 over first 100—additional fee 753

Each additional lot 798 SUBDIVISION EXTENSION OF TIME—PRJ 8,982

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW—PROJECT 9,524 SUBDIVISION EXTENSION OF TIME—BS 11,577

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW—BS 11,974 SUBDIVISION VESTING MAP(1–25 Lots) 17,119

MATHER DESIGN REVIEW—MINOR PROJECTS 396 26–100 lots—additional fee 1,275

USE PERMIT/FENCE—ZA 1,015 Each 100 over First 100—additional fee 753

USE PERMIT—ZA 5,916 RESUBMISSION OF VESTING MAP(1–25 Lots) 12,748

USE PERMIT—PRJ 11,980 26–100 lots—additional fee 1,275

USE PERMIIT—BS 15,425 Each 100 over first 100—additional fee 753

USE PERMIT—CONDO CONV—PRJ 13,121 EXTENSION OF VESTING MAP—BS 12,242

USE PERMIT—CONDO CONV—BS 15,827 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 3,227

TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 246 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT—STAFF LEVEL 1,567

TEMPORARY CONCESSION 1,475 STREET DEDICATION 7,516

TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME 917 LOT REDUCTION PERMIT—PRJ 5,189

TEMPORARY SUBDIVISION SIGN 1,475 WILLIAMSON ACT APPLICATION 6,121

CERTIFICATE OF NONCONFORMING USE 984 WILLIAMSON ACT WITHDRAWAL 13,845

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 14,559 WILLIAMSON ACT NONRENEWAL 984

ZONING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT 12,411 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 14,193



TABLE 7-6. SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

APPLICATION TYPE1 TOTAL FEE APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE

ZONING INTERPRETATION 1,825 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT 7,872

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT—PRJ 11,293 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ANNUAL REVIEW 5,715

ADDED TO OTHER ENTITLEMENT 3,385 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN/RES PLAN 1,283

SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT—BS 14,083 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN—PLAN 2,565

SPECIAL REVIEW OF PARKING—PRJ 8,531 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN—PRJ 6,105

PARKING REVISION “X” EASEMENTS/ACCESS 545 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN—BS 8,226

SPECIAL REVIEW OF PARKING—ZA 2,550 TSM PLAN ANNUAL REPORT 984

EXCEPTION—SRC 3,453 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S ACTION 1,294

EXCEPTION—ZA 2,375 BOARD REVIEW 5,697

EXCEPTION—PC 5,226 RECLAMATION PLAN 12,055

EXCEPTION—BS 6,819 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN (≤20 UNITS) 1,525

PARCEL MAP—SRC 7,850 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN (>20 UNITS) 6,095

PARCEL MAP—PRJ 10,146 DETERMINATION OF SITE SUITABILITY 4,063

PARCEL MAP—BS 12,323 COUNTY INITIATED

PARCEL MAP RESUBMISSION—SRC 6,100 DEPOSIT FOR FINDINGS 5,410

PARCEL MAP RESUBMISSION—BS 9,464 APPEAL TO BOARD/ZONING APPEALS 4,135

PARCEL MAP EXTENSION—SRC 6,136 APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION 4,262

PARCEL MAP EXTENSION—BS 9,500 APPEAL TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5,000

PREAPPLICATION MEETING 711 APPEAL OF PLAN DIRECTOR’S DECISION 1,823

LOT REDUCTION PERMIT—BS 7,478 APPEAL OF EIR DETERMINATION 1,721

Source: County of Sacramento2007 1 BS = Board of Supervisors; PC = Planning Commission ; PRJ = Project Planning Commission ; SRC = Subdivision Review Committee; ZA = Zoning Administrator



Water Agency) at the time property is developed and such funds are used to construct truck drainage facilities. The current drainage fees vary from about $2,000 to about $3,000 dollars.

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES

Transportation development fees in Sacramento County were established in 1988 to complement the then proposed Ballot Measure A, and to provide a mechanism by which new development would pay its “fair share” for the cost of mitigating its impacts and improving the transportation infrastructure. The fee ordinance applies to the issuance of building permits for applications filed with the Building Inspection Division of the County Department of Public Works after October 30, 1988. The roadway component of the fee does not apply to construction in the Antelope area, which has a comprehensive Public Facilities Financing Plan. Construction is exempt from the fee in many rural parts of the unincorporated area, where transit service is unavailable or where major roadway improvements are not required to serve near-term development. The fee rates are determined by the land use zone in which construction occurs and are based on the average transportation demand (trip generation) of the proposed development in the various land use zones.

Table 7-4 shows the fees of Sacramento Regional Transit and the County Transportation Division. Transit fees range from $232 to $312 per dwelling unit, and roadway fees range from $2,298 to $2,814, with supplemental traffic or transit fees in some areas. Transportation fees are based on more recent development projections, computer modeling, and other information.

SCHOOL FACILITIES FEES

Because Sacramento County is experiencing residential growth, new school facilities to serve elementary, middle, and high school student populations need to be constructed and existing facilities need to be expanded. Traditionally, school facilities were built using funds derived from the state. However, the rapid growth of the school age population has outpaced the availability of funds needed for additional classrooms, teachers and supplies. California law authorizes school districts to charge fees, set at a level per square foot prescribed by state law, for new residential and commercial/industrial developments. Prior to the County issuing building permits, the developer must obtain a certificate of mitigation by paying the school fees to the local school district.

Some school districts with large increases in their student population have also instituted a Mello-Roos Financing District. The Mello-Roos district allows, after voter approval, fees to be levied on all existing and new developments to pay off a fixed new bond that has been issued for school facilities. Fees charged to property owners to repay the bond vary according to the types of development.

In response to new bills passed by the California Legislature, the County has drafted policies in the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan that would limit residential construction when school capacity is not available. Policy PF-39 of the General Plan, Public Facilities Element, specifically prohibits the approval of land divisions or rezones for new residential construction in any area unless the County determines that development within the area will not significantly increase student populations school facilities. If school capacity is not available, new construction can be approved only if the County acknowledges that traditional methods of school financing are not adequate and establishes supplemental mitigation fees to meet the facility funding needs of the school district.



School impact fees in unincorporated Sacramento County range from less than $2,000 to more than $16,000 per unit, depending on the school district and location.

APPLICATION PROCESSING FEES

In addition to fees associated with providing essential public services to new residential developments, the County charges fees for processing development permits. Table 7-5 summarizes these fees. Reduced County revenue from the County’s share of property taxes, declining state financial support for general County services, and the desire to make the Planning Department more financially self-sufficient caused the Board of Supervisors to raise permit processing fees, effective October 1, 2007. These fees are designed to cover the County’s costs of reviewing applications. The Planning Department consulted with affected groups, including building industry representatives, in developing these fees.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PERMIT PROCESS

As part of the County’s Development Code update, a report on the County’s Zoning Code and permit procedures (Development Code Diagnosis Report) and recommendations for changes to the permit process can be found at:

http://www.planning.saccounty.net/Multifamily%20Guidelines/Interim%20Multifamily%20Guidelines.htm

Among the major findings and recommendations of the report, as they relate to housing cost and availability, are:

■ Draft Clear, Objective Approval Criteria for All Procedures. For most procedures, the approval criteria to guide decision-making are unclear, potentially leading to uncertainty in the decision-making process. A range of public hearing bodies may hear the same type of application, depending on the types of project approvals needed and where a project is located. Drafting clear, objective approval criteria for all types of land use decisions will help ensure consistent decision-making by the various bodies.

■ Clarify Review and Decision-Making Responsibilities. Sacramento County has multiple land use review and decision-making bodies with overlapping authority whose role is not always clear in the current Zoning Code. The new Development Code should clearly identify who specifically is empowered to make what types of recommendations and decisions. The Zoning Code directs most decisions, even minor ones, to be reviewed and/or determined by one or more public hearing bodies. The County should consider whether some relatively minor decisions (such as approvals for accessory dwelling units), may be delegated county staff. Table 7-7 summarizes the County’s current permit procedures (as shown in the Diagnosis Report), which are described in greater detail in this section.



TABLE 7-7. SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITIES

PROCEDURE PROCESS SUMMARY

– General Plan Amendments

– Code Text Amendments

– Rezonings

Review/Recommendation – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Project PC (if application does not include community plan

amendment); OR – Director may authorize EITHER Policy PC or Project PC to hear

application Decision – Board of Supervisors

Development Agreements

Initial Review/Recommendation – Director Review/Recommendation – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Project PC (all other applications) Decision – Board of Supervisors

Conditional Use Permits

Review/Decision – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Director (if so designated in use table, or subdivision sign); OR – Board of Supervisors (if so designated in use table, or if filed

with other application requiring hearing before Board, or if application does not comply with certain plan policies); OR

– Project PC (unless otherwise provided above).

– Lot Reduction Permits

– Special Development Permits

Review/Decision – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Board of Supervisors (upon recommendation from PC if

application does not comply with certain plan policies); OR – Project PC (unless otherwise provided above).

Sign Permit Review/Decision – Director

Temporary Use Permit

Review/Decision – Chief Building Inspector (for Temporary Construction Trailer or

Commercial Coach); OR – Director (for all other applications)

Development Plan Review

Review/Decision – Project Planning Commission (for multiple-family projects with

80+ units); OR – Director (for all other applications); OR – Another body (if so designated by an applicable zoning

agreement)

Tentative Parcel Maps

Review/Decision – Subdivision Review Committee

Parcel Maps Review/Decision – Project PC

Tentative Subdivision Maps

Review/Decision – Board of Supervisors (if called out for special processing); OR – Project PC (all other applications)



TABLE 7-7. SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITIES

PROCEDURE PROCESS SUMMARY

Subdivision Maps Review/Recommendation – Subdivision Review Committee Decision – Board of Supervisors

Vesting Maps Review/Recommendation – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Project PC (all other applications) Decision – Board of Supervisors

– Boundary Line Adjustments

– Lot Line Adjustments

Review/Decision – Director (for applications that are exempt from CEQA and no

change in density); OR – Subdivision Review Committee (all other applications)

Certificate of Nonconforming Use

Review/Decision – Director

Density Bonuses for Lower and Very Low Income Households

Review/Decision – Project Planning Commission

Variances Review/Recommendation – Policy PC (if application includes community plan amendment);

OR – Project PC (if application includes rezoning, CUP, or any other

permit heard by Project PC) (Project PC also decides these applications)

Decision – Board of Supervisors (unless application goes before Project PC)

Exceptions Review/Decision – Director (if exception is part of an application normally heard

by the Director); OR – Project PC (if exception is to multiple-family development

standards, or is part of application for rezoning, CUP, or any other application heard by Project PC); OR

– Policy PC (if exception is part of application to amend community plan); OR

– Board of Supervisors (if exception is part of application not in compliance with specified plan sections); OR

– Subdivision Review Committee (for any other exception not listed above)

PERMIT PROCESSING TIMES

The time it takes to review and approve a residential development proposal can increase the cost of construction due to inflation and the developer’s carrying costs during this period. The County has monitored the length of time it takes to process several different types of applications, from General Plan amendments to use permits. Table 7-8 provides an estimated time for completion for types of requests received by the Planning Department.

The County must comply with procedural requirements set forth in state law for environmental review, subdivision review, and planning actions, including General



Plan amendments, rezoning, and use permits. State law establishes hearing requirements, review periods, public notification, and time limits for various actions with which local governments must comply. The requirements are not only mandatory but must be completed in a specific order. The complexity of each individual project can influence processing time as staff may take more time to review projects requiring environmental documentation.

Design review and use permits can take from 2 to 6 months to process, depending on the complexity of a project and the ability of an applicant to make design modifications to address staff comments prior to Planning Commission review. It may take up to 6 weeks to present the project to the Planning Commission, depending on the Commission’s meeting schedule.

Tentative subdivision map applications may take 6 to 8 months to process in areas with Community Council approval, with faster processing for projects that do not require action by a council. Final maps require approximately 4 to 6 months in areas with Community Councils.

The County has adopted several strategies to reduce approval times for residential development proposals and the impact that lengthy approval processes has on development costs. These strategies include using administrative review and approval for certain types of development proposals, permitting multifamily and special needs housing by right (without a conditional use permit) in specified zones, and adopting specific conditional use permit criteria to reduce uncertainty in the decision-making process. However, the addition of Community Council review has lengthened some processing times.

The County is currently working on a Development Streamlining Process to reduce permit processing times for residential and nonresidential projects. This effort involves County staff and private industry representatives. The goal is to help move customers from project concept to building occupation smoothly while meeting the County’s regulatory responsibilities. The first phase of changes included establishing turnaround times for improvement plans and building permits, and improving communication with applicants. Additional phases include the Development Code update program. Interim multifamily and small lot single-family design guidelines which are part of the Development Code update will allow for more permit decisions to be made administratively, and are expected to help reduce processing times further. The Development Code update is expected to reduce the complexity of the processing requirements.

Table 7-8 summarizes application processing times.

TABLE 7-8. PLANNING APPLICATION PROCESSING TIMES

APPLICATION ESTIMATED TIME FOR COMPLETION

General plan amendment—Board of Supervisors 12–18 months

Community plan amendment and rezone— Board of Supervisors 12 months

Rezone—project 6–7 months (12 months1)

Tentative subdivision map—project 6 months (6–8 months*)

Parcel map—subdivision review committee (SRC) 4 months (4–6 months*)

Use permit—project 5–8 months (6–9 months*)

Conditional use permit—zoning administrator 3 months

Temporary use permit—zoning administrator 5 days



Variance—zoning administrator 3–6 months

Boundary line adjustment—SRC 3 months

Source: County of Sacramento 2007. 1 Time for projects requiring Community Council approval.

The majority of processing time for a use permit and/or a special development permit typically takes place during the planning staff’s initial review of the project. Staff works with the applicant to achieve a completed application that conforms to the various procedural, design, and zoning requirements. Processing times vary depending on the size and complexity of the project, the completeness of the application, and the conformance of the project to the zoning code requirements. This process often takes place before the formal submittal of an application and review period begins.

Factors that could alter the approval time for a project include:

■ volume of applications;

■ number of general inquires (phone, front counter, correspondence);

■ extent and detail of code requirements;

■ timelines for public notice (state law and zoning code);

■ time and extent of noticing desired by some members of the community;

■ concurrent special projects;

■ subjective review issues (building and site design);

■ level of community involvement and interest; and

■ preparation time for agenda item staff report and length of the review chain.

Average processing times for projects, including General Plan amendments, rezones, subdivision maps, parcel maps, use permits, and variances may be longer than in surrounding jurisdictions. Developers and landowners pay “carrying costs” during the approval process, and the approval process has lengthened slightly since the previous Housing Element update due to the addition of the Community Council approval for some projects in the four communities with such councils (Arden Arcade, Carmichael/Old Foothill Farms, Fair Oaks, and Rio Linda/Elverta.

An applicant for a single-family residence will only need to attain a building permit if the zoning and parcel lots are in place. However, there are certain areas in the County where an applicant will have to attain additional entitlements such as development plan reviews or use permits. This raises the cost of development for the applicant but not to a significant degree. For example, an applicant constructing a residence in the Parkway Corridor overlay zone that is also visible from the American River Parkway will be required to pay fees for a staff level development plan review. This planning entitlement is relatively inexpensive compared to other entitlements (see Table 7-6) and usually takes 3 to 4 months to attain.

Multiple-family projects typically would need a development plan review and building permits if the zoning is in place. Also, the projects are required to go



through a design review process that uses the adopted Interim Multiple-Family Design Guidelines. Projects that have more than 80 units would be required to attain a development plan review that is reviewed and approved by the Project Planning Commission. While this process could take over a year, with the introduction of the Affordable Housing Ordinance, the majority of multifamily rental projects over 80 units are in greenfield areas and are providing affordable units for master developments. Because the Affordable Housing Ordinance requires identification of affordable sites and zoning and planning entitlements for the affordable project to be linked to the approvals of the master project, most greenfield multi-family projects will be expedited and supported by a large master developer and will have much more oversight to ensure their timely approval, design and construction. Projects with 80 units or less will need a staff level development plan review which will take significantly less time and money to attain than that reviewed by the Project Planning Commission.

SPECIAL PERMIT PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS

The County zoning code has provisions for several types of special permits. These include a variance, conditional use permit, lot reduction permit, special development permit, exception, and mobile home certificate of compatibility.

Variances

Variances can be granted for special circumstances that are unique to a property. These special circumstances can include size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, or the location of heritage or landmark trees. The strict application of zoning requirements would deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifications. Variances help mitigate potential constraints that could result from the strict application of County zoning standards.

Conditional Use Permits

Conditional use permits are required to insure the proper integration of uses that may be suitable only in certain locations or zoning districts because of their special nature and/or potential for becoming nuisances. They may also only be suitable when such uses can be controlled or designed in a particular manner. Details regarding permitted and conditional residential uses for each zone are provided in Tables 7-3 and 7-4. The County uses the conditional use permit process to establish building standards and reasonable use conditions, not to regulate the users or occupants.

Potential concerns addressed by the use permit include factors such as noise, dust, dirt, litter, fumes, odors, vibrations, and traffic congestion. Conditional uses are those that need special review to determine their compatibility with the surrounding area and to establish special conditions to maintain harmony with the neighborhood.

The County’s conditional use permit process gives four different entities (not including the community planning councils) decision-making responsibility over CUP applications. To determine which body is responsible for a particular application, the applicant (and staff) must consider the type of use at issue and also any other applications submitted simultaneously with the CUP application. The intent is to streamline the overall process by allowing multiple, simultaneous applications to be heard by the same body and also directed the most controversial applications to the Board.



The resulting multiple levels of responsibility are complex and can lead to inconsistent decisions. Among the streamlining options suggested in the Diagnosis Report for the current Zoning Code are: 1) maintain the current system, but adopt standard approval criteria, 2) assign on body with the authority to decide all CUPs, 3) assign the decision on CUPs for those projects that need other permits to the highest decision-making authority associated with those permit, and 4) assign all CUPs accompanied by general plan amendments to the Policy Planning Commission and other CUPs to the Project Planning Commission (or the community planning council if the project is located in one of the four unincorporated communities with such a council).

As part of the Development Code update, the County will review its criteria and decision-making authority for CUPs to clarify and streamline the approval process.

The County may require guarantees in the form of bonds, cash deposits or other evidence of good faith to secure compliance with imposed conditions. Such conditions may include but are not limited to:

■ dedication of right-of-ways;

■ improvements of vehicle access to the subject property to County standards;

■ regulation of the placement of the use or building on the subject property;

■ regulation of height, number of stories;

■ regulation of the nature, hours of operation, extent of use; and

■ regulation of landscaping for the protection of adjoining and nearby properties.

Exceptions

The County may grant exceptions to the strict application of its development standards as set forth in the Zoning Code (Title I, Chapter 10, Article 5) to the extent such exceptions are expressively authorized by specific code provisions and specific conditions enumerated in the code are met. Exceptions are typically considered for the following: minimum lot or minimum lot width requirement, requirements for public street frontage, and multifamily development standards. Exceptions provide a way to mitigate constraints imposed by the strict application of zoning standards.

Many bodies are given authority to grant exceptions in the Zoning Code. The authorized body varies depending on the type of exception. The Zoning Code is ambiguous as to what standards may be modified using the exception process. Certain sections of the code authorize specific exceptions. Other exceptions are authorized in various use-specific standards. However, it is unclear if an applicant can propose an exception from a particular standard absent a specific authorization in the code. The Diagnosis Report suggests that authority to grant minor modifications to code standards be delegated to the Planning Director and that specific and uniform criteria for exceptions be adopted to ensure consistent decision making.

As part of the Development Code update, the County will review its criteria and decision-making authority for CUPs to clarify and streamline the approval process.



Special Development Permits

The intent of a Special Development Permit is to balance opportunities for greater creativity and flexibility in design while still providing adequate protection of the environment and the health, safety and comfort of local residents. A Special Development Permit may be issued to: 1) encourage a creative and more efficient approach to the use of a specific area of land, 2) maximize the choice in the type of environment available to residents in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County, 3) encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of private open space by redistributing overall density, and 4) provide economy in housing opportunities.

Applications for special development permits are typically filed with the Project Planning Commission. However, when a special development application is filed at the same time as an application to amend a community plan, it is filed with the Policy Planning Commission. After a recommendation from either Planning Commission, an application for a special development located within the area regulated by any Comprehensive Land Use Plan must also be approved by the Board of Supervisors under specified circumstances.

The County anticipates that the Development Code update will include several features that allow for much of the flexibility that now requires a special development permit. Among these features will be:

■ design guidelines for residential and mixed-use development to permit design flexibility;

■ new mixed use zoning districts; and

■ corridor plans, some of which may include form-based development guidelines and standards that allow considerable flexibility in project design, layout, and use.

Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing

Sacramento County provides additional incentives for the production of affordable housing for lower-income and senior households through density bonus provisions on the Zoning Code (sections 110-110 through 114 of the Code). These incentives seek to address the cost and other impacts of the County’s development regulations on the production of affordable housing. Under the County’s density bonus program, an applicant proposing to construct a specified percentage of affordable housing can receive approval for additional dwelling units beyond the number otherwise allowed by the Code. The County will also consider additional incentives that can help reduce the cost of building affordable housing, such as reduced parking requirements or flexibility in other development standards.

State law (California Government Code, section 655915) was amended in 2004 and 2005 to require a “sliding scale” of density bonuses based on the percentage and targeted income level of affordable housing units. The number and types of additional incentives that cities and counties were required to offer was also expanded. Sacramento County has not yet updated its density bonus provisions to comply with current state law. To comply with state law, the County will need to amend the Zoning Code.



COUNTY’S PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE INTERIM MULTIPLE-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES

As described previously in this chapter, the County has embarked upon a comprehensive update to its zoning code to create a new development code that will combine development standards, design quality standards, and sustainability standards. When adopted, the new development code will facilitate residential infill development and multifamily housing development through these new standards and guidelines and the creation of several new mixed-use zones.

As an interim step, the County has adopted guidelines for multifamily and small-lot single family development that are anticipated to facilitate the development of these types of housing. Among the changes are:

■ The guidelines allow increases in density and building height for multifamily properties surrounded by higher density residentially and non-residentially zoned properties. For example, multifamily properties the are mostly surrounded by RD-7 through RD-15 zoned properties are allowed to build at densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre and up to 45 feet to the ridgeline of the roof (55 feet if adjacent to a street 80 feet or more wide). Multifamily properties that are mostly surrounded by RD-20 and higher density residentially zoned properties and/or non-residentially zoned properties have no upper limit on density and can build up to 150 feet to the ridgeline of the roof (no upper limit on height if adjacent to a street 80 feet or more wide).

■ The guidelines allow reduced set-backs through set-back averaging and “stepping down” of multi-story buildings adjacent to single-family homes. For example, the minimum required separation between a multifamily building of two or more stories and an adjacent single-family home is reduced from 100 feet to a maximum of 50 feet. However, multifamily structures may be “stepped back” to further reduce the minimum required distance from single-family homes, to as little as five feet for the first story, 15 feet for the second story, and 25 feet for the third story.

■ The guidelines permit zero front-yard setbacks for higher density multifamily projects mostly surrounding by RD-20 or higher density residentially zoned land or non-residentially zoned land.

■ The guidelines reduce off-street parking requirements for multifamily development from 1.5 spaces per unit for one-bedroom units to one space per unit for projects mostly surrounded by RD-20 or higher density residentially zoned land and/or non-residentially zoned land. The new standards also reduce off-street parking requirements from two spaces per unit for two-bedroom and larger units to 1.5 spaces per unit for residential projects mostly surrounded by RD-7 or higher residentially zoned land and/or non-residentially zoned land. In addition, the new standards require only one parking space per studio or efficiency unit. Finally, required off-street parking for multifamily units with two or more bedrooms is reduced between by 0.5 to one space per unit if the project is within ¼ mile of a light rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) stop.

■ The guidelines allow exceptions to development standards and design guidelines to be approved by the Planning Director for projects with 80 or fewer dwelling units.

DESIGN REVIEW

Design review is required for discretionary projects that require one or more entitlements or approvals, such as a conditional use permit, variance, exception,



development plan review, special development permit, or public works project approval. As of August 18, 2008, a design review fee of $963 is charged for discretionary projects which include multifamily projects and small-lot or cluster single-family subdivisions. These projects are reviewed using the Interim Multiple-Family Residential Design Guidelines described above. Although a fee is charged for design review and design review requirements include some general standards for materials and construction quality, which have the potential to increase costs, these are offset by a more streamlined process, increased administrative approval, and a more streamlined process for public commenting. Also, there will be less restrictive development standards which will enable developers to add more residential units to their projects. The Design Review Administrator (DRA) and an administrative Design Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) review projects for Design Review conformance. Design review is a staff-level process that occurs concurrently with other permit approvals. Applicants whose projects require design review first meet with the DRA in a pre-application meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submits application to the Planning Department for processing. The DRAC review occurs during the normal project review process. The DRA and DRAC then prepare conformance recommendations that are include in the project Staff Report to the review authority.

HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Individuals with disabilities face special challenges in obtaining suitable and affordable housing, as noted in Chapter 8. Sacramento County has undertaken a number of steps to meet the needs of persons with disabilities and to ensure that County regulatory requirements do not disadvantage such individuals. The County has adopted programs to provide alternative housing for various special needs individuals, used a neighborhood/community-oriented planning approach to identify potential barriers to access for persons with disabilities, and encouraged developers to locate housing near services for persons with disabilities, public transit, and commercial services.

The County’s efforts to meet the needs of persons with disabilities fall under four categories of action: (1) provision of reasonable accommodations; (2) zoning and land use regulations; (3) permit processing requirements; and (4) building code enforcement.

Disabilities Advisory Committee

Sacramento County’s Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) was established to advise the Board of Supervisors on issues pertaining to the disability community and relating to County compliance with laws and regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). At least half of the 17 members of the DAC must be persons with a disability. Members have an interest in and/or knowledge of disability issues, and are appointed by the board. Members are drawn from organizations serving persons with disabilities or from the public. The DAC participated in identifying information, issues, policies, and actions to address the housing, accessibility, and supportive service needs of persons with disabilities during the update of the County’s Housing Element.

DAC responsibilities include:

■ evaluating accessibility of County facilities, employment, services and programs;

■ submitting recommendations for appropriate modifications to improve accessibility;



■ acting as a liaison with community groups, government agencies, and individuals in addressing disability issues related to the Sacramento County;

■ presenting educational workshops on disability issues; and

■ serving as the Voters Access Advisory Committee for the County.

The Barriers Removal Subcommittee is among DAC’s working subcommittees. Its mission is to ensure that all County facilities and/or County supported programs are accessible to individuals with disabilities and to review County enforcement and propagation of standards that inhibit the access of persons with disabilities. Another subcommittee, the Housing Subcommittee, works to identify accessible housing issues, evaluate feasible solutions, and highlight successful models for consideration and determination by the Board of Supervisors. The process includes communication and participation with other individuals, groups, and agencies.

Process for Reasonable Accommodations

Sacramento County makes reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities to allow equal access to County services and facilities and equal participation in public processes. Individuals with disabilities or their representatives (e.g., family members, caretakers, legal guardians, conservators) can request special accommodations at the County’s public counter or make an advance request for such accommodations through one of several communications channels offered by the County. A County staff person at the public counter will determine the nature of the need and ensure that persons requesting accommodations will have reasonable access to the requested services of the responsible County department. The County follows this same accommodations process for persons with special needs who desire to participate in public events in County facilities (such as public hearings and meetings). No specific ordinance outlining reasonable accommodations for the development approval process exists.

The County also offers reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities in its approach to zoning and building regulation. As a general practice, the County allows zoning and building code exceptions to individuals who request variances for access accommodations or other disabilities needs for themselves or the disabled person they represent. The County provides public information at its permit counter that summarizes the process for requesting variances from codes and standards to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities.

Public Input on Accessible Housing

During the course of public outreach in the update of the Housing Element, representatives of organizations serving persons with disabilities, members of the County’s Disabilities Advisory Committee, and individuals raised the following issues related to accessibility of housing:

■ Ensure accessibility is considered and does not conflict with affordability;

■ Most housing today are built with a front step, take out front step, which creates in accessibility;

■ Make accessibility standards more explicit;

■ The County should focus efforts on accessibility improvements in existing housing;

■ Ensure that accessibility improvements are permanent, not temporary; and



■ Need sidewalks in existing neighborhoods to have better accessibility and connectivity.

Community Councils

Community Planning Councils. Four community planning councils (community councils) were established to encourage and organize citizen participation at the community level. The community councils assist in the development, implementation, and revisions of the community plans. They also review projects and make recommendations to the appropriate hearing or decision-making bodies. The councils are located in Arden-Arcade, Carmichael/Old Foothill Farms, Fair Oaks, and Rio Linda/Elverta. Community council review of some development projects has been initiated since the last Housing Element update. As noted above, the community planning process, including community council review, has resulted in a lengthened approval process for these areas. Through the Development Code update, the County expects to create a more streamlined review process than currently exists.

Community Planning Advisory Councils. The County established Community Planning Advisory Councils in several unincorporated communities to facilitate and invite direct citizen participation in the planning process involving the present and the future development policies affecting their community. The councils provide a forum for the review of proposed amendments to plans, zoning matters and use permits. The councils are advisory only to County agencies. The council’s geographical area of responsibility corresponds to the community planning areas established by the County. There are 11 CPACs. CPAC review is advisory only, and the County tries to reduce additional delay by agendizing CPAC review concurrently with staff review of applications.

Group Homes and Residential Care Facilities As noted above, the County has provided a number of exceptions and variance procedures to zoning and land use requirements to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. In addition to building modifications to accommodate disabilities, the County has permitted exceptions to parking, setback, and other zoning standards for housing oriented to persons with disabilities. The County allows residential care facilities, boarding homes, second units, SROs, and other types of special needs housing in a wide range of zones, often without the need for conditional use permits, to meet the needs of persons with disabilities.

The County also allows many types of special needs housing to meet the needs of persons with disabilities in its residential and commercial zones. The County permits, or conditionally permits, the following types of residential uses for persons with special needs and/or disabilities:

■ Institutional uses are permitted in the Urban Reserve, AR-1, AR-2, AR-5, AR-10, and RD-1 through RD-40 zones subject to a conditional use permit.

■ Residential care facilities are allowed by right in all the County’s single-family zones.

■ In accordance with state law, group homes of six or less are permitted by right in residential neighborhoods. They are conditionally permitted in all residential zones and are subject to flexible standards recommended by the Planning Director and subject to approval by a hearing body (Section 110-30 and Section 320-10 of the zoning code).

■ Typically, applications for transitional and supportive housing are not differentiated from applications for standard multifamily development.



Small group homes are allowed by right in all zones that permit residences. The County does not restrict small group homes (six or fewer persons) other than requiring compliance with the same zoning standards as any residential use (see above for exceptions permitted by the County for parking, setback, retrofitting, and other accommodations to meet the needs of persons with disabilities).

The County reviewed permit processes for large group homes (seven or more) and the conditional use permit process for approving such homes as part of its implementation of the previous Housing Element, but has not identified specific impediments to the location of such uses. Many large group homes can be approved administratively by the Planning Director, either as a permitted use or as an administrative conditional use (see the previous discussion on residential care facilities and the conditional use permit process). As noted above, special exceptions are permitted to meet the special parking, accessibility, and supportive service needs for persons with disabilities.

Some large facilities require approval by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, with a public notice and hearing. The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the applicant or other interested party. The County’s conditional use permit process requires that the applicant for a large group home comply with zoning standards for the district in which the proposed use will be located. The County makes every effort to focus the public debate on zoning and other development standards issues, not on the characteristics of the residents. However, some types of residential care facilities will create community concerns no matter how streamlined the permit process, whether an administrative approval procedure has been adopted, or whether County staff focus their report and recommendations to the commission and board on zoning standards and building code requirements.

Building Codes and Universal Design As required by state law, Sacramento County uses the most current edition of the UBC, as approved and modified by the State Building Standards Commission. The County has not adopted local amendments to the UBC affecting the ability of persons with disabilities to obtain reasonable accommodations or exceptions to meet their special housing or supportive service needs.

As of November 2007, the County does not require universal design for single-family residential structures. Universal design includes features for handicapped accessibility or visitability. Some universal design elements are required in multifamily structures for compliance with state and federal standards for handicapped accessible units. As part of its strategy for addressing the needs of persons with disabilities, the County will encourage universal design concepts to be incorporated in new homes.

NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Nongovernmental constraints are those factors outside of local government control that limit the availability of housing and/or the feasibility of building affordable housing. The assessment of these constraints provides a basis for possible actions by the County to offset potential effects on housing supply and cost. However, the County has little or no control over many of the nongovernmental factors that influence the cost and availability of housing.

This section evaluates nongovernmental factors such as land, construction, and financing costs and availability among other nongovernmental constraints.



COST OF LAND

The cost of land is influenced by many variables including:

■ amount/availability of vacant land designated for residential development,

■ location,

■ unique on-site features,

■ lot size,

■ accessibility,

■ availability of services,

■ the type of financing between buyer and seller,

■ zoning, and

■ the General Plan land use designation.

The cost of land is typically one of the largest components of housing costs. Although the County can influence the housing supply by regulating the amount of residentially zoned land, the cost of land is primarily determined by market forces.

The price of land varies considerably depending on its zoning, whether a property is “shovel ready” with all entitlements and available services, and the amount of undeveloped land available at any given time. A shovel ready property in a local market with little available land supply will fetch a much higher price than an undivided property with no services or entitlements in a market with an abundant supply of land ready to develop.

Land prices presented in this section are based on Loopnet.com’s reported prices for residential land for sale during the past year in zip codes associated with unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. The search identified 27 listings. Infill lots in desirable locations within the County might sell for as much as $225,000 for an approximately one-quarter-acre lot, while lots in outlying areas, or lots lacking development entitlements, might be available for as little as $35,000 each. Both of these estimated figures represent increases in land costs of more than 100 percent over the past 5 years. Table 7-9 shows the range of prices per unit and per acre for single-family and multifamily parcels.

TABLE 7-9. LAND COSTS FOR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY HOMES

TYPE LOW PRICE PER ACRE

HIGH PRICE PER ACRE

LOW PRICE PER UNIT

HIGH PRICE PER UNIT

Single-Family $51,739 $829,167 $35,000 $225,000

Multifamily1 $380,000 $1,338,028 $19,000 $66,901

Source: Loopnet.com 2007. 1 Price per unit for multifamily assumes 20 units per acre.

Land that is zoned for multifamily use, or commercial sites that may potentially be suitable for such use, can also vary significantly in cost, depending on location, site condition, availability of infrastructures and utilities, and other factors. A review



of land available for sale during the past year in zip codes in unincorporated Sacramento County shows prices ranging from $380,000 to $1,338,000 per acre. The cost per dwelling unit will depend on the density at which multifamily projects can be constructed. Various apartment densities range from 12 to 20 dwelling units per acre in unincorporated County communities. The lowest priced multifamily-zoned property had a cost of $19,000 to $31,700 per unit, based on the density range of 12 to 20 units per acre.

One measure that developers have taken to reduce the costs associated with land is to purchase land which must be rezoned well in advance of the development. Many developers land bank properties as a hedge against large future increases in land costs. While there is no guarantee that a rezoning request will be approved by the Board of Supervisors, a developer familiar with the County’s growth patterns can make an educated guess about areas that will accommodate growth in the future. Land that is currently zoned for agriculture or agricultural-residential uses can be acquired at a substantially lower price than land already zoned for urban residential uses. The land is then held for a period of time, usually several years (although sometimes more than 10 years).

Another way to reduce the impact of land costs on housing is to develop housing at higher densities, thereby spreading the cost of land over a larger number of dwelling units. Sacramento County has experienced such an increase in residential densities in new developments, particularly in infill projects. The General Plan and Development Code updates will also focus on higher density residential development around transit stations, along commercial corridors, and in new mixed-use urban communities as a way to reduce development costs.

COST OF CONSTRUCTION

The cost of construction depends primarily on the cost of labor and materials. The prolonged surge in construction activity over the last several years has driven up labor costs as demand has exceeded supply in many locales, although the pace of construction has recently slowed. For government subsidized affordable housing, developers are required to pay the area’s prevailing wage rate on projects financed by governmental entities, which can raise construction costs if prevailing wages are higher than local market wages.

The price of construction materials has also contributed to the increase in local housing costs. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that construction materials and component costs increased by nearly 30 percent between 1997 and 2007. Most of this cost increase occurred just since 2003, when costs climbed over 23 percent. Lumber, steel, concrete, and drywall costs have increased even faster than other construction materials costs.

After generally declining between 1997 and 2001, lumber prices increased over 16 percent between 2002 and 2004, before declining to the pre-1997 cost. Accounting for these price swings, the National Association of Home Builders indicates that the cost of lumber and wood products accounts for one-third of the costs of materials used to build a home.

Although a modest cost factor for single-family homes, the rise in steel and concrete costs has significantly affected the cost of developing high-density housing of four or more stories. This is particularly the case for high density residential projects that require a steel and/or concrete platform or podium for underground parking and projects that require steel and/or concrete framing. As with lumber costs, steel costs dipped slightly between 1997 and 2001, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2001, steel prices increased nearly 75 percent and concrete costs increased by a similar amount.



Recent changes to the Uniform Building Code (the basis for California’s building code standards) permit five stories of wood frame construction above grade or a concrete/steel podium. Previous standards limited wood framed buildings to four stories. This change could reduce the construction cost for high-density housing if lumber cost remain moderate compared to steel and concrete costs.

Table 7-10, derived from Building-Cost.net and approximate County fee information (presented in more detail in Table 7-4), indicates that 66 percent of development costs for a typical 2,000 square foot single-family home in the Sacramento area are devoted to direct costs, such as labor and materials. Apartment construction is somewhat more labor and material intensive, while the cost of land plays less of a role per unit. Example costs for a recently constructed low-income apartment complex in South Sacramento are provided below in Table 7-11.

TABLE 7-10. CONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN 2,000-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME

ITEM COST PER UNIT PERCENT OF TOTAL COST

Direct costs Labor Material Equipment

$151,500 $82,000 $67,000 $2,500

50% 27% 22% 1%

Gross profit $21,000 7%

Insurance $4,600 1%

Permits and fees $40,000 13%

Plans and specs $700 <1%

Total construction costs $217,800 71%

Land $90,000 29%

Total Cost $307,800 100%

Source: Building-Cost.net 2007 (November).

TABLE 7-11. EXAMPLE COST BREAKDOWN PER UNIT COLONIA SAN MARTIN APARTMENTS

ITEM COST PER UNIT PERCENT OF TOTAL COST

Property Acquisition $11,183 5%

Construction $122,417 52%

Architectural/Engineering $9,500 4%

Construction Interest & Fees $22,817 10%

Operating Reserves $5,833 2%

Legal and Appraisal Costs $917 0%

Construction Contingency $12,650 5%

Government Permits & Fees $16,300 7%

Developer Fee $23,333 10%

Other Costs $9,233 4%

Total Cost $234,183 100%

Source: Halcon, E. pers comm., 2007.

Typically, a family can afford to purchase a home valued at about three times their annual income. For a family earning $67,200, the median family income in



Sacramento County in 2007, this amounts to an affordable home price of approximately $201,600. The cost of construction (including permits and fees) alone is higher than the affordable price, and land prices add an additional $90,000. In Sacramento County, for a home to be affordable to even a median income family, either a subsidy or fee waiver would be required, or a cheaper alternative to a traditional single-family residence, such as a townhome or condominium, would be needed.

INTEREST RATES AND OTHER MARKET FACTORS

Interest Rates

Sacramento does not face constraints on the availability or cost of financing for housing development, home purchase, or housing rehabilitation that differ significantly from the availability or cost of financing generally found throughout California. However, recent trends in the financial markets have substantially restricted access to credit, although interest rates are still relatively low by historic standards. Historically, substantial changes in mortgage interest rates have correlated with swings in home sales; when mortgage interest rates decline, home sales increase. The reverse has been true when mortgage interest rates increase. Table 7-12 shows the impact of interest rates on mortgage payments.

TABLE 7-12. EFFECT OF CHANGE IN INTEREST RATES

15-YEAR LOAN 30-YEAR LOAN

INTEREST RATE PAYMENT

PER $10K

TOTAL INTEREST

PAID

PERCENT DIFFERENCE PAYMENT/ INTEREST

PAYMENT PER $10K

TOTAL INTEREST

PAID

PERCENT DIFFERENCE PAYMENT/ INTEREST

6% $84.39 $5,189 – $59.96 $11,583 –

7% $89.88 $6,178 6.5%/19.0% $66.53 $13,950 11.0%/20.4%

8% $95.57 $7,202 6.3%/16.6% $73.38 $16,415 10.3%17.7%

9% $101.43 $8,256 6.1%/14.6% $80.46 $18,966 9.6%/15.5%

10% $107.46 $9,343 5.9%/13.2% $87.76 $21,593 9.1%/13.9%

Source: LA Times 2000.

Over the past 2 decades, alternative mortgage products (e.g., graduated mortgages, variable rate mortgages) have become more common. These loan types allow homeowners to take advantage of lower initial interest rates and monthly payments and qualify for larger home loans. Even during periods of high interest rates, these alternative products allow more buyers to qualify for homeownership, thus minimizing the swings in home sales that accompany changes in interest rates. However, long-term costs for the homeowner are less predictable with these loan types. Mortgages with fixed interest rates remain the preferred type of loan, especially when interest rates are low, and stable.

Most governmental programs that seek to increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households rely on loan products that provide fixed interest rates below prevailing market rates, either for the principal loan or for a second loan that provides part of the down payment for home purchase. Many programs offer deferred second loans to facilitate homeownership. Nevertheless, swings in home sales do occur and home sales have decreased in the Sacramento area as a result of tightening mortgage standards, lenders backing away from all but the safest



mortgages, and rising defaults among borrowers with weak credit (see the section below on foreclosures).

Most governmental programs that seek to increase homeownership among low- and moderate-income households rely on loan products that provide fixed interest rates below prevailing market rates, either for the principal loan or for a second loan that provides part of the down payment for home purchase. Many programs offer deferred second loans to facilitate homeownership. Nevertheless, swings in home sales do occur and home sales have decreased in the Sacramento area as a result of tightening mortgage standards, lenders backing away from all but the safest mortgages, and rising defaults among borrowers with weak credit (see the section below on foreclosures).

Fixed-rate mortgages remain the most predictable type of home loan and provide an assurance of constant monthly payments to homebuyers. However, during times of high interest rates, fewer low and moderate income homebuyers can afford to purchase a home with a conventional fixed-rate loan.

Most governmental programs that seek to increase homeownership among low and moderate income households rely on loan products that provide fixed interest rates below prevailing market rates, either for the principal loan or for a second loan that provides part of the down payment for home purchase. The recent tightening of mortgage lending standards may result in a decrease in homeownership opportunities despite government programs to assist low and moderate income homebuyers (see the section below on foreclosures).Mortgage and Home Improvement Financing.

Equal access to credit is a key step in purchasing a home or obtaining financing for necessary home maintenance and repair. Discrimination that is not based on income or credit worthiness can prevent a qualified a potential homebuyer from purchasing a home. Lending in Sacramento County does not mirror the county’s demographic makeup.1 Though they represent 10, 11, and 16 percent of the county’s population respectively, African American, Hispanic, and Asian residents receive only 4.5, 8.4, and 8.4 percent of all home loans. Lenders more frequently deny loan requests to minority applicants than White applicants, even when controlling for income. Without more details to allow for a comparison of credit scores, current debts and debt capacity, the types and locations of homes being purchased, and other factors, it is difficult to pinpoint the reasons for this disparity in loan approval rates.

African American applicants earning over 120 percent of median income, were more likely to be denied home loans than White applicants earning between 50 and 79 percent of median income. Applications from census tracts where more than 50 percent of residents are minority were nearly twice as likely to be denied a home loan as applications taken from census tracts that are more than 80 percent White.

Unfortunately, origination and denial rates in home lending only tell half the story. Predatory lending—defined by federal government as lending involving deception or fraud, manipulation of borrowers through aggressive sales tactics, or taking unfair advantage of a borrower’s lack of understanding about loan terms—disproportionately threatens low income and minority loan applicants. These practices are often combined with loan terms that are abusive or make the borrower more vulnerable to abusive practices.

1 County data are used because aggregate data are not readily available for the City of

Sacramento.


Traditionally underserved communities in California are being targeted and flooded with high cost, subprime credit. The last few years have seen an explosion in the proliferation of subprime lending. At the same time, Fannie Mae2 estimates that up to half of all borrowers in the subprime market could have qualified for a lower-cost prime loan. A review of refinance lending, where most predatory lending occurs, revealed that nearly 19 percent of White borrowers had subprime loans, compared to nearly 45 percent of African American borrowers and over 31 percent of Hispanic borrowers. In the Sacramento area, subprime lenders are more aggressive and successful in their outreach and marketing to African American borrowers. Seventeen of the top 50 lenders to African American applicants were subprime lenders. For Native American, Hispanic, and Asian home loan applicants, 14, 13, and nine of the top 50 lenders for each ethnic group were subprime lenders. In contrast, only eight of the top 50 lenders taking applications from White home loan applicants were subprime lenders.

Figure 7-7

Percentage of Borrow ers w ith Subprime Loans

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

African-American Hispanic White

Source: County of Sacramento Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, 2004.

An analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for Sacramento County revealed that 13 out of 15 neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of subprime lending were predominantly minority neighborhoods. These data suggest that minority homebuyers are most likely to be impacted by the negative aspects of subprime lending described above.

It appears that there are constraints to homeownership related to the ability of low income borrowers to obtain loans within the County of Sacramento. These constraints are more severe for minority residents. The City may look into expanding homeownership programs to assist minorities and low income households with financing for homeownership and home improvement. Some jurisdictions also consider lending practices by financial institutions in deciding. The growing use of alternative mortgage products such as those described previously has allowed more individuals to qualify for home loans. Loans with low initial payments often had provisions for substantial payment increases after several years (usually between 1 and 3 years). These loan products enticed many investors into the single-family market in the Sacramento region. The increasing availability of these loan products also allowed homebuilders to qualify many more households for home purchase and provided more business opportunities for virtually every profession linked to the

2 The Federal National Mortgage Association, created in 1938, to ensure a consistent supply

of mortgage funds for home loans in the United States.




homebuilding and residential real estate markets (mortgage brokers, real estate agents, title companies, etc.).

Rapidly rising housing prices since the late 1990s provided homebuyers and investors a sense of security that, even if loan payments adjusted upward significantly after an initial period, the growth in home equity would allow the borrower to either refinance or re-sell the home and thus avoid financial difficulties. The ability to “grow” one’s way out of potential financial trouble with equity growth changed dramatically after 2005, when home prices began to level off and then decline in many parts of the Sacramento region (both for new and existing homes).

Many borrowers who purchased homes in past two years, particularly those with subprime loans, found that they owed more on their homes than their homes were worth. The changing mortgage market also affected borrowers without subprime loans in more expense housing markets in California. In these more expensive markets (including parts of the Sacramento region), borrowers have to qualify for “jumbo” loans—relatively large loans that are not federally backed.3 Individuals who, two or three years ago, could qualify to purchase high-priced homes with jumbo loans have found it increasingly difficult to find willing lenders.

The confluence of flattening or declining home prices and the growing number of subprime and alternative loans resulted in a spike in defaults on home loans beginning in 2007. The number of defaults could continue rising through 2008 and then decline after the volume of troubled subprime and alternative mortgages funded between 2004 and 2006 are resolved (either through refinancing, the sale of homes with troubled mortgages, or foreclosures). According to The Sacramento Bee,4 lenders made about 74,000 subprime loans as the housing boom peaked in 2005 and 2006 in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties, about 26 percent of all home loans in the four-county region. Nearly one in three of these loans were delinquent or in foreclosure. This estimate provides a relative sense of the potential magnitude of troubled loans and borrowers who are most at-risk of foreclosure.

During 2006, approximately one of every six Sacramento homeowners spent more than half of their gross income on housing, which is 30 percent higher than in 2005 and almost double than in 2000. The high percentage of homeowners spending a disproportionate percentage of income on housing combined with a large number of troubled subprime loans suggests that homebuyers in the Sacramento region will continue to face near-term challenges in making mortgage payments.

