Docstoc

Housing Needs Assessment

Document Sample
Housing Needs Assessment Powered By Docstoc
					W e s t e r n                          N e v a d a     C o u n t y



                                              Housing Needs
                                                 Assessment
                                                            2000




A Report from the

Nevada County Affordable Housing Task Force

to the County Board Of Supervisors


Fred Consulting Associates / Applied Survey Research
September, 2000
Table of Contents

                         Acknowledgements                                                   3

                         Executive Summary                                                  5

                         Project Overview

                         Methodology

                         Housing Needs: The National and State Context                      14

                         Part 1:      Status of Housing in Nevada County                    17

                                     1. Market Area Profile                                 17

                                     2. Housing Economics and Affordability                 27

                                     3. Housing Demand                                      31

                                     4. Housing Supply                                      40

                                     5. Housing Gap                                         53

                         Part 2:      Improving the Housing Imbalance                       56

                                     6. Opportunities and Constraints                       56

                                     7. Programs and Policies

                                     8. Task Force Recommendations                          87

                         Appendix



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                          Table of Contents — Page 2
Acknowledgements
      This report marks the final stage of an important process that began over a year ago. In April 1999, the Affordable
      Housing Task Force was created to advise the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on affordable housing issues,
      policies and plans. The Affordable Housing Task Force consisted of the following ten members representing key
      housing perspectives:


            1    Joan Lancaster (Chair)      Non-Profit Sector, Habitat For Humanity

            2    Jim Crowley                 For Profit Developer, Nevada County Contractor’s Association

            3    Jake Covert                 Private Lender, Central Pacific Mortgage

            4    Devere ―Dee‖ Mautino        Municipal Representative and Employer, City of Grass Valley

            5    Peter Linnier               Senior Citizen, Adult Services Council

            6    Peggy Cone                  Advocate for Persons with Disabilities, FREED

            7    Greg Gavin                  Neighborhood Representative, Squirrel Creek Neighborhood Association

            8    Susan Lamela                Rural Representative (Deceased), Twin Ridges School District

            9    Linda Nichols               Rural Representative, California Department of Housing and Community Development

           10    Karen Knecht                County Representative, Supervisor

           11    Peter Van Zant              County Representative, Supervisor

           12    Elizabeth Martin            County Representative, Supervisor (Alternate)


      In addition to the invaluable contributions of the Affordable Housing Task Force, staff from the Department of
      Housing and Community Services played a irreplaceable role in facilitating the assessment and planning processes.
      These staff were Jim Carney (Director), Kathleen Teff (Office Assistant), Susan Roark (Housing and Community
      Services Technician, Cyndi Woosley (Community Programs Analyst), Joann Anders (Project Coordinator), and
      Judy Cole (Administrative Assistant).

      Karry Przepiorski (Planner) of the County Planning Department also provided technical assistance in analyzing
      land availability and the housing development process. In addition, Brian Peasley (GIS Specialist) of the
      Department of Transportation and Sanitation provided zoning and parcel data as well as GIS maps for this report.
      Clinton D. McKinley, C.B.O., Nevada County Community Development Agency also provided some technical
      insight. Finally, Warren Jensen of the Chico State University Center for Economic Development provided all
      projections used for the housing gap analysis.

      The consultant‘s team consisted of Danny Fred and Vermeda Fred of Fred Consulting Associates, and Peter
      Connery, Erica Wood, and Lisa Colvig-Amir of Applied Survey Research.

Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                Acknowledgements— Page 3
Executive Summary
      Housing affordability has become an increasingly prominent issue across the country and throughout the state. In
      Nevada County, housing affordability has slipped as incomes have not kept up with the cost of housing, and as
      population growth has outpaced housing supply.



Status of Housing Across the Nation and State
      The national housing picture presents a growing crisis in housing affordability throughout the nation. A report by
      the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to Congress in 1999 provided a number of findings and
      conclusions related to this housing affordability crisis. Although these findings address the national housing scene,
      one can see how closely they reflect the housing situation in Nevada County.

      Specifically, as of 1997, the housing affordability crisis facing very-low-income renters continued to worsen as 5.4
      million renter households, a record high, were experiencing worst case needs for housing assistance. The number
      of working families with worst case housing needs increased sharply since 1991. In short, the report found that the
      housing supply affordable to the lowest income Americans continues to shrink.

      Despite the widespread perception that California residents enjoy higher incomes and standards of living compared
      to other parts of the country, that relative wealth has come with a price tag. The state‘s residents have not been
      immune to the shrinking affordability of housing; on the contrary, our state appears to be leading the nation in
      terms of unaffordable housing markets. Indeed, as seen in the chart below, eight of the ten least affordable places
      to live in the United States are in California.



                           Top 5 Least Affordable Housing Markets in the U.S., 2000,                                   By
                                           Percent of Homes Affordable to Median Income Families
             100%




              75%
                                                                                                           63%



              50%


                                                                          21%             22%
                                                           18%
              25%                         14%
                         10%


               0%
                    San Francisco   Santa Cruz PMSA   San Jose PMSA   Salinas MSA   Santa Rosa PMSA National Average
                        PMSA




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                Executive Summary— Page 4
Status of Housing in Western Nevada County
      This report documents the magnitude and nature of the need for affordable housing in Nevada County. Socio-
      economic indicators such as population, labor market and income growth, housing affordability, and the supply
      and demand for particular types of housing in Nevada County are used to assess housing needs of County
      residents.




            Market Area Profile

      The regional economy and social environment surrounding Nevada County impacts local supply and demand for
      housing. According to key indicators, this region has experienced significant population and economic growth
      over the last decade:

         Satellite counties surrounding the Sacramento                                   Population Growth 1990-2000
          metropolitan area have experienced marked growth      50%

          in population, employment, income, and
                                                                                                                                 36%
          transportation during the 1990‘s. The most            38%

          dramatic growth has been in Placer County,
          followed closely by Nevada County and El Dorado       25%                                       21%       21%
                                                                                                16%
          County. By comparison, the city of Sacramento has                        15%
                                                                         10%
          experienced much slower growth in the same key        13%

          indicators areas.
                                                                0%
                                                                      Sac. City   State       Nevada     Sutter   El Dorado   Placer
         During the 1990‘s, the county‘s rate of in-migration
          has been unusually high, particularly when compared to in-migration to Placer County (81%), Sacramento
          County (39%) and statewide (25%). Nearly all (95%) of Nevada County‘s growth was due to in-migration
          rather than natural increases, with Caucasians comprising the majority (92%) of persons moving into the
          county.

         There has been moderate growth in incomes over the past decade. Local per capita ($25,051) and median
          incomes ($48,800) are 89% of the statewide averages, and have kept pace with incomes in Placer County and
          state.

         The housing market has responded to the surge in growth; both residential construction starts and occupied
          housing stock have increased approximately 19-20% over the last decade, as compared to Sacramento (11-13%)
          and the state (9%).




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                              Executive Summary— Page 5
        Housing Demand

      Factors that influence the demand for housing include local population growth and economic conditions (i.e., labor
      market,). In Nevada County, demand is characterized by the following findings:

         In keeping with general market expansion, there has been a strong increase in employment. Civilian
          employment has increased by 21% over the last decade — slightly faster than occupied housing stock— as
          compared to the statewide growth of 9.8%. In addition, local unemployment rates are also lower than the state
          (4.1% to 5.2%, respectively). The result is that the county jobs to housing ratio increased to from 1.12 jobs per
          occupied housing unit in 1990 to 1.15 per unit in 2000, indicating the expanding labor force is impacting the
          housing supply.

         The employment increase has been in lower-paying services and retail trade sector jobs. Since 1990, the
          greatest growth has been in Services (2,740 workers), the average salary of which has been reported at
          approximately $22,000 a year. Retail trade has absorbed the second largest number of workers (1,250) and also
          offers moderately low salaries ranging between $17,000 and $27,000. Furthermore, 11 out of the top 20 fastest
          growing occupations only pay a very low to low income wage (0-80% of Median Income) for a single worker.
          Finally, these workers earned less in Nevada County than the statewide average for the same job.

         Given the service-dominated labor market in the                                       Household Income Distribution, 1990

          county, it follows that income distribution                                   30%
                                                                                                                                  State
          patterns of Western County residents reveal a                                                                           Western NC

          larger share of lower income residents than the                               23%   20%                   20%
                                                                Percent of Households




          statewide average (chart at right). This translates                                       18%     17%             16%
          to a larger-than-average demand for lower
                                                                                        15%
          income housing, such as mobile homes,
                                                                                                                                          9%
          apartments, and single family rentals.
                                                                                        8%


         Nevada County is an aging community, in that the
                                                                                              19%   15%     15%
                                                                                                             15%    18%    18%


          age group in the county with the greatest (8,174)       0%
                                                                        $0-    $15-     $25-   $35-   $50-  $75,000
          and fastest (50%) increase over the last decade are          14,999 24,999   34,999 49,999 74,999  PLUS
          persons ages 40-55. The second fastest growing
          age group is persons ages 56 and over, which comprises 29% of the general county population. Seniors place
          demands on lower income housing as well — in 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that some 56% of
          persons over the age of 64 were considered low income, having incomes less than 80% of median.