To put the problems facing the mortgage market and many homeowners in perspective, the following summarizes a 2007 news report from The Sacramento Bee that describes the problems in the mortgage market and its causes.

Borrowers – After interest rates decreased in the wake of the stock market crash in 2001, many borrowers took on more debt than they could repay by purchasing homes with the intent of reselling the home for profit after a

3 A jumbo mortgage is a loan amount above conventional conforming loan limits set by

Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC), federally chartered financial institutions that purchase the bulk of residential mortgages in the U.S. They set a limit on the maximum dollar value of any mortgage they will purchase from an individual lender. This limit, as of 2006, was $417,000 in most states (including California). Jumbo mortgages apply when FNMA and FHLMC limits don't cover the full loan amount. Other large investors (insurance companies, banks, investment funds, etc.) will provide financing for jumbo mortgages at an interest that is often substantially higher than for conforming mortgages.

4 Jim Wasserman column, December 7, 2007.



short period of time. Even borrowers who intended to live in the homes for a number of years assumed that they could take advantage of equity growth from rising home prices to refinance their mortgages with fixed-rate loans or sell their homes and move up to more expensive homes.

Mortgage Brokers and Lenders – Mortgage brokers, who process loan applications on behalf of lenders, enabled many borrowers with borderline credit ratings to be approved for a mortgage they could not afford. The mortgage brokers made significant profits as “middlemen.” Many banks and mortgage lenders began relaxing their landing standards to reach further down the credit scale and even approve loans to people with no job, no income, and no assets. Many lenders also enticed people to borrow money with low introductory interest rates that substantially increased at a later time and complicated terms that made the implications of changes in interest rates difficult to understand. When changes in interest rates or other loan terms later caused monthly mortgage costs to rise, borrowers were more likely to lose their homes and suffer damage to their credit ratings.

Appraisers – Appraisers work with mortgage brokers and lenders to ascertain the probable value of a home being purchased to assure the lender that the loan request is supported by a home’s value. Many appraisers were very generous in their appraisals, which could have led some buyers to offer more for a home than its actual worth.

Investors – Investment banks and hedge funds packaged billions of dollars worth of mortgages as bonds and sold them to investors (banks, pension funds, mutual funds, etc.). Many of these groups invested in the lowest-rated, highest-yielding mortgages as a way to boost investment returns. Nearly 20 percent of mortgage originations in these investment portfolios were subprime mortgages. Unfortunately, when subprime mortgages began to go bad (over 17 percent of all subprime mortgages were more than 60 days past due at the end of June 2007), this led to investors suffering large losses.

Rating Agencies – A credit rating agency is a company that assigns credit ratings for issuers of certain types of debt obligations (e.g., subprime mortgages). Rating agencies worked with investment companies and funds to turn subprime and other questionable mortgages into saleable bonds that investors would purchase by increasing their recommendation on subprime mortgage debts. If a bond carries less than an investment-grade rating, many insurance companies, pension funds, and mutual funds are barred from buying those bonds. However, once the rating agencies gave subprime mortgages an investment-grade rating, the investors were allowed to purchase these bonds.

IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING

SHRA updated its analysis of impediments to fair housing in 2004. The following is a summary of the impediments identified:

■ HMDA data suggest that discriminatory mortgage lending practices, although significantly reduced from the year 2000, are still prevalent.

■ Fair housing education and enforcement services are ineffective.



■ Audits of new construction activity in the Sacramento area revealed numerous instances of noncompliance with accessibility standards of the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act.

The County’s programs include monitoring of fair housing issues, and referral of complaints for further action where possible.

GEOLOGICAL FEATURES

Another factor adding to overall residential development costs are the constraints associated with natural and geological features of the area. In several areas of the County, hillsides and rocky soils require special grading techniques (e.g., blasting of rock) and design considerations. Vernal pools and marsh and riparian habitats must be protected from encroachment by residential development. Any mitigation measures necessary to protect unique environmental constraints will add to the cost of development. In addition, construction in floodplains can require costly assessments for necessary levee repairs and/or construction features designed to minimize flood risk. Large areas of the undeveloped unincorporated County are subject to such costs, including vernal pool areas in the eastern portion of the County and floodplains in the western portion of the County.

PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT HIGHER DENSITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Affordable housing projects, as with other land use entitlement projects, are typically subject to review by citizen boards or public officials during hearings for project approvals. Because of public concerns about higher density and affordable housing, often referred to as a “Not In My Backyard” or NIMBY syndrome, project denials or costly delays can occur. Development in general evokes fears of more congested streets and a rising need for new infrastructure facilities such as schools. In particular, affordable housing development can evoke fears of decreased property values and increased crime rates and may be acting as a constraint to the provision of some types of housing. Significant empirical evidence suggests that these public fears do not reflect reality for the well designed and managed developments typical of most new affordable housing. The public perception remains, however, and must be addressed each time a new proposal for lower income housing is submitted to the County.

The County will seek to balance the need for public participation with its potential to impact housing development through clearer development standards, design guidelines, and permit processes and approval criteria in the updated Development Code.

CONCLUSION

A number of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints have been identified. Permit processing procedures, approval times, and the lack of clarity for approval criteria for some permits are potential constraints to the availability and cost of housing in Sacramento County. The County periodically reviews the processing of permits to minimize processing as a constraint. Permit and development fees and assessments, which also contribute to the cost of housing, were not found to be significantly higher in Sacramento County than other area jurisdictions, but still represent a constraint when combined with land and construction costs. Development standards, including parking, setbacks, and on- and off-site improvement requirements may also represent a constraint, especially in infill areas.

Nongovernmental constraints, including land and construction costs and public concerns about higher density and affordable housing, may also act as constraints



on the provision of housing. However, the ability of the County to reduce nongovernmental constraints may be limited. Policies and programs have been developed in this Housing Element to address these constraints on housing, and are described in Chapter 3.


8-1 Housing Needs Assessment

CHAPTER 8

HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

California Government Code Section 65583(a)(2) states that the housing element must analyze and document household characteristics in Sacramento County, including the level of payment and ability to pay, overcrowding, and the condition of the housing stock. Chapter 5 of this Housing Element, “Population and Housing Characteristics,” identifies and documents several of these issues. This chapter summarizes and quantifies Sacramento County’s (County’s) existing and future housing needs and assesses the County’s special housing needs. This chapter includes a review of existing housing needs through the examination of current affordability levels, including an analysis of the ability of Sacramento County’s residents to pay for housing and rental costs. In addition, this chapter identifies the number of households in the County whose housing and rental costs are greater than 30 percent of their gross income (overpayment). This chapter also contains an assessment of overcrowding (households with more than 1.0 persons per room).

The special needs of the underserved population, including minority households, seniors, large households, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, and the homeless are also analyzed. In identifying future housing needs, the projected demand for housing for various income groups is analyzed.

The findings of this section include the following:

■ Housing prices for new and existing homes have declined slightly from their peak in 2006. However, these declines followed several years of rapid increase, and the median price for a home in 2007 is nearly twice the 2002 median. These increases in housing price have outpaced gains in household income and caused a decline in the percentage of Sacramento County households who can afford the median-priced home. Despite the short-term trend of declining prices, home prices will likely continue to outpace income gains in the long run.

■ Rents have risen since 2000, from a 7 percent increase for 2-bedroom units to an almost 27% increase for three-bedroom units. Long-term prospects are for a continuation of this trend over the next 5 years, unless the stock of rental housing increases significantly. This prediction is based both on the overall growth rate for the Sacramento area and the potential for fewer households to afford owner-occupied housing as lending standards become more restrictive.

■ Consistent with rapid increases in housing costs during the late 1990s, the 2000 Census reported that overcrowding and overpayment among lower income households increased between 1990 and 2000. Although more recent census figures for overcrowding are not available, overpayment and overcrowding are likely to have further increased since 2000 due to increasing housing costs relative to incomes. 2

■ Sacramento County will need to plan for and accommodate 15,160 new housing units between 2006 and 2013. See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the Regional Housing Needs Plan as adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments

2 Although housing costs have stabilized recently with the decline in the housing market, the long-term

trend of a growing gap between housing costs and local incomes could resume once the housing market recovers.


Housing Needs Assessment 8-2

(SACOG) in February 2008. Of these 15,160 housing units, 22 percent (3,339 units) should be affordable to extremely low income (ELI) and very low income (VLI) households earning less than 50 percent of the Sacramento County median income, 15.1 percent (2,293 units) should be affordable to low income (LI) households earning less than 80 percent of the median, 17.8 percent (2,700 units) to households earning 80 to 120 percent of median income and 45.1 percent (6,828 units) to household earning more than 120 percent of median income.

■ As the County’s population ages, there will be a growing need for housing that meets the changing lifestyle, financial, and physical needs of seniors. The population 65 years and older increased by 25 percent in Sacramento County between 1990 and 2000 and is forecast to increase another 21 percent by 2010 (to a total of 165,157) based on the most recent California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates from July 2007. The County will need to accommodate additional housing with supportive services for seniors, affordable rental housing for low-income seniors, market rate housing designed for accessibility, and financial assistance in rehabilitating and modifying homes owned by seniors.

■ Family incomes have lagged compared to nonfamily households. Low-income families with children, especially large families, are at greatest risk of experiencing overcrowding and overpayment. Among family households, female-headed households with children are most at risk of suffering these housing problems because of their extremely low incomes and high poverty rates.

■ As the County’s population has increased, so has that segment of the population with disabilities and self-care limitations. Part of the increase is a consequence of the aging population.

■ Although agriculture in Sacramento County has declined with urbanization, farmworkers still compose a significant part of the labor force—an estimated 6,115 workers in 2000, including 2,831 migrant workers. In 2004, there were an estimated 6,500 workers employed in agriculture in the Sacramento metropolitan area as reported by the California Employment Development Department. Farmworkers tend to have very low income because of the wages paid for most types of farm work. Farmworker families experience high rates of overcrowding, overpayment, and substandard housing conditions because of the lack of affordable housing. Migrant farmworkers face the additional challenge of finding suitable and affordable seasonal shelter, which is in short supply during periods of peak demand. The number of farm labor camps and available farm labor beds have declined steadily since 1999.

■ Sacramento County has experienced an increasing homeless population over the past decade. About 4,300 people were homeless at some point during 2006. There are many reasons for homelessness: lack of income, disability, substance abuse, and temporary life events. Despite the increase in resources devoted to addressing homeless needs over the past decade, many homeless individuals and families still face shortages of temporary shelter, supportive services, transitional housing, and affordable permanent housing.



HOUSING NEEDS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS

HOUSING COSTS

The cost of housing in relation to household income determines whether a household will be able to obtain an adequately sized unit in good condition in a chosen area. In Sacramento County, the cost of housing has increased during the past decade faster than local incomes, even accounting for recent declines in sales prices. The increase in the median price of a home in Sacramento County is largely attributed to a strong local economy, rising incomes, and individuals and families relocating to the area, including from the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

Between 2002 and 2006, the median price of an existing home in Sacramento County increased by nearly 115 percent. Median home prices have declined nearly 10 percent between June 2006 and June 2007. However, the overall rise in home price between 2002 and 2007 is still nearly 94 percent. By comparison, the median household income in Sacramento County increased less than 40 percent during the entire decade of the 1990s. The dramatic increase in housing value in Sacramento is typical of many communities in California. Despite the increases, Sacramento County’s median home price remains relatively low when compared to price levels for the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

Many home loans which were written during the housing boom of the past several years required little money down. When prices begin to decline, homeowners were left in a situation where they had little or no equity in the house, but must make payments on a loan for more money than the house is worth. This is one of the major factors that led to the recent drop in prices and a corresponding increase in foreclosures. The Sacramento Bee reported that during the first three quarters of 2007, a total of 4,831 foreclosures took place in Sacramento County (including both unincorporated and incorporated areas). Despite the short term decline in home prices seen since 2006 and the continuing effects of foreclosure activity dampening the housing market, the long-term housing trend for Sacramento County is expected to be continued rises in home prices.

Although Sacramento has more affordable home prices on a countywide basis than in the Bay Area or Southern California, median housing prices vary considerably among unincorporated areas, from a low of $207,500 in North Highlands to $606,500 in Arden-Arcade (ZIP code 95864). Table 8-1 identifies annual median housing values for the Sacramento area from 2002 to 2007.

TABLE 8-1. MEDIAN HOME PRICES IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY (INCLUDING CITIES) YEAR1 MEDIAN PRICE

2002 $169,983

2003 $205,000

2004 $252,828

2005 $324,684

2006 $365,000

2007 $329,500

Average Annual Change 2002–2007 14.2%

Source: Sacramento Bee DataQuick Information Systems 2002-2007. 1 For January 2002-2005, June 2006-2007. Not adjusted for inflation.



Table 8-2 compares median home prices by zip code for 2005, 2006 and 2007. Home prices have decreased in value in almost every zip code area between July 2005 and July 2006 and July 2006 and July 2007. In fact, the decrease in home value accelerated in many zip code areas during the last year of this time period.

TABLE 8-2. MEDIAN HOME PRICES BY ZIP CODE (JULY 2005–JULY 2007)

COMMUNITY ZIP CODE ESTIMATED

MEDIAN PRICE JULY 20051

MEDIAN PRICE JULY 2006

PERCENT CHANGE FROM

JULY 2005

MEDIAN PRICE JULY

2007

PERCENT CHANGE

FROM JULY 2006

Antelope 95843 $375,666 $352,750 -6.1% $320,000 -9.3% Carmichael 95608 $417,172 $413,000 -1.0% $335,000 -18.9% Citrus Heights 95610 $375,403 $349,500 -6.9% $305,250 -12.8% Citrus Heights 95621 $337,909 $320,000 -5.3% $257,750 -19.5% Elk Grove 95624 $435,130 $436,000 0.2% $363,000 -16.7% Elk Grove 95757 $469,856 $491,000 4.5% $400,000 -19.3% Elk Grove 95758 $409,321 $404,000 -1.3% $329,000 -18.6% Elverta 95626 $357,680 $333,000 -6.9% $272,000 -18.3% Fair Oaks 95628 $447,071 $435,000 -2.7% $400,000 -8.0% Folsom 95630 $500,000 $505,000 1.0% $470,000 -5.1% Galt 95632 $358,948 $355,000 -1.1% $315,000 -11.3% Herald 95638 $757,576 $825,000 8.9% n/a n/a Isleton 95641 $182,012 $342,000 87.9% n/a n/a North Highlands 95660 $283,976 $280,000 -1.4% $207,500 -25.9% Orangevale 95662 $388,350 $360,000 -7.3% $304,750 -15.3% Rancho Cordova 95670 $342,531 $360,000 5.1% $349,000 -3.1% Rio Linda 95673 $316,048 $289,500 -8.4% $278,000 -0.7% Sacramento (Arden–Arcade) 95821 $348,145 $356,500 2.4% $297,000 -16.7% Sacramento (Arden-Arcade) 95825 $354,873 $335,000 -5.6% $332,500 6.2% Sacramento (Arden-Arcade) 95864 $362,524 $385,000 6.2% $606,500 57.5% Sacramento (City) 95814 n/a n/a n/a $475,000 n/a Sacramento (City) 95815 $270,108 $225,000 -16.7% $224,500 -1.1% Sacramento (City) 95816 $506,997 $398,500 -21.4% $385,000 -3.4% Sacramento (City) 95817 $273,925 $274,500 0.2% $280,500 3.9% Sacramento (City) 95818 $430,079 $489,000 13.7% $457,000 -6.5% Sacramento (City) 95819 $479,826 $440,000 -8.3% $430,000 -2.3% Sacramento (City) 95820 $261,375 $270,000 3.3% $242,500 -9.9% Sacramento (City) 95822 $300,102 $295,000 -1.7% $288,000 -2.4% Sacramento (City) 95831 $416,188 $362,500 -12.9% $362,000 -0.8% Sacramento (City) 95833 $360,061 $352,500 -2.1% $293,000 -17.5% Sacramento (City) 95834 $424,945 $385,000 -9.4% $360,000 -6.5% Sacramento (City) 95838 $284,925 $283,500 -0.5% $215,500 -24.4% Sacramento (City)/ North Natomas 95835 $508,912 $542,500 6.6% $391,000 -27.9% Sacramento (City)/ Rancho Cordova 95826 $340,530 $347,000 1.9% $305,000 -12.1% Sacramento (City)/ South Sacramento 95823 $320,641 $320,000 -0.2% $263,250 -17.7% Sacramento (City)/ South Sacramento 95824 $269,990 $273,500 1.3% $226,000 -17.4% Sacramento (Foothill Farms) 95841 $337,140 $339,500 0.7% $285,000 -16.1% Sacramento (Foothill Farms/North Highlands) 95842 $320,554 $301,000 -6.1% $260,500 -14.6% Sacramento (Freeport) 95832 $314,385 $271,000 -13.8% $248,000 -8.5% Sacramento (North Natomas) 95837 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Sacramento (Rancho Cordova) 95827 $349,948 $338,750 -3.2% $305,000 -10.0% Sacramento (South Sacramento) 95828 $344,180 $325,250 -5.5% $266,750 -17.9% Sacramento (Vineyard) 95829 $415,282 $375,000 -9.7% $362,000 -3.5% Sloughhouse 95683 $625,128 $609,500 -2.5% $597,500 -2.0% Wilton 95693 $686,948 $700,000 1.9% $540,000 -22.9%

Source: DataQuick 2007, Median Price July 2005 compiled by EDAW, 2008. 1 Estimated 2005 Median Price calculated by EDAW using Median Price 2006 and Percent Change data.



NEW HOMES

The median price of a new home in Sacramento County in August 2007 was $332,000, a decline of 12.5 percent over the past year. In the Sacramento region, the median price for new homes ranged from $300,000 in Sutter County to $614,500 in El Dorado County (Table 8-3).

TABLE 8-3. NEW HOME SALE PRICES (AUGUST 2007) COUNTY AUGUST 2006 AUGUST 2007 PERCENT CHANGE

Amador $344,000 $346,550 0.7

El Dorado $690,500 $614,500 -11.0

Nevada $600,000 $573,500 -4.4

Placer $421,000 $437,500 3.9

Sacramento $379,250 $332,000 -12.5

Sutter $324,500 $300,000 -7.6

Yolo $442,000 $385,000 -12.9

Yuba $336,500 $310,000 -7.9

Source: Sacramento Bee 2007.

RENTAL HOMES

Costs for rental units increased steadily within the Sacramento metropolitan area from 1990 to 2000. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that gross rental costs (contract rent plus utility costs) increased by approximately 22 percent between 1990 and 2000, from a median gross rent of $542 to $659. Table 8-4 shows the distribution of renter-occupied housing units by gross rent.

TABLE 8-4. GROSS RENT – SPECIFIED RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY AREA (1990–2000)

1990 2000 RENT AMOUNT

UNITS PERCENT UNITS PERCENT

$0–$199 1,576 2% 1,705 2%

$200–$299 2,414 2% 1,710 2%

$300–$499 31,783 33% 14,026 13%

$500–$749 41,560 43% 49,070 46%

$750–$999 12,700 13% 26,994 25%

$1,000 or more 4,014 4% 10,446 10%

No cash rent 2,530 3% 2,796 2%

Total 96,577 100% 106,747 100%

Median Gross Rent $542 $659

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000.

As measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, increases in rental costs appeared modest in relation to incomes during the 1990s. Recently, a rental survey of apartments in the Sacramento area was conducted by Hendricks and Partners. The survey calculated that the median rent was $954 during the second quarter of 2007 (compared to $784 in 2001). The median rent of $954 represented a two percent increase since the second quarter of 2006, and about a 22 percent increase since



2001. Average rents in the unincorporated area ranged from $724 in South Sacramento to $1,115 in Orangevale.

Table 8-5 summarizes rent increases by community that has occurred since 2000.

TABLE 8-5. AVERAGE RENTS (2001, SECOND QUARTER 2006–2007)1

COMMUNITY AVERAGE 2001 RENT

AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER 2006

RENT

AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER 2007

RENT

PERCENT INCREASE 2001–2007

PERCENT INCREASE 2006–2007

Antelope $756 $876 $909 20% 4%

Carmichael $826 $777 $767 -7% -1%

Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks $764 $843 $863 13% 2%

North Highlands $668 $771 $760 14% -1%

Orangevale, Folsom $1,029 $1,103 $1,115 8% 1%

South Sacramento $756 $713 $724 -4% 2%

Sacramento Region $784 $931 $954 22% 2%

Source: Hendricks & Partners 2007. 1 Average rents reported by Hendricks & Partners are for apartments of 50 units or more.

Table 8-6 compares average rents by apartment size. This data was obtained by Sacramento Self Help Housing. This organization conducts quarterly surveys of specifically low-cost apartment complexes in the region. Table 8-6 presents rents and historic trends for these low-cost apartment complexes from 2001 through 2007.

TABLE 8-6. RENTAL RATES BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AREA – 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007

UNIT TYPE 2001 2003 2005 2007 % CHANGE 01–07

Studio $512 $522 $567 $584 14.1

1 Bedroom $615 $641 $671 $667 8.5

2 Bedroom $738 $770 $784 $790 7.0

3 Bedroom $900 $1,070 $1,068 $1142 26.9

Source: Sacramento Self Help Housing, Rental Reports 2001–2007.

Table 8-7 provides information on rent levels for specific apartment complexes in Sacramento County. These data are not a representative survey, and are intended only to provide an example of the range of options available in various unincorporated communities. The table shows monthly rents ranging from $550 to $740 for studio apartments, $582 to $885 for one-bedroom apartments, $692 to $1,150 for two-bedroom apartments, and $750 to $1,195 for three-bedroom apartments.



TABLE 8-7. 2007 RENTS AT SELECTED APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN

SACRAMENTO COUNTY APARTMENT NAME STUDIO RENT 1 BED RENT 2 BED RENT 3 BED RENT BATHS

Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Antelope North Country Vista -- $700 $805 -- 1–2

Spring Meadows -- $775 $850 -- 1–2

Antelope Vista -- $760 $940 -- 1–2

Antelope Ridge -- $825 $970 $1,195 1–2

The Arbors at Antelope -- -- $1,150 $1,150 1–2

Carmichael Parkwood Apartment Homes -- $695 $850 -- 1

The Meridian -- -- $925 -- 1

Foxworth Apartments -- $715 $795 -- 1–2

Crestview North -- $630 $725 -- 1–2

Atherton Apartments -- $625 $780 -- 1–2

Marconi Woods -- $625 $725 -- 1

Country Village -- $695 $795 -- 1

Garden Park Apartments -- -- $750 -- 1

Hastings Ranch -- $725 $885 -- 1–2

Terrace at Fair Oaks -- $650 $750 $1,050 1–2

Fair Oaks Fair Oaks Meadows -- $760 $900 -- 1–2

Bella Lago -- $795 $950 -- 1–2

Oak Meadows -- $795 $1,025 -- 1–2

Fountains of Fair Oaks -- $740 $890 -- 1–2

Gold River Bishop’s Court -- $770 $915 $1,095 1–2

River Pointe Park -- $675 $805 -- 1

Reserve at Capital Center -- $885 $1,130 -- 1–2

Zinfandel Village -- $750 $910 $1,090 1–2

North Highlands Mesa Verde $565 $665 $785 -- 1–2

Harrison Court -- -- $695 -- 1

Highland Townhomes -- -- $710 $950 1

Antelope Ranch -- $625 $700 $800 1

Cottage Meadows $550 $650 $750 -- 1

Orangevale Hazel Wood $650 $705 $820 -- 1

Folsom Gateway -- $785 $955 $1,060 1–2

The Cottages $740 $800 $975 -- 1–2

Source: ForRent.com 2007, Rent.com 2007.



HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Housing affordability refers to the maximum amount an individual is able to pay for decent, safe, and sanitary housing without sacrificing expenditures on other essential needs. Most housing analysts define “affordable” as housing that can be obtained for 30 percent or less of a household’s income. Despite these rules of thumb, housing affordability depends on a household’s income, financial circumstances, and composition. For example, a single individual with no long-term debt and an income that exceeds 120 percent of median can well afford to spend in excess of 30 percent of their gross income for housing. A low-income family of five with a car payment might find it difficult to devote even 25 percent of its gross income for housing without foregoing other necessary expenditures.

A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is two and one-half to three times its annual income, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their annual income. This has been particularly true since the early 2000s, when many lenders and mortgage brokers introduced (or more extensively marketed) loan products that required very little or no downpayment, interest only loans initially, or adjustable rate loans with initial low interest rates for one to five years. These loan products allowed more households to become homeowners and many borrowers to purchase homes representing a higher multiple of their earnings—sometimes four or more times the household’s annual income.

In Sacramento County, the greatest gap between incomes and housing costs occurs in rental units affordable to extremely low and very low-income households, and in home prices affordable to very low- through moderate-income households. According to Table 8-8, the median rent in 2007 exceeded what an extremely low-income household could afford by at least $450 and exceeded what a very-low income household could afford by at least $114. Also, the median home price was at least $160,750 more than what was affordable to a low-income household and at least $80,200 more than what was affordable to a moderate-income household. There are certain areas in Sacramento County (North Highlands and parts of South Sacramento) that have median sales prices that would be affordable to the upper end of the moderate-income households but in general, home prices in Sacramento County are not affordable to most moderate income households and certainly not affordable to lower income households.

TABLE 8-8. AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING IN RELATION TO INCOME (2007)

INCOME GROUP

INCOME RANGE (FAMILY OF FOUR)

AFFORDABLE MONTHLY RENT1

MEDIAN RENT (2ND QUARTER

2007)

AFFORDABLE PURCHASE

PRICE2

MEDIAN HOME PRICE (AUGUST

2007)

Extremely Low $0–$20,150 $0–$504 $954 $60,450 $322,000

Very Low $20,151–$33,600 $504–$840 $100,800

Low $33,601–$53,750 $840–$1,344 $161,250

Moderate $53,751–80,600 $1,344–$2,015 $241,800

Sources: Hendricks & Partners 2007, Sacramento Bee DataQuick Information Systems 2007. 1 Contract rent plus utilities. Assumes a total of 30 percent of income spent on a combination of rent and

utilities. 2 Affordable purchase price assumes a value of three times the annual income.



For ownership housing, the trend in housing affordability can be measures by using a housing affordability index. The housing affordability index is a measurement of the percentage of homes that would be affordable to a family earning the median income. It should be noted that the historical trend of housing affordability goes through cycles of increasing to decreasing affordability. Data suggest that the County and region are in a down cycle of affordability. The Sacramento Area Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) is an affordability index prepared by Wells Fargo and the National Association of Home Builders. The HOI figures for the fourth quarter of each year are shown in Table 8-9.

As shown in the Table 8-9, the HOI has dropped from a recent high of 65.5 percent in 1997 to 15 percent in the first quarter of 2007. The long-term impact of the current trend towards lower median home prices on affordability is not clear.

TABLE 8-9. SACRAMENTO AREA AFFORDABILITY INDEX FOR SELECT YEARS YEAR INDEX PERCENTAGE (%) 1

1995 61.1

1997 65.5

1999 56.7

2001 44

2003 25.3

2005 7.3

2007 15

Source: National Association of Home Builders 2007. 1 Figures are the percentage of homes that would be affordable to a family earning the median income

during the fourth quarter of each year (2nd quarter of 2007).

HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING

As stated previously, a generally accepted measure of housing affordability is that households should not pay more than 30 percent of their gross incomes for housing expenses. Expenditure in excess of this percentage is defined as “overpayment.” The Census 2000 reported that 26 percent of all homeowners and 41 percent of all renters in the unincorporated County paid 30 percent or more of their gross incomes for housing. Overpayment among all homeowners increased slightly from 24 percent in 1990, while overpayment among all renters decreased from 47 percent in 1990.

Table 8-10 shows monthly owner and renter costs as a percentage of household income for all households from the Census 2000. Please refer to Chapter 5 for detailed information on household income.



TABLE 8-10. SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER AND RENTER COSTS AS A

PERCENTAGE OF INCOME IN UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY (CENSUS 2000)

PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS

Less than 15% 30% 16% 60,339

15%–19.9% 17% 16% 41,662

20%–24.9% 15% 15% 38,071

25%–29.9% 12% 12% 29,341

30%–34.9% 8% 8% 20,072

35% + 18% 33% 61,486

Total Households 148,767 102,204 250,971


Overpayment rates varied among income groups, however. Very low-income households faced the most extreme housing cost pressures, especially those earning less than $20,000 per year. Among households earning less than $20,000, 92 percent of renters (24,221) and 71 percent of homeowners (6,901) paid more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing expenses. The overwhelming majority of both renters and owners in this income group paid in excess of 35 percent of their gross income on housing.

Overpayment declined significantly with higher incomes. About half (47 percent) of renters earning between $20,000 and $34,999 and nine percent of renters earning between $35,000 and $49,999 paid more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing. Overpayment was insignificant among renters earning $50,000 or more per year.

Homeowners had a different pattern of overpayment than renters at higher income levels. Overpayment was a significant factor for households earning up to $90,000 or less. Nearly 60 percent of homeowners earning between $20,000 and $34,000 paid more than 30 percent for housing, while the rate of overpayment did not drop to insignificant levels until household incomes reached the $90,000–$100,000 range.

Different patterns of overpayment among renter and owner households of similar incomes suggest several possible trends, which may be operating simultaneously:

1. Renters can find suitable housing that meets their needs and does not exceed their budgets at lower incomes than can homeowners. Once renter incomes reached 80 percent of median income in 2000, the cost of rental housing was not a significant problem.

2. The cost of homeownership has increased so that a higher proportion of households, even those of moderate income, must spend more than 30 percent of their gross incomes to purchase homes.

3. Increasing numbers of moderate- and above moderate-income owner households are spending more to purchase homes that meet their needs, even if they could find less expensive homes.



Table 8-11 shows overpayment by income level.

TABLE 8-11. OVERPAYMENT BY INCOME AND TENURE1

RENTERS OWNERS INCOME LEVEL PERCENT SPENT

ON HOUSING NUMBER PERCENT2 NUMBER PERCENT2 INCOME

CATEGORIES3

<30% 643 6% 202 7%

30–34% 251 2% 150 5% <$10,000

35%+ 9,360 91% 2,611 88%

<30% 1,566 10% 2,657 39%

30–34% 1,416 9% 364 5% $10,000–$19,999

35%+ 13,194 82% 3,776 56%

<30% 13,128 54% 7,471 42%

30–34% 4,547 19% 1,532 9%

Very Low Income

$20,000–$34,999

35%+ 6,850 28% 8,603 49%

<30% 15,117 90% 13,288 58%

30–34% 1,076 6% 3,369 15%

Low Income

$35,000–$49,999

35%+ 568 3% 6,316 27%

<30% 13,624 98% 28,303 79%

30–34% 153 1% 3,786 11% $50,000–$74,999

35%+ 112 1% 3,601 10%

Moderate Income

<30% 4,594 99% 22,035 94%

30–34% 0 0% 943 4% $75,000–$99,999

35%+ 32 1% 506 2%

<30% 3,138 100% 19,154 97%

30–34% 0 0% 330 2% $100,000+(Renters) $100,000–$149,999 (Owners) 35%+ 0 0% 263 1%

<30% 16,844 99%

30–34% 61 1% $150,000+

35%+ 24 <1%

Above Moderate Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 Numbers and percentages are exclusive of households for which expenditures were not calculated. 2 Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding. 3 Income definitions for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate are based on the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s 2000 median family income guideline of $52,900. These are not adjusted for family size.

OVERCROWDING

Overcrowding is a measure of the ability of existing housing to adequately accommodate residents. The U.S. Census Bureau defines overcrowding as a household that lives in a dwelling unit with an average of more than 1.0 person per room, not including bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or half-rooms. Extreme overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Too many individuals living in housing with inadequate space and number of rooms can result in deterioration of the quality of life and the condition of the dwelling unit from overuse. Overcrowding results when either the costs of available housing with a sufficient number of bedrooms for a family exceeds the family’s ability to afford



such housing or unrelated individuals (such as students or low-wage single adult workers) share dwelling units because of high housing costs.

According to the 2000 Census, overcrowding in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County was about 8 percent, compared to 11 percent in the City of Sacramento. Since 1990, overcrowding has increased slightly for homeowners and significantly for renters. In 1990, about 2 percent of homeowners lived in overcrowded conditions, compared to 3 percent in 2000. Overcrowding nearly doubled among renters, from 8 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2000. The steep increase in overcrowding among renters may be caused by a sharp rise in rents between 1990 and 2000, which greatly exceeded gains in income. Rents have continued to rise since 2000, from a 7 percent increase for 2-bedroom units to an almost 27% increase for three-bedroom units (See Table 8-6). Tables 8-12 and 8-13 summarize information on overcrowding from the Census 2000.

TABLE 8-12. PERSONS PER ROOM BY TENURE – UNINCORPORATED AREA (2000) 1

PERSONS RENTERS PERCENT2 OWNERS PERCENT

1.00 or less 79,723 86% 143,628 97%

1.01 to 1.50 6,341 7% 3,629 2%

1.51 or more 6,801 8% 1,944 1%

Total 92,865 100% 149,201 100%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 Includes the City of Elk Grove, which was not incorporated at the time of the Census 2000. 2 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

TABLE 8-13. PERSONS PER ROOM IN ALL OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS (2000)

PERSONS SACRAMENTO CITY PERCENT UNINCORPORATED

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

PERCENT

1.00 or less 137,450 89% 223,345 92%

1.01 to 1.50 8,407 5% 9,976 4%

1.51 or more 8,708 6% 9,075 4%


FUTURE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION NEEDS, 2006–2013

California Government Code Section 65584 requires that each city and county plan to accommodate a fair share of the region’s housing construction needs. In urban areas, state law provides for councils of governments to prepare regional housing allocation plans that assign a share of a region’s housing construction need to each city and county. In the six-county greater Sacramento region (comprising the counties of Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Yolo, Sutter, and Yuba), the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the entity authorized under state law to determine the future housing needs for the region. SACOG adopted the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) on February 21, 2008. This plan covers a period of 7½ years from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2013.

SACOG’s methodology for distributing the regional housing need among jurisdictions is based on regional population and housing forecasts developed for its transportation model. The numbers of housing units assigned in the plan to each



jurisdiction are goals that are intended to address the minimum new housing construction need from anticipated population growth in the region.

SACOG’s allocation methodology assigns the number of units included in the overall regional need to individual jurisdictions based on their percentage of forecasted growth in the region during the first seven and a half years of a 35-year projection period. The distribution of units by income level is assigned using a base-year income distribution, with the goal that each jurisdiction will approach the State Department of Housing and Community Development’s regional distribution of the average household income over a 50-year time period (2000–2050). This 50-year period uses the housing unit forecasts from the Blueprint Project, supporting policy goals including:

■ reaching regional parity,

■ promoting infill development,

■ encouraging efficient development patterns,

■ protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and

■ promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.

The housing units allocated in the plan to each city and county are considered minimum needs. Most, if not all, jurisdictions have existing unmet housing needs (such as from overcrowding and overpayment) that should be considered during the preparation of a housing element and may result in housing construction objectives that exceed the regional allocation. The city and/or county, however, must use the numbers allocated under the RHNA to identify measures (policies and ordinances) that are consistent with these new construction goals. While the city and/or county must show how it will provide adequate sites for construction of the required units, it is not obligated to build any of the units itself or finance their construction.

According to the February 21, 2008 adopted 2006-2013 SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan, the unincorporated area of Sacramento County has a total housing construction need of 15,160 units, which equates to an annual need of just over 2,021 units. This total excludes all cities in the County, their spheres of influence, the Natomas Joint Vision Area, and the “Panhandle” between the North Natomas and Robla areas of the City of Sacramento. Table 8-14 shows the unincorporated area of Sacramento County’s 2006–2013 planning period allocation.

TABLE 8-14. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (2006–2013) UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY

INCOME LEVEL TOTAL NEED 2006–2013

ANNUAL NEED1

PERCENT OF

TOTAL

UNITS APPROVED SINCE 2006

PERCENT OF

TOTAL

REMAINING ALLOCATION

Very Low Income 3,339 605 22% 265 17% 3,074

Low Income 2,293 413 15% 70 4% 2,223

Moderate Income 2,700 485 18% 457 29% 2,243

Above Moderate Income 6,828 1,232 45% 771 49% 6,057

Total 15,160 2,735 100% 1,563 100% 13,597

Source: SACOG 2008. 1 Total need divided by 7.5 years, the period covered by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (January 2006 through June 2013).



SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

In addition to the general housing needs discussed in previous sections of this chapter, state law requires that the Housing Element include an assessment of the housing needs of special population groups within the County. This section will identify the special housing needs of extremely low-income (ELI) households, the elderly, large-family households, female heads of household, persons with physical and/or mental disabilities, farmworkers, and the homeless.

EXTREMELY LOW INCOME (ELI) HOUSEHOLDS

The extremely low income group includes households with an income of 30 percent or less of the median. According to the 2000 CHAS tables, approximately 56,811 households (12.5 percent of the County’s total households) were ELI households. Of these 56,811 ELI households, 14,834 households were owners and 41,977 households were renters. These households represented about 52.3 percent of the very low income households in the County.

More than 80 percent of ELI households had housing problems, which are defined by CHAS as a cost burden greater than 30 percent of household income, and/or overcrowding, and/or incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities. More than 75 percent paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, including more than 60 percent who paid more than 50 percent of their income. In 2007, the upper threshold of the ELI income category for a family of four was an annual income of $20,150. Virtually all ELI households are expected to need aid, including housing cost subsidies and social services. The County’s programs for addressing homelessness, public housing, and Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly Section 8), are likely to assist ELI households. In addition to these specific programs, the County includes requirements for provision of new ELI rental housing units in many large developments under the County’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Elderly

The populations for the 55 and above age cohort and the 65 and above age cohort have both increased in Sacramento County during 1990-2000. Between 1990 and 2000, Sacramento County experienced a 20 percent increase in the population age 55 or more, and a 23 percent increase in the population age 65 or more. Table 8-15 presents data showing the increase in the County’s population over 55 years of age. However, the proportion of the population that comprises people age 55 and older has increased only by 1 percent. This could be explained by the fact that most of Sacramento County’s population increase was due to the development of new growth areas. The new neighborhoods in these new growth areas tend to attract young families with children. This factor probably negated any potential proportional growth of the senior population caused by the aging “baby boomer” generation. It will be interesting to see if any acceleration in the increase of the aging “baby boomer” population since 2000 occurs and whether the County will finally see a significant increase in the percentage of the population that are senior citizens (age 55+).



TABLE 8-15. SACRAMENTO COUNTY’S INCREASE IN AGING POPULATION

(1990–2000)

1990 2000 PERCENT CHANGE

Total Population 1,041,219 1,223,499 18%

Population 55+ 191,444 230,536 20%

Population 65+ 110,258 135,875 23%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000.

The elderly face special housing challenges related to physical and financial conditions. Older adults face declining mobility and self-care capabilities that create special housing needs and challenges. Many older adults, even those owning their own homes, face financial challenges because of limited incomes from Social Security and other retirement benefits.

A high percentage of seniors are homeowners (76 percent in 2000) and are retired or are on fixed incomes. As the cost of owning a home continues to rise, senior residents will find it increasingly difficult to meet these costs, and many senior residents may choose to defer the maintenance of their home to save on expenses. Over time, this deferment of maintenance may lead to the dilapidation of many homes owned and occupied by seniors, creating unsafe or unhealthy living conditions.

Many seniors are renters. In 2000, 20,652 people with a head of household age 65 or older lived in rental units. These households face a difficult housing situation in terms of unit availability and affordability. Many of the studio and one-bedroom market rate units in the County are not affordable for low-income seniors who have fixed incomes and are paying for health care, food, and general living expenses.

Based on the previous paragraphs, older adults may need assistance related to:

■ repair and maintenance of owned dwelling units,

■ modifications to existing homes to better meet mobility and self-care limitation,

■ financial assistance to meet rising rental housing costs for those who do not own, and

■ supportive services to meet daily needs, such as those provided at assisted care residences

One common special need for a growing portion of the population age 65 and over is for assisted living facilities that combine meal, medical, and daily living assistance in a residential environment. Several licensed care facilities from the State Department of Social Services were identified as providing services in Sacramento County. Table 8-16a summarizes the total number of facilities and beds and distributes the facilities based on the number of beds. Table 8-16b presents the number of facilities distributed among various areas of the County.



TABLE 8-16A. LICENSED ELDERLY CARE FACILITIES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

JURISDICTION TOTAL FACILITIES

FACILITIES WITH 6 OR FEWER

BEDS

FACILITIES WITH MORE

THAN 6 BEDS

TOTAL CAPACITY

RANGE OF CAPACITY

Sacramento County 494 425 69 7,410 2–500

Source: California Community Care Licensing Division 2007.

TABLE 8-16B. LOCATION OF LICENSED ELDERLY CARE FACILITIES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

AREA TOTAL FACILITIES

Antelope 13

Carmichael 45

Citrus Heights 70

Elk Grove 81

Elverta 2

Fair Oaks 44

Folsom 17

Galt 1

Gold River 1

North Highlands 10

Orangevale 28

Rancho Cordova 6

Rio Linda 4

Sacramento 171

Wilton 1

Total 494

Source: California Community Care Licensing Division 2007.

LARGE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

The California Department of Housing and Community Development defines large-family households as households having five or more persons. Large families have special needs relating to household size and income. Large families require three, four, or more bedrooms to avoid overcrowding. Many large families also have low incomes and must devote substantially more than 30 percent of their incomes to secure suitable housing. Many large families experience both overcrowding and overpayment because of the combination of large household size and frequently lower incomes. In 1990, the unincorporated area of Sacramento County had 24,411 large families, representing 10 percent of all households. By 2000, the number of large families increased to over 29,000, or 12 percent of the population. Most large families (60 percent) own their homes.



Table 8-17 summarizes information on large families from the Census 2000.

TABLE 8-17. LARGE FAMILIES IN UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY (2000) TOTALS AND PERCENTAGE OF RENTERS VS. OWNERS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

HOUSEHOLD SIZE TOTAL RENTERS OWNERS

Five 16,476 6,182 38% 10,294 63%

Six 7,271 2,884 40% 4,387 60%

Seven or More 5,329 2,520 47% 2,809 53%


Large families who rent are most likely to experience problems of overpayment and overcrowding because renter households are more likely than homeowners to have low-incomes, and there are fewer rental housing units with three or more bedrooms to meet the space needs of large families. As indicated in Table 8-17, the proportion of large families who are renters increases as the family gets bigger. Very large renter families (seven members or more) which comprises almost half of all very large families face the most difficulty in finding affordable housing. Such renter families will likely experience the highest rates of overcrowding and overpayment of any population group.

FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD

Female heads of households have been steadily increasing in number and as a percentage of total households in Sacramento County. The majority of female-headed households consist of single women, many of whom are seniors and single women with children. Female-headed households represent a special needs group because they have high rates of poverty or are low-income, often lack access to child care and other supportive services for independent living, and frequently face discrimination in housing (an issue that is addressed separately in Chapter 7, “Nongovernmental Constraints”).

At the time of the 2000 Census, there were 72,981 female-headed households in unincorporated Sacramento County. This total includes 23,619 female-headed households with children under the age of 18 (eight percent of all households). Fifty-five percent of female-headed households with children under 18 earned an income below the federal poverty level, an increase of four percent since the 1990 Census.

Elderly female householders comprise a special needs subgroup group because of their income and age. Most senior female householders living alone have low incomes and often require housing and supportive services to meet their changing physical capacity. The U.S. Census Bureau reported for the entire county, nearly 12,800 such households in 2000.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Seventeen percent of the County’s noninstitutionalized residents have physical conditions that affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings according to the 2000 Census. These individuals have mobility impairments, self-care limitations, or other conditions that may require special housing accommodations or financial assistance. According to the Alta California



Regional Center, a quasi-public agency that coordinates programs and services for individuals with disabilities in the greater Sacramento region, such individuals can have a number of special needs that distinguish them from the population at large. As evidence of the need in Sacramento County, Alta California Regional Center served a total of 9,922 Sacramento County residents as of June 2007.

Individuals with mobility difficulties (such as those confined to wheelchairs) may require special accommodations or modifications to their homes to allow for continued independent living. Such modifications are often called “handicapped access.” Also, Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties) may require residential environments that include in-home or on-site support services, ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy, daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.

According to Census 2000 data, there were 113,510 noninstitutionalized persons in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County with mobility or self-care limitations that might require special housing accommodations and supportive services, about 17 percent of the total population. Of the disabilities recorded by the Census 2000:

■ about one-fourth were physical disabilities,

■ about one-fourth were work-related disabilities,

■ nearly 20 percent were disabilities limiting the individual’s ability to leave the home,

■ about 16 percent were mental disabilities,

■ ten percent were sensory disabilities (such as sight and/or hearing limitations), and

■ eight percent were disabilities affecting an individual’s ability to live independently (self care).

Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs because typically a higher percentage are lower income than the population at large and their special housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing. Some people with mobility and/or self-care limitations are able to live with their families, who can assist in meeting housing and daily living needs. However, a segment of the disabled population, particularly low-income and retired individuals, may not have the financial capacity to pay for needed accommodations or modifications to their homes. In addition, even those able to pay for special housing accommodations may find them unavailable in the County. Some disabled persons may experience financial difficulty in locating suitable housing because of the cost of modifications to meet their daily living needs or they may have difficulty in finding appropriate housing near places of employment. Although the California Administrative Code (Title 24) requires that all public buildings be accessible to the public through architectural standards such as ramps, large doors, and restroom modifications to enable handicap access, not all available housing units have these features. In addition, there are other types of physical and design modifications that may be necessary to accommodate various types of disabilities.

With the implementation of the 1988 Federal Fair Housing laws, newly constructed multifamily units are to be built to accommodate the disabled population of the



community. Apartments and condominiums are now required to be equipped with special features such as ramps and oversized halls, entryways, and bathrooms to increase accessibility for disabled persons. The Americans with Disabilities Act require handicapped access in all public buildings, including multifamily complexes.

While regulations adopted by the State require all ground floor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities, single-family units have no accessibility requirements. The Americans with Disabilities Act has no special provisions that require the installations of such amenities for single-family units. As the number of persons with disabilities is likely to increase in Sacramento County, special attention should be given to architectural design and hardware that improves access to and within all housing units, especially single-family units. Design standards for accessibility and future adaptability of housing units for persons with disabilities are often referred to as “Universal Design.”

FARMWORKERS

Data on farmworkers and farmworker housing is scarce. The State Economic Development Department has estimated that farmworker employment in Sacramento County averages approximately 4,000 farmworkers per quarter. Farmworkers are grouped into two categories: migrant and settled farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers travel from one geographic location to another, depending on where and when farm work is available. Settled farmworkers usually live in rental housing in the community in which they work. Settled farmworkers often live in subsidized housing on a site provided by the farmer.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned an enumeration study on migrant and seasonal farmworkers in California in 2000. This study estimates a total of 6,115 farmworkers in Sacramento County, including 2,831 migrant and 3,284 seasonal workers. An additional 4,766 individuals were estimated to be living in farmworker households.

In Sacramento County, the vast majority of farmworkers work in the southern portion of the County near the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and the City of Galt. If migrant workers are brought into the County through the services of the Employment Development Department, the farmer is required to provide privately financed housing facilities. Table 8-18 provides information on the number and capacity of farm labor camps in Sacramento County according to the County Department of Environmental Health, which licenses and inspects these facilities.

TABLE 8-18. SACRAMENTO COUNTY FARM LABOR CAMPS

YEAR NUMBER OF ACTIVE CAMPS TOTAL FARM LABORERS HOUSED

1999 37 1,174

2003 31 981

2007 25 709

Source: Frey, Ann pers. comm. 2007.

Most farm labor camps are fully occupied only during peak harvest periods and are vacant during the remaining months. The farmworker population has been declining in Sacramento County over the past several years. This is consistent with state



projections. Two major reasons account for this decline: the rapid urbanization in most parts of unincorporated Sacramento County and the increased use of machines for what was previously labor-intensive farming activities. The Sacramento County Department of Environmental Health reported both an overall decline in the number of farmworkers in the County and an increase in workers commuting day to day from other locations, primarily Lodi and Stockton in San Joaquin County.

HOMELESS

Homeless persons are those in need of temporary or emergency shelter. They are individuals who lack a fixed income and regular nighttime residence. Some are in need of short-term (immediate crisis) shelter, while others have long-term (chronic) needs. The homeless represent a broad category including single men and women, couples, families, displaced youths without parents, and seniors. They can include individuals who are victims of economic dislocation, physically disabled, teen parents with children, veterans, hospital and jail discharges, alcohol and drug abusers, survivors of domestic violence, persons with AIDS, immigrants, refugees, and farm labor workers.

As part of their efforts to continually monitor, understand and appropriately plan for housing and service needs for the homeless population, the City and County, through the County Department of Human Assistance (DHA), undertake a single day (or a “point-in-time”) count of the homeless. This project has numerous contributing partners, including but not limited to the following: the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, law enforcement (police, sherrif and park rangers), community volunteers, and the Interagency Council of the Ten Year Plan.3 The homeless population is varied and complex, and enumerating this population is difficult. The count is conducted for two reasons. First, it is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of the annual application for McKinney-Vento funding. Secondly, the count is conducted as part of the ongoing monitoring for the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The count relies on a methodology that allows for focused geographic counting and extrapolation of that count to the broader geography of the County. Although DHA has been conducting point-in-time counts since 2003, this research-based methodology was first utilized for the 2007 and 2008 counts.

On January 30, 2007, the County Department of Human Assistance (DHA) conducted a homeless count to determine the size of the homeless population throughout the County in shelters, transitional housing, and on streets. This point-in-time count documented 2,452 individuals, including 709 in emergency shelters, 738 in transitional shelters, and 1,005 on the streets. At the time of the 2007 count, 74 percent of homeless people had at least one disability, such as mental illness (28 percent) or alcohol/drug dependency (54 percent). About 16 percent of homeless people were veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, although the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that approximately one-third of homeless people are veterans.)

The Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness focuses on the “housing first” model, which aims to get homeless individuals and families into permanent housing. However, through the Continuum of Care, the City and County also 3 The Interagency Council is one component of the leadership structure created to

implement the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness and is staffed by the Community Services Planning Council. Please see the Ten Year Plan website for more information about the structure: http://www.communitycouncil.org/homelessplan/.



recognize the great need to provide emergency and transitional shelter facilities. Countywide data indicating the estimated shelter needs for homeless individuals and families is presented in Table 8-19 and existing beds available is presented in Table 8-20.

TABLE 8-19. SACRAMENTO COUNTY CONTINUUM OF CARE GAPS ANALYSIS – POPULATION

HOMELESS POPULATIONS ESTIMATED NEED

CURRENT INVENTORY

UNMET NEED/GAP

Chronically Homeless 626 432 194

Seriously Mentally Ill 293 222 71

Chronic Substance Abuse 773 534 239

Veterans 201 104 97

Persons with HIV/AIDS 29 16 13

Victims of Domestic Violence 122 90 32

Youth 19 6 13

Source: Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance 2006.

TABLE 8-20. SACRAMENTO COUNTY CONTINUUM OF CARE GAPS ANALYSIS – NUMBER OF BEDS

HOMELESS POPULATIONS ESTIMATED NEED

CURRENT INVENTORY

UNMET NEED/GAP

Emergency Shelter 530 459 71

Transitional Housing 993 673 320

Permanent Supportive Housing 2,477 714 1,763

Beds: Individuals

Total 4,000 1,846 2,154

Emergency Shelter 151 130 21

Transitional Housing 469 425 44

Permanent Supportive Housing 1,063 756 307

Beds: Families

Total 1,683 1,311 372


Shelter Facilities: Sacramento's emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing are listed in Tables 8-21, 8-22 and 8-23. The 2006 Continuum of Care Report counted 3,157 shelter beds for individuals and families during the warm weather months, with an additional 160 shelter beds available during the winter overflow period (November to March). These facilities serve the homeless throughout Sacramento County, although they are scattered throughout the City and unincorporated portions of the County. The current inventory includes 749 emergency beds, 1,098 transitional beds and 1,470 permanent beds for homeless in Sacramento. Despite the significant numbers and variety of housing options, shelter providers report serving a growing number of homeless individuals and turning away increasing numbers of homeless persons.



TABLE 8-21. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMERGENCY SHELTER FACILITIES

SINGLE-PERSON SHELTERS NUMBER OF BEDS

Diogenes Youth and Family Services Temporary 6

Loaves and Fishes, Sister Nora’s Place 13

Sac Area Emergency Housing Center Women’s Refuge 12

St. John’s Emergency Shelter Program 40

The Salvation Army Women’s Program 32

The Salvation Army Lodge Program 80

The Salvation Army Adult Protective Services 4

Union Gospel Mission Emergency Shelter 86

Volunteers of America North A Street Aid-in-Kind 60

Volunteers of America Bannon Street Aid-in-Kind 62

Volunteers of America Open Arms (HIV) 12

WIND Youth Center 16

The Salvation Army Interim Care Program 18

FAMILY SHELTERS NUMBER OF BEDS

Sac Area Emergency Housing Center Family Shelter 54

St. John’s Emergency Shelter Program 60

Women Escaping a Violent Environment Emergency 2

Interfaith Network Family Promise Center 14

SHELTER FOR THE MENTALLY ILL NUMBER OF BEDS

Transitional Living & Community Support for Mentally Ill Women & Men (Carol’s Place) 18

WINTER OVERFLOW SHELTERS (NOVEMBER TO MARCH) NUMBER OF BEDS

Volunteers of America Winter Program 160

Grand Total Shelter Beds 749




TABLE 8-22. SACRAMENTO COUNTY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES SINGLE PERSON NUMBER OF BEDS

AIDS Housing Alliance Cornerstone/Hidden Cove 7

Antelope Christian Center Lydia’s House 6

Chemical Dependency Center for Women New Horizons 30

Clean and Sober New Start 70

Clean and Sober New Life 50

Diogenes Youth Services Connections 4

Diogenes Youth Services Transitional Housing Program 12

Resources for Independent Living Transitional Center 6

Sac Area Emergency Housing Center Women’s ESP 6

Sac Children’s Home Crisis Nursery 4

Sac Cottage Housing Inc. Quinn Cottages 50

Sac County DHA Mather Community Campus 200

Sac County DHHS Homeless Intervention Program 10

Sac County DHHS River City Community Homeless 47

Sac Veterans Resource Center Men’s Transitional 30

Sac Veterans Resource Center Women’s Transitional 8

Self Help Housing Cathedral/Downtown Housing 5

Transitional Living and Community Support Palmer 9

Transitional Living and Community Support MICA Palmer 39

Volunteers of America Adolfo TH for Foster Youth 10

Volunteers of America Adolfo TH for Foster Youth (HUD) 10

Volunteers of America Independent Living Readiness 58

Walking the Village Tubman House 2

FAMILY NUMBER OF BEDS

AIDS Housing Alliance Cornerstone/Hidden Cove 6

Chemical Dependency Center for Women New Horizons 8

Diogenes Youth Services Connections 4

Diogenes Youth Services Transitional Housing Program 8

Lutheran Social Services Transitional Housing Families 35

Powerhouse Ministries Transitional Center 20

Sac Cottage Housing Inc. Quinn Cottages 20

Sac County DHA Mather Community Campus 146

Sac Food Bank and Family Services Havens Transitional 35

Transitional Living Community Support MICA Families 9

Traveler’s Aid Families Beyond Transition 52

Grand Total Transitional Beds 1,098

Source: Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance 2006. 1 Transitional housing includes apartment units and support services with residency limited to 2 years.

Permanent housing has no residency limitation.



TABLE 8-23. SACRAMENTO COUNTY PERMANENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TARGETED TO VERY LOW-INCOME AND/OR FORMERLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES

SINGLE PERSON NUMBER OF BEDS

AIDS Housing Alliance Avalon 6

AIDS Housing Alliance Hidden Cove 6

AIDS Housing Alliance Steven Place 10

Glory House PSH 7

Lutheran Social Services Saybrook 5

MAAP Inc Las Casitas 4

Sac Area Emergency Housing Center Omega Project 15

Sac County DHHS River City Community Homeless 103

Sac County DHHS Homeless Intervention Program 140

Sac County DHA LaVerne Adolfo PSH 20

Sac County DHA Shelter Plus Care 198

SHRA Midtown Manor 20

Sac Self Help Housing Shared Housing Program 88

Shasta Hotel Cooperative Shelter Plus Care 18

Transitional Living Community Support Southside House 9

Transitional Living Community Support WORK 25

Volunteers of America Nova House 12

Volunteers of America Halcyon Place 22

Volunteers of America Harbor House 6

FAMILY NUMBER OF BEDS

AIDS Housing Alliance Steven Place 14

Lutheran Social Services Saybrook 172

MAAP Inc. Las Casitas 2

Sac Area Emergency Housing Center Omega Project 42

Sac Cottage Housing Inc. Serna Village 136

Sac County DHA LaVerne Adolfo PSH 8

Sac County DHA Shelter Plus Care 370

Sac Self Help Housing Shared Housing Program 12

Grand Total Permanent Beds 1,470

Source: SHRA 2006. 1 Transitional housing includes apartment units and support services with residency limited to two years.

Permanent housing has no residency limitation.


9-1 Residential Energy Conservation

CHAPTER 9

RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, residential energy use accounts for about 21 percent of all energy use nationwide,1 although homes in the Pacific region, with its milder climate, use up to 35 percent less energy than homes in other parts of the country. Space heating and cooling account for about 43 percent of residential energy use, followed by water heating (12 percent), and lighting (11 percent).2 Greater energy efficiency in these three residential components would greatly contribute to an overall reduction in energy use.

Opportunities for residential energy conservation exist at all levels: the individual dwelling unit, the residential project, the neighborhood, the community, and the region. As described in this chapter, Sacramento County currently has or will adopt strategies, policies, and programs to address opportunities for energy conservation, including residential energy conservation, at all of these levels. Opportunities for residential energy conservation include:

■ Compliance with minimum energy conservation standards for residential construction and operations (heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration, etc.). California requires cities and counties to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards through state building code standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and through energy efficiency standards for household appliances.

■ Retrofitting of existing homes that are energy inefficient through weatherization, rehabilitation, and the replacement of older appliances.

■ Energy efficient project site planning that takes maximum advantage of natural systems (sun, shade, wind) for lighting, heating, cooling, and generation of electricity.

■ Neighborhood design and layout that encourage alternatives to automobile use through higher density, mixing of uses, greater connections, and street design for all types of mobility.

■ Community and regional growth strategies that emphasize infill development, higher density and mixed-use development along transportation corridors.

■ Neighborhood, community, and regional centers with a mix of employment, housing, retail, and services.

■ The placement of housing for a variety of households and income levels as close as possible to job centers and services.

■ Water conservation, water conserving landscaping, and stormwater management systems that reduce energy use.

State law (Government Code Section 65583[a][7]) requires housing elements to contain an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the energy conservation section of a housing element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage the incorporation of energy saving features, energy 1 Source: U.S. Department of Energy at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf. 2 Source: U.S. Department of Energy at http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs/1.2.3.pdf.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs/1.2.3.pdf


Residential Energy Conservation 9-2

saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development. Housing element policies and programs should address the environmental significance and operational benefits of employing energy conservation in the building and retrofitting of housing. Sacramento County has taken several measures to implement energy conservation programs in residential projects. The building orientation, street layout, lot design, landscaping, and street tree configuration of all residential projects are reviewed to maximize solar access and energy conservation.

GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS

There are many opportunities for conserving energy in new and existing homes. New buildings, by design, can easily incorporate energy efficient techniques into their construction. According to the Department of Energy, the concept of energy efficiency in buildings is defined by the building envelope, which is everything that separates the interior of the building from the outdoor environment: the doors, windows, walls, foundation, roof, and insulation. All the components of the building envelope must work together to keep a building warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

Constructing new homes with energy conserving features, in addition to retrofitting existing structures, will result in a reduction in monthly utility costs. There are many ways to determine how energy efficient an existing building is and, if needed, what improvements can be made. Examples of energy conservation opportunities include installation of insulation and/or storm windows and doors, use of natural gas instead of electricity, installation or retrofitting of more efficient appliances and mechanical or solar energy systems, and building design and orientation which incorporates energy conservation considerations.

Many modern building design methods are used to reduce residential energy consumption and are based on proven techniques. These methods can be categorized in three ways:

1. Building design that keeps natural heat in during the winter and keeps natural heat out during the summer. Such design reduces air conditioning and heating demands. Proven building techniques in this category include:

■ Location of windows and openings in relation to the path of the sun to minimize solar gain in the summer and maximize solar gain in the winter.

■ Use of “thermal mass,” earthen materials such as stone, brick, concrete, and tiles that absorb heat during the day and release heat at night.

■ Use of window coverings, insulation, and other materials to reduce heat exchange between the interior of a home and the exterior.

■ Location of openings and the use of ventilating devices that take advantage of natural air flow (particularly cool evening breezes).

■ Use of eaves and overhangs that block direct solar gain through window openings during the summer but allow solar gain during the winter.

■ Zone heating and cooling systems, which reduce heating and cooling in the unused areas of a home.



2. Building orientation that uses natural forces to maintain a comfortable interior temperature and take advantage of solar heating. Examples include:

■ Incorporate climate responsive design principles.

■ Location of dwellings and windows to take advantage of natural air circulation and evening breezes.

■ Southern exposure of rooftops to increase the potential for photovoltaic panels.

3. Use of landscaping features to moderate interior temperatures. Such techniques include:

■ Use of deciduous shade trees and other plants to protect the home.

■ Use of natural or artificial flowing water.

In addition to natural techniques, a number of modern methods of energy conservation have been developed or advanced during the present century. These include using:

■ Solar energy to heat water.

■ Radiant barriers on roofs to keep attics cool.

■ Solar panels and other devices to generate electricity.

■ High-efficiency coating on windows to repel summer heat and trap winter warmth.

■ Weather-stripping and other insulation to reduce heat gain and loss.

■ Natural gas for dryers, stovetops and ranges.

■ Energy efficient home appliances, including Energy Star© home appliances.

■ Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators to reduce hot water use.

Natural space heating can be substantially increased through the proper location of windows and thermal mass. Use of solar panels can generate 1,000 watts of electricity on a sunny day. This can constitute more than enough power for daily residential operations.

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

The County’s strategies and policies related to energy conservation are shaped by several state, regional, and local initiatives and programs. Among the most important initiatives and programs described in this chapter are:

■ State building code standards for energy efficiency (Title 24);

■ The state’s emerging climate change strategies focused on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, as required by Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006;



■ The Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG’s) Preferred Scenario of the Blueprint Project;

■ The Sacramento County General Plan Update; and

■ The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency’s (SHRA’s) strategies to improve energy conservation in residential neighborhoods and supporting City efforts to increase energy efficiency in older residences and neighborhoods.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Two major state initiatives related to energy conservation are energy efficiency building standards and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (which will require significant improvements in energy efficiency for residential and other developments). These state requirements are described below.

State Energy Efficiency Requirements for New Construction

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains California’s building standards for energy efficiency. Each city and county must enforce these standards as part of its review of building plans and issuance of building permits. The standards, prepared by the California Energy Commission, were established in 1978 in response to a state legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to consider and incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Energy Commission estimates that California’s building efficiency standards (along with those for energy efficient appliances) have saved more than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978. It is estimated the standards will save an additional $23 billion by 2013.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

The California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) and declared that “global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” In adopting the act, the legislature found that human activity is one of the leading contributors to an increase in carbon dioxide, methane, and other “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). The state has declared that these gases are leading to an increase in average global temperatures and contributing to changes in climate throughout the world. The purpose of the act is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (25 percent reduction over current levels) and then to reduce GHGs to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The act is being implemented by the California Air Resources Board and local air pollution control districts. The California Air Pollutions Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which represents local air districts, recently released a report on ways to measure and reduce GHGs at the local level, including steps that cities and counties can take to contribute to the goals of Assembly Bill 32. An important local strategy recommended by CAPCOA is the adoption of general plan policies and implementation measures that encourage energy conserving community layout and design. Many of the recommendations are relevant for residential energy conservation. Among the suggestions are:

■ Promote walkability through a highly connected street system with small blocks.

■ Promote mixed-use neighborhood centers and transit-oriented development.



■ Reduce the amount of water used for landscaping and encourage the use of recycled water for landscaping.

■ Promote the use of fuel-efficient heating and cooling equipment and other appliances.

■ Encourage green building designs in both new construction and building renovation.

■ Encourage building orientations and landscaping that enhance natural lighting.

■ Encourage the expansion of neighborhood-level products and services and public transit opportunities throughout the area to reduce automobile use.

■ Promote energy-efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of light color, roofing, and building materials.

■ Encourage the development of affordable housing throughout the community, as well as development of housing for elderly and low- and moderate-income households near public transportation services.

■ Ensure that a portion of future residential development is affordable to low- and very low-income households.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS’ BLUEPRINT PROJECT

In December 2004, SACOG adopted a preferred scenario for regional growth, called the Blueprint Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario promotes compact, mixed-use development and serves as a framework to guide local government in growth and transportation planning through 2050.3

The core principles of the Blueprint Preferred Scenario are a variety of transportation and housing choices, compact development, use of existing assets (such as infill opportunities), and mixed land uses. Applied together, these principles could result in significant residential energy savings by placing more homes closer to jobs and other daily destinations in a manner that supports more transit use and less reliance on automobiles.

The preferred scenario assumes that a greater proportion of future development, including residential development, will occur as “infill” within already developed areas over the next 40 years than has been the case over the past 40 years. Among the key concepts of the Blueprint Project are that more growth would occur within new mixed-use developments and neighborhoods through building within existing neighborhoods, reuse of older commercial corridors, and intensification in density of the Central City area and through higher-density mixed-use developments around transit stations. By focusing more development, particularly housing, in densely developed neighborhoods and by making the areas denser the closer they are to the center of Sacramento, considerable energy savings will result.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS

In Sacramento County, energy conservation measures are implemented on four levels. The first implementation level is residential energy standards for new housing units required by Title 24 of the State Building Code, as described above.

3 The Blueprint Preferred Scenario also serves as the basis for SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation

Plan for 2035. Further details are available at www.sacog.org/mtp/2035.

http://www.sacog.org/mtp/2035



The County’s Building Inspection Division checks all proposed residential units for design and construction compliance with Title 24 energy standards.

The second implementation level is assuring that subdivisions are designed to maximize passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities. This can be achieved by encouraging the incorporation of techniques to maximize use of solar energy. Passive cooling opportunities are listed and included in the design of lots to allow the appropriate orientation of a structure to take advantage of prevailing breezes or available shade. Passive heating opportunities include design of lots to allow structures to be aligned in an east-west direction for southern exposure. Title 22 of the Sacramento County Code (Land Development Ordinance) requires that “new lots shall be arranged and oriented to maximize use of passive solar energy,” and “upon such presentation (i.e., of a subdivision proposal), the hearing body may request alternate designs to be prepared by the developer, or may deny the submitted map on the basis that the proposal does not maximize effective use of passive solar energy.” In addition, Section 66473.1 of the State Subdivision Map Act requires that the “design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.” Although no precise standards are given, the State Attorney General has issued an opinion that “a tentative map of a subdivision must be disapproved if it fails to meet the design requirement of Government Code Section 66473.1.”

The third implementation level is a zoning amendment, which provides for a 25 percent density bonus to development projects if the following two conditions were met:

■ The project would result in an energy savings beyond those obtained with conventional design and construction techniques.

■ The amount of increased density is proportional to the amount of increased energy conservation achieved that exceeds adopted regulations.

The fourth implementation level for energy standards is weatherization (i.e., to improve conditions of existing structures and to decrease their energy demand), which falls under the title “retrofit.” The most common techniques for increasing building efficiency are: insulation of ceilings, heating-ventilating air conditioning ducts and hot water heaters; weather stripping and caulking; programmable thermostats; low-flow shower heads; window treatment to provide shade (especially on the west side); and furnace efficiency modifications. The County, through SHRA, provides a variety of residential rehabilitation programs to lower income homeowners and renters. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provide programs to maximize energy efficiency in residential buildings. SMUD, SHRA, and PG&E programs are described briefly below.

Sacramento County General Plan Update

In addition to the measures described above, Sacramento County is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to its General Plan. Several key themes of this update will have a positive effect on energy efficiency in Sacramento County:

■ Maintain or improve the character of existing communities. Plan for commercial corridor improvements. Participate in regional planning efforts aimed at implementing more compact land use patterns and an efficient multi-modal transportation system.



■ Infill vacant parcels and intensify development on underused lands where appropriate to maintain or improve the quality, character, and identity of existing neighborhoods and communities, as well as to relieve growth pressure on the urban fringe. The County has identified more than 1,200 acres of vacant land and more than 1,900 acres of underdeveloped land within the developed area of the unincorporated County. The General Plan’s strategy is to maximize development of these parcels, which do not require extension of infrastructure and services into new areas.

■ Create “complete communities” that have a mixture of housing, jobs, and retail amenities to reduce automobile dependence, support local commercial and employment opportunities, and create a jobs/housing balance. The County has designated several areas for mixed-use development, including the Jackson Corridor Planning Area, the West of Watt area, and the Easton area.

■ Stimulate reinvestment in targeted commercial corridors through comprehensive planning efforts with a strong focus on implementation. Fourteen corridors have been targeted for redevelopment with mixed-use, retail, employment, and residential uses. These areas are intended to enhance existing communities and accommodate growth in a compact manner.

■ Provide the infrastructure and conditions necessary to encourage walking and biking as a means of travel, and to support enhanced transit service. The County has designated six transit-oriented development sites, four along the Folsom light rail line (at Watt Avenue, Bradshaw Road, Sunrise Boulevard, and Hazel Avenue), one along North Watt Avenue, and one on Roseville Road.

■ Maintain the Urban Services Boundary as a permanent boundary to urban development. Direct growth toward previously urbanized areas and select new growth areas to reduce sprawling development, strengthen existing communities, relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality, preserve open space and natural resources, protect valuable agriculture and rangelands, and realize economies of scale for infrastructure and services.

To implement these themes, the County will establish new land use classifications for transit-oriented developments and mixed-use corridors. In addition, minimum densities will be used to encourage full build-out of available infill parcels. Encouraging new commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development along existing commercial corridors will improve the mix of housing and job-generating uses, making shorter commute distances possible. New communities will be expected to implement mixed-use growth patterns, resulting in reduced travel needs for work and shopping. All of these land use strategies are expected to result in a more energy-efficient land use pattern than currently exists in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County, with a greater mix of uses and higher density.

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Housing Rehabilitation

SHRA helps to pay the cost of weatherization and certain energy efficient improvements through its housing rehabilitation program. This program helps reduce the operating costs of housing.



Tree Planting Program

SHRA has implemented a tree planting program in consultation with the Sacramento Tree Foundation and SMUD as a form of energy assistance, to provide shade, and to help with neighborhood revitalization.

SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District provides technical and financial assistance for design, construction, and remodeling of housing. For new construction, SMUD offers design and technical assistance for incorporating efficiency features. Incentives may be available for upgrading air conditioning, lighting, and appliances to more efficient systems. SMUD has programs to incorporate advanced systems such as photovoltaic roof panels and ground source heat pumps into new projects. Design assistance is available for retrofit projects.

Other ways in which SMUD works with its residential customers and local jurisdictions to promote energy conservation include (SMUD 2008):

■ Online home energy analysis that allows customers to identify energy waste.

■ Consumer information containing a variety of tips saving energy during winter heating and summer cooling periods.

■ The Peak Corps program in which Peak Corps volunteers allow SMUD to cycle their air conditioners during emergency situations, thereby reducing electricity demand.

■ Free shade trees that help cool homes naturally.

■ The Advantage Homes program that helps homebuyers identify homes that have been engineered and constructed with energy-saving windows, insulation, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.

■ The SolarSmart program that allows residential customers to purchase SolarSmart new homes and reduce their annual energy bills by as much as 60 percent.

■ Consumer information on how to keep pools clean, warm, and energy efficient.

■ The Cool Roof program in which SMUD provides rebates to owners of flat-roof single-family, multifamily or mobile homes who install a reflective white roof coating that reflects the sun’s energy.

■ Rebates to buy down the cost of electric appliances and products to encourage energy efficiency.

CONCLUSION

Sacramento County has taken steps to implement residential energy conservation on four levels: (1) compliance with the state building code standards (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); (2) ensuring that subdivision design maximizes passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities; (3) providing density bonuses to developments that, by project design, conserve energy; and (4) supporting numerous retrofit programs offered by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment



Agencies, SMUD, and PG&E for existing housing units. Energy conservation programs include:

■ Use of energy efficient building techniques in new construction.

■ Replacement of older, energy inefficient appliances with newer, efficient appliances.

■ Retrofitting of existing homes that are energy inefficient through weatherization and rehabilitation.

■ Energy efficient project site planning that takes maximum advantage of natural systems (sun, shade, wind) for lighting, heating, cooling, and the generation of electricity.

■ Neighborhood design and layout that facilitates non-automobile trips.

■ Community and regional growth strategies that emphasize infill development, higher intensity and mixed-use developments along transportation corridors and within neighborhood centers.

■ Water conservation, water conserving landscaping, and stormwater management systems that reduce energy use.

The County implements its strategies through regulatory and incentive programs (for example, zoning, subdivision, and building codes) that promote mixed-use development, infill and reuse, transit-oriented development, subdivision designs that take advantage of natural heating and cooling, and development along the City’s major commercial corridors.

The County collaborates with other agencies to pursue energy conservation programs, including SHRA and SMUD. These collaborations allow residents to access funds for activities such as weatherization, replacement of old roofs and appliances, tree planting, and installation of water conserving devices.


10-1 Preservation of Assisted Housing Units

CHAPTER 10

PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED HOUSING UNITS

ASSISTED HOUSING PROJECTS

In 1989, the California Government Code was amended to include a requirement that local municipalities identify and develop a program in their housing elements for the preservation of assisted, affordable multifamily units. Subsequent amendments have clarified the scope of the analysis to also include units developed pursuant to inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. In the preservation analysis, local municipalities are required to provide an inventory of assisted, affordable units that are eligible to convert within ten years. As part of the analysis, an estimation of the cost of preserving versus replacing the units is to be included, as well as programs designed to preserve the affordable units.

Over the past several decades, thousands of privately owned affordable rental housing units have been constructed in California with the assistance of federal, state, and local funding (loans or grants) that restricted rents and/or occupancy of units to lower income households for specified periods. The County of Sacramento unincorporated area has approximately 112 such assisted rental housing developments, which provide over 8,300 affordable units. In general, once the period of restricted rent/occupancy expires, a property owner may charge market rents for the previously restricted units. There is a threat that low income occupants may have to find alternative housing if rents rise to market levels, although in properties with Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) vouchers, those residents are provided “enhanced” vouchers to subsidize their rent in market rate projects.

Although these projects are required by law to be listed as projects at risk of converting to market rate housing, it is not a very good indicator of whether these units will actually convert. The majority of units included in this list are projects built under Federal Housing Administrator (FHA) mortgage insurance programs in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In addition to the FHA mortgage insurance, most of these projects also included Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) vouchers, which function similarly to locally controlled Housing Choice Vouchers, formerly Section 8. These vouchers allow the owner to collect fair market rent, but restrict occupancy to lower income residents and assure that the resident will only be responsible for that portion of the rent equal to 30 percent of their income. Because these vouchers are contingent on annual appropriations from the federal government, HAP vouchers must be annually renewed. Much of the affordability of these older FHA properties is linked directly to the voucher subsidy, and so technically, the units are constantly “at risk”. Over time, data and experience has shown that many owners have continued to renew their contracts beyond the expiration date, providing further evidence that the link between affordability expiration date and conversion is not inevitable.

The inventory of assisted units required to be reported on in the housing element includes all multifamily rental units regulated by federal, state, and/or local programs. Such units include those developed under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs, tax exempt mortgage revenue bond programs, low income housing tax credits, redevelopment programs, inclusionary housing programs, and density bonus programs that are eligible for conversion to market rate within the next 10 years (2008 to 2018). There are 581 units at-risk for this period in unincorporated Sacramento County.


Preservation of Assisted Housing Units 10-2

Table 10-1 (below) presents a list of housing units which have income restrictions that expire during the planning period for this housing update. The 289 units within the projects considered low risk are those owned by a non-profit housing organization. Many of the 292 units in the “higher risk” category are only in this category because of annual renewal requirements associated with the HAP vouchers described above.

PRESERVATION OPTIONS

In addition to identifying units at risk of converting to market rate housing, Government Code Section 85583(a)(8)(B) requires a comparison of costs to replace lose units through construction or rehabilitation to the cost of preserving the existing units. Preservation of the at risk units can be achieved in several ways, including 1) facilitating a transfer of ownership of these projects to by affordable housing organizations; 2) purchasing of affordability covenants; and 3) providing rental assistance to tenants.

PURCHASE OF AFFORDABILITY COVENANT

The first option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package to owners to maintain the projects as low income housing. Incentives could include restructuring the existing loan, and/or supplementing the HAP fair market rent to market levels, if market rents are substantially more than the HUD allowed fair market rent, and/ or providing a low interest loan or grant to finance project rehabilitation. It is difficult to estimate the cost of purchasing affordability covenants due to the number of variables in such a purchase.

TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP

Long-term affordability of low income units can be secured by transferring ownership of these projects to non-profit or for-profit affordable housing organizations. By doing so, these units would be eligible for refinancing using a range of affordable housing financing programs, including low income housing tax credits and tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds that ensure affordability for at least 55 years from the time of funding. Most of these transactions also include rehabilitation of the project to modernize the property and to extend the useful life of the major systems. Upon review of recently financed preservation projects that have been acquired and refinanced as shown in Table 10-2, the average cost of acquiring and rehabilitating these affordable housing units is $116,300 per unit.

RENT SUBSIDY

Tenant-based subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Similar to Housing Choice vouchers (formerly Section 8), the County, through a variety of potential funding sources, could provide a voucher to lower-income households. The level of subsidy required to preserve at-risk affordable housing through rent subsidies is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a lower-income household. Table 10-3 estimates the rent subsidies required to preserve the housing affordability for a theoretical project with equal numbers of three different prototypical units. Based on the estimates and assumptions shown in the table, approximately $1.2 million annually would be required to preserve the current at-risk inventory of 581 units.



TABLE 10-1 AT-RISK HOUSING UNITS, 2008–2018

PROJECT NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY ZIP JURIS-DICTION

AT-RISK YEAR (LAST YEAR

W/RESTRICTED UNITS)

SUBSIDY/ INSURANCE PROGRAM

TOTAL UNITS

ASSISTED UNITS

Higher Risk Projects

Marconi Woodside 4514 Marconi Ave. Sacramento 95821 County 2009 CDLAC 45 9

Plumwood Apts. 2020 Wright St. Arden Arcade 95825 County 2009 CDLAC 52 11

Summit at Fair Oaks 4440 San Juan Ave. Fair Oaks 95628 County 2011 HUD 70 70

Antelope Ranch Apts. 7400 Watt Ave. North Highlands 95660 County 2013 CDLAC, TCAC, HOME 115 115

Summerwood Apts. 7415 Larchmont Dr. North Highlands 95660 County 2013 HUD, CDLAC, TCAC 62 62

Magnolia Suites 4743 Marconi Ave. Carmichael 95608 County 2016 HOME 39 24

7610 La Mancha Way 7610 La Mancha Way Sacramento 95823 County 2016 CDLAC, HOME 1 1

Total Higher Risk Units 292

Lower Risk Projects

Diakonia Housing 5581Mendocino Blvd., #25 Sacramento 95820 County 2008 HUD 48 48

Eastern Gardens Co-op 3045 Eastern Ave. Sacramento 95821 County 2008 HUD 112 40

Eskaton Jefferson Manor 5959 66th Ave. Sacramento 95823 County 2010 HUD 104 104

Foothill Plaza Apts. I 5324 Hemlock St. Sacramento 95841 County 2010 HUD 100 97

Total Lower Risk Units 289

Source: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 2008.

Notes:

Local Funding Definitions:

CDLAC = Tax exempt bond financing (California Debit Limit Allocation Committee)

HOME = HOME Investment Partnership Program (Federal Funding)

HUD/HAP = Housing and Urban Development/ Housing Assistance Payments Contract

TCAC = Tax Credit financing (Tax Credit Allocation Committee)

TI = Tax Increment

CDBG = Community Development Block Grant funding (Federal funding)

RRP = Rental Rehabilitation Program

Downtown = Downtown redevelopment project area Low-Income Housing Fund



TABLE 10-2 ESTIMATED ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION COST

Preservation Project 1 Number of Units Total Cost Cost/Unit

Casa De Angelo 100 $11,165,000 $111,650

Broadway Seniors Apartments 120 $12,010,00 $100,083

Southcrest Apartments 30 $4,115,000 $137,167

Average 83 $9,096,667 $116,300

Total for all 581 “At Risk” units $67,570,300 1 Projects listed are the three most recent preservation projects funded by SHRA. While they are all located in the City of Sacramento, costs are comparable to those in the unincorporated County of Sacramento.

Source: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 2008

TABLE 10-3 POTENTIAL RENT SUBSIDIES

1 Bedroom

2 Bedroom

3 Bedroom TOTAL

Per Unit Affordable Rent 1

A Low Income (60% AMI) $798 $958 $1,107

B Very Low Income (50%) $665 $798 $923

C Average (A & B) $732 $878 $1,015

D Per Unit Fair Market Rent $805 $982 $1,417

E Monthly Per Unit Subsidy (D-C) $74 $104 $402

F Annual Subsidy/Unit (E * 12) $882 $1,248 $4,824

Total “At Risk” Units 2 193 194 194 581

Total Annual Subsidy 3 $162,228 $229,632 $887,616 $1,279,476 1 Gross rents as allowed under the HOME and low income housing tax credit programs. 2 Assumes 1/3 of total “At Risk” units within each bedroom size. 3 Assumes a 5% vacancy rate. Source: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 2008

REPLACEMENT COSTS/ COST COMPARISONS To estimate replacement housing costs for units potentially lost in the affordable housing market, per unit construction costs of recently approved or constructed projects are used. The land for the projects listed was donated, so the estimated cost does not include the land cost, which would add substantially to the overall project cost (estimated land costs are discussed in Chapter 7, Constraints). Based on costs for recently funded new construction multifamily projects, it is estimated that the average per unit cost is $172,827 as shown in Table 10-4. 2007 SACOG data and other general market data estimates new construction costs between $151,000 and $235,000, within the range of recently approved projects in Table 10-4.



TABLE 10-4 ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST

New Const. Project 1 Number of Units Total Cost 2 Cost/Unit

Vintage at Natomas Field 200 $25,721,800 $128,609

Copperstone Village 103 $20,268,000 $196,776

Willow Glen 135 $29,101,647 $215,567

Norden Terrace 204 $30,672,306 $150,354

Average 161 $26,440,938 $172,827

Total for all 581 “At Risk” units $100,412,487 1 Projects listed are the four most recent preservation projects funded by SHRA. While three of the four are located in the City of Sacramento, costs are comparable to those in the unincorporated County of Sacramento. 2 Costs reflect total project cost less land costs. Land costs would add substantially to the cost and are further discussed in Chapter 7. Source: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, 2008

In summary, the three cost estimating scenarios find the relative preservation costs to be:

• Acquisition and rehabilitation - $67,570,300. • Rent subsidy- $1,279,476 annually or $12,794,760 over ten years. • Replacement through new construction - $100,412,487.

Replacement and preservation of these 581 at-risk units is costly, regardless of the preservation method. Providing a rent subsidy program may appear to be the least costly option. However, because of the many federal and state funding programs available for acquisition, rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing, the cost to the County would be substantially less under either of these options.

RESOURCES FOR PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED HOUSING

There are a number of resources available to finance the acquisition and preservation of existing affordable housing. The most important is HUD’s willingness to renew and extend Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts. The State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has programs available to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency as well as the California Housing Finance Agency underwrite tax exempt bond issuances which developers can then couple with low income housing tax credits. Local funding resources including HOME Investment Partnership Program funding and tax increment funds are available as “gap” funding for developers seeking state and federal funding for preservation activities.

There are several organizations active in the region that have the managerial capacity to own, manage, and have expressed an interested in being notified of the availability of assisted rental housing. These organizations listed in Table 10-5 have expressed interest in participating in the acquisition and preservation of at-risk properties.



TABLE 10-5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING AT-RISK RENTAL HOUSING IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY

COMPANY ADDRESS CITY

Mercy Housing California 3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 200 West Sacramento

Ezralow/Gala Construction Companies

269 Technology Way, suite B-1 Rocklin

John Stewart Company 1388 Sutter Street San Francisco

Community Housing Opportunities Corporation

1490 Drew Avenue, Suite 160 Davis

The Related Companies 18201 Von Karman, Suite 900 Irvine

A.F. Evans Company, Inc. 1000 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland

Sacramento Mutual Housing Association

3451 Fifth Avenue Sacramento

Rural CA Housing Corp. 2125 19th Street, Suite 101 Sacramento

Eskaton Properties, Inc. 5105 Manzanita Ave. Carmichael

Source: Halcon, E. pers comm. 2008.

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions can be made regarding the preservation of assisted housing units in the unincorporated County:

■ A total of 581 units are listed as being at risk of converting to market rate housing due to expiration dates falling within the 2008-2018 time period. As discussed, the expiration date does not directly correlate to actual conversion.

■ The 581 at-risk units are categorized by higher and lower risk based on type of ownership. Higher risk projects are those units within projects owned by profit motivated organizations while lower risk projects are those owned by SHRA or affordable housing organizations.

■ Many projects are annually at risk due to annual renewal requirements associated with the HAP vouchers. But owners have typically extended their contracts. The County and SHRA do not anticipate the conversion of any of these units in the near future.

■ Viable preservation options include providing rent subsidies, acquisition and rehabilitation and new construction of affordable housing units due to federal, state, and local funding sources that are available for these activities. Furthermore, several local affordable housing organizations are available to assist the County in preserving affordable units.


11-1 Community Profile

CHAPTER 11

COMMUNITY PROFILES

This chapter compares population and housing characteristics among 13 of the County’s unincorporated Community Planning Areas (communities). The County has 25 Community Planning Areas. However, this chapter excludes seven planning areas that are located wholly within cities: North Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Downtown, Land Park/Pocket/Meadowview, East City, and Elk Grove. This chapter also excludes planning areas with a large proportion of the population residing in incorporated cities. These planning areas are: Cordova, Franklin-Laguna, Galt, North Natomas and South Natomas. Also, a portion of the South Sacramento Community Planning Area is within the City of Sacramento. The 13 community profiles presented in this chapter compare:

■ Income;

■ Housing Occupancy;

■ Age Distribution;

■ Population Projections;

■ Household Composition by Type; and

■ Racial/Ethnic Distribution.

Community Planning Area locations are presented on Figure 11-1.

INCOME

Table 11-1 provides information on the median household income (2000 Census) and the percent of households which are low-income (households that earn less than 80 percent of the countywide median household income). The median income measure is based on Sacramento County’s 2000 median household income of $52,900 as reported by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), to coincide with the year of 2000 Census. It should be noted that this is $14,300 lower than HCD’s median family income for the County in 2007, as described in previous chapters of this Housing Element.

The Community Planning Areas with the highest median household incomes were Rancho Murieta and Cosumnes (over $65,000). These Community Planning Areas also had the lowest percent of low-income households (under 30 percent). The North Highlands-Foothill Farms planning area had the lowest median household income ($36,110), and in turn, had the highest percent of low-income households (60 percent). Other Community Planning Areas with high proportions of lower income households (over 40 percent) were: Arden-Arcade (49 percent), Rio Linda-Elverta (47 percent), Carmichael (45 percent), and Southeast (42 percent). It must be noted that these conclusions are made from data that is not adjusted for household size – all incomes are compared against the median income of a family of four. Making the adjustment to allow for household size would most likely lower the percentages of lower income households for each community.


Figure 11-1. Community Area Index Map

Community Profile 11-2



TABLE 11-1. INCOME

COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME PERCENT LOW-INCOME 1

Antelope $58,966 29%

Arden–Arcade $45,622 49%

Carmichael $48,557 45%

Cosumnes $69,087 27%

Delta $35,313 52%

Fair Oaks $63,210 32%

North Highlands-Foothill Farms $36,110 60%

Orangevale $60,175 32%

Rancho Murieta $77,236 23%

Rio Linda-Elverta $44,163 47%

South Sacramento $32,709 53%

Southeast $53,340 42%

Vineyard $43,550 33%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 Percent of households who earned less than 80 percent of Sacramento County’s median household income for a family of four ($52,900) based on HUD 2000 income guidelines.

HOUSING OCCUPANCY

The number of housing units within each of the 13 Community Planning Areas in unincorporated Sacramento County in 2000 ranged from 1,627 units in Rancho Murieta to 52,414 housing units in South Sacramento (Table 11-2). Growth and annexation activity in Sacramento County during the period 2000–2006 have changed these figures considerably, but more recent figures by Community Planning Area are not available. According to the 2000 Census, South Sacramento, Arden–Arcade, North Highlands-Foothill Farms, and Carmichael are among the Community Planning Areas that have the greatest number of housing units, while Rancho Murieta, Southeast, Cosumnes and the Delta have the fewest number of housing units.

On the average, the homeowner vacancy rate for a city or county will fall within the range of two to four percent of the total occupied housing units, while the rental vacancy rate usually falls between five and six percent. Homeowner vacancy rates in the Community Planning Areas during 2000 ranged from less than one percent to a high of 12 percent, and rental vacancy rates ranged from a low of one percent to a high of six percent. A possible explanation for differences in vacancy rate might be the income of the community. A low-vacancy rate in homeownership might suggest a community made up of predominantly moderate to above moderate-income groups that can afford to purchase or rent these housing types. A low-vacancy rate in rental housing may demonstrate a community of lower income households who cannot afford to own homes.


TABLE 11-2. HOUSING OCCUPANCY

COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS

VACANT HOUSING UNITS

FOR SEASONAL, RECREATION, OR OCCASIONAL USE

TOTAL HOUSING UNITS

HOMEOWNER VACANCY RATE1

RENTAL VACANCY RATE1

Antelope 11,655 340 21 12,016 1% 3%

Arden–Arcade 42,377 1,663 146 44,186 1% 2%

Carmichael 20,631 709 43 21,383 1% 4%

Cosumnes 2,211 79 18 2,297 1% 1%

Delta 2,087 183 252 2,522 3% 6%

Fair Oaks 12,678 247 33 12,958 <1% 2%

North Highlands–Foothill Farms 27,446 1,137 67 28,650 1% 4%

Orangevale 12,360 274 21 12,655 1% 2%

Rancho Murieta 1,566 52 9 1,627 2% 2%

Rio Linda–Elverta 6,290 215 14 6,519 1% 3%

South Sacramento 50,017 2,363 58 52,414 2% 3%

Southeast 1,697 45 10 1,752 1% 2%

Vineyard 3,900 109 8 4,017 1% 3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 1 The County assumes that homeowners represent owners of single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums, and townhomes and rentals include apartments.

.




The 2000 Census reported minimum variation in vacancy rates for single-family and duplex residences in the community planning areas. The vacancy rates ranged from less than 1 percent to 3 percent. The Delta community had the highest vacancy rate and the Fair Oaks community had the lowest.

Of the 13 Community Planning Areas, none exhibit uncharacteristically high multifamily vacancy rates. However, the 2000 Census reported that the Cosumnes Community Planning Area had an unusually low-rental vacancy rate of one percent. Because this community consists of larger lot single-family agricultural-residential parcels with very few, if any, multifamily units, the area is expected to have a low vacancy rate. All other Community Planning Areas had multifamily vacancy rates between two and six percent.

AGE DISTRIBUTION

A comparison of age groups show a range in median ages among the 13 community plan areas (Table 11-3). South Sacramento and Antelope were the community planning areas with the “youngest” median ages, ranging from 30 to 31 years old. Rancho Murieta, Arden–Arcade, Orangevale, and the Delta were the community planning areas with the “oldest” median ages – ranging from 43 to 49 years old. South Sacramento’s median age of 30 years old was due to a large percentage of the population (45 percent) being under the age of 24 years old. Likewise, Antelope had a disproportionate number of persons under the age of 18. These communities represent areas with larger family households. In contrast, Rancho Murieta’s median age of 49 years old was due to the disproportionate number of seniors and older adults. Also, the majority of households in Rancho Murieta are married couples without children.

According to the 2000 Census, the communities with the greatest number of persons age 65 and over were South Sacramento and Arden–Arcade. These communities are characterized by older well-established neighborhoods with high homeownership and a larger percentage of retirees.

PROJECTIONS

Table 11-4 provides future projections for population, housing units, and employment in each of the 13 Community Planning Areas, as reported by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Projections 2005–2025.

POPULATION

Population projections range from almost no growth over 2000 populations (less than five percent) for North Highlands–Foothill Farms, Arden–Arcade, and Carmichael to substantial growth (more than 150 percent) for Cosumnes and Rancho Murieta through 2025. The areas with slow, or almost no growth projected thru 2025 are all nearly built-out communities with little remaining new residential development potential. However, the communities that are projected to more than double in population are areas with vacant residential land and high development potential.


TABLE 11-3. AGE DISTRIBUTION

COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA UNDER 18 18 TO 24 YEARS 25 TO 44 YEARS 45 TO 64 YEARS 65 AND OVER MEDIAN AGE

Antelope 12,588 2,959 13,574 5,864 1,453 31

Arden–Arcade 20,347 9,942 26,497 21,230 16,065 45

Carmichael 11,600 4,089 13,257 12,313 8,483 40

Cosumnes 1,701 399 1,583 2,018 838 40

Delta 1,186 415 1,325 1,470 902 43

Fair Oaks 7,172 2,218 8,547 9,322 4,455 40

North Highlands–Foothill Farms 23,466 8,431 23,537 14,182 7,403 40

Orangevale 9,068 2,720 9,808 8,541 3,697 43

Rancho Murieta 683 99 793 1,290 778 49

Rio Linda–Elverta 5,963 1,650 5,619 4,466 1,828 35

South Sacramento 56,982 16,642 47,913 28,853 14,606 30

Southeast 1,437 359 1,452 1,447 507 41

Vineyard 3,773 696 4,200 2,499 886 41





TABLE 11-4. PROJECTIONS 2005 – 2025

POPULATION HOUSING UNITS EMPLOYMENT COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Antelope 34,585 37,943 40,364 40,364 40,364 13,110 14,676 15,796 15,796 15,796 3,269 4,494 5,103 5,151 5,168

Arden–Arcade 95,768 96,094 96,306 96,418 96,413 46,160 46,235 46,269 46,323 46,325 55,871 56,144 56,322 56,391 56,459

Carmichael 50,550 51,000 51,245 51,479 51,584 21,109 21,219 21,279 21,354 21,404 10,085 10,213 10,309 10,392 10,405

Cosumnes 6,453 17,497 30,532 40,888 52,844 2,311 6,134 11,062 15,007 19,154 951 1,290 2,170 3,099 4,706

Delta 6,109 6,442 6,789 7,023 7,250 2,561 2,691 2,825 2,914 3,001 1,915 2,214 2,520 2,809 3,111

Fair Oaks 33,413 33,885 34,132 34,353 34,377 13,377 13,561 13,644 13,725 13,734 5,904 5,919 5,927 5,940 5,954

North Highlands–Foothill Farms 75,085 75,551 75,758 75,830 75,829 29,152 29,339 29,421 29,452 29,452 28,739 30,401 32,982 33,366 33,577

Orangevale 29,926 30,855 31,265 31,570 31,716 11,066 11,404 11,560 11,667 11,715 5,283 5,303 5,312 5,323 5,324

Rancho Murieta 4,803 6,306 7,856 10,448 12,094 2,029 2,654 3,306 4,389 5,075 202 202 202 202 202

Rio Linda–Elverta 21,135 22,757 24,626 26,761 29,538 7,118 7,691 8,347 9,098 10,084 2,588 3,022 3,521 3,773 3,973

South Sacramento 162,708 169,398 173,900 176,282 177,442 56,842 59,732 61,643 62,775 63,543 48,176 53,768 56,517 58,381 59,232

Southeast 5,532 5,871 6,123 6,341 6,520 1,864 1,976 2,056 2,130 2,203 567 578 591 605 614

Vineyard 24,045 39,533 54,223 61,516 66,090 9,608 15,652 21,407 2,4153 25,800 4,132 5,945 8,123 9,672 10,476

Source: SACOG 2001.