         According to area professionals, the greatest housing need of special populations is for assisted living centers
          for very low and low income seniors and adults with disabilities.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                           Executive Summary— Page 6
        Housing Supply

      Housing supply is defined by the quantity, qualities, and cost of local housing stock. Findings reveal that Nevada
      County‘s housing supply has had rapid growth, both in terms of quantity and costs:

         The quantity of Nevada County‘s housing stock                                    New Residential Construction Permits, 1990-1999
          appears to have kept pace with population                      1,400
                                                                                                                                                                  Single
          growth. In the last decade, occupied housing                                  1,093                                                                     Family
                                                                                                                                                                  units
          stock increased nearly 19%, as compared to the                 1,050
                                                                                                 889
                                                                                                        792                                                786
          population (16%). In fact, the indicator that                                                               703
                                                                                                                                                   648            Multi-
                                                                                                                             610
          best reflects the quantity of supply, persons-per-              700                                  578
                                                                                                                                     526    537                   Family
                                                                                                                                                                  units
          household, has slightly decreased from 2.51 in
                                                                          350
          1990 to 2.45 in 2000, revealing that there are                                                                     120            108
                                                                                          52     74            82                    73
                                                                                                        32            34                                   29
          fewer persons per household. By comparison,                                                                                              20

                                                                            0
          the statewide average is 2.96 persons per                                       1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995    1996   1997   1998    1999


          household.

         As for the qualities of the County‘s housing supply, there has been a historic pattern of emphasizing
          development of single family homes (see chart above). In the year 2000, 82% of the existing housing stock
          countywide is for single family homes. In the unincorporated areas, 86% of homes are for single families, as
          compared to 54% in Grass Valley. The statewide average is 63%.

         In addition, the majority of homes are priced beyond the reach of local salaries (chart at bottom), particularly
          given the growth trends of low paying sectors. Based on 30% housing costs, 93% of homes sold in 1999 were
          only affordable to families earning more than $58,550, or 120% of local median income.

         The supply of rentals for families earning below median income is also limited. For instance, a survey of the
          rental vacancies during the week of April 7-12, 2000 indicated that a very low income family of four (salary less
          than $24,000) wishing to rent a two bedroom unit would have found that that there were only four vacant units.
          This family would either have to pay more than 30% of their income for their housing or live in smaller,
          unsuitable quarters. Similarly, there were no suitable units available for a very low income large family of five.

         There are no assisted living units affordable to moderate and low income seniors. Those seniors or disabled
          persons needing assisted care will have to pay at least $950 a month for a single room, and between $1,390-
          2,400 for a one bedroom unit, depending on the level of care required. These rents are affordable only to those
          senior individuals who fall at or above 120% of median income.

                                  Median Homes Price Vs. What's Affordable for a Family of Four, 2000

          $240,000


                          $187,750
                                                        $166,372
          $180,000
                                                                                      $141,485

                                                                                                               $111,451
          $120,000

                                                                                                                                            $72,750

           $60,000
                     Actual Median Home             Families @ $58,550           Families @ $48,800       Families @ $39,050          Families @ $24,400
                         Price-1999




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                Executive Summary— Page 7
        Housing Gap

      A housing gap is defined as the difference between the housing that‘s available (supply) and the housing that
      residents need (demand). In Nevada County, the housing gap is characterized by the following findings:

         Affordable housing is that which requires no more than 30% of a household‘s income In a survey conducted in
          1999, forty percent of Western Nevada County residents said they paid more than 30% of their income for
          housing (Community Assessment Project, United Way , 1999).

         Multiple data sources support the conclusion that                       Distribution of Housing Supply and Demand,
                                                                                             by Income Bracket, 2000
          there is a quantifiable housing gap for Western          18,000
                                                                                                                                      16,425
                                                                                        Households (demand)
          Nevada County families below median income                                    Units (supply)

          (chart at right). By comparing the income that           13,500
          families earn with the value of their homes or
          rents they pay, it is evident that there is a shortage                                                                      12,717
                                                                    9,000
          of affordable units for lower income families, and
                                                                              6,785
          an oversupply of units for higher incomes. In                                       5,299                      3,751
          other words, while there is not a shortage in             4,500
                                                                                                   4,730
                                                                                                              3,559

          quantity at the aggregate county level, the                           2,607
                                                                                                               3,745
                                                                                                                          3,047
          distribution of housing unit values compared to               0

          family incomes is disproportionate.                                0-50% MI      51-80% MI       81-100% MI   101-120%MI   121% + MI




          The gap between the cost of units and what
          families can pay is illustrated in the chart at right.             Shortage and Excess in Housing Units,                   by
          Using the most conservative of three estimates,                                Income Bracket, 2000
          Western Nevada County has a shortage of 4,178            6,000

          affordable units for very low income families                                                                               3,708

          earning less than $24,400 a year, and 569 units for      3,000

          low income families earning less than $39,050.                                                                  704
                                                                                                              186
          Conversely, families earning $58,500 and above                0
          have an excess of housing supply in their income
                                                                                           (569)
          bracket (3,708).
                                                                   (3,000)


         The needs of persons who fall within the ‗gap‘
                                                                 (6,000)
                                                                          (4,178)

          between affordable supply and demand are                        0-50% MI 51-80% MI 81-100% MI 101-120%MI 121% + MI
          reflected in proxy indicators such as Section 8
          caseload, emergency assistance vouchers, and homeless shelters occupancy. Currently, there are more persons
          on the Section 8 waiting list (309) than those holding housing vouchers (293). Most voucher holders are
          seniors, while most persons on the waiting list have a disability.

         Requests for Emergency Assistance shelter vouchers have been steadily increasing since 1998. In 1998, there
          were 135 vouchers provided to needy families, and 164 in 1999. If the current quarterly trends continue, there
          will be 232 vouchers provided in 2000. In addition, the only shelter in the county, the Manzanita Family
          Center, is currently full (40 person capacity). Their clients are typically working families who stay for three to
          four months. It is estimated that only about 30% of these families are successful at finding adequate,
          permanent housing.



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                       Executive Summary— Page 8
Conclusion
      In general, the Housing Needs Assessment has found that there is a critical shortage of affordable housing for all
      low- and very low-income households in Nevada County, and to some degree, moderate income families as well.


      Employment data indicates the disproportionate growth in the number of jobs in the retail and service sector
      compared to statewide averages, which provides some of the lowest paying jobs in the county. Meanwhile,
      while local incomes are about 89% of statewide averages, local prices for new homes exceeded statewide
      averages by $20,000 in 1999. Because incomes have not kept up with the rise in rents and home prices, the
      shortage of affordable housing continues to grow.

      While several indicators such as the jobs to housing ratio and persons per occupied housing unit reveal that the
      quantity of housing units meets the aggregate population demand, other indicators such as rental or sales data
      demonstrate the type of housing units do not match resident‘s ability to pay. There is an oversupply of affordable
      units for higher income families and a shortage of units affordable to lower income families. The greatest share of
      housing is affordable only to those families above 120% of median income.

      As a result of the current housing market in Western Nevada County, very low-income families earning less than
      $24,400 a year will not be able to buy a home in Nevada County without assistance. Low-income families earning
      less than $39,000 annually can only afford to buy manufactured housing and condominiums. Overall vacancy
      rates are between 5% and 7% in Grass Valley and Nevada City, which places an even greater strain on the
      housing market‘s ability to house existing and in-coming residents. As a result, property managers report fierce
      competition for lower end rentals. Limited supply pushes prices higher and out of the reach of low-income
      households.

      Finally, Section 8 waiting lists reveal the increasing demand for assistance by households currently unable to
      afford the housing which is provided. In turn, lower income families are forced to rent the higher valued housing
      stock of which there is greater supply. Though Nevada County is an aging community, low to median income
      seniors in need of assisted living find no affordable housing options available.