HOUSING UNITS

The projected number of housing units for each Community Planning Area has a direct connection to the previous discussion of the population projections. In general, communities with little population growth also have fewer housing units projected to be constructed, while communities with substantial population growth between 2005 and 2025 show projections with equally substantial housing unit additions. The Cosumnes Community Planning Area (roughly 17,000 units), is projected to experience the largest numerical gain in housing units between 2005 and 2025.

EMPLOYMENT

SACOG’s employment projections describe the increase in number of projected jobs within each Community Planning Area. Some Community Planning Areas such as Rio Linda, Elverta, Orangevale, Arden–Arcade, Carmichael, and the Southeast are expected to experience moderate employment growth, while other communities such as Vineyard and Cosumnes are projected to double, triple, and even quadruple the number of jobs. The communities that are projected to experience substantial employment growth are also the communities characterized by larger population and housing unit growth and have the ability to physically increase their retail/commercial sector.

HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Household composition provides an important indicator of population characteristics and trends (Table 11-5). According to the 2000 Census, the top three Community Planning Areas with the largest number of households were:

■ South Sacramento (50,089 households)

■ Arden–Arcade (42,370 households)

■ Carmichael (20,631 households)

The 2000 Census reported fewer than 5,000 households in several communities, including Vineyard, the Delta, Cosumnes, Southeast, and Rancho Murieta. However, these are communities that are expected to accommodate significant population growth in the County over the next 20 years.

Cosumnes, Southeast, and Rancho Murieta were composed of roughly 65 to 75 percent married family households in 2000 (the data do not distinguish between married couples with and without children), while Arden-Arcade, South Sacramento, and North Highlands-Foothill Farms were largely composed of non-family households. A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related. South Sacramento, with the largest number of households, had the largest number and highest percentage of both male- and female-headed unmarried family households. Other Community Planning Areas with a larger percentage of female-headed households were North Highlands–Foothill Farms and Arden–Arcade.



TABLE 11-5. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY TYPE

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA MARRIED

COUPLE FAMILY

OTHER FAMILY, MALE

HOUSEHOLDER

OTHER FAMILY, FEMALE

HOUSEHOLDER

NON-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS

Rio Linda–Elverta 3,569 450 890 1,381 6,290

North Highlands–Foothill Farms

12,043 1,912 5,152 8,323 27,430

Orangevale 7,091 643 1,404 3,224 12,362

Arden-Arcade 16,006 1,825 5,274 19,265 42,370

Carmichael 9,629 938 2,657 7,407 20,631

Fair Oaks 7,100 507 1,272 3,798 12,677

South Sacramento 24,414 3,514 10,256 11,905 50,089

Vineyard 2,664 202 365 668 3,899

Delta 1,076 97 182 732 2,087

Cosumnes 1,621 87 137 397 2,231

Southeast 1,211 76 128 284 1,699

Rancho Murieta 1,134 30 53 311 1,528

Antelope 7,273 535 1,534 2,313 11,655


RACE AND ETHNICITY

Table 11-6 provides 2000 Census information on the racial and ethnic makeup of each Community Planning Area. White residents make up the largest proportion of the population in each of the 13 Community Planning Areas. The South Sacramento Community Planning Area represented the most racially diverse area of unincorporated Sacramento County, including the largest Black, Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino populations of any of the Community Planning Areas. North Highlands – Foothill Farms is another community with a large minority population.



TABLE 11-6. RACE

CITY WHITE BLACK NATIVE AMERICAN

ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER

OTHER RACE

TWO OR MORE RACES

HISPANIC OR LATINO

Rio Linda–Elverta 15,991 438 319 664 1,041 1,038 2,256

North Highlands–Foothill Farms

53,478 8,416 986 4,559 4,416 5,166 10,966

Orangevale 30,238 416 368 1,040 563 1,270 2,285

Arden–Arcade 73,286 5,730 908 4,975 4,942 4,944 11,397

Carmichael 43,083 1,338 412 1,918 1,041 1,952 3,479

Fair Oaks 27,944 556 188 1,352 577 1,142 2,012

South Sacramento 58,520 31,977 1,910 39,249 21,044 12,305 39,815

Vineyard 8,011 704 107 1,947 552 732 1,540

Delta 3,643 55 79 379 872 270 1,794

Cosumnes 5,470 161 89 189 334 326 769

Southeast 4,431 55 62 112 343 192 694

Rancho Murieta 3,283 66 14 102 31 107 160

Antelope 23,849 3,671 342 4,569 1,471 2,549 3,908



A-1 Community Meeting Notes

APPENDIX A

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION NOTES

This Appendix contains meeting notes from Community, Focus Group, Stakeholder, and Policy Planning Commission meetings. These meetings provided a forum for public input and comments which guided the preparation of the Housing Element. Meeting summaries are included for the following gatherings:

COMMUNITY MEETINGS:

North Highlands: October, 18, 2007 South Sacramento: October 22, 2007 Sacramento (Unincorporated Area): October 25, 2007 Orangevale: October 29, 2007 Carmichael: November 1, 2007

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS:

Sacramento Housing Alliance: January 4, 2008 Building Industry Association: January 9, 2008 Special Needs Groups: January 28, 2008 Conservation/Preservation: February 4, 2008 Affordable Housing/Constraints: February 11, 2008

OTHER PUBLIC MEETINGS:

Policy Planning Meeting: March 11, 2008


Sacramento County Housing Element 2008-2013 Update Community Meeting Notes

North Highlands 10/18/2007 North Highlands Community Center 6:30-9:00PM Participants 4 community members 4 County planners 3 EDAW planners

Housing and User Types Affordable Housing

• Affordable housing for graduates, students, entry level young adults • Overcrowding to be able to afford housing

o Ethnic groups- live together to save money in order to send money home • Provide spots for manufactured housing on lots as affordable housing • Need manufactured home parks or mobile home parks

o Constraint for existing manufactured home movement • Those on SSI = poverty level, can’t afford housing at current rates

Transitional Housing

• Potential concern with transitional homes located in the neighborhoods in which residents of transitional homes may have originated- feeling that these individuals would benefit from being removed from their previous environments

• Transitional housing located near transit; or in industrial areas for jobs • Remove those in transitional housing from their original neighborhoods (reduce

recidivism) Seniors

• Seniors/disabled/low-income households need transportation access for: o Doctors o Shopping o Socializing o Meetings (support groups, rehab, etc) o Social network support (babysitting, informal work, etc) o Social services (food pantries, administrative offices)

• North Highlands NEEDS more senior/accessible housing infrastructure; locating housing near transit

• Age in place- variety of housing options within neighborhoods (good if income fluctuates due to job loss)

• Mobile homes for seniors Accessible Housing

• Unmet needs for disabled, low-income; lots of bureaucracy, high fees; people with poor rental records

• Need accessible homes o All have one step; take that step out for accessibility

• Disability housing- accessible and affordable • Incentives for new developments for accessible/universal design

Community Meeting Notes A-2


Density Types Single-Family Housing

• Tried to just ‘mix-up’ the low density Multi-Family Housing

• Bring neighborhoods up- medium density High Density

• Affordable high density would be better supported if mixed throughout • Higher density along main roads • Break up higher density affordable housing (spread out, not concentrate)

Housing Development Funding

• Assistance loans/programs come with too many strings to make them worth the effort • Fees, levies, taxes expensive to start up with manufactured housing • Constraints to developers in building affordable housing • Bureaucracy- not approving what can be built • Fees are expensive • Small developers or owners need more help with impact and permit fees if rezoning is

difficult Design

• Need transitions and buffers between low and high density Placement

• Seniors/disabled need transit for access • Placed medium densities throughout; attempted to ‘bring up’ lower income

neighborhoods • Homeless are in need of more housing- provide space in manufactured home parks for

low-income houses • Spread out higher and lower density • Affordable single-family near grocery\ • Market rate in low income areas to provide this option to low income residential

Miscellaneous

• Need a variety of income levels to support a variety of amenities • Mix of income cause conflicts vs. there needs to be a mix of incomes • Need mix so retail will move in when income base is there; support amenities • Assist small lot owners- work on how to best make use of property with County staff

Miscellaneous Transportation/Infrastructure

• Transit!!! o Neighborhood shuttles- local transit at peak commute times

• Need accessible streets Mapping Exercise Comments

• If the board had been blank, probably would have clustered; especially around schools and community centers and the transportation corridor

• If allowed, participants would have placed most housing options along transit corridors/intersections at center of board



o More around schools/parks o Create communities- independent living centers

• Not all rich neighborhoods necessarily have rich people Concerns

• Fear of gentrification • Low income does not = crime • Those down in luck- lost job, got evicted, can’t get new housing because of eviction

notice • Larger percentage of population needs affordable housing • Extremely low income residents need housing

General

• Homeless needs housing • Working poor = construction workers • Also need housing for singles or domestic partners to live together • Preventative programs- assist before it’s too late • Town centers are good • Assistance for low income to stay in home




South Sacramento 10/22/2007 Sheriff’s Service Center 6:30-8:45 PM Participants 5 community members 4 County planners 2 EDAW planners 1 SHRA employee

Mapping Exercise and Group Discussion Comments Combined

Housing and User Types Affordable Housing

• Disperse affordable housing throughout the county • Try to mix affordable housing into community • Goal to equally distribute affordable housing throughout county • Put lower density affordable housing near transit in town ‘A’; already has high density

affordable • Affordable housing is relative • For-sale affordable in town ‘D’ to provide opportunity to move up into existing market

for-sale units • Does affordable housing decrease property values? • Locate affordable housing close to amenities

o Transit o Commercial

• Affordable homes should be similar in size to market rate units(especially for inclusionary-size parity); not larger homes for wealthier people

• Shouldn’t be able to say where to put affordable housing if it isn’t in your own neighborhood

• Develop in places where Regional Transit will extend light rail Transitional Housing

• One transitional housing development per neighborhood Homeless Shelter

• Overlapping housing, service and amenities needed for homeless population • Homeless (choice vs. circumstance)

Seniors

• Ask senior population what housing types they want • Co-housing clusters • Need to consider maintenance, yard issues • Variety of income levels, variety of types • Convalescence homes • Benefits of Prop 13- allows seniors to stay in their home • Segment of seniors that want downtown housing



• Include grocery in housing (small stores in clustered developments/large developments)

Accessible Housing

• Ensure accessibility considered- and does not conflict w/ affordability?

Density Types High Density

• Concerns over integration of higher density housing in existing neighborhoods o Design review oversight to help alleviate o Protection of farmland-prevent sprawl

• Concern that high density = crime o Or are there pockets of crime everywhere?

• No high density development next to single-family homes; people on a 3rd floor apartment can look into windows of neighboring single-family detached units

Housing Development Design

• Integration of all new development in existing neighborhoods • Importance of design and integration with existing neighborhoods • Smaller houses

o Does this equate to affordability? o Allows accommodating more people on less land which equals less sprawl o Government should regulate housing size to ensure smart growth, less sprawl

• Concern over function of design

Placement • How to protect green field sites • Protection of existing neighborhoods • No infill, and no green field development either; there are enough foreclosed

properties, we don’t need to build more

Miscellaneous Concerns

• Concerns re: emancipated youth housing/services • How to ensure quality housing for homeless and service dependent populations • Concern over hypothetical exercise as not indicative of ‘real world’ Sacramento

County • Need housing (not in any specific order)

o Emancipated foster youth o Emancipated group home youth o Recent college graduates o Poor people- ELI (30% AMI or less) o Developmentally disabled o People living on fixed income, SSI o Seniors o Retirees, pensioners o New immigrants (legal or illegal) vs. Legal Immigrants o Farm workers o Mentally disabled

• Government shouldn’t play this role (directing real estate market)- let market go



General • Make maps legible when showing where projects could go (PIN #’s don’t help the

average person to understand where affordable projects might go) • Could a focus group be held in Arden Arcade? • Positive neighborhoods

o Neighbors know each other; support; tight-knit street o Demographics- re-colonization of older neighborhood; access to amenities o Complete neighborhood: design-natural traffic calming (no sidewalks); parks

and schools; close to everything o Front porch neighborhood; neighbors know each other




Sacramento (Unincorporated Area) 10/25/2007 Smedberg Middle School 6:30-9:00PM Participants 7 community members 2 County planners 3 EDAW planners

Mapping Exercise and Group Discussion Comments Combined

Housing and User Types Affordable Housing • Put affordable in D, but placed types that the neighborhood might accept such as single-

family (SF) • Didn’t add more dense affordable in A Transitional Housing • Next to affordable Multifamily (MF) so they can transition into it • Near transit • Spread them across 4 neighborhoods • Near commercial/grocery Homeless Shelter • Need access to transit • Don’t need location near schools (safety concerns) • Locating in poor neighborhood stigmatizes them both • Homeless shelter shouldn’t be near community center

o Community center has school activities It also has AA/narcotics rehab meetings too

• Homeless shelter should be in Agricultural Lands • Don’t put homeless shelter in industrial site

o No ‘eyes on the street’ at night Burglary Vandalism ‘Dirty deeds’

o Far from transit/services • Homeless shelter needs to be near services

o In commercial area o Near light rail o Near community center

Seniors • Seniors and condos can get along



Density Types Single-Family Housing • Starter homes for young couples • Market rate SF in low-income neighborhoods won’t sell • Don’t want to build market rate SF on thoroughfare or next to industrial

o Better place for lofts/MF • Build market rate SF in Agricultural (Ag.) Lands in neighborhood B

o ‘Bring up’ neighborhood with 20 new homes (5-6 dots) o Ignite interest in the rest of neighborhood B

• Stabilize neighborhood B with market rate SF Multi-Family Housing • Neighborhoods C + D don’t have any MF affordable yet • Locating MF affordable in C + D will be long, hard battle • Is zoning compatible in this exercise: could MF really be put in center of a SF

neighborhood? • 65th St. Market Station as a positive example: affordable and market rate should look the

same • Can’t put 3 highest density affordable developments in neighborhood D • Low-income seniors have unique needs

o Noise sensitivity o Mobility concerns/proximity preferences

Stores Grocery Community center Transit

• Place near: o Parks o Schools o Grocery

• Transitions in scale High Density • High density near school, services, transit • High density towards core, low density on periphery

Housing Development Design • Similar architecture to surrounding buildings

o ‘Edgy’ MF affordable design on transit line because it already is not compatible • Something that suits ‘upscale’ neighborhood surroundings Placement • Infill before using Ag. Lands • Access is good; it drove our placement • Tried not to concentrate housing types in neighborhoods • Maximized use of infill sites

o Greenfield development still has its place • Tried to preserve property values • Can’t put new homes in 50 year old neighborhood Miscellaneous • Keep balance between price points; property values won’t drop as much as assumed



Miscellaneous Other Mapping Exercise Comments • Units were placed in following order:

o Transitional o MF affordable o SF affordable o MF market rate o SF market rate o Homeless shelter

Concerns • Bank-owned homes due to foreclosure

o Look old; no upkeep General • Positive neighborhoods

o Rolling terrain o Lower density o Narrower streets o Comfortable residential sub-divisions

With easy access to other places o Trees- shade o Seamless mix of densities

Duplexes with SF No duplex rows

o Across from cemetery- quiet neighbors o Serenity- peaceful backyard garden; pond; kids in neighborhood o Close to coffee shops, parks, gas stations, schools o Have ‘cocoon’, but have services/activities nearby




Orangevale 10/29/2007 Orangevale Community Center 6:30-9:00PM Participants 12 community members 5 County planners 2 EDAW planners

Mapping Exercise Comments Housing and User Types Affordable Housing

• Keep affordable housing spread throughout communities • Lots of affordable housing near light rail stations • Affordable housing near commercial use to help revitalize it

o Also near school and community park • Each community should have its fair share of affordable • 5 year goal- balance communities in terms of affordable housing • Affordable housing

o Cluster or spread out? Which is better? o Spreading out may be easier for community to accept

• Should all affordable be placed near transit? • Should be evenly distributed in all 4 neighborhoods

Transitional Housing

• Transitional housing o Near transit o One in each community o None in really poor community o Along major streets where transit is available

• Transitional housing occupants may need transit options o Light rail/grocery access

• Transitional near light rail/community center/jobs • Transitional concentrated in neighborhood A

o Maybe that isn’t fair –move 2 to D • Transitional near commercial, major road, light rail

Homeless Shelter

• Homeless shelter o Near transit, industrial, commercial o Should it be near a park?

• Homeless shelter near work also • Homeless shelter in industrial • Homeless shelter near transit and jobs



Seniors • Senior housing

o Mobile home parks with community centers o Single story o Community, services

• Seniors don’t necessarily want to live next to school

Density Types Single-Family (SF) Housing

• Affordable SF should not be near industrial • Market rate SF

o Near existing SF, grocery store, near park • SF (mixed-income) near educational institutions so kids can walk • In all SF neighborhoods:

o Place affordable SF to match density? o Place market rate MF to match price? o Market rate SF is best; matches density and price

• Put SF market rate on transit corridor (N/S) • Market rate SF was placed for neighborhood compatibility

o Bring up deteriorating neighborhood • Affordable SF was spread evenly around

Multi-Family Housing

• Affordable MF near grocery store • Affordable town homes/condos near underdeveloped commercial • Market rate MF

o To revitalize commercial o Near college o Near park

• MF affordable housing in D near school/park • Medium density affordable in D near other park so residents can enjoy park amenity • Affordable MF near main roads • Market rate MF close to school, park, light rail commercial • Affordable MF spread out to C + D near transit, park, school • Market rate town house/condos near grocery stores, parks, light rail, commercial

High Density

• Tried to not place much high density affordable in poorer community • Use underutilized commercial for higher density • High density around transit • Put high density uses around grocery stores • Densest uses near light rail

o Commercial and industrial right next to rail o Housing pulled back to protect against noise

• Community C grocery should get high density housing o Has underutilized commercial already

• High density residential usually placed near grocery store o Except one in B

Housing Development Design

• No higher than 3 stories in suburbs



Placement • Infill over sprawl • Keep undeveloped Ag undeveloped • If developed in Ag area, should stay near major road

Miscellaneous

• Owners of underutilized property may not want housing on their land • Make infill easier • Form based codes- misconceptions create opposition

Miscellaneous Other Mapping Exercise Comments

• Percentages in presentation did not match stickers for exercise, why? • SF stickers promote green field development • Where’s the mixed-use/mixed density?

General

• Houston and Sacramento look the same; even without zoning o Development pattern depends on street design/lot width




Carmichael 11/01/2007 La Sierra Community Center 6:30-9:00PM Participants 9 community members 6 County planners 2 EDAW planners

Mapping Exercise and Group Discussion Comments Combined Housing and User Types Affordable Housing

• Neighborhood A took most affordable/transitional housing because it had most compatible uses (not because it was poor)

o Light rail stops (available properties near them) o Industrial o Existing affordable housing o Commercial (available properties near/in them)

• Affordable by transit o Mixed use by transit as well

• Too much pressure on neighborhoods to retain affordable housing o Locate affordable housing

• Intent was to spread affordable around; didn’t work o Let transit dictate placement instead; land use too

• Don’t push affordable into suburbs/areas requiring infrastructure extensions o SHRA should rehab older properties (infill)

• Don’t cluster around existing affordable housing Transitional Housing

• Define transitional housing between battered women vs. released prisoners, etc • Educate ‘needy’ on resources/services available to them • Transitional (domestic violence shelter)

o Near school, park o Too close to homeless shelter

• Group homes (especially elder care) compatible with neighborhood residential o More so than other transitional types

Homeless Shelter

• Homeless need services o Consider management of shelter and buildings

• Concern that homeless are dangerous • Homeless shelter near school or industrial? • Homeless shelter can go in mixed-use

o Access to everything



Seniors • Senior- near amenities and transit • Senior mixed use • Senior variety • Senior living above post-offices and Starbucks near Carmichael park • Both apartments and SF cottages for seniors • Think about baby boomers need for housing and services • Protection from developers buying land from seniors

o Cheating seniors from ownership • Educating seniors on fair market value • 1 BR affordable/smaller units • Conversions-run down apartments into senior condos

o ADA costs are high though • Only have senior facilities in Carmichael, not small units where they can afford to live

on own

Density Types Single-Family Housing

• Single family (SF) affordable in the far boundaries of C and D ok • Parks good for SF market rate • Put SF in SF neighborhood, not high density MF

o Even if SF is affordable • Provide incentive by keeping areas exclusive

o Encourage mobility via work o Don’t let others move into C and D o Cycle affordable instead

Multi-Family Housing

• Town home density as a way to make communities affordable o Density not always affordable

• Medium density near parks o They don’t have their own green space o Residents could utilize parks

High Density

• High density placed near corridors because of General Plan Update conversations (participant learned this strategy from listening to GPU meeting discussions)

o Mixed-use is planning for the future o What will area look like in 40-yrs; where is growth/concentration best

directed? • Easiest to start at the light rail terminus

o High density use: near transit/grocery • Transit stop surrounding uses should be high density • Placed majority of high density uses on transit roads (E/W) • Public use by light rail terminal?

o ie pavilion/park space o More high density there or add lower density too?

Housing Development Funding

• Infrastructure and permitting eat up affordable $$’s o Fix up run down apartments into affordable condos

• Revitalization of affordable housing rather than build new



o SHRA partner for renovation • Problem with incentives for affordable housing developments

o Developers would rather buy their way out of the requirement o Pay $10,000 per unit un-built (according to 7% affordable law)

Their penalty payment can’t develop affordable housing any better in HCD’s hands

Trade-off is: build units as required and take large financial hit (build for $100,000 sell for $79,000 = $21,000 loss) or pay $10,000 for each un-built required unit…better to pay penalty in almost every instance

• Some housing fund $$ should rehab dysfunctional affordable housing Operation

• Effective affordable property management o Screening tenants o Evicting problem tenants o On-site services o Structured activities- create sense of community

Design

• Affordable housing amenities/design o Mix in transit area corridors o Trees o Wide sidewalks o Seating areas o Safety features (ie lighting, especially near transit) o Signals o Single story, no stairs for seniors

• Variety of design and amenities for ease Placement

• Considering distance and walkability especially for homeless and transitional o close to business; used as placement criteria near transit and grocery

• Where are social services? o Could be used as placement criteria

• Where is the medical facility? • Mixed use (like 19th and R- Safeway plaza in Sacramento)

o Apartments on top of commercial o Could be used in Marconi/Walnut area o How do you have urban design elements in suburbia?

• Want to see mixture of uses and groups especially to protect school areas Miscellaneous

• There are underutilized sites all along transit corridor o Also near schools

• Concentrate housing near jobs • Isolated developments

o Incorporate into community • Use existing infrastructure

Miscellaneous Transportation/Infrastructure

• Transportation across community lines o More transit lines o With better security



o More frequent o Better coordination o More direct lines rather than transfers

• Bike lanes o Separated bike way protected by median o Dedicated bike paths/roads- long distance

• Infrastructure is inadequate to support high density development along commercial corridors

o Stumbling block for future growth • Transit integration necessary

o Light rail needs to be extended (expedited too) Not buses

Other Comments

• Concern that this is only theoretical • Concern that all poor will be forced into community A • Why is the exercise imaginary? • Need a mixed-use property type

Concerns

• No regulatory body • Consistency in zoning and neighborhoods • Corridors with higher density but currently inconsistent with SF • Preserve rural feeling of Carmichael with NPAs • Make sure zoning works • County does not have right to force revitalization

o Can rezone land; make upgrades easier/more attractive o Cannot require improvement/mixed-use on commercial property

• Arden Arcade already has too much affordable • Carmichael’s apartment complexes

o Unplanned o Disconnected

• Plenty of apartments already • Need mixed-use housing

o We have the corridor already • Focus on existing stock/existing community



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Focus Group Meeting with the Sacramento Housing

Alliance January 4, 2008; 8 a.m.

Priorities:

Extremely Low-Income (ELI), Very Low-Income (VLI), and Low-Income (LI) housing – focus on funding to tackle the requirement for these groups

Production of units is important- focus on production without income differentiation; figure out how to meet the difference between RHNA requirement and 15 percent inclusionary requirement

Engage employers to assist with housing development Cannot rely on Federal funding, look to local/state funding Streamlining housing development process would be very helpful Look into permitting creative/alternative housing types such as rooming houses- there

are some small developers that are interested in developing these types of housing, to meet ELI housing requirement

Modification of affordability requirements for home ownership programs Measure actual number of ELI households rather than take the 50 percent allowed by

the state Siting of housing is important- near services, transit, etc. allows the leveraging of

funds to be able to produce housing Tax liens- work with the Board to support this process, coordinate with Building

Industry Association Entitled land may be helpful Make accessibility standards more explicit Need more subsidized housing Need more accessible shelters that allow opposite sex to care for person



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Focus Group Meeting with the Building Industry

Association January 9, 2008

8:30 am County should focus on:

How to distribute the cost of affordable housing production throughout the community. How the county can reduce the cost of housing production Streamline housing development process Using existing housing stock to meet extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-

income housing requirements



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Focus Group Meeting- Housing for Special Needs Groups

January 28, 2008 12:30 to 2:30 Meeting Notes

Suggested policies or programs:

Survey and create a list of accessible units throughout the County. Could start with SHRA retrofit program.

Look into alternative housing resources for housing for special needs groups such as at closed military bases or acquiring abandoned and/or foreclosed homes

Review accessory unit provision to change permitted 400 square feet to 600 square feet or work with lenders to provide funding to build 400 square foot accessory units.

Focus efforts on accessibility improvements in existing housing Look into parking reductions for special needs housing Need greater resources for improvements to existing housing to allow for aging in place Invest in accessible neighborhood vans Adopt and implement universal design standards Review procedures for acquiring Housing Vouchers- onerous Need program to address substandard housing like the City’s Rental Inspection program Partner with colleges to provide affordable student housing

General Comments:

Ensure that accessibility improvements are permanent, not temporary Think of creative ways to pursue funding Think of ways to reduce NIMBISM through ministerial approvals Need education and political support for affordable housing Housing needs to be within proximity to services Need to make link between seniors and persons with disabilities Need to be mindful about people who speak other languages and translating housing

information in various languages. Need sidewalks in existing neighborhoods to have better accessibility and connectivity Not only look at housing but transportation and infrastructure barriers Include info on senior homeless population if available Wide streets are hard to cross Take out the one step design of new housing, makes it not accessible



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Focus Group Meeting - Conservation/Preservation

February 4, 2008 Housing type suggestions

Use and permit mobile homes and manufactured homes for affordable housing Provide smaller units for seniors Houseboats may be an alternative housing type. Think about co-housing (cooperative housing model) with existing housing as way to

increase home ownership. Develop or convert more housing into condos. Allow for rooming houses and boarding homes- conserve existing

vacant/abandoned/foreclosed homes and allow for flexible habitation.

Program suggestions Develop a mandatory rental inspection program (proactive inspections)-[Mentioned

several times during the meeting, see bullet point as well] Prevention of housing deterioration, through proactive rental inspection program and

community building by identifying specific neighborhoods (work with neighborhood associates, target specific areas)

Develop and require mandatory management training for rental property managers and owners

Survey property owners- assessment of rehabilitation need Offer free inspections with assistance options (some thought this is rewarding bad

landowners). Providing assistance for apartments would be more costly than for single-family homes.

Include Extremely low-income (ELI) groups in programs o Require a percentage of units rehabilitated to be accessible and be available to

ELI o Include ELI in new mixed income projects

Encourage development of second units through legalizing already constructed second units and conversion of spaces to second units.

Assist with aging in place (units that are adaptable) Assist in providing affordable housing to veterans Universal design in rehabilitation/conservation Rezone single-family zoned areas to allow for higher density and co-ops. Include energy conservation, green and sustainable building practices.

Suggestions for what the County should focus on for the next five years

Conserve existing character of neighborhoods Focus on conservation/preservation over new development Encourage rehabilitation assistance through volunteer groups such as Habitat for

Humanity or clean –up or painting events Encourage infill development in older neighborhoods as a way to mix housing types and

enhance older neighborhoods Develop complete neighborhoods with retail, services, transportation and

infrastructure is needed with housing. Encourage neighborhood gardens, parks to enhance/conserve neighborhoods. Policy suggestion- Value less dependency on vehicles, i.e. target rehab in areas that

rely less on vehicle travel. Continue to preserve older buildings Convert existing buildings to affordable housing Make sure transportation is available



Rehabilitate existing housing Spread out rentals or create more balanced neighborhoods. When rehabbing an

apartment building in an area concentrated with them, consider converting to ownership housing.

Create mixed income neighborhoods rather than mixed income projects. Okay to better utilize existing spaces as long as quality and amenities remain (such as

open space, common open space areas are not removed for the addition of units)



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Focus Group Meeting – Affordable Housing /Constraints

February 11, 2008

Affordable Housing Discussion Participants identified concerns regarding the current inclusionary ordinance. Some felt it might not achieve its goal if developers are allowed to dedicate land rather than actually build affordable units. The location of set-aside land and constructed affordable units was also questioned, with the suggestion that their location is critical to the success of an affordable housing development. Access to public transit was noted as necessary. The role of public transit in housing development was also discussed. Participants felt that the County should work closely with RT to encourage further light rail development. Some participants believed that constructing transit is the first step, to be followed by transit-oriented developments with affordable housing components. Services and amenities will follow transit. Many suggestions were made regarding housing types and ownership structures that could be explored to offer a range of options for all income levels. Promoting infill-type developments, rehabilitating non-residential buildings for residential uses, and addressing the growing foreclosure housing stock were widely discussed. Less common options were also mentioned, including boarding houses, second units, cooperative housing developments, and limited equity structures. One participant noted that the need to produce affordable housing is not unique to Sacramento or even California, and recommended that the County look for global best-practices for further ideas. The need to develop accessible units that are also affordable was raised by several participants. It was suggested that available funding for accessible projects would be best spent on affordable projects rather than upscale developments. Some participants discussed options to support developers in their efforts to construct affordable units. Reducing parking standards was mentioned frequently since the provision of parking is such a large expense, especially for infill development projects. The need for an equitable fee structure was identified. Some participants felt that development fees, which increased dramatically during the construction boom, are now a constraint to new development. Inclusionary ordinance • Land dedication does not produce housing; developers should not be able to opt out of

actual construction Construction is occurring

Land dedication is small part of option; many developers choose to construct on-site

It is a market-driven vehicle and construction has slowed recently Current ordinance leads to development of ghettoes

Needs to produce mixed-income/mixed-type development; not enclaves of affordable housing

• Geographic distribution of set aside sites Near transit? Well-connected to transit (ie no highways as a barrier, sidewalks present, etc)



Public transit • Cannot get transit until units are built and units won’t get built without transit – vicious

cycle Significant number of affordable units built in already developed areas – infill • Transit first is attractive to market forces Helps bring in amenities/services which would not otherwise locate near affordable housing developments, even though some ‘experts’ say services will materialize after housing has been established – this is not true of affordable housing • Transportation policy is related to parking standards Want County to do more to help lower income families accrue equity (in the form of transportation savings) that can be put towards down payment on house

With a comprehensive public transportation system, people would have the option to not purchase a car as soon as they saved enough money; this money could then be saved further and used for a down payment on an ownership unit

Housing element goals Did County achieve goals from last housing element? – No Does deficit rollover into new element? – No RHNA numbers are important, but so are programs/policies that address current housing need Affordable options to consider • Look into rehab for abandoned housing – plenty available to choose from • Encourage second units Supports affordable rental housing Resistance to second units because ordinance cannot guarantee who will use them: mom/dad vs. unknown renter The County may need to adapt their ordinance to be more lenient with requirements; balance this with community apprehension towards second units/change in their neighborhoods

Fannie Mae etc. will not fund second units under 600 sf; County’s second unit ordinance only allows 400 sf units without a permit

• Provide incentives for infill development to increase density for public transit purposes • Boarding houses as an option – bring back other older concepts

What are barriers to boarding homes? Financing is available; is there just no interest in developing them or are there fundamental barriers that need to be addressed first?

• Conversion of underutilized non-housing units to affordable rent/for sale units • Co housing What’s between rental and ownership? Co housing example in Sacramento is not an affordable option; but it is another possible layer for housing development • Buy foreclosed homes in bulk and resell to lower income buyers

Finance program through bond initiative • Limited equity co-ops Shared ownership: own house not land



• Best practices for affordable housing from around the world Don’t re-invent the wheel Building standards are a State issue

What flexibility does the County have in applying the state building codes? Harness creativity in building industry to create affordable housing solutions Accessible units • Universal design in new construction – the percentage of accessible units needs to be

increased • Use available disability funding to fund affordable housing for disabled residents Don’t use this money to develop high-end, accessible units; they don’t need financial help Support for developers • Reduce cost to developers through relaxed development standards and provide financial

incentives • Higher densities • Parking

Allow tuck under parking Parking is being explored to reduce ratios where appropriate • Reduced set back requirements • Assembling parcels with different owners is a challenge – can the County help in any way? Miscellaneous • Political will to develop affordable housing is an issue Needs to be multilateral agreement that affordable housing development is a priority and projects will be sped through the approval/permitting process by every agency involved • Strict vacancy rates for conversions • How can you create funding to support special services? – ie mental health services for

homeless population Divert portion of hotel funding • Nexus study on impact fees Could raise fees quite high, but what would be acceptable?



Constraints Discussion Participants identified the permitting process as a large constraint to the development of housing. There was discussion of inconsistent requirements across the various departments, with special concern for conflicting codes regarding fire safety and public utilities. It was suggested that a development code update could lead to streamlined permitting. Building codes are also slow to adapt to changing technology and building materials/products, which is viewed as a possible constraint to the increased development of ‘green’ buildings. Development fees were also viewed as a constraint. They increased greatly during the construction boom, when developers were willing to pay much more to get their projects completed. The economic downturn has forced developers to look more closely at expenses. Most fees are assessed on a per unit basis, as opposed to per square feet, which limits developers’ ability to minimize fee impacts on their own by building smaller units. Some participants suggested reviewing development fee timing so that developers do not need to have as much cash on hand at the start of the process. The need for an equitable fee structure based on marginal costs was also discussed. Participants also indicated their concern regarding zoning variances and the variance process. The need to prevent clearly incompatible variances from reaching the CPAC level was mentioned. It was suggested that simplified design guidelines and neighborhood compatibility guidelines could help to achieve this. Additionally, the County’s second unit ordinance, although compliant with State requirements, may still present a constraint to this type of development. The County adopted the most conservative ordinance allowable, and may explore amending it to become more lenient. Permitting process • Streamline permitting through development code update • Entitlement matrix is easy to understand Criticism is ‘passivity’ of project manager • Plan check process is difficult to see where the hang up is

Make more transparent like the entitlement matrix

• Special assessment Based on the bond market • Fire department certificate of occupancy

Conflicting codes are a constraint Need to coordinate with building inspector to make fire demands transparent and

predictable Don’t forget what code is for: to evacuate people safely/save lives • Public utilities Similar to Fire department comment: developers need to know components/needs of public utility requirements before plans get stamped – no surprises • Codes don’t keep up with how we can/should build homes New technology/green building products • Technical requirements lead to publicly undesirable projects



Net development area can be forced to develop more densely than surrounding uses; even if gross density is still within land use classification

e.g. Deduct vernal pools, infrastructure requirements, set backs, etc; the amount of leftover land forces higher net density development to make the project pencil out

Fees • Fees used to be 10% of land cost, now they are around 90% In bad economic times, the County should look at fees more openly Need more money from the general fund to stop relying on fees • Need an equitable fee structure based on marginal cost of services for new development

Cannot continue to charge 100% cost recovery for new units and 20% for existing development

• Fee timing may be a constraint to development

For smart growth projects, fees are due up front and cannot be recuperated until every unit has sold

Adjusting the schedule so that developers need less cash on hand might promote development during down cycles as well • Fees established on per unit basis leave no room for reduction, compared to per square

feet fees Zoning variances • Stop ‘oddball’ proposals earlier in the variance process (before CPAC level), especially for

interior lots Variances may be appropriate on corner lots/edge of development

• There should be standards that clearly indicate if someone’s variance proposal is worth

their (and everyone else’s) effort County has done design guidelines Neighborhood compatibility guidelines are in the works

• Can you generalize ‘compatible’ so guidelines are not hundreds of pages long? • The County is compliant with State requirements for second unit development, but they

adopted the most conservative policy possible Maybe they should ‘tinker’ with the policy to encourage further development of second units Miscellaneous • County has an infill coordinator

Looking at what makes ‘good’ infill projects • Special districts slow down the development process Make housing more expensive Maybe infill coordinator can look into this



County of Sacramento Housing Element Update Policy Planning Commission Meeting

March 11, 2008 6 p.m.

Comments and Questions by the Policy Planning Commission

Land inventory and the County’s adequate sites analysis. More information will be provided at the March 25hth meeting. Will the County have an issue with HCD compliance this time around? No.

Parking requirements. Concerned with reducing parking requirements for projects that need the parking. Reduction of parking would be for specific projects that meet a set of criteria such as senior housing near public transit. Need these clear standards and directions to avoid any tension between parking requirement and project parking needs.

Density bonus- try to provide incentives for developers to build the units rather than pay in lieu fee.

Promote Energy efficiency. Make sure requirement is consistent throughout County. Address both regional and local standards. Educate population on SMUD services/programs, help promote them.



B-1 Program Evaluation

APPENDIX B:

PROGRAM EVALUATION


HE-1 (a): As part of the General Plan’s Annual Monitoring Process, the County will review the allocation of residential and agricultural-residential land in the Land Use Element in relation to projected demand for housing and, if appropriate, amend the Element to ensure that adequate land continues to be available to meet the County’s assigned share under the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan.

Objectives: To annually monitor, and periodically review, the allocation of residential land to ensure adequate supply for future housing development for all income groups.

Achievements: The annual Housing Element report tracks remaining need in dwelling units for the planning period. As of the end of 2006, the County had enough land to accommodate the need for moderate and above-moderate households. The County had a shortfall of acreage for very low- and low- income households. Subsequently, the County rezoned 134 acres at a density of 20 dwelling units or higher (as of December 31, 2006) in order to implement HE-1(f) and HE-1(g).

As part of the Housing Element update, the County prepared a residential holding capacity analysis and updated the land inventory.

Evaluation: In addition to an existing inventory of buildable parcels in commercial corridors which have been targeted for residential development, the County plans to biannually report the inventory of land available for development (HE-1(b)).

HE-1 (b): Throughout the current Housing Element planning period, the Planning Department shall generate, and make available for public inspection and copying, reports of the inventory of sites, and provide a copy of such reports to housing providers and other interested parties. Each report shall identify changes to the inventory by parcel number, acreage, zoning and project number, and shall provide a summary of any additions or losses to the inventory. The County will design a tracking system that provides quarterly updating of the inventory as development activity occurs, allowing the Department to produce update reports upon request.


Program Evaluation B-2

The County will promote the availability of the sites’ inventory, particularly sites for very low- and low-income uses, by posting the inventory on the County’s website, notifying public and private entities that have constructed affordable housing in Sacramento County within the prior five-year period, and making copies of the inventory available at the Planning and Community Development Department’s public counter. The sites inventory will note those properties that can be developed within the current Housing Element planning period in consideration of the existence, or likely availability, of public facilities and services and the existence of environmental constraints or other physical characteristics affecting development potential.

Objectives: Prepare quarterly inventory of vacant residential sites for all income levels.

Achievements: Because of staffing limitations, a tracking system has been designed that provides biannual (rather than quarterly) updating of the vacant parcel inventory for very low- and low- income housing. An inventory has been prepared for the 3rd quarter of 2007 and is available to the public on the Planning Department Website.

Evaluation: Because of staffing limitations, the County has implemented this program on a biannual rather than on the programmed quarterly basis. This program will continue as revised to provide updates on a biannual basis.

HE-1 (c): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions that encourage multifamily development in the LC and SC zones at appropriate locations, subject to development plan review, with the approving authority determined by the number of dwelling units and conformance with applicable development standards and any future design review process. To ensure that an inventory of adequate sites is maintained in the unincorporated area according to Policy HE-1, the County will encourage LC- and SC-zoned properties to be developed with multifamily housing or a mix of multifamily housing and commercial uses. The County will provide regulatory and financial incentives to encourage housing in LC and SC zones as described in policies HE-4, HE-5, HE-9 and HE-39. The County will also apply inclusionary housing requirements to residential and mixed-use projects on LC and SC zoned properties according to policy HE-45. Based on these policies, the County will assume for the purposes of the Vacant Land Inventory, Chapter 6 of this Housing Element, that up to 25 percent of LC and SC sites will be developed with multifamily housing or mixed-use projects.



Objectives: 25 percent of vacant LC and SC sites to be used for multifamily or mixed-use projects.

Achievements: The County is continuing to permit multifamily dwellings as a matter of right, subject only to development plan and/or design review to assure compliance with appropriate development standards in the LC and SC zones. 21.3 percent of zoned LC and SC acreage that developed between September 2003 and June 2007 was developed with multifamily projects.

Evaluation: The County has not yet achieved this objective, although progress has been made toward the objective. This program will be continued.

HE-1 (d): The County will continue to permit multiple family dwellings as a matter of right, subject only to development plan and/or design review to assure compliance with appropriate development standards in RD-15, RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40, LC and SC zones. To expand the development potential on such sites, the County will continue to provide incentives to developers, such as density bonuses, as listed in programs 9 and 27.

Objectives: Encourage the construction of multifamily uses in appropriate zones while allowing for review of the quality and design of such uses.

Achievements: The County is continuing to permit multifamily dwellings as a matter of right, subject only to development plan and/or design review to assure compliance with appropriate development standards in the RD-15, RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40, LC, and SC zones.

Evaluation: The County is meeting this qualitative objective. This program will be continued.

HE-1 (e): The County, in adopting infrastructure financing plans for any new growth areas, shall consider housing affordability and the need to retain sites designated as multifamily in Specific and Comprehensive Plans, in addition to other criteria established by the Municipal Services Agency, in the imposition and spreading of infrastructure costs and in the structuring of the payment of such costs. Specifically, such financing plans shall consider how fees and debt can best be imposed in compliance with State law and encourage retention of multifamily property and to foster housing affordability.

Objectives: Assure adequate infrastructure and services for sites in the County’s residential land inventory.



Achievements: The County waives certain financing plan fees for affordable units in new growth areas such as roadway and transit fees and the Antelope Community Plan Area fees for projects that are certified by SHRA to have at least 10 percent of units available for very low-income households. This is to encourage retention of multifamily property and foster housing affordability.

Evaluation: The County is meeting this qualitative objective. Certain fees from financing plans are waived for affordable units.

HE-1 (f) and (g): The County will designate a minimum of 132 additional acres at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher to accommodate the development of at least 2,244 multiple family units. If sites are rezoned to a higher density zoning designation, the acreage will be adjusted accordingly to ensure that the 2,244 unit obligation is achieved. Program implementation actions will include a combination of County initiated rezones that will be completed no later than December 31, 2006, and expediting of private rezone requests (approximating 91.4 acres of multifamily zoned land) that are pending as of December 2004. The County will initiate the rezones either within Specific Plan or Comprehensive Plan areas or other existing urbanized areas of the unincorporated County. The County will ensure that adequate infrastructure is currently planned or is planned to be available during the planning period.

In addition to HE-1(f), the County will designate a minimum of 73.4 acres at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher for multiple family developments, to accommodate the development of at least 1,139 multiple family units, within adopted Specific Plan and Comprehensive Plan areas. If sites are rezoned to a higher density zoning designation, the acreage will be adjusted accordingly to ensure that the 1,139 unit obligation is achieved. Program implementation actions will include a combination of County initiated rezones that will be completed no later than December 31, 2006, and expediting of private rezone requests (amounting to 15.7 acres of multifamily zone land) that are pending as of December 2004. The County will initiate the rezones either within the adopted Specific Plan or Comprehensive Plan areas or within other existing urbanized areas of the unincorporated County. The County will ensure that adequate infrastructure is currently planned, or is planned to be available during the planning period.

Objectives: Increase the supply of multifamily land to accommodate housing for residents earning extremely low- through moderate incomes to accommodate future SACOG regional housing allocations.



Achievements: The County has rezoned 194.6 acres to multifamily zones, and has approved affordable housing units that are the equivalent to 17.8 acres assuming RD-20 zoning.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this objective. This program has been completed, and does not need to be continued into the 2008-2013 period.

HE-2 (a): The County shall preserve the supply of multifamily land needed to accommodate the County’s housing allocation for lower income housing under the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan, and to implement Policy HE-1, by not allowing multifamily-designated land to be developed for other land uses, unless:

1. Other land can be designated to accommodate an equivalent amount of multifamily housing units at a comparable density, or

2. The County makes a finding that such land is not needed to accommodate the remaining SACOG allocation for households earning 80 percent or less of the Sacramento County median income at the time of application for the proposed use, or

3. The County identifies one or more other strategies to accommodate lower income housing units equal in number to the number the County determines are developable on the proposed site. Other strategies may include, but are not limited to:

■ Identification of sites suitable for re-use or redevelopment that have equivalent development potential within the planning period covered by the Housing Element.

■ Identification of financial subsidies that can assist in the construction of an equivalent number of housing units affordable to lower income households.

The County will maintain a current accounting of multifamily sites as they are developed in relation to the remaining housing allocation to be accommodated for the very low- and low-income groups.

Objectives: The County shall not allow multifamily designated land to be developed for other land uses.

Achievements: Since the date of the Housing Element Inventory (August, 2003), the County has not allowed an Inventory parcel zoned RD-20 or above to be developed to non-residential uses.



The County has and will maintain an accounting of multifamily sites as they are developed in relation to the remaining housing allocation to be accommodated for the very low- and low-income groups.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this objective. This program will be continued.

HE-3(a): The Planning and Community Development Department, with assistance from the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency and the Real Estate Division, shall develop and maintain a system for inventorying available surplus land and evaluating the suitability for affordable housing production. The County shall make that list available to interested public and private agencies that provide affordable housing. The County will consult with affordable housing providers to develop appropriate criteria for use in evaluating the suitability of sites for affordable housing and the development potential of such sites. The County will also identify and initiate needed regulatory changes to make such sites available for affordable housing development. The County will notify affordable housing providers of the availability of the site inventory and provide annual updates to providers who have expressed an interest in the inventory.

Objectives: Complete inventory and list of surplus Federal, State, and County lands.

Achievements: This inventory was not produced.

Evaluation: The County did not meet this objective. However, this program will be continued, and additional staff time will be available during the 2008-2013 period to prepare and update this inventory.

HE-4 (a): The County shall continue to designate special planning areas with economic incentives to facilitate planning and re-use of properties along transit and commercial corridors to include housing of various types in mixed-used development. The County will offer one or more of the following incentives, to be promoted through the County’s website and direct marketing/outreach to potentially interested businesses and developers.

1. County initiated rezoning to facilitate the revitalization of the planning area;

2. rebate of unsecured property taxes for a fixed number of years;

3. tax exempt financing (industrial development bonds and other programs) for commercial portion of project



to increase financial feasibility of residential portion; accelerated and individualized permit processing;

4. tax increment financing, including use of Housing Set-Aside Fund for housing units affordable to low-income households;

5. construction of off-site improvements;

6. fee rebates or deferrals of capital impact fees (i.e., Regional Sanitation connection fees, roadway and transit impact fees, various development fees) associated with new construction that creates permanent jobs in mixed-use projects, with fee deferrals to be “interest free” for targeted companies; and

7. assistance in assembling and merging parcels when necessary to achieve project objectives. Such assistance may take the form of financial assistance through Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) in property acquisition and/or expedited approval of the merger of parcels.

Objectives: Identify additional sites to accommodate future multifamily unit construction, particularly to meet the County’s regional housing allocation for lower income households.