      In conclusion, while developers appear to be supplying adequate quantities of housing in Nevada County, they
      have not provided the kind of housing that is in demand by the greatest number of residents. The only Nevada
      County residents who have their housing needs met are the minority of citizens with incomes well above the
      median range.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                        Executive Summary— Page 9
Affordable Housing Task Force Recommendations
      The primary tasks of the Affordable Housing Task Force have been to commission the current assessment and to
      make recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors. From the Task Force‘s initial list of 36
      recommendations, the following ten have been voted as the top priority recommendations to address Western
      Nevada County‘s housing imbalance:


         1      Allow mixed-use developments, by combining higher-density residential (in particular for seniors)
                within office-professional, commercial and retail districts. The county and cities should also identify
                industrial, commercial/retail sites that are eligible for re-zoning to include higher-density multi-family
                residential (mixed use), without affecting the jobs to housing balance.


         2      The county and cities, as well as schools, fire districts, parks and recreation, NID etc., should adopt a
                policy to allow for deferred payment of fees, and/or partial or full waiver, of planning, mitigation and
                building permit fees as incentives to for-profit and non-profit builders of affordable housing for
                developments of five or more units per application.


         3      Adopt the second unit recommendations (please note specific details in Appendix…).


         4      The county and cities should allow duplexes and duets mixed-in with single-family residential
                developments of ten lots or more in all single-family zoning districts.


         5      The county and cities should require that all senior assisted care residential developments include at
                least 20% of the total units affordable to low-income seniors.


         6      The county should create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund from impact and in-lieu housing fees
                throughout the county, to be used for affordable housing development. AND The Board of
                Supervisors should initiate discussions about appropriate sources for affordable housing trust funds,
                such as impact fees, exaction) and affordable housing development incentives.


         7      The county and cities‘ planning departments should provide affordable housing pre-application
                meetings, accurate and consistent processing information and priority processing. The county and
                cities should reduce the number of processes that an affordable housing development proposal must
                follow under existing state and local regulations.

         8      Community, decision-makers and local leaders need to be educated by private, non-profit and public
                housing industry representatives about the need for affordable housing in Western Nevada County,
                especially for rental housing for working families, homes priced for purchase by moderate income
                households and new assisted living housing affordable to low income seniors. Mechanisms to do this
                might be: Road shows, Speakers bureau, On-going forum with the public (developers, community, etc), Annual
                status update of housing status and progress made, radio program.


         9      The counties and cities should cooperate in creating a countywide umbrella Housing Authority.


        10      The county should maximize the development potential of sites that will eventually be annexed to the
                cities by increasing the number of "real" sites for development and through the provision of higher
                density zoning and infrastructure. In addition, the county should exercise the use of annexation
                agreements with Grass Valley and Nevada City to assure that sites zoned by the county for multi-
                family housing will remain zoned at the same or higher density once annexed to the cities.

Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                            Executive Summary— Page 10
Project Overview

      Background
      The Nevada County Affordable Housing Task Force was created in April 1999 to be the designated advisory body
      to the Board of Supervisors on affordable housing issues, policies and plans. The Task Force also has the
      responsibility of making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the design and location of affordable
      housing units for low and moderate income citizens throughout Nevada County. This Task Force is considering
      the following issues related to the development of affordable housing including: 1) the specific type of housing
      needed; 2) the best locations for additional affordable housing units; 3) sewage infrastructure; 4) annexation of
      unincorporated land into cities; and 5) the sharing of responsibility for this development between the County and
      the cities involved.

      To assist them in making decisions based on current population and economic data, the Affordable Housing Task
      Force contracted Fred Consulting Associates (FCA) to complete a Housing Needs Assessment of Nevada County.
      FCA worked in collaboration with Applied Survey Research, a non-profit social research firm who authored the
      report, The Nevada County Community Assessment Project: Comprehensive Report, in 1999.




      Objectives
      The present housing needs assessment will provide data to address the following:


          The demographic factors that currently affect the need for affordable housing in Nevada County. This section
           will discuss the influences of the surrounding ―feeder‖ counties to Nevada County, as well as a study of the
           County‘s population and economic characteristics.


          The current housing market in Nevada County. Specifically, this report will address the current housing
           market trends, and define the gaps in affordable housing for various population sub-groups, like low and
           moderate income citizens, seniors and the disabled.


          Programs and projects will be suggested in response to the specific housing needs identified. The barriers to
           the development of these projects will be identified, such as sewer, annexation, zoning and NIMBY (―Not In
           My Back Yard‖) concerns.


          Finally, financing mechanisms available to develop affordable housing projects in Nevada County will be
           identified and an analysis of the economic feasibility of this type of project will be provided.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                        Project Overview— Page 11
Methodology

      Scope
      To be cognizant of the diversity that lies within any population, the current assessment identified major target
      subpopulations that were thought to have unique housing needs. These groups included targeted income groups,
      within which there were other groups such as renters, homeowners, large families, mobile home residents, seniors,
      and persons with disabilities. There were of course several unavoidable instances where one target subpopulation
      overlapped with another, such as a low income senior renting a mobile home. This underscores the need to not
      limit assessment activities to quantitative data collection, but to include more qualitative, integrated means of
      inquiry. Finally, this report limited its scope to Western Nevada County.


      Process
      To research the magnitude and nature of housing needs in Western Nevada County, two primary skills sets were
      required, general research and housing development policy expertise. First, to document the specific socio-
      economic and demographic factors underlying and shaping the supply and demand of housing, a thorough review
      of secondary data was conducted. The data originate from state or nationally-recognized statistical centers, such as
      the:
         U.S. Census Bureau
         National Association of Home Builders
         U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
         California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit
         Construction Industry Research Board
         California Association of Realtors
         Center for Economic Development
                                                                                      Housing Affordability Index Template
      In addition to standard research methods and resources, the
                                                                             2000       Percent of      Affordable      Income
      current assessment also required expert analysis of housing           Median       Median      Monthly Housing      level
      finance, affordability, and policies to place research findings in    Income       Income        Cost @ 30%

      context. The basic template within which to frame all data and                     121% +      More than $1,464    High
                                                                                                                        Income
      analysis was the income of families. The amount that each
                                                                                        101% to          $1,464
      family can afford to pay for rent or mortgage was determined         $ 48,800      120%
                                                                                                                        Moderate
      through careful analysis of mortgage payments, down                                80% to          $1,220          income
                                                                                          100%
      payments, utility allowances, and so forth (chart at right).
                                                                                       51% to 80%         $976            Low
      This ‗affordability index template‘ was then applied to home                                                      Income
      sales price data and average rental costs in the area to                          0 to 50%          $610          Very Low
      determine affordability and housing gaps.                                                                          Income




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                  Methodology — Page 12
      While numbers and statistical models provided an indication of the magnitude of housing needs in the county, they
      alone cannot capture the community or human dimensions of the issue. Therefore, key informant interviews were
      conducted with professionals from housing or service organizations. Lastly, inventories of current vacancies,
      mobile home parks, apartment complexes, and senior assisted living facilities were developed.

      In summary, secondary data research, surveys, and expert analysis have each independently revealed particular
      housing trends in Western Nevada County. When combined, they serve to further strengthen the overall findings
      of the assessment.

      Technique




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                      Executive Summary— Page 13
Housing Needs:
The National and State Context
      Housing supply and affordability have become an increasingly prominent issue at national, state, and local levels.
      In general, across the county, housing affordability has diminished as incomes have not kept up with the cost of
      housing, and as population growth has outpaced housing supply. Indeed, eight of the ten least affordable places to
      live in the United States are in California (next page). The following section presents a discussion of the national
      and statewide context of housing shortages.




      National Trends
      Housing data at the national level reveal a growing crisis in housing affordability throughout the country. A report
      by HUD to Congress in 1999 provided a number of findings and conclusions related to this housing affordability
      crisis. The study included the following findings:


         1     The housing stock affordable to the lowest-income Americans continues to shrink.


         2     Despite continued robust economic expansion, in 1997 worst case housing needs reached an all-time
               high of 5.4 million families, containing some 12.3 million individuals.


         3     Families with worst case housing needs are working harder than ever. Between 1991 and 1997, worst
               case needs increased more than three times as quickly for households with full-time earners than for all
               other very low-income renters.


         4     The poorest families are increasingly the hardest hit by worst case needs. Between 1991 and 1997,
               worst case needs became more concentrated among households, with incomes below 30 percent of the
               area median income.


         5     Worst case housing needs among minority households increased dramatically during the 1990s,
               whereas needs among Caucasians were stable. Increases were particularly high among working Hispanic
               households with children.


               Poor families living in the suburbs most frequently face worst case needs. Both very-low-income
         6
               renters and extremely-low-income renters remain more likely to have worst case problems in the
               suburbs than elsewhere. Shrinkage in the number of units affordable to extremely-low-income families
               was greatest in the suburbs during the 1990s.


Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                National and State Context —   Page 14
               Worst case housing needs continue to be a persistent problem for all demographic groups. Of the 12.3
        7
               million persons with worst case needs, over 1.5 million are elderly and 4.3 million are children. The
               number of adults with disabilities in households with worst case needs remains in the range of 1.1 to
               1.4 million.