Achievements: To fulfill the requirements of HE-1(f) and (g) the County has rezoned properties to multiple-family residential zones at County expense in commercial and transit corridors.

The Department of Transportation is implementing beautification and enhancement programs for transportation corridors such as North Watt Avenue in North Highlands.

Evaluation: The County has met this objective through rezoning of properties to multifamily zones along commercial and transit corridors. This program will be continued.

HE-5 (a): Develop an inventory of parcels that remain vacant or underutilized and are suitable for residential and/or mixed-use development. The County will use computer-assisted analysis to locate urban infill and reuse parcels and provide an inventory of sites by acreage, condition, and development suitability. The inventory will provide information such as size, ownership, zoning, physical characteristics, and availability for development. The County will distribute the inventory to developers and post the inventory on the County’s website. The County will promote the availability of the inventory through one or



more development industry associations. The County will create an inventory of underutilized and infill properties within one year of adoption of the Housing Element as part of Program 1(b) and promote the availability of the inventory to the development community and other interested parties.

Objectives: Provide an inventory of urban infill and reuse parcels and make available to the public.

Achievements: A commercial corridor land use study has been conducted for the General Plan Update. Each commercial corridor parcel had been analyzed for development capability. The study is available in the Planning Department web site.


HE-5 (b): Upon the identification of vacant and underutilized sites for residential and mixed-use infill development, the County will collaborate with the development community and community planning groups to create incentives, criteria, and guidelines for residential development in underutilized areas. The County shall seek, when feasible, to rezone infill properties, with property owner consent, to overcome procedural and political barriers that make many small infill projects infeasible. The County will promote this incentives program through meetings with building industry organizations, community groups, and property owners; program information to be distributed to those groups; the County’s Economic Development Department in its contacts with developers and community leaders; and pre-application meetings with developers.

The County will develop the following incentives program and process to encourage the reuse of underutilized and infill properties:

As part of the Zoning Code update process in Program 8(a), review development standards to identify obstacles to infill development on vacant and underutilized sites and adopt revisions that will reduce those barriers. Regulatory issues that will be addressed to facilitate infill development include, but are not limited to: parking, height limits, set-backs, yards, and lot coverage.

As part of the regulatory review process, develop “performance zoning” options for designated infill areas in which the County sets minimum standards for building intensity, design, parking, general categories of permitted uses, and off-site impacts, but does not regulate specific building uses.



Create a density bonus program that allows for additional housing units in residential only projects, or additional housing units and/or non-residential floor space in mixed-use projects. Increases in permitted density may be in the 25 percent to 50 percent range, which will increase the value of the land and enable the developer to better support the cost of infill development. The granting of density bonuses, and the amount of the bonus, will be based on criteria such as proximity to public transit, the inclusion of affordable or special needs housing units, the location of infill development in economically disadvantaged areas, or the inclusion of other project amenities to be specified by the County (such as creative design or public spaces with accessible amenities).

Engage a professional facilitator, when necessary, to work with the community and the applicant to address community concerns and reduce potential project opposition, thereby expediting the development process. When one or more properties cover a large area, facilitate the preparation of a specific or other special area plan to address planning issues of concern to the community.

Continue to offer lower County Regional Sanitation District fees for infill and underutilized sites and identify other opportunities for fee reductions or deferrals.

Coordinate strategies, including funding assistance if available, with the Economic Development Department to find ways to defray the cost of development on infill parcels.

Collaborate with SHRA and its community redevelopment efforts (see the introduction to this chapter, which contains a discussion of the County’s role in coordinating the activities of various agencies and departments).

Use exemptions permitted by CEQA, when appropriate, pursuant to State regulations for urban infill properties as a means of expediting project review and approval.

Objectives: Rezone infill properties and to overcome procedural and political barriers that make infill projects infeasible.

Achievements: All but one of the County initiated rezone sites under programs HE-1(f) and (g) are infill sites.

The Planning Department is working on a form-based zoning code that sets minimum standards for building intensity, design parking, general categories of permitted uses, and off-site impacts but does not regulate specific building uses.



The County Regional Sanitation District has continued to offer lower fees for infill sites.

The County is in the process of developing an infill program that will include the funding of a permanent infill coordinator position, increasing provision of financial incentives for developing infill projects, public education and the development of an infill response team. This program has been incorporated into the new Housing Element.

Evaluation: The County has met this qualitative objective. The program will be continued under Program 1(b), and coordinated with the future vacant and underutilized infill parcel inventory from Program HE-5(a).


HE-6 (a): The County will continue to consult with housing providers as part of an ongoing process to evaluate development approval timelines and to identify process improvements. The consultation process will be coordinated by the Planning and Community Development Department and will consist of annual meetings with housing providers to evaluate development approval procedures and timelines, and to provide recommendations for improvements.

Objectives: Reduce uncertainty, risk, and delay in the planning, environmental, and permitting process.

Achievements: The County has not implemented this program.

Evaluation: The County has not attained this objective. The program will be continued in the 2008-2013 period (with modifications). The County is currently in the process of comprehensively revising the zoning code and development approval process, which is expected to improve development approval procedures and timelines. Housing providers have been providing input during the process of the zoning code and development revisions and update, and a new program will require an annual meeting with housing providers.

HE-6 (b): The County shall take steps to reduce delays in the evaluation of affordable housing projects. Examples of these steps include: applying targeted timelines for the planning, environmental and public review process; continuing the project manager approach to managing applications to ensure accountability by County staff; ensuring that project managers do not carry an excessively heavy load of projects; ensuring that routine projects are reviewed at the lowest hearing level possible; and use best



efforts to schedule projects within 60-days of completion of a staff report.

Objectives: Reduce delays in the approval of affordable housing projects.

Achievements: The Planning Department expedites affordable housing projects in order to meet funding deadlines. The proposed new Multifamily Design Guidelines permit County staff to make more decisions administratively, and are expected to improve processing time for these projects. In addition, the County is pursuing a comprehensive update of its zoning code. The updated code is expected to simplify processing procedures for the County.

Evaluation: The County has met this qualitative objective by expediting the evaluation of these projects. This program will be continued.

HE-6 (c): The County will continue its Customer Service Survey program, administered by the Zoning Administration section of the Planning and Community Development Department. This program was implemented in 1992 as a tool to solicit suggestions from private sector developers and other clients, primarily to improve the services offered by public counter personnel. The County will provide each applicant with a survey questionnaire requesting comments and suggestion on how the staff of the public permit counter can improve customer service and how the Application Processing section can revise application processing procedures to expedite permit processing times.

Objectives: Develop survey questionnaire to identify options to improve customer service and more efficiently administer application processing.

Achievements: The Planning Department has developed a customer service survey questionnaire. However, the survey was discontinued because of very low response (less than one submittal in a year).

Evaluation: The County achieved this objective by developing the survey. However, the program was discontinued based on very low response. In light of the response problems, this program will not be continued.

HE-6 (d): The County will review existing criteria, procedures, and residential uses that require special development and conditional use permits to determine the impact of these processes on the availability and affordability of housing for special needs groups. The County will consult with providers of such housing, and organizations that provide supportive services to special needs populations, to



identify potential improvements in these processes that will facilitate the provision of special needs housing while maintaining the health, safety, and community compatibility objectives of these permit processes.

Objectives: Reduce the time and cost impact of discretionary permits on affordable and special needs housing.

Achievements: The County has undertaken a “Streamlining the Development Process Program,” an ongoing program with a steering committee, a Development Roundtable, and an Oversight Committee. However, there are no providers of housing for special needs groups on the committees.

Evaluation: The County has implemented a program which can be used to achieve this objective in the future. This program will be continued, and the County should encourage providers of housing for special needs groups to be part of the streamlining effort.

HE-7 (a): Planning staff will consult with SHRA on all incoming residential development applications with an affordable housing component. For projects that meet the affordable housing criteria, priority in permit processing will be given, consistent with State and local regulations.

Objectives: Grant priority in affordable housing project approval.

Achievements: Planning staff consults with SHRA staff on projects with an affordable housing component on a weekly basis. This is part of the implementation of HE-45(a).

The Planning Department expedites affordable housing projects in order to meet funding deadlines.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this qualitative objective. This program will be continued.

HE-8 (a): Review the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances annually for possible revisions that would assist in creating more affordable housing by identifying and eliminating regulations nonessential to health and safety that act as contributing factors to the high cost of housing. Revise standards or code requirements if greater affordability can be achieved. The annual review will be conducted as part of the County’s annual review of implementation and progress in achieving the objectives of the General Plan, with a report to the Board of Supervisors on the findings and conclusions of the annual review. Included in the review will be revisions to the County’s parking standards to reduce parking for smaller dwelling units with fewer bedrooms. The County will establish parking requirements based on dwelling unit size, number of bedrooms, and



resident characteristics (for example, seniors, persons with disabilities, or low-income single working adults).

Objectives: Identification and removal of ordinances nonessential to health and safety that act as contributing factors to the high cost of housing.


Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. However, the County is in the process of updating their Zoning Code and application processes. This program will be merged with the replacement program for HE-6(a), which includes staff proposal of amendments to the Zoning Code based on comments at annual meetings with housing providers.

HE-8 (b): County staff will conduct an internal review of the cost impact on housing whenever proposed actions impact land use, economic development, and housing issues. The results of this review will become part of the staff report to the Board of Supervisors when considering changes to fee schedules, development standards, and other regulations and policies affecting housing. Issues of housing availability and affordability will be included in the staff checklist of issues to analyze.

Objectives: Implementation of a “Housing Impact Analysis” program.


Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. This program will be discontinued. Other programs under Strategy II, including HE-6(a) and HE-10(a), allow for input from developers and housing providers, and can be used to provide feedback when the County proposes to make changes to land use, economic development, and housing programs.

HE-9 (a): During pre-application meetings and the initial project review process, encourage residential developers to apply for Special Development Permits or use other County regulatory or incentive programs (such as density bonuses and mixed-use incentives in commercial LC and SC zones) that would allow flexibility in zoning and subdivision development standards to accommodate unique residential projects, where appropriate.

Objectives: Encourage residential developers to apply for Special Development Permits or use other regulatory or incentive programs of the County.

Achievements: The Planning Department has pre-application meetings with many residential developers. The Current Planning



Division has encouraged the use of Special Development Permits particularly for multifamily projects or mixed use projects.

Evaluation: The County has met this objective. The upcoming Zoning Code update will remove the need for exceptions for most multifamily projects. Based on these zoning changes, the program will not be continued.

HE-9 (b): The County will review current definitions, permitted zones, and conditions under which alternative types of housing units are permitted to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types for very low-income persons. The County will also review its building code enforcement and inspection procedures to ensure that existing buildings can be feasibly converted to other housing types for very low-income persons through flexible application of building code standards while meeting health and safety objectives of the building code.

In determining the most appropriate locations for alternative housing types created from the conversion of existing buildings, the County will evaluate old motels and other uses along travel and commercial corridors. Appropriate locations will be identified as part of a comprehensive corridor/community planning effort and/or the establishment of new or amended redevelopment plans.

Objectives: Simplify the process for approving alternative housing types and increase the number of available sites.


Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. This program will not be continued. The County’s comprehensive update of zoning and development regulations is expected to include increased flexibility for alternative housing unit types.

HE-10 (a): The County will consult with both for-profit and non-profit homebuilders prior to increasing planning and environmental review permit fees to determine the potential impact of fee increases on housing costs. The County will submit proposed fee increases to homebuilders and affordable housing providers for review and comment in advance of Board of Supervisor action.

Objectives: Periodically review application processing and infrastructure fee schedules and mitigate the cost impact of fees.




Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. However, because of increased staffing, this program will be continued for the 2008-2013 period.

HE-10 (b): The County will continue to implement reductions in planning and environmental review permit fees by up to 50 percent for residential developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to very low- and low-income households and on which affordability restrictions are subject to long-term (30-year or greater) regulatory agreements as certified by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. The County will defer any fees until the time of issuance of buildings permits. The amount of fee reductions and/or deferrals will be based on:

1. A financial statement provided by the applicant documenting the need for a fee reduction or deferral for the feasibility of the project.

2. The availability of funding to pay that portion of the cost of processing an affordable development proposal not covered by the reduced fees.

3. The location of a project (infill versus new growth area).

Objectives: Develop program to eliminate or reduce planning fees associated with low- or very low-income housing projects.

Achievements: The County offers a waiver of development impact fees for very low-income units and deferral of those same fees for additional units in low-income projects. In addition, the County offers a deferral of planning fees for affordable housing projects. However, planning and environmental fee reductions are not offered.

Evaluation: The County has progressed toward this objective by deferring and waiving development impact fees, but does not reduce planning and environmental fees. The County affordable housing impact fee waiver and deferral program will be continued.

HE-10 (c): The County will allow unused fee reductions that are budgeted each year for projects containing very low- or low-income units to roll over to subsequent years and request that other agencies charging impact fees also allow rollovers for unused reductions. The County will evaluate whether it can increase the annual budget for fee reductions, and request that other agencies charging impact fees also increase their allocations. The County’s evaluation will consider whether the amount of fee reductions currently budgeted are being effectively used by



affordable housing providers and whether the impact of further fee reductions is fiscally sustainable given staffing needs of affected County Departments.

Objectives: Maximize the use of budgeted permit fee reductions.


Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. This program will not be continued. Program HE-10(b) allows deferral of fees to encourage production of affordable housing, addressing the underlying target of this program. Also, one of the options of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (Program HE-45(a) is the payment of in-lieu fees which are used to develop affordable housing.

HE-11 (a): The County will defer fees until the close of escrow for owner-occupant housing projects containing 20 percent or more affordable housing, and until occupancy for rental housing projects containing the required percentage of affordable housing. The County will promote the fee deferral option through its website, an information bulletin to local building industry associations, SHRA’s outreach to affordable housing providers (see Housing strategies IV and V), and pre-application meetings.

Objectives: To delay the cost-impact of fees payments until a housing project begins to generate revenue.

Achievements: The County defers Planning fees until occupancy for affordable housing projects. In addition, the County defers certain development fees for SHRA-certified new residential multifamily development. Development fees are deferred until close of escrow of permanent loan financing, with a maximum deferral of 15 months.

Evaluation: The County has met this objective. This program will be continued and promotes the fee deferral option through its website.

HE-11 (b): The County shall request that other agencies and districts defer the required payment of impact fees for qualifying projects as specified in Program HE-11 (a).

Objectives: To delay the cost-impact of fees payments until a housing project begins to generate revenue.

Achievements: A number of County agencies are deferring fees for projects which meet affordable housing thresholds.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this qualitative objective. This program has been updated and combined with programs



HE-10(b) and HE-11(a). The revised program will detail the fees involved, and which projects qualify for fee deferral.

HE-12 (a): The County will continue to monitor legislation, work directly with local legislators, propose legislation, and participate in associations of county governments to promote State legislation that supports the goals and objectives of the County’s Housing Element.

Objectives: To influence State legislation in support of the County’s Housing Element objectives.

Achievements: The County has a staff member who monitors State legislation. The Planning Department has provided comments regarding proposed State legislation to the County’s legislative advocate.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this qualitative objective. This progam will be continued.


HE-13 (a): The County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will fund and administer rental housing loan programs for the rehabilitation of privately owned substandard housing and the acquisition and rehabilitation of substandard property for occupancy by lower income households. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency will pursue offering financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily properties, including financially troubled multifamily properties in foreclosure, to prevent further property and neighborhood deterioration.

The County will rely on SHRA to promote this program through its website, distribution of brochures, and contacts with nonprofit organizations and other governmental partners, such as the County Nuisance Response Team in the Code Enforcement Division. SHRA staff also provides technical assistance in response to phone call requests and office visits. The County will also add a link from the Planning and Community Development Department web page to SHRA’s website.

Objectives: 1. Promotion by Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) of its loan programs for substandard property.

2. 200 rehabilitated units annually and 510 units through acquisition/rehabilitation.

3. Create website link from Planning Dept. to SHRA.



Achievements: SHRA has the following programs promoted by its website:

1. Boarded and Vacant Homes program ($10-20,000 to developers for substantial rehabilitation).

2. Multifamily Housing Direct Loan Program (11+units) eligibility guidelines and loan application.

3. Investment Property Improvement Loan Program (10+ units) eligibility guidelines and loan application.

4. Create a Loan Rehab program.

Year 2004: 448 multifamily units acquired/rehabilitated.



Year 2007: 789 multifamily units acquired/rehabilitated

Evaluation: The County has achieved this objective for the period 2004- 2007. The total number of multifamily units acquired or rehabilitated is greater than 200 per year rehabilitated and 510 units rehabilitated or acquired. This program will be continued.

HE-14 (a) In an effort to preserve the existing single-family housing stock owned and occupied by lower income households, the County, through SHRA, will continue to provide low interest and deferred loans for rehabilitation activities required to bring a home into compliance with California health and safety standards. SHRA will also provide financial assistance for emergency repairs, painting, and other property improvements designed to achieve neighborhood improvement objectives. The County shall continue to use local funding and leverage these sources of funding with State and other competitive redevelopment funds, to the extent available.

The County will also continue to collaborate with private, non-profit organizations in the funding and implementation of housing rehabilitation and neighborhood improvement programs. Collaboration will take the following forms:

1. Periodic meetings, as needed, with non-profit organizations participating in County housing rehabilitation programs or operating independent programs in the County to establish strategies and priorities.



2. Annual solicitations of interest sent to non-profit organizations to participate in County-funded programs.

Annual monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of achievements by non-profit partners in County programs.

Objectives: The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) will continue to provide low interest and deferred loans for rehabilitation activities required to meet California health and safety standards.

Rehabilitate 25 affordable housing units annually and minor/emergency repair of 540 homes annually.

Achievements: During 2002-2007, SHRA has originated 86 single-family rehabilitation loans and 680 Emergency Repair and Accessibility Grants.

Evaluation: SHRA has made progress through this program but the program’s objective was not achieved. The program will be continued but with revised objectives.

HE-15 (a): Continue to identify older motels suitable and feasible for conversion to permanent affordable housing in conjunction with commercial corridor studies and community plan updates.

Objectives: Identify three motel properties suitable for conversion.

Achievements: The County has converted one old motel to permanent affordable housing. South Pointe (Saybrook) with 51 affordable units was approved for conversion on 2-13-03.

Evaluation: The County has identified and converted one hotel to permanent affordable housing, partially achieving this objective. This program will be continued.

HE-15 (b): Assist new owners of motels to obtain financing for their acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or conversion.

Objectives: Assist new owners of motels to obtain financing for their acquisition, rehabilitation and/or conversion.

Achievements: The County obtained funding for the Saybrook permanent housing development.


HE-16 (a): The County shall actively enforce existing regulations and programs administered by the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department regarding abandoned vehicles,



outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings, to protect and improve the integrity and stability of existing neighborhoods. Storage and building violations will continue to be handled on a complaint basis, and vehicle abatement will continue to be addressed through responses to complaints and neighborhood patrols.

Objectives: Reduce the number of abandoned vehicles and illegal structures from residential neighborhoods.

Achievements: The County is continuing its zoning enforcement and vehicle abatement programs.

Evaluation: Quantitative data regarding the number of abandoned vehicles and illegal structures is not collected, but the County has met this qualitative objective. This program will be continued.

HE-16 (b): The County will support the efforts of individual neighborhoods with unique social, architectural and environmental characteristics to maintain and preserve their identities through the implementation of Neighborhood Preservation Areas. As part of the process of considering development standards for an NPA, the County will ensure that those standards do not violate State or Federal requirements relating to affordable or special needs housing or create unreasonable constraints to the development of such housing.

Objectives: Designation of Neighborhood Preservation Areas to address unique neighborhood conditions and characteristics.

Achievements: The County continues to implement existing Neighborhood Preservation Area (NPA) ordinances.

Evaluation: The County has met this qualitative objective. This program will be continued.

HE-16 (c): Identify small, specialized target focus areas that are not in larger redevelopment or block grant areas as sites suitable for neighborhood revitalization efforts under the Neighborhood Conservation Program. The County will continue to coordinate the efforts of various agencies (SHRA, Planning and Community Development, Health and Human Services, County Sheriff, etc.) to revitalize targeted neighborhoods in low-income communities. The County and SHRA will identify priority investments in housing and infrastructure improvements in such neighborhoods, public services, and the purchase and/or renovation of privately owned affordable housing in such neighborhoods.

Objectives: Implementation of revitalization projects in focus areas to target resources for neighborhood improvements.



Achievements: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding continues to be allocated for various infrastructure projects, including improvements to parks, community centers, street improvements, and other related activities.


HE-16 (d): The County will continue to enforce neighborhood nuisance abatement ordinances to assist the Sheriff’s Department and Code Enforcement Officers in more effectively addressing repeated nuisance complaints. The ordinances allow staff to prepare correction notices, fine and penalize owners for non-compliance, prosecute repeat offenders in criminal or civil proceedings, and summarily abate and lien property for costs of enforcement/abatement.

Objectives: Increase neighborhood safety and eliminate blighting conditions.

Achievements: The County Sheriff’s Department and Code Enforcement officers continue to enforce neighborhood nuisance abatement ordinances. The ordinances allow staff to prepare correction notices, fine and penalize owners for non-compliance, prosecute repeat offenders in criminal or civil proceedings and summarily abate and lien property for costs of enforcement abatement.


HE-16 (e): The County will continue to apply Section 104.2.8 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which permits the use of alternate materials, designs, and methods of construction. The County will apply this provision of the UBC to the rehabilitation of older residential structures to address health and safety requirements while not requiring more expensive compliance with current UBC requirements.

Objectives: Ensure rental housing complies with health and safety codes.

Achievements: Section 104.2.8 of the Uniform Building Code is now Section 108.7 in the revised Uniform Building Code. The Building Department continues to permit alternate materials, designs, and methods of construction.

Evaluation: This qualitative objective has been met. This program will be continued.

HE-16 (f): Property owners who do not to make necessary improvements to alleviate health and safety standard deficiencies will be reported to the Franchise Tax Board



under Section 17274 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

Objectives: Utilize Section 17299 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code as a tool to increase property improvements by owners.


Evaluation: The objective of this program has not been achieved. The program will not be continued. Programs HE-16(c), HE-16(d), and HE-16(e) address the underlying target of this program - improvement and rehabilitation of deteriorating housing units.

HE-17 (a): The Code Enforcement Division, with assistance from the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will continue to distribute brochures to owners of residential rental units cited for health and safety violations. The brochures will provide information on SHRA rehabilitation assistance programs. The Code Enforcement Division will also continue to provide information to tenants on rental property owner and tenant responsibilities for property maintenance. The Division also provides a video in English, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese describing rental property owners and tenant responsibilities. The County will continue to provide information in annual billings to rental property owners on information and financial assistance resources.

Objectives: Increase the level of property maintenance through tenant and property owner education, thereby reducing the need for code enforcement.

Achievements: This program has not been implemented.

Evaluation: The County will coordinate with SHRA to develop brochures. This program will be continued, with modifications in order to implement the Florin Revitalization Strategy. The new effort will include the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office, Economic Development Department, SHRA, and the Planning Department.

HE-17 (b): SHRA will continue to distribute to homeowners and rental property owners the name, address and telephone number of the SHRA housing referral program. Through this referral program already administered by SHRA, homeowners will be informed of all available resources for housing rehabilitation.



Objectives: Inform owners of residential units cited for violations of available resources for rehabilitation and increase participation in County rehabilitation programs.

Achievements: SHRA is no longer distributing this information.

Evaluation: This program will be continued, but modified to refer to implementation of the Florin Revitalization Strategy. This new effort includes the Sheriff's, Neighborhood Services, District Attorney's office, Economic Development, SHRA and Planning. A new specific policy/program goal will be developed.

HE-18 (a): Establish priority in planning and implementation of public facility improvements during the development of the County’s capital improvement priorities, to support the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods. Priorities will be established under the County’s Community Initiatives Program, the County’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan (2003 − 2007) and the One-Year Action Plan. The County will coordinate individual decisions and efforts on spending scarce public dollars on infrastructure based on a priority system for older, deteriorated neighborhoods. The County will identify target neighborhoods and infrastructure needs in those neighborhoods and coordinate competing infrastructure needs among neighborhoods.

Objectives: Target infrastructure and public facility improvements to older neighborhoods with deteriorated improvements.


Evaluation: The County has not achieved this objective. This program will not be continued. Programs HE-18(b) and HE-18(c) will continue to direct infrastructure improvements to areas which are targeted for infill housing development.

HE-18 (b): Provide for annual review by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the County’s Capital Improvement Program to determine what special priorities are needed for capital improvement projects required to maintain the community’s older residential neighborhoods. Review of the CIP shall also include verification that areas needing improvement are scheduled for funding to address these needs at a specific time in the future.


Achievements: Commercial corridors as delineated in the General Plan Update are given priority in the Capital Improvement Program. This has occurred with the North Watt Corridor



in North Highlands and the Fulton Avenue Corridor in Arden-Arcade.

Evaluation: The County has met this qualitative objective. This program will be continued, but modified to specifically refer to commercial corridor areas.

HE-18 (c): The County will inventory existing neighborhood conditions and determine priorities for increasing pedestrian access, particularly for individuals with disabilities. The inventory will be used to implement a Pedestrian Master Plan, Pavement Maintenance Program, and Curb Gutter and Sidewalk Maintenance Program.


Achievements: The inventory was never conducted. However, the Transportation Department is proposing the Pedestrian Master Plan which establishes goals and strategies to increase pedestrian safety and improve walkability.

Evaluation: The County’s proposed Pedestrian Master Plan will implement this program in the future. The program will be continued, but the program description will be modified to reflect the revised approach.

HE-19 (a): Continue to review the records of local financial institutions for their performance in meeting the credit needs of low-income and minority people, as required by the federal Community Reinvestment Act. To the extent funds are invested in institutions that have a good Community Reinvestment record, those institutions would be given credit for a predetermined percentage increase, over and above the actual rate of return, in the County’s investment decisions; while those institutions with a poor record would be given a predetermined percentage decrease.

Objectives: Increase investment in minority and low-income areas.

Achievements: There are $50 million invested in institutions that have issued loans in low- to moderate-income neighborhoods. The minimum for a bank to qualify is to provide at least $10 million in loans to small businesses and $50 million in mortgage loans to homeowners.


HE-20 (a): Inform owners of substandard mobile homes of resources available through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency for structure improvement. SHRA



will notify mobile home owners through the distribution of program information to mobile home parks. Qualified mobile homes will be advised of all available programs.

Objectives: Rehabilitate 560 substandard mobile homes.

Achievements: Assisted mobile homes are included in HE-14(a).

Evaluation: Mobile home rehabilitation is supported through program HE-14(a). This program will not be continued.

HE-20 (b): Implement a mobile home park replacement program for seriously substandard mobile home parks or those being converted to other uses. Develop criteria for identification of parks to be replaced and suitable sites (if other than the current location) for the replacement of substandard mobile home parks. The criteria will be developed based on the results of a mobile home park study completed by SHRA. SHRA, in its contacts with mobile home park owners and residents, will determine whether the Agency is the most appropriate entity to apply for funding (such as under the State Mobile home Park Resident Ownership Program).

Objectives: Rehabilitation of substandard mobile home parks or those being converted to nonresidential uses.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented, and will not be continued. Other programs under this strategy are intended to improve the condition of deteriorated housing, and to address the needs of relocated residents.

HE-20 (c): The County will continue to refer complaints from mobile home park residents regarding park conditions and requests for inspections to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the State agency with jurisdiction over mobile home park inspections. The County will provide contact information for HCD’s Codes and Standards Division through a letter to be sent to residents.

Objectives: Increase the level of State code compliance to improve mobile home park conditions.

Achievements: Complaints from mobile home park residents are automatically forwarded to the State.


HE-21 (a): The County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will continue a targeted housing



quality condition survey program, including database creation, survey methodology and funding source. The database describes in detail a variety of housing conditions. The program will be tied to the Community Initiatives Program and will allow the County to conduct a housing quality survey as each community plan is prepared or updated. Information from the survey will be used to develop targeted criteria for various housing and community development assistance programs. The County will continue to monitor and evaluate housing conditions in areas surveyed, and modify the database program as information needs change.

Objectives: Establishment of housing quality survey program.

Achievements: This program was not implemented.

Evaluation: This program was not implemented, and will not be continued. Other programs under this strategy, including HE-16(a) and HE-16(d), support the County’s efforts to maintain safe and comfortable housing for residents.

HE-22 (a): The County, through the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, will continue to implement programs to control deteriorating, and vacant/abandoned properties and to rehabilitate unused housing for new occupants and special projects (deteriorated rental projects in which SHRA intervenes). SHRA will continue to provide financial incentives for the acquisition, and/or rehabilitation, and proper management of rental properties in areas in the County with large numbers of two- to four-plex rental properties with absentee owners.

Objectives: Mitigate the impact of demolition activities on lower income households.

Achievements: No homes inhabited by lower income households were demolished during the 2006 reporting period.

Evaluation: Because no homes were demolished, this program was not triggered. This program will be continued.

HE-23 (a): The County will develop an advertisement (e.g., brochure) that provides information to all displaced tenants of demolition activities on available services and programs including Section 8 assistance, public housing, and emergency shelters. Property owners of demolished dwellings will be required to provide such brochures to displaced tenants. Such advertisements will also be available through SHRA’s housing referral clearinghouse service.



Objectives: Increase tenant awareness of assistance programs for those displaced by demolition activities. Publish a new brochure by June 2005 and distribute upon request.

Achievements: A relocation assistance plan was adopted to notify residential tenants of the forms of assistance that are available if housing units are demolished.

Evaluation: The County has met this objective. This program will be continued.

HE-23 (b): Continue to implement County policy to require owners of rental property to pay for the relocation expenses of lower income residents displaced due to condemnation, demolition or vacation of units due to Building, Health and Safety Code violations. This program shall not require such payment in instances where it can be demonstrated that the tenants of any unit have contributed significantly to the deteriorated condition of the dwelling.

Objectives: Increase the level of participation by rental property owners in paying the relocation expenses of displaced lower income tenants.

Achievements: This program is being implemented by Code Enforcement personnel.

Evaluation: The qualitative objective of this program is being met. This program will be continued.


HE-24 (a): The County will advocate for statewide guidelines (to be adopted through the California Building Standards Commission) for universal design. The County will also study the feasibility and benefits of adopting local guidelines for universal design and visitability for use by homebuilders and property owners to increase residential accessibility for persons with disabilities. The County will develop an education and outreach program with homebuilders and consumers that seek to increase awareness of techniques for universal design and financial assistance available through County programs. As part of the feasibility study, the County will determine whether regulatory incentives can be provided that will encourage home builders and property owners to adopt universal and visitability design approaches in the construction or rehabilitation of dwelling units. Regulatory incentives could be similar to those offered for the provision of affordable or senior housing.



In evaluating the feasibility of local universal design guidelines, the County will address issues related to accessible pathways, entrances and exits, lighting, appliances, counter and cupboard heights, changes in grade or elevation, doorbells and alarms, handles and hardware, bathroom and kitchen configurations, and use of colors and materials. The County will also consider the seven principles of universal design:

1. Provide the same means of use for all without segregating those with disabilities.

2. Allow flexibility in use to accommodate individual preferences and abilities.

3. Use simple and intuitive approaches that are easy to understand regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, and language skills.

4. Effectively communicate, through design, necessary information to the user regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.

5. Reduce hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

6. Create design elements that allow for efficient and comfortable use with a minimum of fatigue.

7. Provide appropriate size and space for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

(Adapted from the principles of universal design, 1997, North Carolina State University, Center for Universal Design.)

Objectives: Increase the accessibility and visitability of Sacramento County’s housing stock and residential neighborhoods.

Achievements: This program was not implemented.

Evaluation: This program was not implemented. The program will be continued but with modifications.

HE-24 (b): The County will continue to implement a program to assist owners of existing homes to remodel their homes to make them more accessible to the disabled. The County will ensure that this program can be accessed directly by the disabled person needing assistance or on behalf of the disabled person (family member, legal guardian or conservator, caretaker, etc.) through SHRA’s program guidelines.



Objectives: 1. Continuation of program. Ensure that this program can be accessed directly by the disabled person needing assistance.

2. Retrofitting of 160 housing units occupied by persons with disabilities and 1,982 housing units occupied by seniors (this is a shared objective with program he-26[a]).

Achievements: Emergency Repair Program/Accessibility Program - During the 2004-2007, 124 units were retrofitted.

Evaluation: The County has made progress in implementing this program. However, the average number of units per year needed to achieve the objective (32) was met only in 2005 and 2007. SHRA has merged its retrofit and rehabilitation programs. In light of this merger, this program is duplicative of he-14(a) and will not be continued.

HE-24 (c): In planning for new residential developments, the County will require accessible pedestrian facilities such as accessible sidewalks, intersections with curb ramps, and audible signals at appropriate intersections, guide strips, and other access enhancements, as appropriate. In the targeting of public investments in existing neighborhoods, the County will address accessibility improvements to the extent permitted by available funding. The targeting of public investments will be coordinated with sub-strategy III-E, revitalization of deteriorated neighborhoods through public facility improvements.

Objectives: Increase accessibility of residential structures and neighborhoods for persons with disabilities.

Achievements: The Transportation Department continues to require accessible pedestrian facilities in new residential developments. The County is proposing a pedestrian master plan which establishes goals and strategies to increase pedestrian safety and improve walkability.

Evaluation: The County has achieved the objective of this program. This program will be continued.

HE-25 (a): The County will continue to support a continuum of housing options for persons with disabilities, including accessible independent living, and the establishment of small-scale residential care facilities in all residential communities to serve the needs of persons with disabilities. The County will also seek funding and assistance from private, State, and Federal programs. The County will continue to provide regulatory incentives for special needs housing for persons with disabilities through its zoning code, which permits group homes, residential care facilities, and other special



needs housing alternatives with on-site supportive services. The County will continue to promote its regulatory and financial incentives for special needs housing through zoning information posted on the County’s website, program information posted on SHRA’s website, and printed information distributed to public and private community organizations serving special needs clients with disabilities.

Objectives: Support shared housing and development of small-scale residential care facilities, support for 1,250 individuals with HIV/AIDs annually (through the Breaking Barriers Program), and housing assistance for 50 persons annually with HIV/AIDs.

Achievements: The County currently has 5 providers serving individuals with HIV/AIDs. 60 units of emergency housing are available. A total of about 400 people with HIV/AIDs receive housing assistance every year. An additional 231 individuals per year are served with other types of assistance (short-term rent, mortgage or utility assistance).

Evaluation: The County has achieved the objective of this program, aiding 400 people per year, compared to the program objective of 250 individuals per year. This program will be continued.

HE-26 (a): The County will continue to support programs that assist eligible seniors to make high priority health or safety repairs to further prevent deterioration or dilapidation of their homes and allowing seniors to remain in their dwelling units longer.

Objectives: 1. Continue to support programs that assist eligible seniors to make high priority health or safety repairs.

2. Rehabilitation and/or retrofitting of 1,982 homes (this is a shared objective with program he-24[b]).

Achievements: During 2002-2007, SHRA has originated 86 single-family rehabilitation loans and 680 Emergency Repair and Accessibility Grants.

Evaluation: The retrofitting of 1,982 homes occupied by seniors is a shared objective with program he-24(b). The County has provided assistance in retrofittings a total of 680 homes, which does not meet the target for either disabled residents or seniors. This program will be continued but with revised objectives.

HE-26 (b): Encourage special housing arrangements, including rental housing apartments, designed specifically for seniors, shared housing (housing in which the owner takes in an



individual to share living expenses and household duties), efficiency apartments, second units, group homes, congregate care facilities, mobile home parks, and temporary shelter for homeless or displaced seniors by:

1. Helping sponsoring organizations obtain federal and State funding (such as HUD’s Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program).

2. Committing County funds to help non-profit or for-profit developers of such housing types as SHRA’s Residential Hotel New Construction Program.

3. Timely processing of affordable second units including accessory dwellings, and hardship mobile homes, and agricultural accessory dwellings.

4. Providing financial support and referring seniors to non-profit organizations that operate shared housing programs within Sacramento County.

Objectives: Allow for special housing arrangements, and help for-profit and non-profit agencies to obtain Federal, State, and local funding for the construction of such facilities.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented. However, the County provides incentives to builders for constructing housing for seniors of all income levels. These incentives include a density bonus pursuant to State Law, and financial help for developers of senior housing, including multifamily developer assistance programs administered by SHRA. In addition, there is a new program that will streamline the planning entitlement process for accessory dwellings on large lots.

HE-27 (a): The County, through the Department of Environmental Health, will continue to annually inspect and license farm labor camps to ensure that they meet health and safety standards for migrant workers. The County will issue an annual report of its findings and enforcement actions, which will be made available to operators of farm labor camps, residents of those camps, and other interested parties.

Objectives: The Department of Environmental Health will continue to annually inspect and license farm labor camps to ensure that they meet health and safety standards for migrant workers.



Achievements: The Department of Environmental Health continues to conduct annual checks of farm labor camps. This program has been in effect for a number of years.

Evaluation: The County has met the qualitative objective of this program. This program will be continued.

HE-28 (a): The County, through SHRA, will rely on Rural California Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to provide technical assistance for federal and State farm worker housing grant applications. Farm worker housing projects are eligible for SHRA financing in conjunction with State and Federal programs.

Objectives: Provide technical assistance for applications for loans through the Federal and State government to construct 50 housing units for farm workers.

Achievements: This program has not been implemented. There is a technical assistance program but no application has been submitted during the planning period.

Evaluation: Creation of new farmworker housing units does not appear to be necessary based on recent conditions. Generally, between 25 and 31 farm labor camps are in use in Sacramento County each year, depending on the demand (driven partly by weather). In recent years, the number of occupied camps has declined from 31 in 2003 to 25 in 2007. This program will not be continued.

HE-28 (b): The County, through SHRA, will support and financially assist proposals within rural communities to participate in the funding of farm worker housing developments.

Objectives: Assist in financing 50 units for affordable housing for farm workers.

Achievements: No new affordable housing for farm workers was financed during the 2006 reporting period.

Evaluation: This program has not been implemented. This program will be continued even though there has been a decline in the need for new farmworker housing (see discussion under HE-25[a]).

HE-28 (c): The County shall work with local growers and non-profit agencies to periodically review the housing needs of farm workers and propose actions to address those needs. Examples of actions that could be pursued are additional funding requests for farm worker housing projects, and programs and zoning changes to facilitate the construction of migrant farm worker housing.



Objectives: Review housing needs of farm workers.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented. However, because of an increase in staffing, the County will consult with growers and non-profit agencies to formulate programs which will better meet the needs of farm workers (see evaluation of program he-28[b]). This program will be continued.

HE-29 (a): Sacramento County will sponsor and support the Sacramento County and Cities Board on Homelessness, a collaborative effort of local business and neighborhood associations, homeless advocates, homeless service providers, the faith community, County departments, law enforcement, Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, SHRA and various cities within the County of Sacramento.

1. Plan, develop, and manage proactive systems improvements from a “whole community” perspective.

2. Build community collaboration and committed partnerships in all board endeavors.

3. As much as possible, base all actions on substantiated and evaluated data.

4. Implement pilot improvement projects. If pilot projects are successful, work toward continuation and expansion of program services.

5. Increase coordination of efforts, programs, and providers of services through improved communication and tracking.

6. Develop recommendations for policy and community direction related to homelessness.

As part of the comprehensive, collaborative approach to homelessness, the County will continue to fund groups providing shelter and other services to the homeless, such as the Salvation Army, Women Escaping a Violent Environment (WEAVE), the Sacramento Area Emergency Housing Center, and Volunteers of America. The level of financial support will depend on the availability of State and Federal funds for homeless shelters and supportive services.

Objectives: Develop affordable housing opportunities with supportive services for homeless persons in need; assist homeless men, women and children thorough the continuum of care



to achieve independent living in permanent housing, ending their homelessness.

Achievements: The Sacramento County and Cities Board on Homelessness is now the Policy Board to End Chronic Homelessness, which was established by both the County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council in September 2006 and began in January 2007. The Board seeks to implement the "Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness" as well as the other strategies listed in the previous housing element. The five main strategies are: leadership (creation of the policy board and interagency council), prevention, housing through the Housing First model, outreach and central intake, and evaluation.

Sacramento County serves approximately 6,000 people each year in emergency, transitional and permanent housing. An additional 1,500 people are served in the Winter Shelter Program (WSP) open from mid-November to mid-March. In the current contract year, the WSP has 27,192 bed nights.

Evaluation: The County has met this qualitative objective. This program will be continued and revised to be consistent with the Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness strategies.

HE-29 (b): Continue to provide transitional housing, job training, and employment counseling at Mather Field to help homeless people gain employment and long-term independence.

Objectives: Provide housing and comprehensive job training.

Achievements: Currently, this facility is housing 200 individuals and 65 families. Recently, approval has been given to add 75 units.


HE-29 (c): Locate new homeless shelters within the unincorporated portion of the County where transportation and other needed services are available or accessible.

Objectives: Provide for dispersed shelter locations.

Achievements: No new emergency shelters are planned. St. John’s shelter for women and children, which serves county residents, moved and expanded in 2004, but no new homeless shelters were opened in Sacramento County during the planning period.



Evaluation: No new homeless shelters were opened during the planning period. The program will be discontinued because the County is moving towards a Housing First model to eradicate homelessness.

HE-29 (d): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions that permit homeless shelters in the GC and M-1 zones, subject to appropriate development, locational, and operations standards that address land use compatibility issues. Development standards will continue to be based on the type of permitted homeless use and not the clientele who will use any such facility.

Objectives: Identification of appropriate zoning categories and land use designations.

Achievements: The County continues to implement zoning code provisions that permit homeless shelters in the GC and M-1 zones, subject to appropriate development, locational, and operations standards that address land use compatibility issues.


HE-29 (e): The County will continue to implement Zoning Code provisions to permit single room occupancy (SRO) residential units, subject to appropriate development standards and locational requirements, in the RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40 and GC zones.

Objectives: Identification of appropriate zoning categories and land use designations.

Achievements: The County continues to implement zoning code provisions to permit single room occupancy (SRO) residential units in the RD-20, RD-25, RD-30, RD-40 and GC zones.


HE-30 (a): All complaints of housing discrimination shall be referred to the Sacramento County Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission or other fair housing providers, as appropriate, and State/Federal agencies involved in fair housing.

Objectives: Increase the resolution to housing complaints and reduce housing discrimination.

Achievements: All complaints are routinely referred to the Human Rights Fair Housing Commission.



Evaluation; Complaints are referred to the Human Rights Fair Housing Commission, but there is no tabulation of the number of complaints. This program will be continued, but modified to include this tabulation.

He-30 (b): The County will continue to support a fair housing auditing/testing program. The County will prepare annual reports on redlining and other forms of discrimination and will annually recommend programs to address identified problems.

Objectives: Improve the level of auditing and reporting to measure success in reducing housing discrimination.

Achievements: The Human Rights Fair Housing Commission performed audits and investigated over 600 housing discrimination complaints during 2002-2007.

Evaluation: The County has not implemented annual reporting or annual recommendation of programs. However, the County will continue to support a fair housing auditing testing program. Referral of complaints will be continued under program HE-30(a).

HE-30 (C): The County will distribute information on fair housing in appropriate locations (such as community centers, apartment complexes and grocery stores) and such informational material will be printed in several different languages to inform the public of County policies on discrimination and methodology for reporting any violations. The County will promote fair housing information and complaint referral contacts through a website link to the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning and Community Development Department, the distribution of fair housing information to residents during code enforcement activities, and the public outreach activities of the Human Rights and Fair Housing Commission and SHRA promotional activities (see programs 30[a], [b], and [d]).

Objectives: Increase the level of public awareness regarding County policies.

Achievements: There are web links to Fair Housing information in the Planning Department website.

Evaluation: The County implements this program by providing web links to Fair Housing information on the Planning Department website. This program will be continued as implementation of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing’s plan.

HE-30 (D): SHRA will continue to collaborate with the Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now (ACORN), the



Sacramento Valley Organization Committee (SVOC), and other non-profit organizations to monitor and document discriminatory residential lending practices and refer discriminatory practices to the Human Rights And Fair Housing Commission, District Attorney, State Fair Employment And Housing Commission, or HUD.

Objectives: Identification and resolution of discriminatory lending practices.

Achievements: SHRA continues to collaborate with these organizations to monitor and document discriminatory lending practices.

Evaluation: The qualitative objective of this program is being met. This program will be continued.

HE-31 (A): The County will consider the location of affordable housing projects in relation to accessibility to employment centers and services, including child care, public transit, schools and local retail uses, in zoning land and determining appropriate locations for affordable family housing projects. Land Use Element Policy 14, which encourages the location of higher density housing affordable to low-income households to be located along transit routes, also supports the objective of this program.

Objectives: Appropriately located affordable housing to address needs of female heads of households.

Achievements: Most of the County initiated rezone sites for multiple family projects which are to fulfill the requirements of HE-1(f) and (g) are located near public transit, schools and local retail centers. Almost all of the rezone sites are consistent with LU-14 which encourages the location of higher density housing affordable to low-income households to be located along transit routes.

Evaluation: The County has met the objective of this program. This program will be continued, with an emphasis on locating housing along commercial corridors.

HE-32 (A): Utilize public resources to finance the development of housing for large families. The County will encourage SHRA to continue giving appropriate priority in funding and technical assistance to residential development proposals that include housing units affordable to low-income large families. The County will support SHRA’s efforts with regulatory incentives described in Housing Strategy V, Provision of Affordable Housing. The County, through SHRA, will continue to collaborate through periodic meetings with providers of affordable family housing to determine the unmet need for such housing in Sacramento County.



Objectives: Development of 220 housing units to meet the needs of large households.

Achievements: During the 2003–2007, 34 new housing units and 60 rehabilitated units were provided for low-income large families.

Evaluation: The County has made progress on this program, but has not built the target of 220 units specified in the objective. This program will be continued.

HE-32 (B): Grant processing priority for multifamily residential development proposals if at least ten percent of units are proposed to be affordable and/or accessible with three or more bedrooms for large families. The County will ensure that such projects are “fast-tracked” at the Building Division through priority permit processing during the plan checking and inspection.

Objectives: Increase the availability of large family housing.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented. However, this program will be continued in cooperation with the County’s Building Department.

HE-33 (A): The County will mitigate the potential loss of low-income housing units potentially at risk of converting to subsidized rental housing projects to market-rate housing, through programs implemented by SHRA. SHRA will identify the types and characteristics of rental housing projects at risk, owners’ objectives for future operation of these rental properties, and entities with the capacity to acquire and maintain “at-risk” rental housing units as affordable to very low- and low-income households. SHRA will pursue the following actions:

1. SHRA will contact rental property owners two years before the earliest opt-out date to determine their long-term intentions and financial objectives for continued ownership. If owners express a desire to maintain ownership, SHRA will provide information on State and Federal programs that provide incentives to maintain rents at levels affordable to lower income households. If owners express a desire to sell their properties, SHRA will attempt to locate a non-profit or for-profit entity interested in acquiring and maintaining the affordability of the rental units. In either case, SHRA will provide technical assistance in accessing State and Federal funding. If necessary to preserve the affordability of existing rental housing, SHRA will



consider the use of redevelopment housing set-aside funds for gap financing.

2. SHRA will monitor compliance with State and Federal noticing requirements for owners who desire to convert their rent restricted units to market-rate units. One year before the conversion date, the owner will be required to notify residents of the expected date of loan pre-payment or pay-off. The notice must also contain an estimate of rent increases at the time rental restrictions no longer apply. Residents moving into a housing development during this one-year period must also be notified of the pending conversion at the time they sign a rental agreement. SHRA will work with the County Counsel to postpone the sale of properties in cases where owners have not complied with State noticing requirements.

Objectives: Preserve 1,458 of assisted housing units potentially at risk of conversions.

Achievements: 2,196 affordable units were preserved through the issuance of HAP vouchers during 2002–2007.

Evaluation: The County County successfully preserved 2,196 affordable units that were to be converted to market-rate which exceeds the program objective. No affordable units were lost during the planning period. This program will be continued. The new Housing Element has a program where SHRA and the Planning and Community Development Department will propose an Affordable Housing Preservation Ordinance to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This ordinance will codify HE-33(a).