               Very-low-income renters in the West continue to be most likely to have worst case problems. During
        8
               the 1990s, however, the number of very low income renters with worst case needs increased most
               rapidly in the Northeast.


               When both very-low-income renters with some form of housing assistance and those without
        9
               assistance are considered, the number of very-low-income renter households with severe rent burdens
               rose by 500,000 families between 1995 and 1997.


      For fiscal years 1999 and 2000, Congress provided for modest expansion in the number of families assisted by
      Section 8 vouchers after 4 years with no new assistance. The worsening affordability crisis facing very-low-income
      families of all demographic backgrounds — including working families with children, minority households, and the
      elderly — argues strongly for greater expansion in Federal rental housing assistance combined with wise use of
      Federal supply-side subsidies to boost the production of housing affordable to these families.


      State Trends
      According to the California Statewide Housing Plan Update (State Department of Housing and Community
      Development), the demand for all types of housing in California is growing. Factors that influence the demand for
      housing include population growth, economic conditions (i.e., interest rates), employment opportunities and the
      relative supply of housing available. Land costs and the ease with which projects can or cannot be developed
      influence the supply of housing, and therefore, the cost of the available housing. Of these factors, population
      growth is the strongest influence on the housing market in California. Persons who migrate into a geographical
      area produce an immediate demand for housing. Natural increases in the population within a defined area do not
      affect the housing market as directly, although some increase in housing demand can be expected as these citizens
      reach the peak age of acquiring their own homes, either through purchase or rental.

      In addition, the report estimates that between 1997 and 2003, the State will need 1.1 to 1.2 million additional
      housing units. However, production of housing units has lagged enormously behind demand, particularly in the
      large metropolitan areas. The greatest decline has been in the construction of multi-family units, which constituted
      only 24% of the residential building permits from 1990 through 1997. During the 1980‘s, multifamily permits
      accounted for 44% of the total permits.

      Despite the emphasis on single-family housing construction during the 1990‘s, the decline in home prices and low
      interest rates, California‘s homeownership rate remains among the lowest in the country, significantly below the
      national rate. Nearly one third of the State‘s homeowners spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Such
      a high housing cost burden prohibits many middle income workers from buying their own homes.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                National and State Context —   Page 15
      The following table indicates the ten least affordable housing markets in the country, based on the ability of a
      median income household to afford a median priced home.


       Least Affordable Housing Markets in the Nation, 2000
              Ran     Metropolitan Statistical Area                                   2000 Median        2000 Median Sales        % of Homes
              k                                                                     Family Income             Price ($000’s)    Affordable for
                                                                                          ($000’s)                             Median Income

          1         San Francisco, Ca PMSA                                                      74.9                    464              10.3

          2         Santa Cruz - Watsonville, Ca PMSA                                           61.7                    338              14.2

          3         San Jose, Ca PMSA                                                           87.0                    410              18.3

          4         Salinas, Ca MSA                                                             50.3                    237              21.2

          5         Santa Rosa, Ca PMSA                                                         58.1                    255              21.9

          6         Eugene - Springfield, Or MSA                                                41.7                    134              22.4

          7         San Luis Obispo - Atascadero - Paso Robles, Ca MSA                          48.0                    206              23.3

          8         San Diego, Ca MSA                                                           53.7                    220              30.1

          9         Portsmouth - Rochester, Nh - Me PMSA                                        52.3                    177              31.0

          10        Oakland, Ca PMSA                                                            67.6                    275              32.1

         Source: National Association of Homebuilders, Housing Opportunity Index, 1 st Quarter 2000



      Renters also bear a similar housing cost burden. Statewide, more than two million households – nearly half of all
      renters – paid more than 30% of their income on housing. For low to very low income renters, the percent of
      incomes spent on housing is further increased. With such a heavy cost burden, communities throughout the State
      must increase the inventory of affordable rental housing as well as affordable home ownership opportunities.

      The national and state trends presented in these sections provide an important context for the housing situation in
      Western Nevada County. The purpose of this report is to illustrate how Western Nevada County‘s housing market
      is faring, as well as its impact on the lives of Western Nevada County‘s residents.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                   National and State Context —   Page 16
Chapter 1: Market Area Profile



     A broad overview of the regional demographic
           and economic backdrop affecting
            housing supply and demand in
                   Nevada County.
Housing markets reflect the particular meeting point of housing supply with the housing needs of residents (demand).
However, housing supply and demand are themselves shaped by regional economic forces. Chapter 1 therefore aims
to present a picture of the regional context surrounding Nevada County and the particular pressures shaping the
County, specifically population, employment, income, housing stock, home prices, transportation and commuting.



Population
      Nevada County‘s population growth has been significantly higher than the state average, primarily from the
      migration of citizens from other parts of California or out-of-state (Figure 2). As a whole, the County grew 16%
      from 1990-2000—slightly faster than the state—and is projected to continue its strong growth. Cities situated along
      an easy commute corridor, such as Highway 80 and Highway 99, have seen marked growth which seems to
      correlate with their proximity to the Sacramento area. The City of Sacramento itself has grown only 10% over the
      last decade, whereas the surrounding communities have reported growth rates of double or more (Figure 1). Placer
      County has seen the highest growth rates of all of the counties surrounding Sacramento, with Nevada County
      following close behind.

                                       Population Growth 1990-2000
                40%
                                                                                                                              36%



                30%

                                                                                    21%                 21%

                20%                      15%                  16%

                               10%
                10%



                 0%
                           Sac. City    State               Nevada                Sutter           El Dorado            Placer




       Figure 1 — Population Growth of Counties and Selected Areas
            County                                  1990                  1995                  2000             1990-2000          1990-2000
                                                                                                               Net Increase         % Change
          EL DORADO                              125,995               142,900               152,900                26,905               21.4
               Placerville                         8,286                  8,775                 9,235                  949               11.5
               Unincorporated                     96,123               111,100               120,600                24,477               25.5
          NEVADA                                  78,510                85,900                91,100                12,590               16.0
               Grass Valley                        9,048                  9,250                 9,950                  902               10.0
               Nevada City                         2,855                  2,820                 2,920                   65                2.3
               Truckee*                            9,420                11,300                12,900                 3,480               36.9
               Unincorporated                     57,187                62,500                65,300                 8,113               14.2
          PLACER                                 172,796               199,600               234,400                61,604               35.7
               Auburn                             10,653                11,150                11,400                   747                7.0
               Rocklin                            18,806                25,850                35,250                16,444               87.4
               Roseville                          44,685                56,500                74,200                29,515               66.1
               Unincorporated                     84,393                90,900                96,400                12,007               14.2
          SACRAMENTO                            1,041,219             1,115,100             1,209,500              168,281               16.2
               Sacramento                        369,365               384,300               406,000                36,635                9.9
          SUTTER                                  64,415                73,000                77,900                13,485               20.9
          YUBA                                    58,228                62,100                60,700                 2,472                4.2
          California                       29,758,213                31,910,000            34,336,000             4,577,787              15.4




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                 Market Area Profile —      Page 18
         Source: California Department of Finance, City and County Population Estimates, December 1998 and County Population Projections with Race/ Ethnic Detail, 1970-
         2040. http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/repndat.htm.                       * Truckee CDP data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
      During the 1990‘s, nearly all (95%) of Nevada County‘s growth was due to in-migration rather than natural
      population increases, with Caucasians comprising the majority (92%) of persons moving into the County (Figure
      2). The County‘s rate of in-migration is unusually high, particularly when compared with in-migration to Placer
      County (81%), Sacramento County (39%) and statewide (25%).


      Figure 2 —Reasons for Population Change 1990-1997, by Ethnicity
          Ethnic Group                            Births               Deaths               Natural             Migration              Total Net
                                                      (+)                  (-)         Increase (+)                    (+)              Change

        Caucasian                                  5,584                 5,345                   239                 8,380                 8,619

        Latino                                         585                  68                   517                   505                 1,022

        African American                                 7                     7                    0                   27                     27

        Asian/ Pacific Islander                        55                   12                    43                   100                   143

        Native American                                59                   14                    45                    53                     98

        Nevada County Total                        6,290                 5,446                   844                 9,065                 9,909

        California Total                      4,174,138             1,586,963             2,587,175               611,571             3,198,746
      Source: California Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates:, Components of Change for California Counties
      April 1990 to July 1997, Race/Ethnic Population Estimates: Components of Change for California Counties, April 1990 to July 1997.




      Nevada County has also experienced larger increases in its older populations than its younger populations. Figure
      3 shows population growth in five year increments. Over the last 10 years, the County has seen the largest net
      (8,174) and percent (50%) increase in persons ages 40 to 55. The second fastest growing age group is persons ages
      56 and over. This group also accounted for 29% of the general County population. Persons ages 56 and over
      make up 22% of the population, compared to just 13% statewide (Figures 3a and 3b.). The large senior population
      is said to be due to the influx of retirees who have established their primary residences in Nevada County.


      Figure 3 — Population Growth by Age Group, Nevada County
           Age Group                   1990              1995           2000          1990-2000 Net            1990-2000
                                                                                            Increase           % Change

         0 to 18                     19,977            21,376         21,983                     2,006                10.0

         19 to 39                    20,799            19,734         22,789                     1,990                  9.6

         40 to 55                    16,466            21,323         24,640                     8,174                49.6

         56 +                        21,865            24,073         27,608                     5,743                26.3

         62 +                        17,185            19,592         21,287                     4,102                23.9

         Total                       79,107            86,506         97,020                   17,913                 22.6
       Source: California Department of Finance, Race and Ethnic Population Estimates with Age and Sex Detail, 1970-2040, December 1998.
      http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/data.htm



                 3a. Nevada County, by Age,                                         3b. California, by Age, 2000
                           2000

                    0-18                       19-39
                    23%                         23%                                    0-18                           19-39
                                                                                       30%                             30%



                     56+                       40-55                                    56+                         40-55
                     29%                        25%                                     18%                          22%



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                           Market Area Profile—           Page 19
Employment
      In addition to population growth, employment opportunities exert the next major influence on the housing market.
      Figures 4, 5, and 6 further show key employment trends within Nevada County over the last decade. For instance,
      Figure 4 below illustrates the total number of people employed in the region surrounding Sacramento. While
      Nevada County‘s population has grown 16% since 1990, the number of persons employed has increased by 21%,
      or additional 7,340 workers. As with other general demographic indicators, Placer County leads with the fastest
      growth in employment, followed by El Dorado County (25%) and Nevada County (21%). By comparison, the
      state employment growth rate was just 10%, and Sacramento County‘s rate was 10%. When looked at together,
      population and employment data indicates a relative ‗boom‘ in Placer and Nevada Counties during the 1990‘s.


      Figure 4 —Total Persons Employed, by County
                                                   1990              1999           1990-99          1990-99
                                                                                Net Change         % Change

        El Dorado                                62,400            78,100            15,700              25.2

        Nevada                                   34,530            41,870             7,340              21.3

        Placer                                   87,700           116,000            28,300              32.3

        Sacramento                              509,700           562,100            52,400              10.3

        Yuba / Sutter                            50,000            49,800              -200              -0.4

        California                            14,319,200        15,721,700        1,402,500                  9.8
      Source: Employment Development Department, Annual Average Labor Force and Industry Employment, 2000,
      http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/indtable.htm



      With regard to the impact of the labor market on housing, it is equally important to examine the type of
      employment generated as well as the quantity. For instance, Figure 5a below illustrates that the highest growth
      industries in Nevada County (both in net growth and percent change) are services (2,740or 55% job growth) and
      retail trade (1,250 or 26% job growth). Both of these industries have grown much faster than the Statewide
      average, yet neither one of these industries is viewed as well-paying.


     Figure 5a — Employment Growth by Selected Sector, Nevada County
          Industry Division                           1990              1999          1990-99        County 1990-99          State 1990-99
                                                                                  Net Change              % Change              % Change

        Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing                  40            120                  80                   200.0              11.7

        Construction                                 1,700             2,310               610                      35.9               8.8

        Manufacturing                                3,070             2,640              -430                     -14.0              -5.7

        Transportation and Public Utilities            530               600                  70                    13.2              13.6

        Wholesale trade                                530               660               130                      24.5               3.9

        Retail trade                                 4,860             6,110             1,250                      25.7               4.5

        Finance, Insurance, Real Estate              1,090             1,270               180                      16.5              -1.2

        Services                                     4,980             7,720             2,740                      55.0              26.4

        Government                                   3,950             5,080             1,130                      28.6               4.4

      Source: Employment Development Department, Annual Average Labor Force and Industry Employment, 2000,
      http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/indtable.htm




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                               Market Area Profile—      Page 20
      Figure 5b below compares the growth rates of the service sector in Nevada County with neighboring counties
      between the years of 1990 and 1998 (1999 data not available for some counties). This figure illustrates that Nevada
      County‘s service sector growth is faster than the state average and the counties of Sacramento and Sutter. The
      service sector is an important ingredient in any economy, but its faster than usual growth translates to faster than
      usual growth in low paying jobs.


       Figure 5b —Regional % Growth in Service Sectors


       100%
                                                                                                             94%

                                                                                               69%
        75%


                                                                              45%
        50%
                                                             34%
                                         32%
                        26%
        25%



          0%
                       State        Sacramento            Sutter           Nevada           El Dorado          Placer


       Source: Employment Development Department, Annual Average Labor Force and Industry Employment, 2000,




      During the deep California recession of the early 1990‘s, every county in the State suffered high unemployment
      rates, many in the double digits. As seen in Figure 6 below, Nevada County incurred average unemployment rates
      compared with the surrounding counties. Yuba/ Sutter Counties suffered the highest unemployment of the region,
      and Placer County had the lowest. Nevada County had the next lowest unemployment rate for the region with
      4.8% in 1990, and decreasing slightly to 4.1 in 1999.


      Figure 6 —Unemployment Rates, by County
                                                     1990                 1999           1990-99
                                                                                       % Change

        El Dorado                                      4.4                  3.8              -13.6

        Nevada                                         4.8                  4.1              -14.6

        Placer                                         4.1                  3.3              -19.5

        Sacramento                                     4.5                  4.2               -6.7

        Yuba/ Sutter                                  12.3                12.5                 1.6

        California                                     5.8                  5.2              -10.3
      Source: Employment Development Department, Annual Average Labor Force and Industry Employment, 2000,
      http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/indtable.htm




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                Market Area Profile—   Page 21
Income
      While population changes shape the quantity (demand) of housing needed, income characteristics of the local
      population determine the qualities of the housing needed to match what local residents can afford to pay for.

      Like growth in employment, changes in family income also reflect the viability of local economies. The following
      tables provide complimentary data about income growth in Nevada County as compared with neighboring counties
      in the region. Unlike per capita income, which is derived from dividing the total personal income of a region by
      the number of residents, median income is the income level at which 50% of households earn more, and 50% earn
      less. As seen by both of these measures in Figures 7 and 8, Nevada County incomes are about 89% of the
      Statewide average. However, per capita personal income in Nevada County increased remarkably (54%) during the
      1990‘s, ending the decade second only to Placer County (57%) and outpacing the state (43%).


      Figure 7 — Growth in Per Capita Personal Income ($’s), 1988-98
                                              1988                1998            1988-98
                                                                                % Change
        El Dorado                           18,671              27,046                   44.9
        Nevada                              16,281              25,051                   53.9
        Placer                              20,639              32,319                   56.6
        Sacramento                          18,091              26,257                   45.1
        Sutter                              15,863              21,965                   38.5
        Yuba                                12,130              16,405                   35.2
        California                          19,713              28,163                   42.9
      Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Bearfacts, 1999
      http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/bf8797/06/index.htm



      Median income is the income that is most commonly tracked in relation to analyses of housing affordability.
      Growth in median income shows a slightly different picture than per capita income. Nevada County‘s 2000
      median income of $48,800 ranked after Placer, El Dorado and Sacramento Counties in actual dollar value, but
      better than Placer in terms of percent growth. Unlike per capita incomes, median incomes in Nevada County have
      also not grown as fast as they have statewide.


      Figure 8 — Growth in Median Family Income ($’s), 1990-2000
                                              1990                2000          1990-2000
                                                                                % Change
        El Dorado                           39,823              52,900                   32.8
        Nevada                              36,942              48,800                   32.1
        Placer                              42,805              52,900                   23.6
        Sacramento                          37,841              52,900                   39.8
        Sutter                              31,842              36,000                   13.1
        Yuba                                24,364              36,000                   47.8
        California                          40,559              55,400                   36.6
      Source: 1990 data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder, and 2000 data: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
      http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/fmr00/incfy00.xls




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                     Market Area Profile—   Page 22
Housing Supply
      Occupied housing stock reflects the current inventory of livable single-family, multi-family and manufactured
      housing units. Occupied housing stock does not include the construction of vacation or seasonal homes, and is
      therefore a valuable indicator of the number of housing units that are ultimately available for occupancy. Figure 9a
      shows that the number of occupied housing units in Nevada County has increased from 30,758 in 1990 to 36,549in
      2000 or a 19% increase. Again, the fastest growth has been in Placer County (41%). Statewide, occupied housing
      units have increased 9% since 1990.