HE-33 (B): SHRA will continue to distribute financing and housing voucher program information to rental property owners and managers to ensure their understanding of options to the sale of HUD-assisted housing and its possible conversion to market rate.

Objectives: 1. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) will continue to distribute financing and housing voucher program information to rental property owners and managers.

2. Preserve 1,458 assisted rental- housing units potentially at risk of conversion through 2013.

Achievements: 2,196 affordable units were preserved through the issuance of HAP vouchers during 2002–2007.

Evaluation: The County preserved 2,196 affordable units that potentially were to be converted to market-rate. No



affordable units were lost during the planning period. The quantitative portion of this objective is duplicative of HE-33(a) and will not be continued.

HE-33 (C): SHRA will continue to annually apply to HUD for an increase in the number of housing vouchers available to low-income Sacramento County residents. The success of SHRA’s efforts will largely depend on HUD’s formula and criteria for distributing additional housing vouchers.

Objectives: Apply for 700 new housing vouchers to be available in Sacramento County.

Achievements: Cutbacks at the federal level have not allowed the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to issue new housing vouchers during the period.

Evaluation: This objective was not met, as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development discontinued the issuance of new housing vouchers during the period because of funding cutbacks. This program will not be continued.

HOUSING STRATEGY V: PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HE-34 (A): Seek Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) allocations from the State of California, the California Housing Finance Agency, the Federal HOME Program, redevelopment housing set-aside funds, the CalHome Program, and the Federal CDBG Program to provide low interest loans and down payment assistance for first-time low- and moderate-income homebuyers.

Objectives: Assist 600 households in achieving homeownership.

Achievements: During 2002-2007, SHRA provided assistance to 815 homebuyers.

Evaluation: SHRA has exceeded the objective of this program. This program will be continued.

HE-34 (B): Support the Sacramento County Home Loan Counseling Program, Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services, and programs offered by other non-profit organizations in qualifying low- and moderate-income households for home loans and down payment assistance programs.

Objectives: Support Sacramento County Home Loan Counseling Program, Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services, and other non-profit programs to qualify 600 low- and moderate-income households for home loans and down payment assistance programs.

Achievements: 2,231 households were assisted during 2002-2006.



Evaluation: The objective for this program has been achieved. The program will be continued.

HE-34 (C): Provide financial support for self-help (sweat equity) housing programs for low-income people who construct their own homes under the supervision of non-profit corporations.

Objectives: Increase homeownership ownership opportunities for 10 low-income families through self-help, sweat equity programs.

Achievements: SHRA participated in the Power Inn Self Help in the production of 35 units.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has been met. This program will be continued.

HE-35 (A): The County will use available local, State, and Federal funding to provide gap financing to stimulate private and non-profit developers to construct affordable housing. Financing will primarily benefit low- and very low-income households and will carry long-term affordability restrictions. The County, through SHRA, will continue to promote affordable housing programs through the Agency’s website, a link from the Planning Department’s website to SHRA, Notices of Funding Availability distributed annually to affordable housing providers, meetings with housing providers throughout the year (usually timed to coincide with funding cycles for various State and Federal funding sources), and annual public meetings required by the federal government for the use of CDBG, HOME, and other entitlement funds. (Note: public outreach and notification procedures are described in the County’s Consolidated Plan.)

The Planning and Community Development Department works closely with staff from SHRA to coordinate affordable housing development applications with funding requirements. This coordination includes scheduling of required reviews and public hearings. The scheduling of public hearings for land use approvals will be sensitive to the funding cycles for HUD and other State and/or Federal funding cycles. SHRA will work with the affordable housing builders to facilitate the timely financing of proposed projects. SHRA provides technical assistance to interested landowners who express a desire to include affordable housing in their development plans.

Objectives: Assist 200 units financed per year (1,000 units over five years).

Achievements: None.



Evaluation: This program was difficult to implement, as the funding included represents both multifamily and single-family sources. This program will not be continued, Other programs, including HE-34(a), HE-34(b), and HE-35(b) include production goals and financing for multifamily and single-family housing. Program language for these programs will be modified to mention funding sources from Program HE-35(a), as appropriate.

HE-35 (B): The County will issue multifamily mortgage revenue bonds as developers request such assistance to finance new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation projects for very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

Objectives: Increase the availability of financing for new affordable housing construction through multifamily mortgage bonds.

Achievements: 1,035 new housing units were financed during 2004-2007.

Evaluation: The qualitative objective of this program has been met. This program will be continued.

HE-36 (A): The County will collaborate with SHRA to evaluate the viability of the current fair share allocation process and policy to ensure that sites best suited for affordable housing are not unreasonably restricted for that purpose due to the location of existing affordable housing developments. The process only applies to projects seeking funding administered by SHRA. Under the fair share policy, the County may waive the fair share requirement to allow affordable housing on sites within communities that already have a significant number of affordable housing units.

The majority of affordable housing is multifamily rental housing. Lands zoned RD-10 through RD-40 permit multifamily residential development subject to the review of the Planning Director, the Zoning Administrator, and/or the Project Planning Commission. The reviews are limited to ensuring that the standards required by that zoning district be met. If the standards are met the project is approved. This includes for sale and rental attached multifamily residential. The fair share policy does not affect the County’s review for compliance with zoning standards, only the participation of SHRA in funding affordable housing projects.

Lands zoned LC and SC allow multifamily residential development that do not exceed 40 units per acre in density, (subject to the approval of a conditional use permit if more than 20 units per acre are proposed.) Multifamily residential developments up to 80 units are subject to plan review by the Planning Director. Projects



having 81 to 150 units are subject to plan review by the Project Planning Commission. Multifamily developments exceeding 150 units are subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit.

The County’s review of multifamily projects and the application of zoning standards, as described above, do not consider the locations of existing affordable housing except when funding administered by SHRA will be involved in project financing.

The existing fair share process will be evaluated in light of recent incorporations and the release of 2000 Census data by census tract. The County will seek an equitable distribution of affordable housing in the unincorporated area, but will also consider factors that make some sites more suitable than others for affordable housing, such as:

■ Parcel size and configuration. ■ Availability of infrastructure and services. ■ Accessibility for persons with disabilities. ■ Proximity to public transportation and road access. ■ Environmental conditions.

The County will explore the possibility of developing a countywide approach working with cities to ensure that a fair share of affordable housing is included in each community. The Board of Supervisors will consider revisions of the fair share policy based on recommendations from SHRA and Planning Department staff.

Objectives: Equitable distribution of affordable housing.

Achievements: SHRA is looking to implement overconcentration measures through its lending guidelines.

Evaluation: This objective is being pursued through SHRA’s lending guidelines. This program will be modified to refer to the new lending guidelines.

HE-37 (A): Continue to implement the density bonus ordinance, as described in the Zoning Code, to conform to the requirements of State law. Grant a 25 percent density bonus as required by State law for projects consisting of five or more dwelling units that include at least ten percent of the units for extremely low- and/or very low-income households, 20 percent of the units for low-income households, or 50 percent for qualifying seniors provided that affordability is ensured for the life of all units for which a bonus is granted. The County will promote its density bonus program through SHRA’s ongoing contacts with affordable housing developers in Sacramento County.



The County will also explain the County’s density bonus program and incentives during pre-application meetings with housing developers.

Objectives: Increase the availability of affordable housing through 100-density bonus units.

Achievements: The County permits density bonuses either in accordance with County ordinance, or with current State law. There have been an additional 150-200 dwelling units that have been allowed in approved projects because of the State density law. An additional 700–800 units will be allowed in pending projects. Also, the adopted Affordable Housing Program gave developers impetus to pursue density bonuses.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has been exceeded. This program will be continued.

HE-38 (A): Provide that the minimum 20 percent, as required by State law, of tax increment funds of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, be set-aside for housing assistance, on a schedule determined appropriate by the Agency.

Objectives: Increase the availability of funding for affordable housing by setting aside a minimum of 20 percent in tax increment housing set-aside funding.

Achievements: The set-aside of 20 percent of gross redevelopment tax increment funding was fulfilled during the period.

Evaluation: The objective of this program was met. This program will be continued.

HE-39 (A): Continue to provide incentives to encourage mixed-use development to integrate retail, office, and residential uses within the same building or site. Mixed-use development will be encouraged through regulatory incentives that allow flexibility in parking, building configuration, floor area ratio, building height, and other development standards. The County will promote its mixed-use program by providing information on the County’s website, through pre-application meetings with developers, and through promotional literature to be distributed to building industry trade organizations in the Sacramento Region. Mixed use will be encouraged through regulatory and financial incentives described in Programs 5(a) and (b), Underutilized/Infill Sites. The Planning and Community Development Department will review development standards for obstacles that prevent mixed use. The Planning and Community Development Department will continue to promote mixed-use



developments in partnership with the Economic Development Department through the NORCAST program in North Highlands along Watt Avenue.

Objectives: Increase housing opportunities through Special Development Permits, Use Permits and Special Planning Areas to allow for mixed-use developments.

Achievements: The County has enacted new Mixed Use and Commercial Guidelines, referred to in the Zoning Code. The proposed Interim Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines will be approved during the planning period.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has been achieved, and the program will be continued as implementation of the Mixed Use and Commercial Guidelines and the Multiple-family Residential Design Guidelines. In addition, an infill program has been developed and will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors during the Spring of 2008. This program includes a permanent infill coordinator position, provision of financial incentives for infill projects, a public education program, an infill response team that will facilitate the development of quality infill projects, and granting limited variation from zoning code and improvement development standards through administerial review. All of these new measures are incorporated in the new Housing Element.

HE-39 (B): The County will annually monitor the use of the County’s mixed-use program. If developers are not proposing mixed-use projects in areas of the County in which the program seeks to encourage such development, the County will meet with representatives of the Sacramento area building industry trade organizations to determine if additional incentives are necessary to encourage and facilitate the use of the mixed-use program.

Objectives: Increase housing opportunities through Zoning Code amendments that facilitate mixed-use developments.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented, and will not be continued. Program HE-39(a) will be used to provide continued support for mixed-use development.

HE-40 (A): Continue to implement recently adopted zoning standards to encourage homeowners to build second units to increase the availability of lower-cost housing. The new standards allow attached or detached second dwellings of up to 400 square feet by right and up to 1,200 square feet with a use permit in residential zoning districts, as either an addition to the primary dwelling unit or within the existing square



footage of the structure. The County will continue to provide incentives for second units by requiring only one additional parking space per bedroom (in contrast to two parking spaces per unit required previously) and providing for a minimum single-family lot size (5,200 square feet) that ensures sufficient opportunities to construct second units in the unincorporated area.

The County will promote its revised second unit standards on its website, through an insert in utility billings to single-family property owners, and through pre-application meetings with residential developers who may desire to incorporate second units in new developments.

Objectives: 1. The County will continue to provide incentives for second units by requiring one additional parking space per bedroom (in contrast to two parking spaces per unit previously required.

2. The County will promote its revised second unit standards.

Achievements: The County is continuing to require one additional parking space per bedroom for accessory dwellings rather than two spaces.

The Planning Department is promoting the revised second unit standards through its website and a brochure distributed at the information and plan check counters.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has been met. This program will be continued.

HE-41 (A): Provide a range of financial assistance debt financing to non-profit corporations to expand and maintain affordable housing, including technical assistance grants for permanent supportive housing.

Objectives: Increase support for non-profit agencies to expand and maintain affordable housing, including technical assistance grants for permanent supportive housing.

Achievements: Two supportive housing projects: Bell Street, and McClellan Cottages financed.

Evaluation: The qualitative objective of this program has been met. This program will be continued.

HE-42 (A): Encourage and facilitate alternative housing types in residential and mixed-use developments (see HE-39) that provide ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Development proposals that incorporate housing units affordable to lower-income



households will qualify for density bonuses, regulatory incentives, and financial assistance as described in Sub-Strategies V-A through V-G. Ownership housing alternatives for moderate-income households will be facilitated through current zoning standards that permit a variety of detached and attached single-family and multifamily housing options throughout the unincorporated area.

Objectives: Develop incentives to encourage the construction of alternative housing types.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented, but will be continued, with the Planning Department as the implementing agency.

HE-42 (B): Identify funding sources and obtain funding for the production of affordable alternative housing types.

Objectives: Increase funding to assist in the construction of alternative housing dwelling units.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented, but will not be continued. The County’s new zoning and development regulations will include more flexibility for alternative housing types, and programs HE-34(a) and HE-34(b) outline the County’s plans for funding of affordable housing production.

HE-43 (A): If a conversion request comes before the County, enforce and implement the condominium conversion ordinance, which regulates the conversion of rental housing to condominiums. If a property owner requests to convert a rental property to condominium ownership, the County will analyze the potential impact of the conversion on the displacement of low-income tenants and require appropriate mitigation. Mitigation could include offering low- or moderate-income tenants an opportunity to purchase units at an affordable purchase price or providing relocation assistance.

Objectives: Reduce the conversion of market-rate rental housing occupied by lower income households to condominiums.

Achievements: The County continues to implement its condominium conversion ordinance as contained in the Zoning Code. An analysis of the potential impact of the conversion on the displacement of low-income tenants with appropriate



mitigation measures is required. The ordinance ensures tenant relocation assistance.

Evaluation: The County has achieved the objective of this program. This program will be continued.

HE-44 (A): The County will continue to support self-help housing as a means for low-income households to become homeowners through the supervised construction of their own homes. The County assists these programs by providing financing, through SHRA, to the sponsoring of non-profit corporations.

Objectives: Assistance to ten low- and moderate-income households to build their own homes (shared objective with program HE-34 [c]).

Achievements: SHRA participated in the Power Inn Self Help in the production of 35 units.

Evaluation; This program has been implemented but is duplicative of program HE-34(c) and will not be continued.

HE-44 (B): The County will provide its surplus land inventory (see Sub-Strategy 1-B) to interested non-profit organizations for use in identifying potential locations for self-help housing developments. The County will offer surplus sites it owns at below-market value to interested affordable housing developers provided such an offer does not violate legal requirements for the disposition of surplus property or the proceeds of the sale are not encumbered for other purposes.

Objectives: Increase options for affordable housing development through surplus sites.

Achievements: This program has not been implemented. A surplus land inventory was not produced.

Evaluation: This program was not implemented. However, the County will produce a surplus land inventory that will be distributed to affordable housing developers.

HE-45 (A): The County will adopt a mandatory affordable housing requirement as part of the Zoning Ordinance within 6 months of adoption of the Housing Element. The requirement will apply to new residential and mixed-use developments and will specify the details needed to implement policy HE-45. The specific requirements for the program, incentives to be offered by the County, and incentives to assist in the provision of housing for extremely low-income households will be developed through a stakeholders group consisting of nonprofit and for-profit homebuilders. The mission of the stakeholder



process is to recommend specific policies and requirements for the program, including financing of extremely low-income units and the impact this may have on the affordable housing program.

Objectives: To adopt a mandatory affordable housing requirement as part of the Zoning Code. The requirement will apply to new residential and mixed-use developments.

Achievements: The County adopted an affordable housing program on December 8, 2004. The program requires that new residential projects include 15 percent of their units at prices affordable to low-, very low- and extremely low- income households. The program offers a variety of compliance options, including land dedication, off-site construction and in-lieu fees. The biennial report showed that, between 01-01-2005 and 12-31-06, 211 affordable housing plans were processed by the County, resulting in approximately 4,006 affordable housing units. Of these 4,006 units, over ¼ (1,082) will be ownership and 14 percent (567) will be affordable to households at extremely low incomes. In addition to the 4,006 units to be built by developers or on dedicated land, the county anticipates collecting over $50 million in in-lieu and affordability fees.

Evaluation: The County has achieved this objective. This program will be modified to describe the County’s continued implementation of the Affordable Housing Ordinance.

HE-46 (A): The County will develop a mixed housing policy as part of the General Plan Land Use Element and adopt implementing standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The County will consult with Sacramento area homebuilders to develop a feasible approach to creating new, mixed housing developments by considering the following (issues that need to be addressed to implement the above draft policy language include):

1. the minimum residential project size (measured by the number of proposed housing units or project acreage) to which the mixed housing requirement will apply;

2. type of development to which the mixed housing requirement will apply (for example, new growth areas, and/or infill projects in existing communities);

3. regulatory incentives that could encourage mixed housing developments;

4. numerical or percentage requirements for various housing types within a proposed development;



5. the geographic/spatial level at which the mixing of different types and sizes of housing units should occur (such as individual blocks or subdivisions within a master planned or specific plan community); and

6. zoning code regulatory development standards that should govern a mixed housing requirement.

Objectives: Achieve a mix of housing types and sizes in new residential developments.

Achievements: The County has enacted the Affordable Housing Ordinance which requires builders of projects with 100 or more dwelling units to prepare and comply with an affordable housing plan as described in Program HE45.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has been met. This program is no longer needed because of the implementation of the Affordable Housing Ordinance results in a mixture of housing types.

HE-47 (A): Explore new funding sources for the City/County Housing Trust Fund and provide recommendations for adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Examples of funding sources the County could explore are:

1. An increase in the current Housing Trust Fund fee as permitted under current ordinance.

2. Establishment or increases or capture of incremental increases of a document transfer tax, transient occupancy tax (hotel and motel fees), or other regular sources of revenue.

3. Use of general obligation bonds or revenue bonds to finance affordable housing developments.

4. Solicitation of private contributions to the Housing Trust Fund from major employers and others in Sacramento County.

5. “Location efficient mortgages” and “employer-assisted mortgages” as a County employee benefit program and/or with private sector employers.

6. Participation in the Housing Trust Fund matching program if the State of California’s 2002 Housing Bond on the November 2002 ballot is successful.

7. Lease-purchase bonds for single-family home ownership through pooled issuances and by considering participation in a statewide program.



8. Tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, with or without Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (four percent noncompetitive program).

Objectives: Identify new funding sources and increase the availability of funding to support affordable housing.


Evaluation: This program has not been implemented. Planning Department staff are proposing an increase in the Housing Trust Fund Fee during the planning period of the new Housing Element.

HE-47 (B): The County will promote the use of Federal Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) in new construction or rehabilitation to provide a new financing source based on the differential between restricted and market (HCV) rents. The County will provide information on this option to affordable housing providers in seeking to construct or rehabilitate rental housing affordable to lower income households. Additional project-based HCVs are not available at present. In 2003, the Housing Authority advertised the availability of HCVs on its website; through a direct mailing to individuals on the waiting list and organizations that serve eligible individuals, and by advertising in local newspapers of general circulation. The announcement ran three for days in March of 2003 in The Sacramento Bee, The Sacramento Gazetter, El Hispaño, and The Sacramento Observer. A similar protocol will be followed if additional funds become available in the future.

Objectives: Use of local project-based voucher program to increase feasibility of affordability.

Achievements: The County has been promoting the use of this voucher program through the SHRA website.

Evaluation: The County has met the qualitative objective of this program. This program will be continued.

HE-48 (A): Pursue a regional, multi-county housing consortium to:

1. Increase and coordinate the availability of State and Federal funds, tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds, and other financing sources among participating jurisdictions.

2. Provide technical assistance to localities without dedicated housing staff.

The County and SHRA will continue participating in the Sacramento Valley Housing Coalition, a group of



representatives of cities and the County, to explore the general principles of a consortium; agree on affordable housing production standards: and develop procedures to lend funds among jurisdictions so that workforce and affordable housing can be built in all areas of the region over time. The County will also pursue changes in State legislation that better facilitates the sharing of “credit” for housing built with pooled funds in one jurisdiction to be given to all participating jurisdictions to gain priority for State funding for jurisdictions adopting affordable housing production standards.

Objectives: Increase collaboration among cities and counties in the Sacramento region on the development and implementation of affordable housing strategies.

Achievements: The consortium discussed in this program no longer exists.

Evaluation: The objective of this program has not been met; the consortium no longer exists. This program will not be continued.


C-1 Vacant Land Inventory

TABLE C-1. ZONING: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 10 (AR10) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (1-10 AC/DU) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

APN COMMUNITY ZONING ACRES AVAILABLE UNITS

0650042031 South Sacramento A 10 12.26 1







0720270129 Cosumnes A 10 2.93 1

0730111002 Cosumnes A 10 10.10 1

0730111003 Cosumnes A 10 10.14 1

0730111004 Cosumnes A 10 10.81 1

0730111010 Cosumnes A 10 10.45 1

0730112004 Cosumnes A 10 12.87 1

0730112006 Cosumnes A 10 11.24 1

0730113008 Cosumnes A 10 11.46 1

0730114008 Cosumnes A 10 11.45 1

0730114011 Cosumnes A 10 0.36 1

0730114012 Cosumnes A 10 11.60 1

0730122006 Cosumnes A 10 10.60 1

1150091002 Vineyard A 10 10.00 1

1150091003 Vineyard A 10 10.00 1

1150091005 Vineyard A 10 10.00 1

1150091012 Vineyard A 10 2.50 1

1150091014 Vineyard A 10 8.84 1

1150091022 Vineyard A 10 8.25 1

1150091032 Vineyard A 10 2.55 1

1150091057 Vineyard A 10 17.75 2

1150091058 Vineyard A 10 2.89 1

1150091067 Vineyard A 10 3.18 1

1150091074 Vineyard A 10 3.13 1

1150091078 Vineyard A 10 4.00 1

1150091087 Vineyard A 10 0.50 1

1150091088 Vineyard A 10 5.69 1

1150092005 Vineyard A 10 2.50 1

1150120015 Vineyard A 10 10.00 1

1260160023 Cosumnes A 10 5.12 1

1260190009 Cosumnes A 10 11.01 1

1260270043 Cosumnes A 10 9.33 1

1260270045 Cosumnes A 10 15.55 1

1260290001 Cosumnes A 10 10.63 1

1260290018 Cosumnes A 10 4.13 1

1260290022 Cosumnes A 10 13.14 1

1260290023 Cosumnes A 10 1.46 1

1280172005 Cosumnes A 10 9.93 1


Vacant Land Inventory C-2



1280172006 Cosumnes A 10 10.33 1

1280172008 Cosumnes A 10 9.70 1

1280174001 Cosumnes A 10 15.33 1

1280174010 Cosumnes A 10 10.79 1

1360020014 Cosumnes A 10 32.64 3

1360030001 Cosumnes A 10 39.00 3

1360030012 Cosumnes A 10 39.98 3

1360091015 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360091019 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360091048 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360101001 Cosumnes A 10 20.00 2

1360102002 Cosumnes A 10 9.46 1

1360102005 Cosumnes A 10 8.65 1

1360102006 Cosumnes A 10 12.67 1

1360102007 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360102008 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360102011 Cosumnes A 10 13.28 1

1360102012 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360102020 Cosumnes A 10 9.84 1

1360102021 Cosumnes A 10 15.83 1

1360130016 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360130027 Cosumnes A 10 2.04 1

1360130029 Cosumnes A 10 7.82 1

1360130057 Cosumnes A 10 5.08 1

1360130058 Cosumnes A 10 5.08 1

1360150083 Cosumnes A 10 0.47 1

1360170007 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360170013 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360170020 Cosumnes A 10 5.00 1

1360170022 Cosumnes A 10 5.00 1

1360170037 Cosumnes A 10 0.40 1

1360260008 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1360300018 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1360300028 Southeast A 10 12.60 1

1360300037 Southeast A 10 9.94 1

1360300038 Southeast A 10 9.89 1

1360300049 Southeast A 10 10.14 1

1360320019 Cosumnes A 10 10.00 1

1360320032 Cosumnes A 10 6.00 1

1380112003 Southeast A 10 0.19 1

1380112004 Southeast A 10 0.19 1

1380112008 Southeast A 10 0.38 1

1380112033 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380112034 Southeast A 10 0.21 1





1380112035 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380112036 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380112040 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112046 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112047 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112048 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112049 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112066 Southeast A 10 0.20 1

1380112087 Southeast A 10 0.41 1

1380112088 Southeast A 10 0.39 1

1380121012 Southeast A 10 0.38 1

1380121013 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380121014 Southeast A 10 0.35 1

1380121015 Southeast A 10 0.31 1

1380121018 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380121021 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380121036 Southeast A 10 0.21 1

1380121037 Southeast A 10 0.58 1

1380130039 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1380150024 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1380150084 Southeast A 10 16.00 1

1380200033 Southeast A 10 2.50 1

1380200034 Southeast A 10 2.52 1

1380200056 Southeast A 10 4.99 1

1380210016 Southeast A 10 3.00 1

1380210024 Southeast A 10 20.00 2

1380210033 Southeast A 10 12.00 1

1380210049 Southeast A 10 12.00 1

1380210067 Southeast A 10 2.14 1

1380220004 Southeast A 10 1.02 1

1380220011 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1380220012 Southeast A 10 1.00 1

1380220016 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1380230009 Southeast A 10 4.00 1

1380230010 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1380230019 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1380230021 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1380230053 Southeast A 10 8.00 1

1380230058 Southeast A 10 11.00 1

1380230061 Southeast A 10 9.48 1

1380230062 Southeast A 10 18.16 2

1380230072 Southeast A 10 9.67 1

1520050005 Southeast A 10 11.78 1

1520090008 Southeast A 10 10.00 1





1520090015 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1520100034 Southeast A 10 10.84 1

1520110007 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1520110010 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1520110052 Southeast A 10 10.24 1

1520120007 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1520120010 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1520120012 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1520120028 Southeast A 10 18.89 2

1520120031 Southeast A 10 10.15 1

1520120034 Southeast A 10 12.02 1

1520120036 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1520120045 Southeast A 10 10.92 1

1520130009 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1520130010 Southeast A 10 5.00 1

1520130014 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1520130054 Southeast A 10 5.23 1

1540010002 Southeast A 10 2.31 1

1540010008 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540010021 Southeast A 10 10.18 1

1540020017 Southeast A 10 6.02 1

1540020023 Southeast A 10 10.00 1

1540030014 Southeast A 10 15.88 1

1540030030 Southeast A 10 6.00 1

1540050015 Southeast A 10 16.00 1

1540050016 Southeast A 10 4.00 1

1540070022 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070023 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070024 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070026 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070027 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070028 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070029 Southeast A 10 2.00 1

1540070031 Southeast A 10 2.09 1

1540070032 Southeast A 10 2.14 1

1540070033 Southeast A 10 2.20 1

1540070034 Southeast A 10 2.25 1

1320222005 Delta A 10 F 0.72 1

1320222007 Delta A 10 F 8.79 1

1340141011 Cosumnes A 10 F 8.42 1

1340171010 Cosumnes A 10 F 16.25 1

1340171011 Cosumnes A 10 F 12.57 1

1340174004 Cosumnes A 10 F 4.84 1

1380112023 Southeast A 10 F 0.40 1





1380112026 Southeast A 10 F 0.20 1

1380112027 Southeast A 10 F 0.20 1

1380112076 Southeast A 10 F 0.19 1

1380112077 Southeast A 10 F 0.19 1

0650070007 South Sacramento A 10 T 29.64 3

0650070021 South Sacramento A 10 T 21.45 2

0730111011 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.39 1

0730113004 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.40 1

0730115003 Cosumnes A 10 T 2.05 1

1260060009 Cosumnes A 10 T 14.12 1

1260160024 Cosumnes A 10 T 11.02 1

1260190008 Cosumnes A 10 T 11.02 1

1260290002 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.61 1

1280173001 Cosumnes A 10 T 9.76 1

1280173005 Cosumnes A 10 T 9.87 1

1340171005 Cosumnes A 10 T 12.12 1

1340171009 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.00 1

1360030014 Cosumnes A 10 T 7.62 1

1360030015 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.48 1

1360130011 Cosumnes A 10 T 10.00 1

1360130028 Cosumnes A 10 T 2.07 1

1360130030 Cosumnes A 10 T 7.95 1

1360150001 Cosumnes A 10 T 9.24 1

1360160015 Southeast A 10 T 4.00 1

1360160094 Southeast A 10 T 7.63 1

1380020008 Southeast A 10 T 10.17 1

1380020009 Southeast A 10 T 10.74 1

1380112019 Southeast A 10 T 0.20 1

1380112021 Southeast A 10 T 0.22 1

1380112078 Southeast A 10 T 0.19 1

1380121026 Southeast A 10 T 0.64 1

1520080065 Southeast A 10 T 10.00 1

1520080066 Southeast A 10 T 20.19 2

1578.05 224 Acres Units





0650051003 Vineyard AR10 6.59 1

0650051008 Vineyard AR10 5.00 1

0650051009 Vineyard AR10 5.00 1

0650051018 Vineyard AR10 9.82 1

0650051021 Vineyard AR10 12.83 1

0650051022 Vineyard AR10 0.68 1

0650051024 Vineyard AR10 0.47 1

0650051025 Vineyard AR10 3.83 1

0650051030 Vineyard AR10 10.00 1

0650051043 Vineyard AR10 2.48 1

0650051045 Vineyard AR10 13.18 1

0650051047 Vineyard AR10 T 9.89 1

0650052013 Vineyard AR10 T 4.90 1

0650052023 Vineyard AR10 T 17.44 1

0650052028 Vineyard AR10 T 12.83 1

0650052030 Vineyard AR10 T 4.45 1

0650080032 Vineyard AR10 6.10 1

0650080034 Vineyard AR10 T 9.63 1

0650080042 Vineyard AR10 3.41 1

0650080057 Vineyard AR10 9.39 1

0650080103 Vineyard AR10 0.38 1

0650260004 Vineyard AR10 1.58 1

0660090013 Vineyard AR10 F 0.16 1

0660090015 Vineyard AR10 F 0.16 1

0660100076 Vineyard AR10 10.07 1

0660100088 Vineyard AR10 9.99 1

0660100091 Vineyard AR10 10.02 1

0660110006 Vineyard AR10 9.47 1

0660110007 Vineyard AR10 T 10.12 1

0660110008 Vineyard AR10 T 10.10 1

0660110009 Vineyard AR10 T 9.47 1

0660110010 Vineyard AR10 T 9.47 1

0660110011 Vineyard AR10 T 10.10 1

0660110012 Vineyard AR10 T 10.12 1

0660110013 Vineyard AR10 10.13 1

0660110020 Vineyard AR10 10.15 1

1150142002 South Sacramento AR10 1.04 1

1150142004 South Sacramento AR10 2.93 1

1150142005 South Sacramento AR10 T 1.35 1

1150142012 South Sacramento AR10 F 0.81 1

1210010015 Vineyard AR10 6.93 1

1210010029 Vineyard AR10 12.43 1

1210010030 Vineyard AR10 10.40 1

1210040016 Vineyard AR10 9.94 1





1210040017 Vineyard AR10 9.94 1

1210040019 Vineyard AR10 9.95 1

1210040020 Vineyard AR10 9.94 1

1210050001 Vineyard AR10 1.96 1

1210050013 Vineyard AR10 T 13.99 1

1210050021 Vineyard AR10 T 12.98 1

1210050024 Vineyard AR10 3.91 1

1210050043 Vineyard AR10 2.60 1

1210050044 Vineyard AR10 4.59 1

1210050046 Vineyard AR10 1.16 1

1210050049 Vineyard AR10 4.84 1

1210050050 Vineyard AR10 5.94 1

1210050054 Vineyard AR10 13.71 1

1210060020 Vineyard AR10 2.13 1

1210060022 Vineyard AR10 T 17.94 2

1210070005 Vineyard AR10 3.24 1

1210070007 Vineyard AR10 1.55 1

1210070008 Vineyard AR10 1.53 1

1210070018 Vineyard AR10 0.90 1

1210070022 Vineyard AR10 3.20 1

1210080002 Vineyard AR10 4.90 1

1210080004 Vineyard AR10 9.83 1

1210080006 Vineyard AR10 2.98 1

1210080007 Vineyard AR10 5.08 1

1210080008 Vineyard AR10 13.00 1

1210080023 Vineyard AR10 9.60 1

1210080028 Vineyard AR10 19.60 2

1220010011 Vineyard AR10 9.88 1

1220010013 Vineyard AR10 T 10.17 1

1220010014 Vineyard AR10 T 9.92 1

1220010017 Vineyard AR10 T 2.50 1

1220020009 Vineyard AR10 14.30 1

1220020013 Vineyard AR10 8.30 1

1220050019 Vineyard AR10 8.76 1

1220050032 Vineyard AR10 T 9.60 1

1220050033 Vineyard AR10 T 10.40 1

1220080001 Vineyard AR10 9.47 1

1220080010 Vineyard AR10 10.00 1

1220100001 Vineyard AR10 9.96 1

1220140005 Vineyard AR10 T 9.01 1

1220770001 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770002 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770003 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770004 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1





1220770005 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770006 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770007 Vineyard AR10 0.26 1

1220770008 Vineyard AR10 0.26 1

1220770009 Vineyard AR10 0.26 1

1220770010 Vineyard AR10 0.25 1

1220770011 Vineyard AR10 0.41 1

1220770012 Vineyard AR10 0.42 1

1220770013 Vineyard AR10 0.33 1

1220770014 Vineyard AR10 0.36 1

1220770015 Vineyard AR10 0.37 1

1220770016 Vineyard AR10 0.44 1

1220770017 Vineyard AR10 0.24 1

1220770018 Vineyard AR10 0.24 1

1220770019 Vineyard AR10 0.24 1

1220770020 Vineyard AR10 0.24 1

1220770021 Vineyard AR10 0.38 1

1220770022 Vineyard AR10 0.45 1

1220770023 Vineyard AR10 0.38 1

1220770024 Vineyard AR10 0.23 1

1220770025 Vineyard AR10 0.25 1

1230120004 Vineyard AR10 20.68 2

1230120005 Vineyard AR10 19.65 2

1320181023 Delta AR10 1.30 1

1320190056 Delta AR10 27.82 2

1320200032 Delta AR10 1.60 1

1320261008 Delta AR10 T 9.75 1

1320261009 Delta AR10 T 9.65 1

1320261010 Delta AR10 F 9.61 1

1320261011 Delta AR10 F 9.66 1

1380121040 Southeast A10 10.09 1

1480041001 Southeast AR10 20.83 2

1480041004 Southeast AR10 10.00 1

1480041026 Southeast AR10 13.02 1

1480042005 Southeast AR10 0.18 1

1480042006 Southeast AR10 9.56 1

1480042024 Southeast AR10 14.85 1

1480064002 Southeast AR10 T 20.00 2

1480064003 Southeast AR10 9.18 1

1480064004 Southeast AR10 T 9.47 1

1480064005 Southeast AR10 T 9.40 1

1480064006 Southeast AR10 T 9.40 1

1480064009 Southeast AR10 T 10.00 1

1480064010 Southeast AR10 T 10.00 1





1480064012 Southeast AR10 T 9.36 1

1480065013 Southeast AR10 T 17.68 2

1480065014 Southeast AR10 0.05 1

1480111005 Southeast AR10 19.91 2

1480111006 Southeast AR10 19.71 2

2010069019 Rio Linda/Elverta AR10 1.27 1

2010110024 Rio Linda/Elverta AR10 F 13.39 1













TABLE C-3. ZONING: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 5 (A5) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (1-10 AC/DU) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


0730132001 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

0730132007 Cosumnes A 5 T 8.48 1

0730142012 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.18 1

0730142013 Cosumnes A 5 T 0.31 1

0730151002 Cosumnes A 5 T 8.62 1

0730152009 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.85 1

0730152010 Cosumnes A 5 F 0.25 1

0730152011 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.77 1

0730161004 Cosumnes A 5 5.07 1

0730172003 Cosumnes A 5 T 6.53 1

1260131014 Cosumnes A 5 4.76 1

1260131017 Cosumnes A 5 5.52 1

1260132005 Cosumnes A 5 0.12 1

1260173035 Cosumnes A 5 T 1.16 1

1260173043 Cosumnes A 5 T 6.72 1

1260180054 Cosumnes A 5 3.11 1

1260180057 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1260210031 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.21 1

1260270002 Cosumnes A 5 9.53 2

1260270003 Cosumnes A 5 T 9.31 2

1260270004 Cosumnes A 5 T 9.31 2

1260290049 Cosumnes A 5 T 11.98 2

1260290050 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.81 1

1260300027 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.60 1

1260300029 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.99 1

1260300059 Cosumnes A 5 4.84 1

1260300060 Cosumnes A 5T 4.76 1

1260300061 Cosumnes A 5T 4.77 1

1260360008 Cosumnes A 5 4.97 1

1260390008 Cosumnes A 5 6.78 1

1280032030 Cosumnes A 5 0.13 1

1280032041 Cosumnes A 5 6.87 1

1280032051 Cosumnes A 5 5.01 1

1280032052 Cosumnes A 5 4.60 1

1280032058 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1280032059 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1280041022 Cosumnes A 5 4.78 1

1280041029 Cosumnes A 5 9.72 2

1280041069 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1280041084 Cosumnes A 5 4.62 1

1280041088 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1280041089 Cosumnes A 5 4.78 1

1280041091 Cosumnes A 5 4.77 1

1280041092 Cosumnes A 5 4.77 1





1280050008 Cosumnes A 5 10.00 2

1280050011 Cosumnes A 5 8.44 1

1280050012 Cosumnes A 5 10.00 2

1280050050 Cosumnes A 5 2.47 1

1280050101 Cosumnes A 5 4.77 1

1280050107 Cosumnes A 5 4.95 1

1280070070 Cosumnes A 5 0.87 1

1280200027 Cosumnes A 5 4.95 1

1320230102 Delta A 5 F 0.61 1

1340141014 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.25 1

1340141019 Cosumnes A 5 4.67 1

1340143011 Cosumnes A 5 9.13 2

1340143012 Cosumnes A 5 10.00 2

1340173013 Cosumnes A 5 T 10.00 2

1340173045 Cosumnes A 5 4.85 1

1340211037 Cosumnes A 5 4.59 1

1340211038 Cosumnes A 5 3.65 1

1340211040 Cosumnes A 5 4.15 1

1340212036 Cosumnes A 5 F 4.69 1

1340212037 Cosumnes A 5 F 4.69 1

1340322020 Cosumnes A 5 6.15 1

1340324002 Cosumnes A 5 10.00 2

1340324041 Cosumnes A 5 10.00 2

1340331010 Cosumnes A 5 8.54 1

1340332019 Cosumnes A 5 4.85 1

1360010022 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

1360010024 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

1360010025 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

1360010026 Cosumnes A 5 T 9.23 2

1360010027 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.29 1

1360010028 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

1360020022 Cosumnes A 5 4.77 1

1360020026 Cosumnes A 5 4.75 1

1360030041 Cosumnes A 5 T 4.67 1

1360060013 Cosumnes A 5 T 10.18 2

1360060050 Cosumnes A 5 1.33 1

1360060051 Cosumnes A 5 1.12 1

1360060066 Cosumnes A 5 4.53 1

1360070011 Cosumnes A 5 T 10.00 2

1360080065 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1360110006 Cosumnes A 5 3.00 1

1360110048 Cosumnes A 5 18.30 3

1360110083 Cosumnes A 5 3.00 1

1360130008 Cosumnes A 5 T 10.00 2





1360130049 Cosumnes A 5 5.97 1

1360130054 Cosumnes A 5 4.24 1

1360130059 Cosumnes A 5 4.43 1

1360130092 Cosumnes A 5 4.85 1

1360141008 Cosumnes A 5 T 7.97 1

1360141014 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.04 1

1360142004 Cosumnes A 5 4.73 1

1360150072 Cosumnes A 5 4.55 1

1360150091 Cosumnes A 5 T 5.00 1

1360160042 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1360160045 Southeast A 5 9.08 2

1360160048 Southeast A 5 4.11 1

1360170009 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1360170043 Cosumnes A 5 5.00 1

1360170049 Cosumnes A 5 3.33 1

1360170070 Cosumnes A 5 9.77 2

1360180015 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1360180038 Southeast A 5 2.50 1

1360180040 Southeast A 5 2.28 1

1360180041 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1360190030 Southeast A 5 4.77 1

1360230011 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1360230012 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1360230020 Southeast A 5 4.69 1

1360230054 Southeast A 5 1.90 1

1360230075 Southeast A 5 4.78 1

1360230076 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1360240004 Southeast A 5 1.79 1

1360240014 Southeast A 5 1.23 1

1360240021 Southeast A 5 4.77 1

1360240025 Southeast A 5 5.02 1

1360260004 Southeast A 5 20.00 3

1360260005 Southeast A 5 20.00 3

1360260015 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1360260018 Southeast A 5 15.00 3

1360260022 Southeast A 5 20.00 3

1360260023 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1360260035 Southeast A 5 4.62 1

1360260038 Southeast A 5 4.79 1

1360271054 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1360271061 Southeast A 5 4.83 1

1360300046 Southeast A 5 4.59 1

1360300047 Southeast A 5 9.84 2

1360310004 Cosumnes A 5 5.43 1





1360340023 Cosumnes A 5 4.39 1

1360340040 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1360340041 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1360340043 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1360340046 Cosumnes A 5 4.68 1

1360340051 Cosumnes A 5 4.80 1

1360340053 Cosumnes A 5 7.74 1

1360340061 Cosumnes A 5 3.98 1

1380020020 Southeast A 5 4.76 1

1380020026 Southeast A 5 F 5.02 1

1380020031 Southeast A 5 1.30 1

1380020052 Southeast A 5 T 5.00 1

1380070030 Southeast A 5 10.86 2

1380070034 Southeast A 5 9.84 2

1380090006 Southeast A 5 9.37 2

1380090050 Southeast A 5 2.30 1

1380123015 Southeast A 5 0.85 1

1380123017 Southeast A 5 0.19 1

1380123018 Southeast A 5 0.29 1

1380123019 Southeast A 5 0.19 1

1380123025 Southeast A 5 0.20 1

1380123026 Southeast A 5 0.20 1

1380123036 Southeast A 5 0.20 1

1380140042 Southeast A 5 0.23 1

1380140044 Southeast A 5 0.32 1

1380240018 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1380240058 Southeast A 5 5.36 1

1380240060 Southeast A 5 9.77 2

1380240072 Southeast A 5 15.65 3

1380250036 Southeast A 5 5.02 1

1400070013 Southeast A 5 10.55 2

1400070014 Southeast A 5 7.52 1

1400070019 Southeast A 5 5.77 1

1400070021 Southeast A 5 5.77 1

1400080042 Southeast A 5 2.00 1

1400080043 Southeast A 5 2.00 1

1400090044 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1400100038 Southeast A 5 4.00 1

1400130004 Southeast A 5 2.50 1

1400130008 Southeast A 5 1.00 1

1400130009 Southeast A 5 1.00 1

1400130016 Southeast A 5 1.00 1

1400130029 Southeast A 5 5.00 1

1400130036 Southeast A 5 5.28 1





1400140008 Southeast A 5 4.34 1

1400140009 Southeast A 5 1.00 1

1400140018 Southeast A 5 10.25 2

1520010010 Southeast A 5 10.00 2

1520010015 Southeast A 5 10.20 2

1520010050 Southeast A 5 4.94 1

1520010051 Southeast A 5 4.94 1

1520010071 Southeast A 5 0.92 1

1520080069 Southeast A 5 9.23 2

1520230014 Southeast A 5 T 7.09 1

1520230017 Southeast A 5 T 7.52 1

1520270029 Southeast A 5 5.43 1

1540020017 Southeast A 5 3.97 1






0650041015 South Sacramento AR 5 4.86 1




0650080050 Vineyard AR 5 T 5.87 1


1220040009 Vineyard AR 5 2.50 1

1220040010 Vineyard AR 5 5.00 1

1220080007 Vineyard AR 5 4.37 1

1220090021 Vineyard AR 5 4.81 1

1220100003 Vineyard AR 5 4.98 1

1220160003 Vineyard AR 5 5.16 1

1260440001 Cosumnes AR 5 T 3.86 1

1260440002 Cosumnes AR 5 T 3.97 1

1260440003 Cosumnes AR 5 T 4.51 1

1260440004 Cosumnes AR 5 T 4.73 1

1260440005 Cosumnes AR 5 T 4.76 1

1260440006 Cosumnes AR 5 T 5.37 1

1260440007 Cosumnes AR 5T 6.31 1

1260440008 Cosumnes AR 5T 5.15 1

1260440010 Cosumnes AR 5T 4.85 1

1260440011 Cosumnes AR 5T 4.72 1

1260440012 Cosumnes AR 5T 4.72 1

1260440013 Cosumnes AR 5T 4.80 1

1260440014 Cosumnes AR 5T 4.38 1

1280340012 Cosumnes AR 5 3.08 1

1280340013 Cosumnes AR 5 2.61 1

1280340017 Cosumnes AR 5 2.98 1

1280340018 Cosumnes AR 5 2.90 1

1280340019 Cosumnes AR 5 2.70 1

1280340079 Cosumnes AR 5 2.79 1

1280340120 Cosumnes AR 5 6.00 1

1280340121 Cosumnes AR 5 5.25 1

1280340122 Cosumnes AR 5 5.75 1

1280340128 Cosumnes AR 5 2.03 1

1280340129 Cosumnes AR 5 2.47 1

1280340130 Cosumnes AR 5 2.47 1

1280340131 Cosumnes AR 5 2.13 1

1280350001 Cosumnes AR 5 2.45 1

1280350004 Cosumnes AR 5 8.46 1





1280350005 Cosumnes AR 5 4.53 1

1280350006 Cosumnes AR 5 3.00 1

1280350009 Cosumnes AR 5 2.48 1

1280350027 Cosumnes AR 5 2.91 1

1280350051 Cosumnes AR 5 2.37 1

1280350055 Cosumnes AR 5 2.73 1

1280350059 Cosumnes AR 5 2.35 1

1280350091 Cosumnes AR 5 3.03 1

1320230053 Delta AR 5 F 7.86 1

1320331003 Delta AR 5 F 9.60 2

1340141031 Cosumnes AR 5 F 15.03 3

1360091042 Cosumnes AR 5 5.00 1

1360091043 Cosumnes AR 5 5.00 1

1360091044 Cosumnes AR 5 4.55 1

1360091056 Cosumnes AR 5 1.67 1

1360091059 Cosumnes AR 5 T 5.00 1

1360101049 Cosumnes AR 5 4.99 1

1360120047 Cosumnes AR 5 398.89 68

1360150079 Cosumnes AR 5 4.77 1

1360170073 Cosumnes AR 5 4.77 1

1360170074 Cosumnes AR 5 4.77 1

1360170086 Cosumnes AR 5 4.77 1

1360170087 Cosumnes AR 5 4.76 1

1360190028 Southeast AR 5 6.09 1

1360250051 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1360320079 Cosumnes AR 5 4.32 1

1360330003 Cosumnes AR 5 4.77 1

1360390002 Cosumnes AR 5 T 5.95 1

1380020007 Southeast AR 5 T 5.42 1

1380080031 Southeast AR 5 5.49 1

1380080032 Southeast AR 5 5.51 1

1420100082 Delta AR 5 0.94 1

1480033005 Southeast AR 5 37.66 6

1480033009 Southeast AR 5 9.22 2

1480033010 Southeast AR 5 T 14.22 2

1480042041 Southeast AR 5 11.42 2

1480042049 Southeast AR 5 4.99 1

1480042059 Southeast AR 5 5.01 1

1480042060 Southeast AR 5 5.01 1

1480042062 Southeast AR 5 4.59 1





1480051005 Southeast AR 5 20.00 3

1480051016 Southeast AR 5 58.00 10

1480051058 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1480051059 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1480051060 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1480051077 Southeast AR 5 4.79 1

1480052001 Southeast AR 5 10.01 2

1480052002 Southeast AR 5 10.01 2

1480052003 Southeast AR 5 20.00 3

1480052004 Southeast AR 5 20.00 3

1480065001 Southeast AR 5 T 5.53 1

1480065002 Southeast AR 5 T 5.52 1

1480065005 Southeast AR 5 4.71 1

1480065007 Southeast AR 5 4.57 1

1480090054 Southeast AR 5 9.73 2

1480114006 Southeast AR 5 5.80 1

1480132080 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1480132081 Southeast AR 5 20.00 3

1500060064 Southeast AR 5 4.42 1

1500060081 Southeast AR 5 6.06 1

1500060082 Southeast AR 5 5.52 1

1500072013 Southeast AR 5 4.77 1

1520080046 Southeast AR 5 4.99 1

1520161011 Southeast AR 5 4.77 1

1520260127 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1520260131 Southeast AR 5 5.00 1