      Figure 9a — Growth in Occupied Housing Stock, Selected Areas
          County                                   1990                     2000              1990-2000                 1990-2000
                                                                                            Net Increase                % Change
        El Dorado                                 46,845                  56,433                    9,588                      20.5
               Placerville                         3,361                    3,887                      526                     15.7
               Unincorporated                     34,859                  43,623                    8,764                      25.1
        Nevada                                    30,758                  36,549                    5,791                      18.8
               Grass Valley                        4,148                    4,758                      610                     14.7
               Nevada City                         1,289                    1,389                      100                      7.8
               Truckee                               N/a                    4,928                      N/a                      N/a
               Unincorporated                     24,067                  25,474                       N/a                      N/a
        Placer                                    64,101                  90,605                   26,504                      41.3
               Auburn                              4,601                    5,486                      885                     19.2
               Rocklin                             6,990                  13,391                    6,401                      91.6
               Roseville                          16,606                  29,032                   12,426                      74.8
               Unincorporated                     30,879                  36,161                    5,282                      17.1
        Sacramento                               394,530                 439,663                   45,133                      11.4
               Sacramento                        144,444                 147,115                    2,671                       1.8
        Sutter                                    23,111                  28,045                    4,934                      21.3
        Yuba                                      19,776                  21,428                    1,652                       8.4
        California                           10,380,856              11,335,419                   954,563                       9.2
      Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census counts.
      Note: Includes single and multi family as well as mobile home units.




      Figure 9b presents the characteristics of the housing stock in the region. Nevada County has the lowest share (9%)
      of multi-family units in the region, the kind of housing that is typically the most affordable. Sacramento County
      has the highest percentage of multi-family units, comprising 28% of its total housing stock in 2000, followed by
      Placer County‘s multi-family units comprising 15% of its overall housing supply in 2000.


      Figure 9b — Regional Housing Stock Characteristics, 1990-2000
          County                      % Single Family Units                         % Multi-Family Units                            % Mobile Homes

                                          1990          2000                         1990           2000                            1990      2000
        El Dorado                         79%           79%                          13%            13%                              8%        7%
        Nevada                            82%           82%                           9%              9%                             9%        9%
        Placer                            79%           80%                          15%            15%                              6%        5%
        Sacramento                        67%           69%                          30%            28%                              4%        3%
        Sutter                            70%           73%                          23%            21%                              7%        6%
        Yuba                              64%           64%                          20%            19%                             16%       17%
        California                        62%           63%                          33%            32%                              5%        5%




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                          Market Area Profile—   Page 23
      Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census counts,
      http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/repndat.htm




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                          Market Area Profile—   Page 24
                              While housing supply should keep pace with population growth, it should also be able to accommodate increases in
                              employment. Increased employment that is not matched by increases in housing stock strains the supply further,
                              potentially driving up prices. A figure of analysis commonly used to juxtapose the variables of employment and
                              housing stock is the Jobs to Housing Ratio. In theory, a ratio of 1:1 reflects that the there is an average of one job
                              per every occupied housing unit. Whenever possible, the ratio should also be calculated at each employment
                              income/housing affordability bracket (refer to Chapter 5, Quantitative Housing Gap for related income and
                              housing stock comparisons).

                              The jobs to housing ratio in Nevada County is illustrated by Figure 10. As seen in previous Figures, Nevada
                              County has experienced a slightly greater growth in employment than it has in occupied housing stock, which
                              explains the slight increase in the number of jobs per occupied housing unit since 1990. Sacramento County,
                              however, has experienced a decrease in the number of jobs per housing unit, as the supply of housing within this
                              county has increased faster than the number of jobs.


                               Figure 10 — Number of Jobs per Housing Unit, 1990-1999*

                                                                                                                                                                  1990              1999
                                          2.0
     Nu m b e r of J o b s p e r U ni t




                                                                                                                    1.38              1.37                                1.39
                                                                               1.29                                                                              1.38
                                          1.5                                          1.28               1.33                                 1.28
                                                            1.15
                                                   1.12

                                          1.0




                                          0.5




                                          0.0
                                                   Nevada                   Sacramento                   El Dorado                      Placer                   California

                              Source: Employment Development Department and California Department of Finance, 1999. Calculation: Total civilian employment divided by total occupied housing units.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                                      Market Area Profile—           Page 25
Home Prices
      Home prices can be impacted by limited supply as well as by a surge in demand. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
      the price of homes will keep pace with what some people can and are willing to pay, no matter how high the price.
      For example, if there is a demand to build homes worth $300,000, supply will respond accordingly. Drawing on
      market data, Figure 11a reflects prices for new housing units, both single and attached (condominiums) in Nevada
      County, Sacramento County and Statewide. Figure 11b reflects the price of all types of housing units (new,
      existing, condos) which are less expensive than new homes.


      Figure 11a — Growth in Median Sales Price of New Homes

                                                                                                                                                  California
      $260,000
                                                                                                                          $245,000                Nevada County

                                                                                                                                                  Sacramento
                                                                                                                           $225,200               County




      $180,000




      $100,000

                     1990       1991        1992        1993       1994         1995      1996        1997        1998       1999
                    Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2000. The CIRB collects data on new home sales from the California Market Data Cooperative.




      Figure 11b — Growth in Median Sales Prices, All Housing Types ($’s)
             County                                 Dec 1998                   Dec 1999         1998-1999
                                                                                                % Change
           El Dorado                                 145,500                    153,000                  5.2
           Nevada                                    167,500                    187,750                12.1
                 Nevada City                         173,750                    214,000                23.2
                 Grass Valley                        176,500                    182,500                  3.4
                 Truckee                             175,750                    192,000                  9.2
           Placer                                    185,000                    192,500                  4.1
                 Auburn                              166,500                    200,000                20.1
                 Rocklin                             190,000                    187,250                 -1.4
                 Roseville                           183,500                    185,500                  1.1
           Sacramento                                130,000                    126,500                 -2.7
                 Folsom                              195,500                    233,750                19.6
                 Sacramento                          103,500                    106,000                  2.4
         Source: 1999 and 1998 data from California Association of Realtors.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                             Market Area Profile—           Page 26
Transportation and Commuting
      Transportation and commute patterns serve as yet another indication of growth. In Western Nevada County, there
      is also particular interest on commute patterns as there is widely-held belief that a good portion of local residents
      commute to higher paying jobs out of the County, and that the recent higher-priced home construction is
      responding to their demand.

      Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) indicates how many miles (shown in thousands) are driven each day between
      specified segments of roadway. As seen on Figure 12, Placer County, with its corridor cities of Auburn, Rocklin
      and Roseville, has the most notable net increase of traffic volume since 1991. In contrast, VMT in the city of
      Sacramento has actually declined.


      Figure 12 — Growth in Traffic Volume, by Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled
                                                           1991                    1997         10 Year           10 Year
                                                                                           Net Increase         % Change

        El Dorado                                          3,647                   4,024           377               10.3

        Nevada                                             2,394                   2,569           175                7.3

            Grass Valley                                      93                    114             21               22.6

            Nevada City                                       28                     31              3               10.7

            Unincorporated/ Truckee                          693                    801            108               15.6

            State Highways                                 1,566                   1,612            46                2.9

        Placer                                             5,811                   7,153          1,342              23.1

            Auburn                                           112                    150             38               33.9

            Rocklin                                          158                    317            159              100.6

            Roseville                                        714                   1,178           464               65.0

            State Highways                                 3,674                   4,123           449               12.2

        Sacramento                                       24,174                26,574             2,400               9.9

            Sacramento                                     4661                    4,366           -295              -6.3

            State Highways                               10,609                11,704             1,095              10.3

        Sutter                                             1,717                   1,991           274               16.0

        Yuba                                               1,359                   1,596           237               17.4

        California                                      706,784              780,316             73,532              10.4

      Source: Caltrans, 2000.   Figures are shown in thousands (000’s) of miles.




                                                                                                  12a. Reasons People Commute Out of Their Community,
      A recent survey commissioned by United Way in 1999                                                            by Percent, 1999
      asked respondents for what reasons if any they
                                                                                           60%
      commuted out their community. The chart to the right
                                                                                                          40%
      (12a) shows that 127 or 25% percent of persons                                       45%


      reported that they must commute out of their area for                                                                                   25%
                                                                                           30%                               24%
      work. This data corresponds with 1990 Census data in
      which 24% of residents reported commuting out of the                                 15%


      County or State for work.
                                                                                            0%
                                                                                                    Services                Work      Health Care




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                   Market Area Profile—    Page 27
Chapter 1 Summary:
         1     Nevada County‘s population growth has exceeded that of the state and nearby counties. Population
               growth is particularly high in cities located along commute corridors. Most of the population growth in
               Nevada County had been due to the persons moving into the County, mostly of Caucasian ethnicity.
               Seniors also make up an unusually large portion of the population.


         2     Like population, Nevada County has had terrific growth in employment when compared to the
               statewide average and Sacramento county. Again, this growth in employment is highest in the satellite
               communities surrounding the Sacramento metropolitan area. Unfortunately, most of the growth has
               taken place in the low paying sectors of service and retail trade.


         3     Though Nevada counties incomes are not as high as the incomes in El Dorado County, Placer County
               or the statewide average, they are growing at a comparable rate.


         4     The number of occupied housing units in Nevada has increased by 5,791 since 1990, a smaller increase
              than neighboring areas. However, the rate at which housing stock is increasing is faster than
              Sacramento County and the statewide average. The jobs per housing unit in Nevada County remains
              lower than the counties of Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, and the statewide average.


         5     Despite what appears to be adequate supply in the County, new home prices have rocketed above
               nearby counties and the statewide average to reach $245,000 in 1999. The median sales price of new
               and existing homes combined is lower ($187,750) and is comparable to those in Placer County.


         6     Traffic volume is on the rise on the main arteries leading out of the Sacramento area. Traffic volume
               has increased by 23% in Grass Valley, comparable to Placer County, and much higher than the
               statewide average. Recent survey results showed that 25% of Western County residents commuted out
               of their area for work.


      In short, Nevada County and its neighboring counties appears to have experienced rapid population and economic
      expansion, but this has been accompanied by high costs of housing and large increases in lower paying jobs.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                       Market Area Profile—   Page 28
                  Chapter 2:

Housing Economics and Affordability




      A detailed analysis of income needed to afford
      rental or ownership housing in Nevada County.
Chapter 1 discussed the factors of population growth, economic conditions, employment opportunities and housing
availability as the most influential in defining the need for affordable housing development within Nevada County.
Nevada County has increased its housing stock over the last decade, yet how affordable are these units and how
many affordable units are actually available? Chapter 2 will discuss the issue of housing affordability, particularly
the percent of income that both owners and renters have to spend on housing in the County.



Affordability of Owner-Occupied Housing
      The ability of a person to buy or rent a home is referred to as affordability, and is currently defined as persons or
      families paying no more than 30% of their income for housing. Figure 13 shows the amount of money
      homeowners in Nevada County have to spend on housing based on their income and household size.

      Prospective homebuyers at 120% of median income will be able to afford a home priced between $112,422 and
      $217,895, depending on their household size (without use of a mortgage credit certificate). However, very low-
      income residents will only be able to purchase homes ranging in price between $49,612 and $95,404, depending on
      their household size. Very low and low income residents also must have down-payment and closing costs ranging
      from almost $5,000 to over $10,000, depending on the price of the home. Additionally, in some cases, the
      homebuyer may benefit from a limited supply of Mortgage Credit Certificates available to first-time homebuyers.


      Figure 13 — Homeowner’s Affordability Index, by Household Size and Income
                 Level
          % of Median Income                        1                   2         3          4              5          6          7          8
                                                    Person              Persons   Persons    Persons        Persons    Persons    Persons    Persons



        Income
        Very low-Income (50%)                         $17,100           $19,500    $21,950    $24,400       $26,350     $28,300    $30,250    $32,200

        Low-Income (80%)                              $27,350           $31,250    $35,150    $39,050       $42,150     $45,300    $48,400    $51,550

        Median Income (100%)                          $34,150           $39,050    $43,900    $48,800       $52,700     $56,600    $60,500    $64,400

        120 % of Median Income                        $41,000           $46,850    $52,700    $58,550       $63,250     $67,900    $72,600    $77,300



        Affordable Purchase Price *
        Very low-Income (50%)                         $49,612           $57,282    $65,057    $72,750       $78,563     $84,281    $89,898    $95,404

        Low-Income (80%)                              $75,386           $87,557    $99,583   $111,451      $120,281    $129,108   $137,557   $145,972

        Median Income (100%)                          $95,858       $111,301      $126,396   $141,485      $152,790    $163,880   $174,738   $185,346

        120 % of Median Income                      $112,422        $130,633      $148,622   $166,372      $179,739    $192,648   $205,434   $217,895



        Affordable Monthly Payment **
        Very low-Income (50%)                            $428              $488      $549       $610           $659       $708       $756       $805

        Low-Income (80%)                                 $684              $781      $879       $976         $1,054      $1,133     $1,210     $1,289

        Median Income (100%)                             $854              $976     $1,098     $1,220        $1,318      $1,415     $1,513     $1,610

        120 % of Median Income                         $1,025            $1,171     $1,318     $1,464        $1,581      $1,698     $1,815     $1,933
      Source: Fred Consulting Associates (Affordability Index), 2000.
      * Without Mortgage Credit Certificate, 95% LTV
      ** PITI = 30% of income




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                    Housing Economics and Affordability— Page 30
Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000   Housing Economics and Affordability— Page 31
      By applying the preceding affordability index to current homes sales price data, Figure 14 shows vividly who can
      and who cannot afford to buy a home in Nevada County by income. In 1999, the California Association of
      Realtors reports that the actual median sales price for new and exiting homes was $187,750 (slightly lower than the
      local Board of Realtors reports, Figure 31). This sales price even exceeds the 30% affordability ceiling of families
      earning 120% of median income.


      Figure 14 — Median Sales Price vs. Affordable Sales Prices for a Family of Four

    $240,000



                       $187,750

    $180,000
                                                                            $166,372

                                                                                                        $141,485

                                                                                                                                 $111,451
    $120,000



                                                                                                                                                       $72,750

     $60,000
                 Actual Median Home                                     Families @ $58,550         Families @ $48,800         Families @ $39,050   Families @ $24,400
                     Price-1999


      Source: California Association of Realtors (Median Sales Price), and Fred Consulting Associates (Affordability Index), 2000.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                            Housing Economics and Affordability— Page 32
Affordability of Rental Housing
      To determine the amount of income that renting individuals or families can afford to spend on housing, a similar
      affordability index was developed as was for homebuyers (Figure 15). Not including utilities, Nevada County
      residents at 120% of median income can afford to pay between $980/month and $1,843/month (depending on
      household size) to spend on housing. In contrast, one to two person households that are very low-income, such as
      a senior couple, can only afford to spend $443 a month, excluding utilities.


      Figure 15 — Renter’s Affordability Index, by Income Level and Household Size
         Income Level                                 1          2         3         4         5           6          7          8
                                                 Person    Persons   Persons   Persons   Persons     Persons    Persons    Persons


        120 % of Median Income
          Annual Income                          $41,000   $46,850   $52,700   $58,550    $63,250    $67,900    $72,600        $77,300

          Affordable Monthly Hsg. Costs @ 30%     $1,025    $1,171    $1,318    $1,464     $1,581     $1,698     $1,815         $1,933

          Less: Utilities                          ($45)     ($45)     ($55)     ($55)      ($75)      ($75)       ($90)         ($90)

          Available for Rent                       $980     $1,126    $1,263    $1,409     $1,506     $1,623     $1,725         $1,843

        100 % of Median Income
          Annual Income                          $34,150   $39,050   $43,900   $48,800    $52,700    $56,600    $60,500        $64,400

          Affordable Monthly Hsg. Costs @ 30%      $854       $976    $1,098    $1,220     $1,318     $1,415     $1,513         $1,610

          Less: Utilities                          ($45)     ($45)     ($55)     ($55)      ($75)      ($75)       ($90)         ($90)

          Available for Rent                       $809       $931    $1,043    $1,165     $1,243     $1,340     $1,423         $1,520

        80 % of Median Income
          Annual Income                          $27,350   $31,250   $35,150   $39,050    $42,150    $45,300    $48,400        $51,550

          Affordable Monthly Hsg. Costs @ 30%      $684       $781      $879      $976     $1,054     $1,133     $1,210         $1,289

          Less: Utilities                          ($45)     ($45)     ($55)     ($55)      ($75)      ($75)       ($90)         ($90)

          Available for Rent                       $639       $736      $824      $921      $979      $1,058     $1,120         $1,199

        50 % of Median Income
          Annual Income                          $17,100   $19,500   $21,950   $24,400    $26,350    $28,300    $30,250        $32,200

          Affordable Monthly Hsg. Costs @ 30%      $428       $488      $549      $610      $659        $708       $756          $805

          Less: Utilities                          ($45)     ($45)     ($55)     ($55)      ($75)      ($75)       ($90)         ($90)

          Available for Rent                       $383       $443      $494      $555      $584        $633       $666          $715
      Source: Fred Consulting Associates, 2000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                            Housing Economics and Affordability— Page 33
      Fair market rents (FMR) reflect the cost necessary to ensure a minimum standard of decent housing. FMR‘s are
      estimated at the 40th percentile, meaning 40% of units are less expensive, and 60% of units are more expensive.
      The estimates are prepared each year by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and are useful
      as a benchmark in monitoring average rents and increases in housing costs.