1520280006 Southeast AR 5 0.15 1

2020070019 Rio Linda/Elverta AR 5 3.76 1
























2030090007 Antelope AR 5 T 38.00 6

2030090043 Antelope AR 5 4.65 1

2030090044 Antelope AR 5 4.65 1

2030090045 Antelope AR 5 4.91 1

2030090046 Antelope AR 5 4.82 1

2030090053 Antelope AR 5 5.00 1



2080072014 North Highlands AR 5 1.24 1

2250122001 Natomas AR 5 T 5.49 1

2270070005 Orangevale AR 5 5.50 1

2270070006 Orangevale AR 5 7.60 1

2270070007 Orangevale AR 5 15.60 3

2270070008 Orangevale AR 5 15.50 3

2270070009 Orangevale AR 5 7.42 1

2270070010 Orangevale AR 5 7.30 1

1496.17 285

Acres Units





0730080025 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) A 2 T 0.72 1

0730090047 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) A 2 0.40 1

0730090062 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) A 2 P 117.62 50




0730180029 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) A 2T 39.81 17

0730180030 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) A 2T 143.50 61




















1260060034 Cosumnes A 2 4.74 2

1260070005 Cosumnes A 2 10.00 4

1260070034 Cosumnes A 2 2.87 1

1260070047 Cosumnes A 2 3.05 1

1260070062 Cosumnes A 2 2.27 1

1260070063 Cosumnes A 2 2.27 1

1260070074 Cosumnes A 2 10.45 4

1260070086 Cosumnes A 2 0.08 1

1260070095 Cosumnes A 2 4.18 2

1260070097 Cosumnes A 2 2.47 1

1260070098 Cosumnes A 2 2.47 1

1260070101 Cosumnes A 2 2.46 1

1260070102 Cosumnes A 2 2.45 1





1260070103 Cosumnes A 2 2.04 1

1260141005 Cosumnes A 2 2.44 1

1260141007 Cosumnes A 2 2.19 1

1260141008 Cosumnes A 2 2.45 1

1260141009 Cosumnes A 2 2.34 1

1260220005 Cosumnes A 2 2.32 1

1260230001 Cosumnes A 2 T 3.65 2

1260230007 Cosumnes A 2 0.88 1

1260230008 Cosumnes A 2 0.18 1

1260241004 Cosumnes A 2 7.16 3

1260241007 Cosumnes A 2 0.59 1

1260241009 Cosumnes A 2 0.47 1

1260270016 Cosumnes A 2 1.32 1


1320030056 Delta A 2 3.00 1

1320030079 Delta A 2 3.63 2

1340143005 Cosumnes A 2 3.70 2

1340143008 Cosumnes A 2 1.43 1

1340173007 Cosumnes A 2 2.44 1

1340322005 Cosumnes A 2 1.95 1

1360050057 Cosumnes A 2 1.78 1

1360060034 Cosumnes A 2 T 2.61 1

1360101041 Cosumnes A 2 3.99 2

1360101064 Cosumnes A 2 2.00 1

1360101067 Cosumnes A 2 3.00 1

1360110028 Cosumnes A 2 2.00 1

1360110100 Cosumnes A 2 1.33 1

1360150089 Cosumnes A 2 2.00 1

1360170047 Cosumnes A 2 0.93 1

1360340005 Cosumnes A 2 3.11 1

1380041001 Southeast A 2 0.50 1

1380042016 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043010 Southeast A 2 0.18 1

1380043011 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043012 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043013 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043014 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043015 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043016 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043017 Southeast A 2 0.14 1





1380043018 Southeast A 2 0.14 1

1380043019 Southeast A 2 0.28 1

1380043022 Southeast A 2 0.20 1

1380043024 Southeast A 2 0.55 1

1380054016 Southeast A 2 2.86 1

1380054017 Southeast A 2 T 3.14 1

1500071030 Southeast A 2 2.22 1

1500071033 Southeast A 2 1.86 1

1500071056 Southeast A 2 2.17 1

1500071057 Southeast A 2 2.18 1

1500071058 Southeast A 2 2.47 1

1520031016 Southeast A 2 0.15 1

1520062004 Southeast A 2 1.16 1

1520190031 Southeast A 2 0.36 1

1520190032 Southeast A 2 0.42 1

2240200015 Orangevale A 2 P 1.75 1

2240540034 Orangevale A 2 P 2.04 1

2240560042 Orangevale A 2 P 1.63 1

2250220039 Natomas A 2 28.50 12

1450.68 647

Acres Units





0620060016 Vineyard AR 2 0.27 1

0630060021 Vineyard AR 2 1.00 1

0630120025 Vineyard AR 2 1.77 1

0650080067 Vineyard AR 2 T 3.18 1

1210030030 Vineyard AR 2 0.61 1

1210030049 Vineyard AR 2 2.10 1

1210030057 Vineyard AR 2 1.07 1

1210110062 Vineyard AR 2 25.96 11

1220030008 Vineyard AR 2 3.42 1

1220040001 Vineyard AR 2 1.99 1

1220070003 Vineyard AR 2 2.38 1

1220070005 Vineyard AR 2 2.38 1

1220070014 Vineyard AR 2 3.65 2

1220100016 Vineyard AR 2 2.04 1

1220140014 Vineyard AR 2 3.11 1

1220140015 Vineyard AR 2 3.11 1

1220140016 Vineyard AR 2 3.11 1

1220160021 Vineyard AR 2 3.13 1

1220170022 Vineyard AR 2 3.02 1

1230090015 Vineyard AR 2 1.53 1

1230200019 Vineyard AR 2 2.00 1

1230200020 Vineyard AR 2 2.00 1

1340190029 Cosumnes AR 2 8.39 4

1340190030 Cosumnes AR 2 9.67 4

1420100017 Delta AR 2 0.66 1

1420100052 Delta AR 2 0.36 1

1420100086 Delta AR 2 1.89 1

1460180007 Delta AR 2 F 1.28 1

1460190029 Delta AR 2 F 1.55 1

1480041006 Southeast AR 2 9.93 4

1480041009 Southeast AR 2 0.16 1

1480041028 Southeast AR 2 2.07 1

1480063009 Southeast AR 2 1.77 1

1480063015 Southeast AR 2 2.57 1

1480111010 Southeast AR 2 T 2.57 1

1480113046 Southeast AR 2 2.71 1

1480113049 Southeast AR 2 1.56 1

1480113054 Southeast AR 2 3.47 1

1480114003 Southeast AR 2 30.00 13

1480114004 Southeast AR 2 10.00 4





1480115080 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480115081 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480115082 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480132058 Southeast AR 2 10.95 5

1480152066 Southeast AR 2 1.77 1

1480152073 Southeast AR 2 2.61 1

1480152092 Southeast AR 2 1.97 1

1480152093 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480152095 Southeast AR 2 2.50 1

1480152102 Southeast AR 2 1.75 1

1480160032 Southeast AR 2 9.61 4

1480160033 Southeast AR 2 12.92 5

1480160034 Southeast AR 2 9.00 4

1480160068 Southeast AR 2 5.20 2

1480180096 Southeast AR 2 2.10 1

1480180113 Southeast AR 2 1.98 1

1480190026 Southeast AR 2 19.34 8

1480190066 Southeast AR 2 2.87 1

1480190067 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480190068 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480190071 Southeast AR 2 2.42 1

1480212002 Southeast AR 2 2.08 1

1480212007 Southeast AR 2 2.49 1

1480221003 Southeast AR 2 2.00 1

1480240012 Southeast AR 2 8.47 4

1480350007 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1480950002 Southeast AR 2 1.96 1

1481010001 Southeast AR 2 1.60 1

1481010002 Southeast AR 2 1.91 1

1481010003 Southeast AR 2 1.91 1

1481010013 Southeast AR 2 1.83 1

1481010014 Southeast AR 2 2.75 1

1481010015 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1481010016 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1481010017 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1481010018 Southeast AR 2 1.64 1

1481010019 Southeast AR 2 1.62 1

1481010020 Southeast AR 2 1.89 1

1481010021 Southeast AR 2 1.88 1

1481010022 Southeast AR 2 1.88 1





1481010023 Southeast AR 2 1.89 1

1481010024 Southeast AR 2 1.67 1

1481010028 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481010031 Southeast AR 2 1.63 1

1481060001 Southeast AR 2 1.83 1

1481060002 Southeast AR 2 2.39 1

1481060003 Southeast AR 2 1.89 1

1481060004 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060005 Southeast AR 2 1.84 1

1481060006 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060007 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060008 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060009 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060010 Southeast AR 2 2.50 1

1481060011 Southeast AR 2 3.25 1

1481060012 Southeast AR 2 1.86 1

1481060013 Southeast AR 2 2.19 1

1481060014 Southeast AR 2 1.90 1

1481060015 Southeast AR 2 2.61 1

1481060016 Southeast AR 2 1.74 1

1481060017 Southeast AR 2 2.05 1

1481060018 Southeast AR 2 1.64 1

1481060019 Southeast AR 2 1.61 1

1481060020 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1481060021 Southeast AR 2 5.67 2

1481060022 Southeast AR 2 1.85 1

1481060023 Southeast AR 2 1.86 1

1481060024 Southeast AR 2 1.92 1

1481060025 Southeast AR 2 1.92 1

1481060026 Southeast AR 2 2.15 1

1481060027 Southeast AR 2 1.65 1

1481060028 Southeast AR 2 1.93 1

1481060029 Southeast AR 2 1.81 1

1481060030 Southeast AR 2 1.60 1

1560020038 Delta AR 2 0.76 1

1560020040 Delta AR 2 0.59 1

1560080069 Delta AR 2 F 3.78 2

1560080070 Delta AR 2 F 2.00 1

1570100025 Delta AR 2 F 0.59 1

1570100081 Delta AR 2 4.48 2





1570100082 Delta AR 2 3.13 1

1570100083 Delta AR 2 4.33 2

2010053005 Rio Linda/Elverta AR 2 T 5.40 2

2010093010 Natomas AR 2 5.22 2

2010093011 Natomas AR 2 T 0.23 1










2020101045 Rio Linda/Elverta AR 2T 3.86 2






































2030020036 Antelope AR 2 T 2.00 1

2030030003 Antelope AR 2 0.45 1

2030030005 Antelope AR 2 0.41 1

2030030007 Antelope AR 2 T 0.80 1

2030030008 Antelope AR 2 T 0.31 1

2030030009 Antelope AR 2 T 0.15 1

2030120018 Antelope AR 2 7.96 3

2030120048 Antelope AR 2 2.00 1

2030120074 Antelope AR 2 0.30 1

2030120082 Antelope AR 2 3.08 1

2030250010 Antelope AR 2 4.70 2

2030250012 Antelope AR 2 2.47 1

2030250025 Antelope AR 2 2.62 1

2030260019 Antelope AR 2 11.70 5

2030260041 Antelope AR 2 2.00 1

2030260052 Antelope AR 2 2.01 1

2030260053 Antelope AR 2 2.00 1

2030260057 Antelope AR 2 2.00 1

2030260059 Antelope AR 2 0.14 1

2030270001 Antelope AR 2 0.68 1

2030270002 Antelope AR 2 0.36 1

2030270006 Antelope AR 2 0.16 1

2030270007 Antelope AR 2 0.16 1

2030460004 Antelope AR 2 1.85 1







2060010031 Rio Linda/Elverta AR2T 1.30 1


















2060200003 Rio Linda/Elverta AR 2 F 0.50 1


































































2130180024 Orangevale AR 2 9.93 4
















































































2240200005 Orangevale AR 2 11.65 5

2240200021 Orangevale AR 2 2.43 1

2240200038 Orangevale AR 2 2.19 1

2240200039 Orangevale AR 2 2.02 1

2240240041 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2240272016 Orangevale AR 2 0.17 1

2240290005 Orangevale AR 2 1.29 1

2240290027 Orangevale AR 2 0.47 1

2240290037 Orangevale AR 2 0.66 1

2240760016 Orangevale AR 2 T 2.08 1

2240760017 Orangevale AR 2 T 7.41 3

2240760018 Orangevale AR 2 T 7.01 3

2240760020 Orangevale AR 2 5.00 2

2240760034 Orangevale AR 2 T 5.17 2





2240760046 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2240770004 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.46 1

2240770014 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2240770032 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2240770033 Orangevale AR 2 5.22 2

2240800007 Orangevale AR 2 2.01 1

2240800008 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2240800011 Orangevale AR 2 1.61 1

2240800013 Orangevale AR 2 2.01 1

2250121003 Natomas AR 2 T 2.24 1

2270010001 Orangevale AR 2 14.98 6

2270010002 Orangevale AR 2 24.80 11

2270010006 Orangevale AR 2 10.12 4

2270010041 Orangevale AR 2 0.66 1

2270010042 Orangevale AR 2 0.32 1

2270010043 Orangevale AR 2 0.32 1

2270010063 Orangevale AR 2 1.46 1

2270010072 Orangevale AR 2 8.75 4

2270020035 Orangevale AR 2 1.18 1

2270020047 Orangevale AR 2 1.72 1

2270020054 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2270032002 Orangevale AR 2 2.00 1

2270040002 Orangevale AR 2 4.93 2

2270040006 Orangevale AR 2 T 0.67 1

2270040011 Orangevale AR 2 0.47 1

2270040016 Orangevale AR 2 0.80 1

2270040021 Orangevale AR 2 0.41 1

2270040023 Orangevale AR 2 2.10 1

2270040049 Orangevale AR 2 2.29 1

2270050019 Orangevale AR 2 2.60 1

2270050023 Orangevale AR 2 0.38 1

2270050024 Orangevale AR 2 T 2.54 1

2270050025 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.75 1

2270050026 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.53 1

2270050028 Orangevale AR 2 1.74 1

2270050031 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.34 1

2270080004 Orangevale AR 2 1.00 1

2270080014 Orangevale AR 2 0.86 1

2270080016 Orangevale AR 2 2.58 1

2270080031 Orangevale AR 2 1.84 1





2270110023 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.27 1

2270110038 Orangevale AR 2 T 0.48 1

2270110044 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.03 1

2270110057 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.14 1

2270110059 Orangevale AR 2 T 0.50 1

2270120034 Orangevale AR 2 T 1.91 1

2270142004 Orangevale AR 2 0.92 1

2270152010 Orangevale AR 2 2.63 1

2270170016 Orangevale AR 2 0.27 1

2270170035 Orangevale AR 2 1.21 1

2270170036 Orangevale AR 2 0.35 1

2270170042 Orangevale AR 2 2.88 1

2270180037 Orangevale AR 2 2.35 1

2270180038 Orangevale AR 2 2.30 1

2270180039 Orangevale AR 2 2.30 1

2270290003 Orangevale AR 2 2.15 1

2270530008 Orangevale AR 2 2.38 1

2330212021 Fair Oaks AR 2 0.49 1

2740250005 Natomas AR 2 0.99 1

2740250010 Natomas AR 2 0.60 1

2740250012 Natomas AR 2 3.26 1

2740250014 Natomas AR 2 1.85 1

2740250015 Natomas AR 2 3.87 2

2740250016 Natomas AR 2 0.28 1

2740250023 Natomas AR 2 0.62 1

2740260005 Natomas AR 2 2.62 1

2740260015 Natomas AR 2 0.16 1

2740260038 Natomas AR 2 4.44 2

2740260039 Natomas AR 2 5.57 2

2740260044 Natomas AR 2 2.00 1

2740260046 Natomas AR 2 2.54 1

1193.04 602

Acres Units














2460170075 Fair Oaks AR 1 (PC) 1.12 1

2460170076 Fair Oaks AR 1 (PC) 1.00 1

331.49 226

Acres Units

TABLE C-8. ZONING: RURAL ESTATE 1 (RE1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-12 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


2710193002 Arden Arcade RE 1 N 0.34 1

0.34 1

Acres Units

TABLE C-9. ZONING: RURAL ESTATE 2 (RE2) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-12 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


2940044003 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 1.20 2

2940047002 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 0.86 2

2940047004 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 0.67 1

2940102014 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 2.25 4

2940105020 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 0.25 1

2940106011 Arden Arcade RE 2 N 0.73 1

5.97 11

Acres Units



TABLE C-10. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL 1 (R1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-12 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


1150430050 South Sacramento R 1B 0.26 1

1320041011 Delta R 1A 0.40 1

1320042001 Delta R 1A 0.43 1

1320102016 Delta R 1A 0.15 1

2350570035 Orangevale R 1AP 0.23 1

2590330039 Orangevale R 1AP 4.44 4

5.91 9

Acres Units

TABLE C-11. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 1 (RD1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-12 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


1150112026 South Sacramento RD 1 1.96 2


1210420068 Vineyard RD 1 1.33 1

1420080061 Delta RD 1 1.08 1

1420080092 Delta RD 1 0.51 1

1420080108 Delta RD 1 7.92 7

1580060001 Delta RD 1 F 1.00 1

1580060009 Delta RD 1 F 0.23 1

1580060011 Delta RD 1 F 0.22 1

1580060013 Delta RD 1 F 0.46 1

1580060014 Delta RD 1 F 0.22 1

1580060015 Delta RD 1 F 0.22 1

1580060025 Delta RD 1 F 0.23 1

1580060038 Delta RD 1 F 0.46 1

1580060047 Delta RD 1 F 0.47 1

2360070018 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 1 T 0.92 1

2460121026 Fair Oaks RD 1 0.05 1

2460121027 Fair Oaks RD 1 0.43 1













2600460019 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 1 N 0.04 1








2740220063 Natomas RD 1 (SPA) 1.13 1

2740220065 Natomas RD 1 (SPA) 0.81 1


2920200078 Arden Arcade RD 1 0.42 1

2920200082 Arden Arcade RD1 0.90 1

2920200084 Arden Arcade RD1 1.00 1

2920200086 Arden Arcade RD1 1.09 1

2920200089 Arden Arcade RD 1 1.28 1

43.19 53

Acres Units






0510071008 South Sacramento RD 2 N 0.23 1


0510111039 South Sacramento RD 2 N 0.32 1


1210110062 Vineyard RD 2 35.66 61

1420180014 Delta RD 2 0.91 2

1420180019 Delta RD 2 0.49 1

1420190002 Delta RD 2 0.56 1

1570081015 Delta RD 2 3.72 6

1570081016 Delta RD 2 0.53 1

1570081017 Delta RD 2 2.62 4

1570081021 Delta RD 2 1.00 2

1570100062 Delta RD 2 1.19 2

1570211005 Delta RD 2 F 0.35 1

1570211006 Delta RD 2 F 1.06 2

1570212001 Delta RD 2 F 0.17 1

1570212006 Delta RD 2 F 0.29 1

1570221001 Delta RD 2 F 1.06 2

1570221002 Delta RD 2 F 0.30 1

1570221004 Delta RD 2 F 0.50 1

1570221008 Delta RD 2 F 1.01 2

1570222007 Delta RD 2 F 0.45 1

1570222010 Delta RD 2 F 0.22 1

1570222012 Delta RD 2 F 0.45 1

1570222013 Delta RD 2 F 0.23 1

1570222014 Delta RD 2 F 0.25 1

1570222016 Delta RD 2 F 0.24 1

2020101005 Rio Linda/Elverta RD 2 10.00 17









2130201080 Orangevale RD 2 0.91 2

2130202062 Orangevale RD 2 0.52 1

2130211001 Orangevale RD 2 2.00 3





2130211020 Orangevale RD 2 1.01 2

2130211028 Orangevale RD 2 0.55 1

2130211029 Orangevale RD 2 0.58 1

2130211030 Orangevale RD 2 0.55 1

2130211031 Orangevale RD 2 1.54 3

2130241029 Orangevale RD 2 0.44 1

2130241032 Orangevale RD 2 2.82 5

2130241034 Orangevale RD 2 0.47 1

2130241035 Orangevale RD 2 0.50 1

2130244032 Orangevale RD2 0.87 1

2130253042 Orangevale RD 2 0.50 1

2130373061 Orangevale RD 2 0.43 1

2130430001 Orangevale RD 2 0.40 1

2130430007 Orangevale RD 2 0.05 1

2130430015 Orangevale RD 2 0.25 1

2130450039 Orangevale RD 2 2.49 4

2130450040 Orangevale RD 2 0.48 1

2130450041 Orangevale RD 2 0.50 1

2130450042 Orangevale RD 2 0.56 1

2130450043 Orangevale RD 2 0.71 1

2130460055 Orangevale RD 2 0.46 1

2200023004 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 2 0.51 1







2230012007 Orangevale RD 2 0.15 1

2230012008 Orangevale RD 2 0.53 1

2230030023 Orangevale RD 2 0.12 1

2230030037 Orangevale RD 2 1.44 2

2230041025 Orangevale RD 2 0.25 1

2230041027 Orangevale RD 2 0.33 1

2230041035 Orangevale RD 2 0.31 1





2230042030 Orangevale RD 2 1.15 2

2230042052 Orangevale RD 2 0.25 1

2230042066 Orangevale RD 2 0.55 1

2230071023 Orangevale RD 2 0.48 1

2230071024 Orangevale RD 2 0.48 1

2230092028 Orangevale RD 2 2.18 4

2230092031 Orangevale RD 2 2.05 3

2230092040 Orangevale RD 2 1.00 2

2230101047 Orangevale RD 2 0.56 1

2230690005 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1











2300230011 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 2 Z 0.30 1



2350060010 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.70 1

2350060016 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.63 1

2400081002 North Highlands RD 2 N 0.78 1










































2400513014 North Highlands RD 2 0.45 1









2400560085 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD2 0.27 1






2420172005 Fair Oaks RD 2 1.26 2

2420175015 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.66 1

2420175018 Fair Oaks RD 2 1.92 3

2420175025 Fair Oaks RD 2 T 0.99 2

2420221024 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 0.34 1

2420221042 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.95 2





2420221055 Fair Oaks RD 2 P 0.12 1

2420222037 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 0.53 1

2420222038 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 0.53 1

2420251025 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 1.83 3

2420364017 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.85 1

2420460017 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.55 1

2420460018 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.47 1

2420590004 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.92 2

2440110007 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.08 1

2440110044 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.65 1

2440110047 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.49 1




2460030023 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.54 1

2460080055 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.55 1

2460093030 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.33 1

2460111011 Fair Oaks RD 2 1.15 2

2460111015 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.17 1

2460111035 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.52 1

2460111051 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.09 1

2460111057 Fair Oaks RD 2 2.50 4

2460130091 Fair Oaks RD 2 1.13 2

2460130100 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.49 1

2460142023 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.74 1

2460142030 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.30 1

2460152008 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.52 1

2460170057 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 4.77 8

2460170075 Fair Oaks RD 2 (PC) 0.23 1

2460170076 Fair Oaks RD 2 (PC) 0.14 1

2460192087 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.43 1

2460192088 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.63 1

2460192090 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.55 1

2460192096 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.46 1

2460192097 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.56 1

2460200103 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.48 1

2460200104 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.46 1

2460200116 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.45 1





2460212020 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.47 1

2460221019 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.64 1

2460233019 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.46 1

2460250017 Fair Oaks RD 2 T 0.90 2

2460312024 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.70 1

2460312027 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.77 1

2460402033 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.54 1

2460441004 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.56 1

2460441014 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.48 1

2460441020 Fair Oaks RD 2 1.30 2

2460441021 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.16 1

2460441023 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.51 1

2460441024 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.51 1

2460570004 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.86 1

2460570008 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.70 1

2460580005 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 0.76 1

2460650016 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.48 1

2460770007 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.68 1

2460770013 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.52 1

2460800007 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.47 1






2480020029 Fair Oaks RD 2 X 0.72 1

2480020057 Fair Oaks RD 2 8.06 14

2490170045 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.62 1

2490170046 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.56 1

2530210003 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.21 1

2530210007 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.30 1

2530210059 Fair Oaks RD 2 3.26 6

2530360005 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.62 1


2570180027 Orangevale RD 2 T 0.72 1

2570300008 Orangevale RD 2 0.56 1






2590250054 Orangevale RD 2 1.09 2

2590250062 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1

2590250063 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1

2590250065 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1

2590291026 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1

2590340006 Orangevale RD 2 0.51 1

2590380007 Orangevale RD 2 T 0.51 1

2590380008 Orangevale RD 2 0.52 1



2600113035 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 2N 0.63 1














2600250082 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD 2N 0.69 1








2600400008 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms

RD 2 (PC)(NPA) 1.25 2

2610040007 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.42 1

2610080037 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.44 1

2610080040 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.44 1

2610080041 Fair Oaks RD 2 0.44 1

2610160030 Orangevale RD 2 T 0.40 1

2610170077 Orangevale RD 2 0.46 1

2610210001 Orangevale RD 2 1.17 2

2610220001 Orangevale RD 2 (SPA) 0.46 1















2730230028 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD2 T 2.17 4







2810191004 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 0.26 1

2810191008 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 0.68 1

2810192004 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.06 1

2810221002 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 0.06 1

2810222004 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.05 1

2810222028 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 1.23 2

2810254006 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.08 1

2810281008 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 0.28 1

2810283003 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.07 1

2810291002 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.75 1

2810291004 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 1.30 2

2810351005 Arden Arcade RD 2 T 0.05 1












2890134003 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 1.30 2

2890140022 Arden Arcade RD 2 0.46 1

2890161018 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.80 1

2890163010 Arden Arcade RD 2 N 0.75 1

282.44 531

Acres Units





0660080009 Vineyard RD 3 9.97 25

0660100024 Vineyard RD 3 21.50 55


1420080104 Delta RD 3 0.16 1

1420080105 Delta RD 3 0.24 1

1420080106 Delta RD 3 0.42 1

1420080107 Delta RD 3 0.28 1

1420140003 Delta RD 3 F 0.29 1

1420140024 Delta RD 3 F 0.35 1

1420140028 Delta RD 3 F 0.33 1

2130201063 Orangevale RD 3 0.40 1

2130260050 Orangevale RD 3 1.01 3

2130271004 Orangevale RD 3 0.13 1

2130343021 Orangevale RD 3 0.32 1

2130343022 Orangevale RD 3 0.26 1

2130343023 Orangevale RD 3 0.29 1

2130460003 Orangevale RD 3 0.35 1

2130460016 Orangevale RD 3 0.25 1

2130460018 Orangevale RD 3 0.25 1

2130460020 Orangevale RD 3 0.25 1

2130460066 Orangevale RD 3 0.22 1

2230042003 Orangevale RD 3 0.58 1



2350180015 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.95 2

2350180064 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.62 2

2350640017 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.35 1


2400700005 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.43 1

2420071072 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.27 1

2420071073 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.04 1

2460023025 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.66 2

2460051043 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.30 1

2460051044 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.29 1

2460051045 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.35 1

2460093038 Fair Oaks RD3 0.27 1

2460200117 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.46 1

2460321016 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.21 1

2460342009 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.29 1

2460402038 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.19 1

2460412017 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.30 1

2460511021 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.32 1





2460530016 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.52 1

2490142071 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.28 1

2490142075 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.36 1

2490150001 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.34 1

2490150034 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.36 1

2490150040 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.26 1

2490150041 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.30 1

2490170032 Fair Oaks RD 3 1.11 3

2490360008 Fair Oaks RD 3 1.10 3

2490360010 Fair Oaks RD 3 1.03 3

2530160066 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.35 1

2530172077 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.23 1

2530181013 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.28 1

2530182049 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.26 1

2530182051 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.34 1

2530182053 Fair Oaks RD3 0.78 2

2530220044 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.31 1

2530233037 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.23 1

2530250041 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.39 1

2530250043 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.26 1

2530250044 Fair Oaks RD 3 0.30 1

2540241037 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.33 1

2540260032 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.39 1



2680044030 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.73 2

2680104039 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.31 1

2680104040 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.43 1

2680280071 Arden Arcade RD 3 1.17 3


2790183009 Arden Arcade RD 3 N 0.56 1

2880010012 Arden Arcade RD 3 N 0.14 1

2890171010 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.33 1

2890172029 Arden Arcade RD 3 0.28 1


2920111022 Arden Arcade RD 3 N 0.46 1







1210120027 Vineyard RD 4 0.79 3

1210700047 Vineyard RD4 0.16 1

1210700049 Vineyard RD4 0.15 1

1210700050 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700051 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700066 Vineyard RD4 0.19 1

1210700067 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700068 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700069 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700070 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700071 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700072 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700073 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700074 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700075 Vineyard RD4 0.19 1

1210700096 Vineyard RD4 0.19 1

1210700097 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700098 Vineyard RD4 0.17 1

1210700099 Vineyard RD4 0.16 1

1210700100 Vineyard RD4 0.19 1

1210700101 Vineyard RD4 0.19 1

1210700102 Vineyard RD4 0.16 1

1210700103 Vineyard RD4 0.18 1

1220050006 Vineyard RD 4 17.80 61

1220050007 Vineyard RD 4 5.00 17

1220050008 Vineyard RD 4 5.00 17

1220050009 Vineyard RD 4 8.20 28

1220050031 Vineyard RD 4 6.40 22

1220120015 Vineyard RD 4 10.96 37

1220120043 Vineyard RD 4 1.42 5

1220120044 Vineyard RD 4 9.54 32

1220120045 Vineyard RD 4 7.94 27

1220120049 Vineyard RD 4 1.04 4

1220150055 Vineyard RD 4 4.81 16

1220690022 Vineyard RD 4 0.40 1

1220690066 Vineyard RD 4 0.51 2

1320980074 Delta RD 4 0.73 2



2230220066 Orangevale RD 4 0.22 1

2230232039 Orangevale RD 4 0.40 1

2230242062 Orangevale RD 4 1.06 4

2230251021 Orangevale RD 4 0.15 1




































2400282042 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.30 1

2490020006 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 36.37 124

2490370001 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370002 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370003 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370004 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370005 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370006 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370007 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370008 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370009 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370010 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370011 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1





2490370012 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370013 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370014 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370015 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490370016 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370017 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370018 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370019 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490370020 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370021 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370022 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370023 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370024 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.18 1

2490370025 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490370026 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490370027 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490370028 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490370029 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490370030 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.24 1

2490370031 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.33 1

2490370032 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.36 1

2490370033 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.30 1

2490370034 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.35 1

2490370035 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.36 1

2490370036 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.36 1

2490370037 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.23 1

2490370038 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370039 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490370040 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.37 1

2490370041 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.54 2

2490370042 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.38 1

2490370043 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370044 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370045 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.38 1

2490370046 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.54 2

2490370047 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.38 1

2490370048 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370049 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370050 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.38 1

2490370051 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.53 2

2490370052 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.38 1

2490370053 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370054 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490370055 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.26 1





2490370056 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.33 1

2490380001 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380002 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380003 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380004 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380005 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380006 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380007 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380008 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380009 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380010 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.23 1

2490380011 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380012 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380013 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.24 1

2490380014 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380015 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380016 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380017 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380018 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380019 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.34 1

2490380020 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.28 1

2490380021 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.23 1

2490380022 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380023 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380024 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380025 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.34 1

2490380026 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380027 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380028 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380029 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490380030 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490380031 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380032 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.24 1

2490380033 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380034 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380035 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380036 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380037 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380038 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490380039 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380040 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380041 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380042 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490380043 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1





2490380044 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380045 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490380046 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380047 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380048 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490380049 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390001 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390002 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390003 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.21 1

2490390004 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.25 1

2490390005 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490390006 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390007 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390008 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490390009 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.22 1

2490390010 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.20 1

2490400001 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400002 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400003 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400004 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400005 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400006 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400007 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400008 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400009 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400010 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400011 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400012 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.23 1

2490400013 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.13 1

2490400014 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400015 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400016 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400017 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400018 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400019 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400020 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.14 1

2490400021 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.14 1

2490400022 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400023 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.15 1

2490400024 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.23 1

2490400025 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.14 1

2490400026 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400027 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400028 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1





2490400029 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400030 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400031 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400032 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.13 1

2490400033 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.13 1

2490400034 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400035 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400036 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400037 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400038 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400039 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400040 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.11 1

2490400041 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400042 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400043 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400044 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400045 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400046 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400047 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400048 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400049 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.10 1

2490400050 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.12 1

2490400051 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.48 2

2490400052 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.19 1

2490400053 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.83 3

2490400054 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 0.24 1

2490400055 Fair Oaks RD 4 (SPA) 5.60 19

2530013027 Fair Oaks RD 4 Z 0.63 2

2530072004 Fair Oaks RD 4 0.33 1

2550082046 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.17 1

2550082051 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.36 1

2550091100 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.20 1

2550205010 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.34 1

2550355010 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.48 2





2560080042 Arden Arcade RD 4 N 0.98 3

2560080043 Arden Arcade RD 4 N 2.11 7






2560171006 Arden Arcade RD 4 N 1.09 4

2560211026 Arden Arcade RD 4 N 0.41 1

2560211027 Arden Arcade RD 4 N 0.36 1

2610250040 Orangevale RD 4 0.26 1

2610270013 Orangevale RD 4 10.00 34

2610270023 Orangevale RD 4 0.83 3



2890210008 Arden Arcade RD 4 1.17 4

2890210009 Arden Arcade RD 4 1.09 4

2890440044 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.43 1

2890440045 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.87 3


2920210033 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.35 1

2920232010 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.40 1

2920342003 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.34 1

2920374001 Arden Arcade RD 4 X 0.39 1

2920580006 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.36 1

2920580007 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.33 1

2920580016 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.16 1

2920580017 Arden Arcade RD 4 0.06 1





















































































0500301006 South Sacramento RD 5 F 2.50 11


0500301034 South Sacramento RD 5 T 0.26 1




0500301044 South Sacramento RD 5 (NPA) 0.38 2






















0500331059 South Sacramento RD5 0.15 1





































0510010079 South Sacramento RD 5 (NPA) 0.32 1







0600290056 Cordova RD 5 0.25 1

0600290066 Cordova RD 5 0.28 1

0650052035 Vineyard RD 5 42.97 183

0650052036 Vineyard RD 5 2.10 9


0650080076 Vineyard RD 5 T 9.33 40

0650080077 Vineyard RD 5 9.50 40

0650080092 Vineyard RD 5 1.95 8

0650080097 Vineyard RD 5 1.49 6

0650080107 Vineyard RD 5 0.06 1

0650080108 Vineyard RD 5 14.39 61

0650080108 Vineyard RD 5 0.01 1



0650260001 Vineyard RD 5 5.04 21

0650260002 Vineyard RD 5 7.58 32

0650260003 Vineyard RD 5 3.96 17

0650260005 Vineyard RD 5 2.25 10

0650260006 Vineyard RD 5 3.13 13

0650260007 Vineyard RD 5 6.52 28

0650260011 Vineyard RD 5 1.32 6

0650260013 Vineyard RD 5 1.89 8

0660070018 Vineyard RD 5 10.00 42

0660070049 Vineyard RD 5 23.10 91

0660070050 Vineyard RD 5 11.20 47

0660100024 Vineyard RD 5 10.20 43

0660140060 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660140061 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660140062 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660140063 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660140064 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660140065 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660140066 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660140067 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660150001 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150002 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150003 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1





0660150004 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150005 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150006 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150007 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150008 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150009 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150010 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150011 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150012 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150013 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150014 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150015 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150016 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150017 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150018 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150019 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150020 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150021 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150022 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150023 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150024 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150025 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150026 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150027 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150028 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150029 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150030 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150031 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150032 Vineyard RD 5 0.23 1

0660150033 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660150034 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150035 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150036 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150037 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150038 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660150039 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150040 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150041 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150042 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660150043 Vineyard RD 5 0.22 1

0660150044 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660150045 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150046 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150047 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1





0660150048 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150052 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660150053 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150054 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150055 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150056 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660150057 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660150058 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150059 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150060 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150061 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150062 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150063 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150064 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150065 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660150066 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150067 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150068 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660150069 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660150070 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160001 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160002 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160003 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160004 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160005 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160006 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160007 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160008 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160009 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160010 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160011 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160012 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160013 Vineyard RD 5 0.24 1

0660160014 Vineyard RD 5 0.23 1

0660160015 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660160016 Vineyard RD 5 0.22 1

0660160017 Vineyard RD 5 0.25 1

0660160018 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160019 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660160020 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160021 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160022 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160023 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160024 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1





0660160025 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160026 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160027 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160028 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160029 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160030 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160031 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660160032 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660160033 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160034 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660160035 Vineyard RD 5 0.25 1

0660160036 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660160037 Vineyard RD 5 0.32 1

0660160038 Vineyard RD 5 0.26 1

0660160039 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660160040 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660160041 Vineyard RD 5 0.22 1

0660160042 Vineyard RD 5 0.23 1

0660160043 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660160044 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160045 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160046 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160047 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160048 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160049 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660160050 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660160051 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160052 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160053 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160054 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160055 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660160056 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660160057 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660160058 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660160059 Vineyard RD 5 0.27 1

0660160060 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660160061 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160062 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160063 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160064 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160065 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160066 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160067 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660160068 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1





0660160069 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660160070 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160071 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660160072 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170001 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170002 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660170003 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660170004 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660170005 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660170006 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170007 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170008 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660170009 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660170010 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170011 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170012 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660170013 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660170014 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170015 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170016 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170017 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170018 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170019 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170020 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170021 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170022 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170023 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170024 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170025 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170026 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170027 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170028 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660170029 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170030 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170031 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170032 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170033 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170034 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170035 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170036 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170037 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170038 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170039 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170040 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1





0660170041 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660170042 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660170043 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660170044 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170045 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170046 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170047 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170048 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170049 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170050 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170051 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170052 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170053 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170054 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170055 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170056 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170057 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170058 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170059 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660170060 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170061 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170062 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170063 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660170064 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660170065 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170066 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170067 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660170068 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180001 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180002 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660180003 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660180004 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180005 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180006 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180007 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180008 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180009 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180010 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660180011 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660180012 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180013 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180014 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180015 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660180016 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1





0660180017 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180018 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180019 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180020 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180021 Vineyard RD 5 0.22 1

0660180022 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660180023 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

0660180024 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660180025 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180026 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180027 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660180028 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660180029 Vineyard RD 5 0.26 1

0660180030 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

0660180031 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180032 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

0660180033 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180034 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

0660180035 Vineyard RD 5 0.22 1

0660180036 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660180037 Vineyard RD 5 0.29 1

0660180038 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660180039 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180040 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180041 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180042 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180043 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180044 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180045 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180046 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

0660180047 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660180048 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180049 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180050 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180051 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180052 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180053 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180054 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660180055 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

0660180056 Vineyard RD 5 0.20 1

0660180057 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180058 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180059 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180060 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1





0660180061 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180062 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180063 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180064 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

0660180065 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

0660210002 Vineyard RD 5 15.92 68

0660210003 Vineyard RD 5 18.17 77

0660210004 Vineyard RD 5 1.38 6

0660210005 Vineyard RD 5 11.85 50

0660210006 Vineyard RD 5 13.71 58

0660210007 Vineyard RD 5 13.82 59

0660210017 Vineyard RD 5 2.80 12

0660210021 Vineyard RD 5 0.45 2

0730190025 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5 P 13.80 59



0730280024 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5 T 0.23 1





























0730790007 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5 (PD) 52.07 221









0730820032 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5P 0.39 2

0730820033 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5P 0.50 2










0730860001 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 5 0.41 2








0740170078 Cordova RD 5 0.28 1

0740300056 Cordova RD 5 0.26 1

0740316024 Cordova RD 5 1.89 8

0740350108 Cordova RD5 0.18 1

0740350109 Cordova RD5 0.14 1

0740350110 Cordova RD5 3.28 14

0750010070 Cordova RD 5 0.65 3

0750510072 Cordova RD 5 0.13 1







1150040080 Vineyard RD5 3.79 16

1150051022 Vineyard RD 5 0.24 1

1150051031 Vineyard RD 5 0.31 1























1150120017 Vineyard RD 5 2.96 13

1150120024 Vineyard RD 5 4.49 19

1150120025 Vineyard RD 5 4.49 19



























1150261001 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1












































1190030015 Delta RD 5 N 0.23 1

1190030016 Delta RD 5 N 0.11 1

1210100055 Vineyard RD 5 1.18 5

1210110056 Vineyard RD 5 2.92 12

1210110062 Vineyard RD 5 34.84 148

1210290088 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1210820028 Vineyard RD 5 0.03 1

1211050009 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

1211050010 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

1211050011 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1





1211050012 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

1211050013 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050014 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050015 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050016 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050017 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

1211050018 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

1211050019 Vineyard RD 5 0.18 1

1211050020 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

1211050021 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050022 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050023 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050024 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050025 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050026 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050027 Vineyard RD 5 0.16 1

1211050028 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

1211050029 Vineyard RD 5 0.15 1

1211050030 Vineyard RD 5 0.13 1

1211050031 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050032 Vineyard RD 5 0.21 1

1211050033 Vineyard RD 5 0.17 1

1211050034 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050035 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050036 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050037 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050038 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050039 Vineyard RD 5 0.14 1

1211050040 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050041 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050042 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050043 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050045 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1211050046 Vineyard RD 5 0.12 1

1220020012 Vineyard RD 5 17.12 73

1220050009 Vineyard RD 5 11.80 50

1220050018 Vineyard RD 5 3.45 15

1220050020 Vineyard RD 5 9.43 40

1220050021 Vineyard RD 5 3.20 14

1220050025 Vineyard RD 5 10.00 42

1220120010 Vineyard RD 5 1.37 6

1220120049 Vineyard RD 5 6.92 29

1220120050 Vineyard RD 5 0.19 1

1220120051 Vineyard RD 5 11.92 51





1220700088 Vineyard RD 5 0.23 1

1220760001 Vineyard RD 5 15.48 66



1320092002 Delta RD 5 0.11 1

1320093011 Delta RD 5 0.11 1

1320093012 Delta RD 5 0.09 1

1320094004 Delta RD 5 0.14 1

1320094007 Delta RD 5 0.13 1

1320094024 Delta RD 5 0.19 1

1320095006 Delta RD 5 0.10 1

1320095019 Delta RD 5 0.20 1

1320096006 Delta RD 5 0.03 1

1320101002 Delta RD 5 0.09 1

1320101003 Delta RD 5 0.13 1

1320101013 Delta RD 5 0.14 1

1320101014 Delta RD 5 0.15 1

1320101018 Delta RD 5 0.15 1

1320102002 Delta RD 5 0.11 1

1320102003 Delta RD 5 0.11 1

1320102004 Delta RD 5 0.10 1

1320102005 Delta RD 5 0.22 1

1320102013 Delta RD 5 0.09 1

1320104003 Delta RD 5 0.15 1

1320104008 Delta RD 5 0.15 1

1320104011 Delta RD 5 0.09 1

1320104015 Delta RD 5 0.15 1

1320104021 Delta RD 5 0.24 1

1320106005 Delta RD 5 5.29 22

1320112003 Delta RD 5 0.86 4

1320113003 Delta RD 5 0.26 1

1320113005 Delta RD 5 0.11 1

1320113006 Delta RD 5 0.16 1

1320162019 Delta RD 5 0.30 1

1320162020 Delta RD 5 0.26 1

1320175003 Delta RD 5 0.13 1

1320200032 Delta RD 5 0.68 3

1320200032 Delta RD 5 0.10 1

1420080074 Delta RD 5 0.22 1

1420092018 Delta RD 5 0.17 1

1420092025 Delta RD 5 0.25 1

1420172011 Delta RD 5 0.23 1





1420172016 Delta RD 5 0.04 1

1420172017 Delta RD 5 0.20 1

1420173051 Delta RD 5 0.25 1















































2020261001 Rio Linda/Elverta RD 5 F 0.32 1






2030070064 Antelope RD 5 5.47 23





2030100085 Antelope RD 5 0.36 2

2030100086 Antelope RD 5 0.10 1

2030120094 Antelope RD 5 1.76 7

2030580002 Antelope RD 5 4.00 17

2030580003 Antelope RD 5 7.99 34

2030720019 Antelope RD 5 0.14 1

2030890066 Antelope RD 5 0.93 4

2031590119 Antelope RD 5 0.18 1

2031920078 Antelope RD 5 0.12 1

2031920079 Antelope RD 5 0.35 1

2031920080 Antelope RD 5 0.03 1

2031920081 Antelope RD 5 1.70 7

2060035002 Rio Linda/Elverta RD 5 T 3.00 13

















































































































































2230012048 Orangevale RD 5 0.06 1

2230012053 Orangevale RD 5 3.85 16













2280670016 North Highlands RD 5 T 0.15 1
















2330142066 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.79 3

2330204012 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.25 1

2330281014 Fair Oaks RD 5 5.40 23

2330690003 Fair Oaks RD5 0.24 1

2330690004 Fair Oaks RD5 0.21 1

2330690005 Fair Oaks RD5 0.18 1

2330690007 Fair Oaks RD5 0.23 1

2330690008 Fair Oaks RD5 0.28 1

2350034018 Orangevale RD 5 0.29 1

2350034065 Orangevale RD 5 0.18 1

2350043012 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1

2350091031 Orangevale RD 5 0.34 1

2350092038 Orangevale RD 5 X 0.45 2

2350100003 Orangevale RD 5 1.01 4

2350100013 Orangevale RD 5 0.09 1

2350100026 Orangevale RD 5 0.01 1

2350191057 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.69 3

2350212029 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.20 1

2350212053 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.12 1

2350261049 Orangevale RD 5 0.18 1

2350261050 Orangevale RD 5 0.17 1

2350381009 Orangevale RD 5 0.18 1

2350381010 Orangevale RD 5 0.23 1

2350381011 Orangevale RD 5 0.23 1

2350381012 Orangevale RD 5 0.21 1

2350382041 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1





2350382042 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1

2350382043 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1

2350490037 Orangevale RD 5 0.47 2
































2420042027 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.27 1

2420081026 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.17 1

2420081027 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.20 1

2420081046 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.24 1

2420081047 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.23 1

2420095068 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.27 1

2420101044 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.20 1

2420102030 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.71 3

2420102034 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.63 3

2420173018 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.48 2

2420173051 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.27 1

2420173055 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.19 1

2420181036 Fair Oaks RD 5 1.29 5

2420182017 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.81 3

2420193037 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.47 2

2420193040 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.24 1

2420193041 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.29 1

2420193044 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.45 2

2420195004 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.47 2

2420195011 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.85 4

2420203019 Fair Oaks RD 5 1.00 4

2420231062 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.67 3

2420273001 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.26 1

2420273004 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.51 2

2420273005 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.43 2

2420273009 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.59 3

2420273011 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.21 1

2420310009 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.34 1

2420321009 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.20 1

2420372002 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.26 1

2420400013 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.30 1

2420410033 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.15 1

2420410076 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.23 1

2420410077 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.18 1

2420440023 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.26 1

2420450025 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.22 1

2420450031 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.28 1

2420450063 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.23 1





2420480021 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.23 1

2420480030 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.35 1

2420480065 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.09 1

2420620001 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.74 3

2420620002 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.51 2

2420620003 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.48 2

2420620004 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.40 2

2420620005 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.70 3

2420620006 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 1.18 5

2420620007 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.32 1

2420620008 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.26 1

2420620009 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.28 1

2420620010 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 0.27 1

2440022017 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.27 1

2440041025 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.15 1

2440041039 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.14 1

2440041040 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.15 1

2440057005 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.07 1

2440057007 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.45 2

2440057008 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.28 1

2440064046 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.29 1

2440064048 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.69 3

2440064049 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.29 1

2440093001 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.39 2

2440141018 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.21 1

2440182008 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.23 1

2440183015 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.43 2

2440183016 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.35 1

2440183017 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.42 2

2440215018 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.30 1

2440220017 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.24 1

2440241033 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.25 1

2440242007 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.26 1

2440242011 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.26 1

2440242032 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.43 2

2440262018 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.57 2

2440263008 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.48 2

2440263026 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.33 1

2440271009 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.64 3

2440274003 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.87 4

2440275020 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.76 3

2440282023 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.46 2

2440282024 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.49 2

2440283007 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.50 2





2440283008 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.13 1

2440283011 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.18 1

2440283012 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.20 1

2440293009 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.08 1

2440293015 Fair Oaks RD 5 (PC)(NPA) 0.47 2

2440301002 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.29 1

2440301012 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 1.29 5

2440302018 Fair Oaks RD 5 T 1.25 5

2440312003 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.37 2

2440353002 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.98 4

2440353039 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.21 1


2460212018 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.34 1

2460213024 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.37 2

2460250020 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.92 4




2480011010 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.94 4

2480011043 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.83 4

2480072007 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.42 2

2480140003 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.11 1

2480140012 Fair Oaks RD 5 X 0.25 1

2530310043 Fair Oaks RD 5 0.81 3

2540123005 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.34 1

2550182030 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.18 1

2550182032 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.16 1

2550290029 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.12 1


















2590113030 Orangevale RD 5 0.25 1

2590132014 Orangevale RD 5 Z 0.24 1

2590141016 Orangevale RD 5 T 0.63 3

2590143006 Orangevale RD 5 T 0.11 1

2590180066 Orangevale RD 5 0.07 1

2590190053 Orangevale RD 5 0.07 1

2590201027 Orangevale RD 5 0.08 1

2590211045 Orangevale RD 5 0.08 1











2610160051 Orangevale RD 5 0.30 1

2610160053 Orangevale RD 5 0.44 2

2610160054 Orangevale RD 5 0.44 2

2610470001 Orangevale RD 5 0.27 1

2610470017 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1

2610470059 Orangevale RD 5 0.21 1

2610470062 Orangevale RD 5 0.24 1

2710022057 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.19 1





2710022063 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.14 1













































2780111006 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.16 1

2780182035 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2780182036 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2790051024 Arden Arcade RD 5 (SPA) 0.21 1












2790110071 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.18 1





2790122017 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.25 1

2790122018 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.23 1

2790122019 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.23 1

2790122020 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.23 1

2790122021 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.28 1

2790122022 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.28 1

2790191019 Arden Arcade RD 5 T 0.03 1

2790191024 Arden Arcade RD 5 Z 0.30 1

2790191026 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.03 1

2790201032 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.24 1

2790203007 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.56 2














2860092020 Arden Arcade RD5 0.25 1

2860180036 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2860180037 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2860300062 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.23 1

2860300079 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.24 1

2860300080 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2860340047 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.03 1

2940050022 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.24 1

2940050023 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1

2940050024 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.21 1





2940050025 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.23 1

2940260012 Arden Arcade RD 5 0.20 1










0630250057 Cordova RD 7 0.08 1

0650052034 Vineyard RD 7 17.32 103


0660070017 Vineyard RD 7 8.00 48

0660070051 Vineyard RD 7 12.45 73

0660100062 Vineyard RD 7 24.70 147

0660120001 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660120002 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660120003 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660120004 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660120005 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660120006 Vineyard RD 7 0.20 1

0660120007 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660120008 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660120009 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120010 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120011 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120012 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120013 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120014 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120015 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120016 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120017 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120018 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120019 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120020 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660120021 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120022 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120023 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120024 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120025 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120026 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120027 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120028 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120029 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660120030 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660120031 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120032 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120033 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120034 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1





0660120035 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120036 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120037 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120038 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120039 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120040 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1

0660120041 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660120042 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120043 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120044 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1

0660120045 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660120046 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120047 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120048 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660120049 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660120050 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120051 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120052 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120053 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120054 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120055 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120056 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120057 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120058 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120059 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120060 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120061 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120062 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120063 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120064 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660120065 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660120066 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120067 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120068 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120069 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120070 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120071 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120072 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120073 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120074 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120075 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120076 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120077 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120078 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1





0660120079 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120080 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660120081 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660130001 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660130002 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130003 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130004 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130005 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130006 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130007 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130008 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130009 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130010 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130011 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130012 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130013 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130014 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130015 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130016 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1

0660130017 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1

0660130018 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130019 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130020 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130021 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130022 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130023 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130024 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130025 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130026 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130027 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130028 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130029 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130030 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130031 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130032 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130033 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660130034 Vineyard RD 7 0.22 1

0660130035 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660130036 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660130037 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660130038 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660130039 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130040 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130041 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1





0660130042 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130043 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130044 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130045 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130046 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130047 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130048 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130049 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130050 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130051 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130052 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130053 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130054 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130055 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130056 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660130057 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660140001 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1

0660140002 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140003 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140004 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140005 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140006 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140007 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140008 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140009 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140010 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660140011 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660140012 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140013 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140014 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140015 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140016 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140017 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660140018 Vineyard RD 7 0.19 1

0660140019 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660140020 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660140021 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140022 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140023 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140024 Vineyard RD 7 0.21 1

0660140025 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660140026 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140027 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140028 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1





0660140029 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140030 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140031 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140032 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660140033 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660140034 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140035 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140036 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140037 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660140038 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660140039 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660140040 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660140041 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140042 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140043 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140044 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140045 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660140046 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

0660140047 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660140048 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660140049 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660140050 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660140051 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140052 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140053 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140054 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140055 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140056 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140057 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140058 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660140059 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

0660140068 Vineyard RD 7 0.18 1

0660140069 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660150049 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660150050 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660150051 Vineyard RD 7 0.17 1

0660170069 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170070 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170071 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170072 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170073 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170074 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170075 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660170076 Vineyard RD 7 0.18 1





0660180066 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660180067 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180068 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180069 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180070 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180071 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180072 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180073 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180074 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180075 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660180076 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190001 Vineyard RD 7 0.22 1

0660190002 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190003 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190004 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190005 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190006 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190007 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190008 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660190009 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190010 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190011 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190012 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190013 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190014 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190015 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190016 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190017 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660190018 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

0660190019 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190020 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

0660190021 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190022 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190023 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190024 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190025 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190026 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190027 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660190028 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190029 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

0660190030 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660190031 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

0660210001 Vineyard RD 7 5.17 31

0660220001 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1





0660220002 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220003 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220004 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220005 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220006 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220007 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220008 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220009 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220010 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220011 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220012 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220013 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220014 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220015 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220016 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220017 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220018 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220019 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220020 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220021 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220022 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220023 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220024 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660220025 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220026 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220027 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220028 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220029 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220030 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660220031 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220032 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220033 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220034 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220035 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220036 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660220037 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220038 Vineyard RD 7 0.08 1

0660220039 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220040 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220041 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220042 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220043 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660220044 Vineyard RD 7 0.08 1

0660220045 Vineyard RD 7 0.16 1





0660230001 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230002 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230003 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230004 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230005 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230006 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230007 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230008 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230009 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230010 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230011 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230012 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230013 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230014 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230015 Vineyard RD 7 0.01 1

0660230016 Vineyard RD 7 0.03 1

0660230017 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230018 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230019 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230020 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230021 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230022 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230023 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230024 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230025 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230026 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230027 Vineyard RD 7 0.03 1

0660230030 Vineyard RD 7 0.03 1

0660230031 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660230032 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660230033 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230034 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230035 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230036 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230037 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230038 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230039 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660230040 Vineyard RD 7 0.07 1

0660230041 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230044 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660230045 Vineyard RD 7 0.08 1

0660230046 Vineyard RD 7 0.08 1

0660230047 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230048 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1





0660230049 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660230050 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

0660250015 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250016 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660250017 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660250018 Vineyard RD 7 0.04 1

0660250027 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250028 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660250029 Vineyard RD 7 0.06 1

0660250030 Vineyard RD 7 0.04 1

0660250039 Vineyard RD 7 0.04 1

0660250040 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250041 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250042 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250043 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250044 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250045 Vineyard RD 7 0.05 1

0660250046 Vineyard RD 7 0.04 1

0730790007 Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) RD 7 (PD) 6.11 36




1211080001 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080002 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080003 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080004 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080005 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080006 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080007 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080008 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080009 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

1211080010 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080011 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080012 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080013 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080014 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080015 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080016 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080017 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080018 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080020 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1





1211080021 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080022 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080023 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080024 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080025 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080026 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080027 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080028 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

1211080029 Vineyard RD 7 0.13 1

1211080030 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080031 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080032 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080033 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080034 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080035 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080036 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080037 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080038 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080039 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080040 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080041 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080042 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080043 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080044 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080045 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080046 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080047 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080048 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080049 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080050 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080051 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080052 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080053 Vineyard RD 7 0.09 1

1211080054 Vineyard RD 7 0.10 1

1211080055 Vineyard RD 7 0.11 1

1211080056 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080057 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080058 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080059 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080060 Vineyard RD 7 0.15 1

1211080061 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

1211080062 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080063 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080064 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1





1211080066 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080067 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080068 Vineyard RD 7 0.12 1

1211080069 Vineyard RD 7 0.14 1

1220010003 Vineyard RD 7 2.53 15

1220010015 Vineyard RD 7 2.85 17

1220010016 Vineyard RD 7 0.92 5

1220050017 Vineyard RD 7 9.92 59

1220050018 Vineyard RD 7 6.45 38

1220050032 Vineyard RD 7 6.00 36








2030070070 Antelope RD 7 0.88 5

2030100058 Antelope RD 7 17.44 92

2030100074 Antelope RD 7 1.30 6

2030100082 Antelope RD 7 1.61 7

2030100083 Antelope RD 7 29.64 152

2030100084 Antelope RD 7 5.21 27

2030110064 Antelope RD 7 0.63 4

2030120047 Antelope RD 7 2.00 12

2030120069 Antelope RD 7 1.46 9

2030120070 Antelope RD 7 4.42 26

2030120072 Antelope RD 7 0.29 2

2030120082 Antelope RD 7 3.82 23

2030260064 Antelope RD 7 23.80 142

2030720074 Antelope RD 7 0.59 3

2030730072 Antelope RD 7 0.14 1

2030910117 Antelope RD 7 0.06 1

2030910118 Antelope RD 7 0.28 2

2031040001 Antelope RD 7 1.72 10

2031270108 Antelope RD 7 0.16 1

2031270110 Antelope RD 7 0.16 1

2031300096 Antelope RD 7 0.08 1

2031300097 Antelope RD 7 0.03 1

2031350061 Antelope RD 7 1.60 10

2031490082 Antelope RD 7 0.70 4

2032010033 Antelope RD 7 0.15 1

2032010034 Antelope RD 7 0.13 1

2032010035 Antelope RD 7 0.16 1





2032010041 Antelope RD 7 0.16 1

2032010042 Antelope RD 7 0.16 1








2440233017 Fair Oaks RD 7 (SPA) 0.19 1

2890201026 Arden Arcade RD 7 1.80 11




















0390054001 South Sacramento RD10 T 3.51 30
















0500341007 South Sacramento RD10 N 0.62 5

0500341011 South Sacramento RD10 (NPA) 0.27 2


0510160005 South Sacramento RD10 T 1.36 12


0600400001 Cordova RD10 0.13 1

0650052033 Vineyard RD10 5.00 42

0660080012 Vineyard RD10 0.90 8

0660090010 Vineyard RD10 2.20 19

0660100034 Vineyard RD10 5.00 42

0660100035 Vineyard RD10 4.86 41

0660100096 Vineyard RD10 10.00 76

0660230015 Vineyard RD10 0.04 1

0660230028 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1





0660230029 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660230042 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660230043 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240001 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240002 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240003 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240004 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240005 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240006 Vineyard RD10 0.04 1

0660240007 Vineyard RD10 0.04 1

0660240008 Vineyard RD10 0.04 1

0660240009 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240010 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240011 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240012 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240013 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240014 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240015 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240016 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240017 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240018 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240019 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240020 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240021 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240022 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240023 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240024 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240025 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660240026 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240027 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240028 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240029 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240030 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240031 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240032 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240033 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240034 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240035 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240036 Vineyard RD10 0.10 1

0660240037 Vineyard RD10 0.11 1

0660240038 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240039 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240040 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660240041 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1





0660240042 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240043 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240044 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240045 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240046 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660240047 Vineyard RD10 0.13 1

0660250001 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660250002 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660250003 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660250004 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1

0660250005 Vineyard RD10 0.08 1

0660250006 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250007 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250008 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250009 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250010 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250011 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250012 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250013 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250014 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250015 Vineyard RD10 0.01 1

0660250019 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250020 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250021 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250022 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250023 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250024 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250025 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250026 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250031 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250032 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250033 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250034 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250035 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250036 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250037 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250038 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250039 Vineyard RD10 0.01 1

0660250046 Vineyard RD10 0.01 1

0660250047 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250048 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250049 Vineyard RD10 0.05 1

0660250050 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250051 Vineyard RD10 0.07 1





0660250052 Vineyard RD10 0.08 1

0660250053 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1

0660250054 Vineyard RD10 0.06 1


1210130013 Vineyard RD10 2.42 21

1210130014 Vineyard RD10 2.33 20

1210130015 Vineyard RD10 2.32 20

1210130016 Vineyard RD10 2.33 20

1220170011 Vineyard RD10 8.92 76

2030050056 Antelope RD10 21.08 179

2030110076 Antelope RD10 0.79 7

2190520011 North Highlands RD10 0.03 1


















2300132013 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD10 (SPA) 1.62 14








2420400043 Fair Oaks RD10 0.09 1

2440082028 Fair Oaks RD10 0.14 1





2440082029 Fair Oaks RD10 0.15 1

2440082031 Fair Oaks RD10 0.19 2

2440082033 Fair Oaks RD10 0.27 2

2440082034 Fair Oaks RD10 0.27 2

2440082039 Fair Oaks RD10 0.22 2

2440082043 Fair Oaks RD10 0.36 3

2440082044 Fair Oaks RD10 0.22 2

2440082045 Fair Oaks RD10 0.24 2

2440082046 Fair Oaks RD10 0.17 1

2440360002 Fair Oaks RD10 0.89 8

2440360018 Fair Oaks RD10 0.61 5

2440360021 Fair Oaks RD10 0.30 3

2440360058 Fair Oaks RD10 0.05 1







2610010030 Orangevale RD10 2.19 19

2610010051 Orangevale RD10 1.33 11

2610210019 Orangevale RD10 (SPA) 1.31 11

2610540019 Orangevale RD10 0.23 2

2610700007 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700008 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700009 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700010 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700011 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700012 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700013 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700014 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700015 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700016 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700017 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700018 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700019 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700020 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700021 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700022 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1





2610700023 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700024 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700025 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700026 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700027 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700028 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700029 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700030 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700031 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700032 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700033 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700034 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700035 Orangevale RD10 0.10 1

2610700036 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700037 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700038 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700039 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700040 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700041 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700042 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700043 Orangevale RD10 0.11 1

2610700044 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700045 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700046 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700047 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700048 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700049 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700050 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700051 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700052 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700053 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700054 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700055 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700056 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700057 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700058 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700059 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700060 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700061 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700062 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700063 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700064 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700065 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700066 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1





2610700067 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700068 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700069 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700070 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700071 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700072 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700073 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700074 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700075 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700076 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700077 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700078 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700079 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700080 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700081 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700082 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700083 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700084 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700085 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700086 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700087 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700088 Orangevale RD10 0.10 1

2610700089 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700090 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700091 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700092 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700093 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700094 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700095 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700096 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700097 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700098 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700099 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700100 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700101 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700102 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700103 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700104 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700105 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700106 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700107 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700108 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700109 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700110 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1





2610700111 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700112 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700113 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700114 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700115 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700116 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700117 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700118 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700119 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700120 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700121 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700122 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700123 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700124 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700125 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700126 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700127 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700128 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610700129 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700130 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700131 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700132 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700133 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700134 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700135 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700136 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700137 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700138 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700139 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700140 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700141 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700142 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700143 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700144 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700145 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700146 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700147 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700148 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700149 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700150 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700151 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700152 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700153 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700154 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1





2610700155 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700156 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700158 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700165 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610700166 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610700167 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700168 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610700169 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610700170 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610710001 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610710002 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610710003 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610710004 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610710005 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610710006 Orangevale RD10 0.12 1

2610710007 Orangevale RD10 0.09 1

2610710008 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610710009 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610710010 Orangevale RD10 0.05 1

2610710011 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610710012 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610710013 Orangevale RD10 0.08 1

2610710014 Orangevale RD10 0.07 1

2610710015 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1

2610710016 Orangevale RD10 0.06 1





2730301018 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD10 N 0.36 3



2850183020 Arden Arcade RD10 0.07 1




TABLE C-18. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 15 (RD15) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (13-30 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL









0750020015 Cordova RD15 14.65 187



1211060003 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060004 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060005 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060006 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060007 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060008 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060009 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060010 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060011 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060012 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060013 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060014 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211060015 Vineyard RD15 0.09 1

1211060016 Vineyard RD15 0.10 1

1211060017 Vineyard RD15 0.10 1

1211060018 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211060019 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211060020 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060021 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060022 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211060028 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060029 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060030 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060031 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060032 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211060034 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060035 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060036 Vineyard RD15 0.10 1

1211060037 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1

1211060039 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060040 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060041 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060043 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211060044 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1





1211070002 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070004 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070005 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070006 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070007 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070008 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070009 Vineyard RD15 0.08 1

1211070011 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070012 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070013 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070014 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070015 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070017 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070018 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070034 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070035 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070037 Vineyard RD15 0.10 1

1211070038 Vineyard RD15 0.09 1

1211070039 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070041 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070042 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1

1211070045 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070046 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070048 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070049 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070050 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070051 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070052 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070053 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070054 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070056 Vineyard RD15 0.05 1

1211070057 Vineyard RD15 0.06 1
























0370291015 South Sacramento RD20 F 0.20 1


















0500301041 South Sacramento RD20 (NPA) 0.14 1





0750162027 Cordova RD20 0.94 1

1190050005 Delta RD20 N 0.14 1

1190050007 Delta RD20 N 0.09 1





1320162006 Delta RD20 0.83 1

1320162026 Delta RD20 0.25 1

1320190063 Delta RD20 0.40 1

1320190064 Delta RD20 0.25 1

1420096006 Delta RD20 0.17 1

1420096007 Delta RD20 0.14 1

2030110088 Antelope RD20 0.95 1

2140080051 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 F 0.42 1




2230770011 Orangevale RD20 0.05 1

2230770012 Orangevale RD20 0.08 1

2230770013 Orangevale RD20 0.11 1

2230770014 Orangevale RD20 0.05 1

2230770015 Orangevale RD20 0.05 1

2230770016 Orangevale RD20 0.05 1

2280042044 North Highlands RD20 F 0.20 1

2280042045 North Highlands RD20 F 0.20 1






2280590010 North Highlands RD20 T 0.81 1








2540072026 Arden Arcade RD20 0.15 1

2540072027 Arden Arcade RD20 0.15 1

2560101045 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD20 (NPA) 0.91 1











2660090005 Arden Arcade RD20 0.66 1

2680010009 Arden Arcade RD20 0.65 1

2850062001 Arden Arcade RD20 0.44 1

2850062002 Arden Arcade RD20 0.44 1

2850062009 Arden Arcade RD20 0.41 1

2850062012 Arden Arcade RD20 0.28 1

2850062013 Arden Arcade RD20 0.28 1

2850062014 Arden Arcade RD20 0.28 1

2850102005 Arden Arcade RD20 0.41 1

2850102006 Arden Arcade RD20 0.41 1

2850102015 Arden Arcade RD20 0.40 1

2850102017 Arden Arcade RD20 0.29 1

2850140017 Arden Arcade RD20 0.23 1

2860070025 Arden Arcade RD20 0.24 1

2860141008 Arden Arcade RD20 0.92 1

2860151053 Arden Arcade RD20 0.12 1

2940180008 Arden Arcade RD20 0.85 1




TABLE C-20. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 20 (RD20) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (13-30 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL




































0650080057 Vineyard RD20 5.77 104

0650080108 Vineyard RD20 7.10 128

0650260004 Vineyard RD20 2.10 38

0660070051 Vineyard RD-7 (1) 4.00 72

0660070052 Vineyard RD20 14.60 263

0660080033 Vineyard RD20 1.53 28

0660100024 Vineyard RD20 7.60 137

0660100062 Vineyard RD-10 (1) 4.00 72

0660210011 Vineyard RD20 0.60 11

0660210022 Vineyard RD20 0.23 4



TABLE C-20. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 20 (RD20) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (13-30 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


0750040025 Cordova RD20 (SPA) 0.96 17


1210110016 Vineyard RD20 6.19 111

1210110056 Vineyard RD20 15.53 279

1220010003 Vineyard RD20 7.10 128

1320162047 Delta RD20 1.90 34

2000220006 North Highlands RD20 (SPA) 15.28 300

2020080005 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 5.20 94



2030120059 (Town Center District) Antelope RD20 (SPA) 10.20 50

2030120059 (Town Home District) Antelope RD20(SPA) 9.20 116

2030070075 Antelope RD20 2.00 36

2030070139 Antelope RD20 1.16 21









2150072030 North Highlands RD20(SPA) 3.51 70





2200311019 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD-20 0.79 14

225.29 3867 Acres Units (1) Dedicated land with a minimum RD-20 density.








0740370007 Cordova RD30 0.09 1

0740370010 Cordova RD30 0.14 1

0740370011 Cordova RD30 0.24 1

0740370012 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370019 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370020 Cordova RD30 0.16 1

0740370021 Cordova RD30 0.22 1

0740370022 Cordova RD30 0.13 1

0740370023 Cordova RD30 0.10 1

0740370024 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370025 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370026 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370028 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370029 Cordova RD30 0.09 1

0740370030 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370031 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370032 Cordova RD30 0.10 1

0740370033 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370034 Cordova RD30 0.15 1

0740370035 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370036 Cordova RD30 0.10 1

0740370037 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370038 Cordova RD30 0.11 1

0740370048 Cordova RD30 0.12 1

0740370050 Cordova RD30 0.14 1

0740370051 Cordova RD30 0.14 1































2440120003 Fair Oaks RD30 (SPA) 0.52 1

2440120004 Fair Oaks RD30 (SPA) 0.17 1

2540031048 Arden Arcade RD30 0.27 1

2540071025 Arden Arcade RD30 0.45 1

2560101045 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms RD30 (NPA) 0.16 1



2610160034 Orangevale RD30 (SPA) 0.85 1

2660040046 Arden Arcade RD30 0.42 1

2660040062 Arden Arcade RD30 0.41 1

2680280071 Arden Arcade RD30 0.64 1

2710153006 Arden Arcade RD30 0.50 1


2780012003 Arden Arcade RD30 0.17 1

2780171013 Arden Arcade RD30 0.45 1

2780240071 Arden Arcade RD30 0.12 1

2790171049 Arden Arcade RD30 0.30 1

2850084007 Arden Arcade RD30 T 0.57 1

2850201011 Arden Arcade RD30 F 0.08 1




2940010005 Arden Arcade RD30 F 0.37 1




TABLE C-22. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 30 (RD30) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (13-30 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL



0690101032 Cordova RD30 6.00 102

0730190069 Cosumnes RD30 16.42 378

2030120059 (Multi-Family District) Antelope RD30 (SPA) 8.40 184


TABLE C-23. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 40 (RD40) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RES. (31-50 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


2660394002 Arden Arcade RD40 0.31 1

2660394003 Arden Arcade RD40 0.31 1





1.28 6 Acres Units

TABLE C-24. ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 40 (RD40) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RES. (31-50 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


0680580008 Cordova RD40 (SPA) 3.21 96

0720240004 Cordova RD40 5.74 194





TABLE C-25. ZONING: MOBILEHOME PARK (RM-1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RES. (1-12 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


0640071051 South Sacramento RM 1 4.22 30

2060210016 Rio Linda/Elverta RM 1 3.92 28




TABLE C-26. ZONING: LIMITED COMMERCIAL (LC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ASSUMED LAND USE: COMMERCIAL AND/OR RESIDENTIAL


0430070005 South Sacramento LC 0.38 6 0430070022 South Sacramento LC 0.44 7 0500293011 South Sacramento LC 1.16 20 0500391010 South Sacramento LC 0.32 6 0500470026 South Sacramento LC 0.47 8 0510030012 South Sacramento LC 1.06 18 0580270031 Cordova LC 0.27 5 0740020058 Cordova LC 0.60 10 1180131047 South Sacramento LC 1.75 30 1420080086 Delta LC 0.25 4 1420100003 Delta LC 0.42 7 1520032044 Southeast LC 0.76 13 2030360002 Antelope LC 0.75 13 2060210019 Rio Linda/Elverta LC 0.41 7 2150062030 North Highlands LC 0.38 7 2150140031 Rio Linda/Elverta LC 0.34 6 2190032008 North Highlands LC 0.38 6 2190032009 North Highlands LC 0.30 5 2190034003 North Highlands LC 0.71 12 2400011029 North Highlands LC 0.28 5 11.43 195 Acres Units



TABLE C-27. ZONING: SHOPPING CENTER (SC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ASSUMED LAND USE: COMMERCIAL AND/OR RESIDENTIAL


0430220015 South Sacramento SC 0.79 13 0690650014 Cordova SC 0.72 12 0690650016 Cordova SC 0.73 12 1150010050 South Sacramento SC 0.47 8 1150061044 South Sacramento SC 0.80 14 1150430075 South Sacramento SC 0.60 10 1150430078 South Sacramento SC 0.36 6 1210110015 Vineyard SC 2.05 35 1210130049 Vineyard SC 0.41 7 2090720016 North Highlands SC (SPA) 0.56 9 2150182032 North Highlands SC 0.58 10 2350060001 Fair Oaks SC 0.23 4

2450011006 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms SC 3.48 59

2730170101 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms SC 0.27 5




TABLE C-28. VACANT PARCELS WITH APPROVED ENTITLEMENT WITH AFFORDABLE UNITS TO BE BUILT ON-SITE


0390011006 South Sacramento LC 0.39 7 0390011020 South Sacramento LC 0.22 4 0390011034 South Sacramento LC 0.17 3 0390011043 South Sacramento LC 0.39 7 0660070050 Vineyard RD 5 2.22 10 0660070051 Vineyard RD 7 3.17 20 0750020015 Cordova RD20 1.33 24 1150073014 South Sacramento RD5 0.44 2 1150073016 South Sacramento RD5 4.67 21 1210130013 Vineyard RD15 0.30 4 1210130014 Vineyard RD15 0.44 6 1210130015 Vineyard RD15 0.37 5 1211060002 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211060024 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211060033 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211060038 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211060042 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070010 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070016 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070019 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070026 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070030 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070036 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070040 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070043 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070044 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070047 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 1211070055 Vineyard RD15 0.07 1 2030100074 Antelope RD 7 0.95 6 2030100082 Antelope RD 7 1.59 10 2030100083 Antelope RD 7 3.65 23 2030100084 Antelope RD 7 0.63 4 2030260064 Antelope RD20 2.28 41 2860151049 Arden Arcade RD20 0.04 1 2860151051 Arden Arcade RD20 0.17 4 24.62 218 Acres Units



TABLE C-29. UNDERUTILIZED RD20 AND RD30 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RES. (13-30 DU/AC) ASSUMED LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


0220252018 South Sacramento RD20 0.44 8 0260041029 South Sacramento RD20 0.38 7 2060171021 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 0.26 5 2070141006 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 0.35 6 2070300009 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 0.71 13





2440151006 Fair Oaks RD30 0.31 6 2560080019 Arden Arcade RD20 0.39 7 2860151052 Arden Arcade RD20 0.48 9 4.91 90 Acres Units



TABLE C-30.VACANT LANDS AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY – UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) PARCELS AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (NO USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT)

APN COMMUNITY ZONING ACRES

0630070008 Vineyard GC 7.4

0630200002 Vineyard GC 3.5

0660040040 Vineyard GC 2.6

13.5

Acres



TABLE C-31.VACANT LANDS AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY – UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M 1) PARCELS AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS (NO USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT)

APN COMMUNITY ZONING ACRES

0620060035 Vineyard M 1 1.1

0630052024 Vineyard M 1 5.0

0630052025 Vineyard M 1 1.1

0630100022 Vineyard M 1 1.1

0630190014 Vineyard M 1 20.4

0630190015 Vineyard M 1 20.1

0630190021 Vineyard M 1 49.3

0630190029 Vineyard M 1 18.0

0630190033 Vineyard M 1 17.9

0630190039 Vineyard M 1 7.7

0630190040 Vineyard M 1 49.0

0630200006 Vineyard M 1 2.2

0630200007 Vineyard M 1 14.6

0630200008 Vineyard M 1 9.0

0630200009 Vineyard M 1 10.3

0640071024 South Sacramento M 1 5.0

0660010030 Vineyard M 1 4.0

0660010031 Vineyard M 1 3.9

0670160070 Cordova M 1 3.9

0670980015 Cordova M 1 1.1

2250943016 Natomas M 1 3.1

2250943035 Natomas M 1 1.7

2250944043 Natomas M 1 1.4

2370011060 Natomas M 1 2.0

2370015010 Natomas M 1 1.9

254.8

Acres



TABLE C-32. SACRAMENTO COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT LAND USE INVENTORY VACANT PARCEL ANALYSIS TABLE - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ALL PARCELS ANALYZED USING AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS)

APN COMMUNITY ZONING GROSS

ACREAGE

CONSTRAINT ACREAGE

NET ACREAGE

AVAIL. UNITS

FIELD VERIFIED* NOTES EASEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL

026-0102-023 South Sacramento RD20 1.22 0 1.22 22

039-0011-013 South Sacramento RD 00(RD-20) 3.20 0 0 3.20 58 7/12/2007 Ditch/berm on north side of property

039-0041-004 South Sacramento RD20 T 1.67 0.27 0.02 1.38 25 Trees, high-voltage powerlines cross the parcel

039-0054-001 South Sacramento RD20 3.51 1.51 0 2.00 36 Utility easement, drainage easement

039-0072-012 South Sacramento RD20 0.47 0 0.47 8

039-0072-016 South Sacramento RD20 1.39 0 0 1.39 25

039-0241-001 South Sacramento RD20 2.14 0.16 0 1.98 36 Powerlines cross south edge of parcel


043-0022-010 South Sacramento RD20 F 7.80 0 0 7.80 117

043-0022-037 South Sacramento RD20 2.60 0.22 0 2.38 36 Edge of property

043-0070-005 South Sacramento RD20 1.39 0.08 0 1.31 22

043-0070-022 South Sacramento RD20 F 3.21 0 0 3.21 55
















ACREAGE

CONSTRAINT ACREAGE

NET ACREAGE

AVAIL. UNITS


ENVIRONMENTAL






050-0311-028 South Sacramento RD20 4.39 0 0 4.39 79 Adjacent to mobile home park

051-0030-001 South Sacramento RD20 F 7.55 0.73 0 6.82 123 7/12/2007 Powerlines cross western portion of parcel

051-0061-018 South Sacramento Z 00(RD-20) 1.03 0 0.23 0.80 14 7/12/2007 Ditch/stream along west and south portions of the parcel

051-0160-014 South Sacramento RD20 T 1.68 0 0.02 1.66 30 Oak tree


064-0071-051 South Sacramento RM 1 4.22 0 0 4.22 30

065-0060-035 South Sacramento RD20 F 8.40 0 4.1 4.30 77 Flood Plain

065-0080-057 Vineyard RD20 5.77 0 0 5.77 104

065-0080-108 Vineyard Z 00(RD-20) 7.10 0 0 7.10 128

065-0260-004 Vineyard RD20 2.10 0 0 2.10 38

066-0070-051 Vineyard RD 7 4.00 0 0 4.00 72

066-0070-052 Vineyard RD20 14.60 0 0 14.60 263

066-0080-033 Vineyard RD20 1.53 0 0 1.53 28

066-0100-024 Vineyard RD20 7.60 0 0 7.60 137

066-0100-062 Vineyard RD10 4.00 0 0 4.00 72

066-0210-011 Vineyard RD20 0.60 0 0 0.60 11

066-0210-022 Vineyard RD20 0.23 0 0 0.23 4





ACREAGE

CONSTRAINT ACREAGE

NET ACREAGE

AVAIL. UNITS


ENVIRONMENTAL

068-0580-008 Cordova SPA (RD-40) 3.21 0 0 3.21 96 Light Rail Station, Ordinance requires a minimum of 96 units

069-0101-032 Cordova RD30 7.90 1.9 0 6.00 102 Drainage easement

072-0240-004 Cordova RD40 5.70 0 5.70 194 Light Rail Station, Ordinance requires 194 units

073-0190-069 Cosumnes RD30 T 17.80 0.53 0.85 16.42 378 Oak trees, Public Utility Easement

075-0040-025 Cordova SPA(RD-20) 1.27 0.2 0.11 0.96 17 7/5/2007 Oak trees


121-0110-016 Vineyard RD20 6.43 0.24 0 6.19 111 Public Utility Easement

121-0110-056 Vineyard RD 00(RD-20) 17.08 1.55 0 15.53 279 7/12/2007 High-voltage powerlines along west side of parcel, possible wetland area on northeast corner.

122-0010-003 Vineyard RD20 7.10 0 0 7.10 128

132-0162-047 Delta RD 00(RD-20) 2.45 0 0.55 1.90 34 7/12/2007 Oak trees, existing levee

200-0220-006 North Highlands SPA(RD-20) 15.28 0 0 15.28 300

202-0080-005 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 5.20 0 0 5.20 94



203-0070-075 Antelope RD20 2.00 0 0 2.00 36

203-0070-139 Antelope RD20 1.26 0.1 0 1.16 21 Sewer Easement

203-0120-059 (Multi-Family

District)

Antelope SPA(RD-30) 8.4 0 0 8.4 184





ACREAGE

CONSTRAINT ACREAGE

NET ACREAGE

AVAIL. UNITS


ENVIRONMENTAL

203-0120-059 (Town Center

District)

Antelope SPA(RD-20) 10.20 0 0 10.20 50

203-0120-059 (Town Home

District)

Antelope SPA(RD-20) 9.20 0 0 9.20 116


206-0141-006 Rio Linda/Elverta Z 00(RD-20) 3.59 0 0 3.59 65 7/5/2007 Ditch and low area, could be wetland. Powerlines cross southern portion of parcel.

206-0210-016 Rio Linda/Elverta RM 1 5.00 0 1.08 3.92 28 7/5/2007 Large dark spot on black and white photos internally verified as a vernal pool.

206-0210-019 Rio Linda/Elverta Z 00(RM 1) 3.10 0 0 3.10 22 7/5/2007

206-0210-038 Rio Linda/Elverta Z 00(RM 1) 2.69 0 0.04 2.65 19 7/5/2007 Oak trees

208-0142-020 North Highlands RD20 1.95 0 0 1.95 29

208-0142-022 North Highlands RD20 0.38 0 0.09 0.29 5 Wetlands



214-0092-019 Rio Linda/Elverta RD20 1.52 0 0.01 1.51 27 7/5/2007 Oak tree, possible vernal pool. Adjacent to large-lot single family.


220-0311-019 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms

RD-20 0.79 0 0 0.79 14

245-0011-012 Carmichael & Old Foothill Farms

RD40 6.45 0 0.03 6.42 218 7/5/2007 Large ditch bisects parcel. Oak tree.





ACREAGE

CONSTRAINT ACREAGE

NET ACREAGE

AVAIL. UNITS


ENVIRONMENTAL

*Field verification was necessary on parcels that contained features that were unclear upon aerial photographic inspection of the parcel.


D-1 Vacant Land Area Maps

Figure D-1. Community Area Index Map


Vacant Land Area Maps D-2

Figure D-2. Antelope Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-3. Arden-Arcade Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-4. Carmichael & Old Foothills Farms Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-5. Cordova Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-6. Cosumnes (Rancho Murieta) Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-7. Delta Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-8. Fair Oaks Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-9. Natomas Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-10. North Highlands Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-11. Orangevale Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-12. Rio Linda Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-13. South Sacramento Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-14. Southeast Community Vacant Parcels



Figure D-15. Vineyard Community Vacant Parcels


E-1 References

APPENDIX E

REFERENCES

Building-Cost.net. November 2007. Building Costs. Available: http://www.building-cost.net/CompMatrix.asp. Accessed November 7, 2007.

California Community Care Licensing Division. 2007. CCLD Facility Search Form. Available: http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ccld_search/ccld_search.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2007.

California Department of Finance. 2007. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2007, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2007 or 2008. Official State Income Limits for 2007 or 2008. Available: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k7.pdf for 2007 and http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k8.pdf for 2008.

California Department of Social Service, Community Care Licensing Division. 2007. Listings of Licensed Facilities. Available: http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ ccld_search/ ccld_search.aspx.

California Employment Development Department. 2007. Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation. Available: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/ ?PageID=145.

California State University, Sacramento. 2007a. Facts and Statistics. Available: http://www.csus.edu/pa/quickfacts/stats.stm. Accessed September 19, 2007.

______. 2007b (Sacramento 19). Communication with department receptionist. Housing Department, Sacramento, CA.

Community Council. 2006. Sacramento City and County Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessnes, 2006-2016. Sacramento, CA.

CSUS. See California State University, Sacramento.

DataQuick. 2007. Sacramento July 2007 Home Prices. Available: http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/business/real_estate/july_2007_home_sales.html.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2008. FY 2008 Income Limits Summary. Available: <http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2008/ 2008summary.odn?INPUTNAME=METRO40900M40900*0606799999%2BSacramento+County&selection_type=county&stname=California&statefp=06&year=2008>

EDD, 2007. See California Employment Development Department.

ForRent.com. 2007. Rental Listings for Antelope, Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Gold River, North Highlands, and Orangevale, CA. Available: http://www.forrent.com/. Accessed September 20, 2007.


References E-2

Frey, Ann pers. Comm. 2007. Sacramento County Department of Environmental Health. Telephone conversation concerning Farm Labor Camps. September 20, 2007.

Halcon, Emily pers. Comm. 2007. Management Analyst. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA. August 2007—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW containing pro formas of affordable housing development projects including Colonia San Martin.

Halcon, Emily. 2008. Management Analyst. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA. May 2008—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW containing data on SHRA budgeted funding by funding source (Chapter 2), data pertaining to affordable units at risk of converting to market rate housing, estimated rent subsidies, and organizations interested in assisting with preservation of affordable units (data in Chapter 11).

Halcon, Emily, and Tim Kohaya. Management Analyst and Long Range Planner. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA, and County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development Department, Sacramento, CA. December, 2007—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW containing HCD Annual Report.

HCD. See California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Hendricks & Partners. 2007. Apartment Update 2007, Northern California Region, Second Quarter. Phoenix, AZ.

HUD, 2008. See Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Kohaya, Tim pers. comm. 2007. Long Range Planner. County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development, Sacramento, CA. March, April, and May 2008—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW building permits issued in 2007.

Kohaya, Tim pers. comm. 2007. Long Range Planner. County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development, Sacramento, CA. November 2007—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW prototypical residential fees.

Kohaya, Tim pers comm. 2008. Long Range Planner. County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development, Sacramento, CA. March, April, and May 2008—e-mail to Heather Kyi of EDAW containing spreadsheets of the land inventory and narrative text to include in Chapter 6.

LA Times. See Los Angeles Times.

Loopnet.com. November 2007. Land Listings for Sacramento, CA. Available: http:/www.loopnet.com. Accessed November 7, 2007.

Los Angeles Times. 2000.

National Association of Home Builders. 2007. NAHB Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index. Available: http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/ sectionID=135. Accessed November 7, 2007.

Rent.com. 2007. Rental Listings for Antelope, Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Gold River, North Highlands, and Orangevale, CA. Available: http://www.rent.com/account/. Accessed September 20, 2007.

http://www.loopnet.com/

http://www.rent.com/account/


E-3 References

SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2000. Population Projections. Sacramento, CA.

______. 2001. Population Projections. Sacramento, CA.

______. 2008. Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035. Available: http://www.sacog.org/mtp/2035. Accessed January 2008.

______. 2008 (February 21). Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Available: http://www.sacog.org/rhnp/attachments/2008-02-26/Executive%20Summary_All%20Allocations.pdf.

Sacramento Bee DataQuick Information Systems. 2002–2007. Compiled from Sacramento Bee Articles available: http://www.sacbee.com.

Sacramento Bee. 2007a (September 14). Foreclosures Gain on Sales. Page A-1.

______. 2007b (September 14). Foreclosures Gain on Sales. Page A-1.

______. 2007c (October 27). Home Loan Defaults Soaring. Page A-1.

Sacramento Business Journal. 2006. 2006 Book of Lists. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento County. 2006. Zoning Code of Sacramento County, 13th Printing, New Edition. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento County Community Development Department. 2007. Community Plan Status. Available: http://www.planning.saccounty.net/specific/ community.html. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance. 2006. Continuum of Care. Sacramento, CA.

______.June 2007. Homeless Street Count and Survey 2007. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. 2001

______. 2006.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2008. Information about how residential customers can save energy. Available: http://www.smud.org/residential/saving-energy/index.html. Last updated May 12, 2008. Accessed January 2008.

Sacramento Self Help Housing. 2007. Rental Reports. Foley, John pers comm. for data as of October 2007. Previous data obtained at http://www.sacselfhelp.org/reports_rental_search_form.pl. Accessed October 18, 2007.

SHRA. See Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

SMUD 2008. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

http://www.sacbee.com/

http://www.sacselfhelp.org/reports_rental_search_form.pl


References E-4

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. American Factfinder, Summary Tape Files 1 and 3, 1990. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Last updated June 19, 2007.

______. 2000. American Factfinder, Summary Tape Files 1 and 3, 2000. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov. Last updated June 19, 2007.

______. 2007. Poverty Thresholds 2006. Available: http://www.census.gov/hhes/ www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2008. Energy flow diagram. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf. Accessed January 2008.

______. 2008. Buildings Energy Data Book: 1.2 Residential Sector Energy Consumption. Available: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ docs/1.2.3.pdf. Accessed January 2008.


F-1 Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist

APPENDIX F

ADEQUATE SITES PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE CHECKLIST

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65583.1(C) (CHAPTER 796, STATUTES OF 1998 [AB 438])

As provided for in Government Code Section 65583.1(c), local governments can rely on existing housing units to address up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement by counting existing units made available or preserved through the provision of “committed assistance” to low- and very low-income households at affordable housing costs or affordable rents. The following is a checklist intended to provide guidance in determining whether the provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c) can be used to address the adequate sites program requirement. A “yes” answer to the questions below means the alternative site program option(s) may be applicable to your community.

ADEQUATE SITES PROGRAMS ALTERNATIVE CHECKLIST

SHILO ARMS APARTMENTS HE

PAGE #

65583.1(c)(4) Is the local government providing, or will it provide “committed assistance” within the first 2 years of the planning period? See the definition of “committed assistance” on page 4.

⌧ Yes

No

6-3

65583.1(c)(1)(A) Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds? HOME funding ($1,200,000) and Low/Mod Tax Increment ($300,000) Specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $1,500,000

date: by Feb. 1, 2009 per loan commitment letter

⌧ Yes

No

6-4

65583.1(c)(3) Has at least some portion of the regional share housing need for very low-income (VL) or low-income (L) households been met in the current or previous planning period? Specify the number of affordable units permitted/constructed in the previous period. Specify the number affordable units permitted/constructed in the current period and document how affordability was established.

⌧ Yes

No

1,892 VLI & LI new

units

4-6

65583.1(c)(1)(B) Indicate the total number of units to be assisted with committed assistance funds and specify funding source.

106

HOME & TI 6-3

65583.1(c)(1)(B) Will the funds be sufficient to develop the identified units at affordable costs or rents?

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(1)(C) Do the identified units meet the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation requirements as defined? Which option? Preservation

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).


SHILO ARMS APARTMENTS HE

PAGE #

PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS (65583.1(c)(2)(C))




Include reference to specific program action in housing element. Program HE-41(d) 3-77

65583.1(c)(2)(C)(i) Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained for at least 40 years?

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(2)(C)(ii) Are the units located within an “assisted housing development” as defined in Government Code Section 65863.10(a)(3)? See definition on page 4.

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iii) Did the city/county, via the public hearing process, find that the units are eligible and are reasonably expected to convert to market rate during the next 5 years, due to termination of subsidies, prepayment, or expiration of use?

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(2)(C)(iv) Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy?

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(2)(C)(v) Were the units affordable to very low- and low-income households at the time the units were identified for preservation?

⌧ Yes

No 6-3

SUMMERSET APARTMENTS HE

PAGE #


⌧ Yes

No 6-3

65583.1(c)(1)(A) Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds? Tax Increment funding ($2,458,000) and HOME ($1,700,000) Specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $4,150,000

date: by December 31, 2008 per loan commitment letter

⌧ Yes

No 6-5


⌧ Yes

No

1,892 VLI & LI new units

4-6


119 – TI and

HOME 6-3


⌧ Yes

No 6-5

65583.1(c)(1)(C) Do the identified units meet the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation requirements as defined? Which option? Conversion

⌧ Yes

No 6-3

Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c)

SUMMERSET APARTMENTS

CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS OF 4 OR MORE FROM NON-AFFORDABLE TO AFFORDABLE (65583.1(c)(2)(B))




Include reference to specific program description in the housing element. Program HE-13(b) 3-49

65583.1(c)(2)(B)(i) Will the acquired units be made affordable to low- or very low-income households?

⌧ Yes

No 6-3

65583.1(c)(2)(B)(ii) Were the units affordable to very low- or low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?

Yes ⌧ No

6-5

65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iii) If the acquisition results in the displacement of very low- or low-income households, is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 17975, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced?

⌧ Yes

No 6-5

65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iv) Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy?

⌧ Yes

No 6-4

65583.1(c)(2)(B)(v) Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained at least 55 years?

⌧ Yes

No 6-5

GREYSTONE APARTMENTS HE

PAGE #


⌧ Yes

No

6-3

65583.1(c)(1)(A) Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds? HOME ($1,500,000) and Tax Increment (TI) funding ($2,670,000) Specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $ 4,170,000

date: by June 1, 2009 per signed loan commitment letter

⌧ Yes

No

6-6


⌧ Yes

No


4-6


119 – TI and

HOME

6-3


⌧ Yes

No

6-6


⌧ Yes

No

6-3

Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c). GREYSTONE APARTMENTS





Include reference to specific program description in the housing element. Program HE-13(c) 3-50


⌧ Yes

No

6-3


Yes ⌧ No

6-5


⌧ Yes

No

6-6


⌧ Yes

No

6-5


⌧ Yes

No

6-5

LERWICK ROAD HE

PAGE #


⌧ Yes

No

6-3

65583.1(c)(1)(A) Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds? Tax Increment funding Specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $ 4,000,000

date: by December 31, 2009

⌧ Yes

No

6-7


⌧ Yes

No


4-6


20 – Tax

Increment

6-3


⌧ Yes

No

6-7


⌧ Yes

No

6-3

Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).

LERWICK ROAD





Include reference to specific program description in the housing element. Program HE-13(d) 3-50


⌧ Yes

No

6-3


Yes ⌧ No

6-7


⌧ Yes

No

6-7


⌧ Yes

No

6-6


⌧ Yes

No

6-7

TABLE F-1. AFFORDABLE UNITS

PROJECT STATUS

AFFORDABILITY BY HOUSEHOLD INCOMES TOTAL

UNITS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

ELI VLI LI MOD. ABOVE MOD.

2006

Vineyard Pointe Apartments

Under Construction

35 71 70 0 0 176 MRB, TC, inclusionary

Unregulated Units (market production)

0 0 0 305 520 825 N/A

Subtotal 2006 35 71 70 305 520 1,001

2007

Sierra Sunrise II Under Construction

0 20 0 0 0 20 MRB, TC, HOME

Colonia San Martin Under Construction

40 19 0 0 0 59 TC, AHP, HTF, HOME

MLK Village Under Construction

25 55 0 0 0 80 TC, MHP, AHP, TI, HOME

Unregulated Units (market production)

0 0 0 182 251 433 N/A

Subtotal 2007 65 94 0 182 251 592

2008-2010 Rehabilitation Projects1

Shiloh Arms Preservation 0 22 84 0 0 106 MRB, TC, HOME, TI

Summerset Apartments

Conversion 0 24 95 1 0 120 MRB, TC, HOME, TI



Greystone Apartments Conversion 0 36 83 1 0 120 MRB, TC, HOME, TI

Lerwick Road Conversion 0 10 10 12 0 32 TI

Subtotal Rehabilitation 0 92 272 14 0 378

Total 100 257 342 501 771 1,971

1 See Chapter 6, Land Inventory for complete analysis of 2008-2010 rehabilitated units and compliance with Alternative Adequate Sites requirements. Notes: APH – Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program, HTF – Housing Trust Fund, MRB – Mortgage Revenue Bond, TC – Tax Credits