      Figure 16 — Fair Market Rents
                                                    1996            1997     1998     1999          2000


             Studio                                 $368            $373     $377     $383          $384

             I Bedroom                              $503            $510     $515     $523          $525

             2 Bedroom                              $670            $680     $686     $696          $699

             3 Bedroom                              $932            $945     $954     $968          $972

             4 Bedroom                            $1,080           $1,095   $1,105   $1,122       $1,126

      Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                 Housing Economics and Affordability— Page 34
Chapter 3: Housing Demand




 Profile of housing demand created by different
 population groups such as low income families,
 seniors, persons with disabilities, and homeless
                    families.
Housing demand refers to the complex force that affects the housing supply in a given area. Demand is influenced by
myriad factors such as population, employment and income, local quality of life, and proximity to services,
employment and recreation. These factors are in turn influenced by more macro regional and national economic
trends such as interest rates and the ebb and flow of certain industries (e.g. technology, logging). Nevada County,
like the other counties of Placer and El Dorado, has seen tremendous growth over the past decade, likely due to its
unique combination of proximity to the Sacramento economic hub with small town atmosphere and rural qualities. To
follow up on Market Area Profile data of Chapter 1, this chapter provides statistics to probe further into trends
affecting housing demand. In addition to statistical data, key informant interviews have been conducted with area
professionals from the following social service agencies to document demand for housing in real, human terms:
     Alta Regional Center (for the Developmentally            Human Services Agency of Nevada County
       Disabled)
     Alta Regional Resource Development Department            Jump Start
     Alzheimer‟s Service Connection                           Lutz Center Adult Day Services
     Domestic Violence Coalition                              Manzanita Family Center
     Department of Rehabilitation                             Nevada County Substance Abuse Treatment and
                                                                  Recovery
     F.R.E.E.D.                                               Sierra Nevada Home Care
     Health Line                                              Sierra Services for the Blind
     H.O.M.E. (Housing Options Made Easy)                     Sierra Foothills AIDS Foundation


Using a combination of these qualitative and quantitative sources, the present chapter will identify the particular
housing needs of county residents.




 Income-based Housing Demand
      At the most elementary level, demand is determined by the level of income residents earn, and what they can afford
      to pay for housing. The following Figure 17a presents Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates of the number of
      employees per industry division and the total annual earnings for each division (please note estimates differ from
      those of the California Employment Development Department). From these two figures, an average wage per
      worker was calculated, followed by the total amount a single worker could afford to pay each month for housing

      The average wage of County workers is about half the median income for a family of four ($48,800), and if
      supporting a single parent with children, is considered very low income. However, if combined with a second
      income, the annual income nearly equals median income. As seen in Figure 17a, the average wage of $2,070 a
      month allows for a maximum housing allowance of $621 a month (which in Chapter 4 will be compared to the
      average rents for housing units in Western Nevada County).




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                         Housing Demand— Page 36
      Figure 17 a — Average Earnings and Monthly Housing Allowance Per Employee, 1998
                  ($’s)
             Industry                                  Number of           Total Earnings          Average Annual              Estimated              Monthly
                                                       Employees             per Industry            Earnings per                Monthly        Housing Costs
                                                                                                        Employee                 Income                @ 30%

        Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing                      749              10,996,000                    14,681                1,223                    367

        Mining                                                 149               2,861,000                    19,201                1,600                    480

        Construction                                          4368            131,206,000                     30,038                2,503                    751

        Manufacturing                                         3465            122,058,000                     35,226                2,935                    881

        Transportation and Public Utilities                   1048              40,436,000                    38,584                3,215                    965

        Wholesale trade                                        894              23,013,000                    25,742                2,145                    644

        Retail trade                                          8364            147,616,000                     17,649                1,471                    441

        Finance, Insurance, Real Estate                       3519              74,173,000                    21,078                1,756                    527

        Services                                             14280            307,766,000                     21,552                1,796                    539

        State and local government                            4343            151,341,000                     34,847                2,904                    871

        Federal (Civilian, Military)                           649              27,513,000                    42,393                3,533                  1,060

        Total- All Industries                                41828          1,038,979,000                     24,839                2,070                    621

      Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Full and Part-Time Employment by Industry, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ca25/06/ca25_06057.htm and Personal
      Income by Major source and Earnings by Industry, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ca05/06/ca05_06057.htm, 2000.




      Some occupations, such as teachers and social workers, serve as benchmarks for the job market in general. In the
      survey conducted by Golden Sierra Job Training Agency in 1999, Social Workers were reported as earning between
      $14.38 and $16.30 per hour (median), depending on experience. However, 67% percent of them had graduate
      degrees, and growth for the occupation was considered slow (2.6% annually).

      Figure 17b below shows the top 20 fastest growing occupations and their estimated hourly wages in Nevada
      County. While there has been growth in technology-related jobs, there has also been tremendous growth in
      medium to low-paying jobs, including teachers, nurses, aides, cashiers, waiters/waitresses, recreation attendants,
      etc. In most cases, Nevada County wages are lower than State wages, which is to be expected as Nevada County
      incomes are about 86% of the Statewide average. Eleven out of the top 20 fastest growing occupations only pay
      the equivalent of a very low to low income wage (0-80% of median income) for a single worker. In short, despite
      impressive overall job growth, many of these high growth jobs will not enable workers to meet the comparatively
      high housing costs. (Figure 17b is continued on following page).


      Figure 17 b —Wages and Affordable Housing Costs for Fastest Growing Occupations, 1997
                  ($’s)
             Top 20 Fastest Growing                         Median Hourly Wage                  Annual Salary,         Estimated Monthly                Monthly
             Occupations                                  Nevada Co.         California
                                                                                               Nevada County                     Income           Housing Costs
                                                             1997              1997                                                                      @ 30%

        1.     Salespersons, Retail                            $ 6.59           $ 7.56                 $13,707                       1,142                   $343

        2.     General Managers, Top Executives                 20.81            33.52                  43,285                       3,607                   1,082

        3.     Cashiers                                          6.87              6.87                 14,290                       1,191                     357

        4.     General Office Clerks                             8.22            10.07                  17,098                       1,425                     427

        5.     Secretaries, General                             10.98            10.62                  22,838                       1,903                     571

        6.     Waiters And Waitresses                            5.51              5.61                 11,461                        955                      287

        7.     Registered Nurses                                19.33            22.80                  40,206                       3,351                   1,005




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                          Housing Demand— Page 37
             Top 20 Fastest Growing                                                 Median Hourly Wage                                 Annual Salary,                  Estimated Monthly                              Monthly
             Occupations                                                         Nevada Co.                 California
                                                                                                                                      Nevada County                              Income                         Housing Costs
                                                                                    1997                      1997                                                                                                     @ 30%

        8.     Elect, Electronic Engineering Tech                                         18.36                   17.49                             38,189                                   3,182                                955

        9.     Carpenters                                                                 15.73                   16.78                             32,718                                   2,727                                818

        10. Elect And Electronic Engineers                                                30.55                   32.72                             63,544                                   5,295                              1,589

        11. Teachers--Secondary School                                                       N/a                     N/a                          * 31,400                                   2,617                                785

        12. Nurse Aides, Orderlies, Attendants                                              7.60                    7.83                            15,808                                   1,317                                395

        13. Data Processing Equip Repairers                                               19.00                   14.17                             39,520                                   3,293                                988

        14. Maintenance Repairers, Gen. Utility                                             9.80                  11.29                             20,384                                   1,699                                510

        15. Amusement, Recreation Attendants                                                8.72                    5.89                            18,138                                   1,512                                453

        16. Teachers--Elementary School                                                      N/a                     N/a                          * 22,500                                   1,875                                563

        17. Financial Managers                                                            17.22                   30.65                             35,818                                   2,985                                895

        18. Receptionists, Information Clerks                                               8.69                    9.58                            18,075                                   1,506                                452

        19. Computer Engineers                                                            27.00                   29.05                             56,160                                   4,680                              1,404

        20. Janitors, Cleaners--Except Maids                                                7.33                    7.47                            15,246                                   1,142                                381
      Source: Employment Development Department, Occupations with the Greatest Job Growth, and Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey Results, 1999, and the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, 2000.
      http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/occup$/oes$.htm.


      Note: Data includes projections for all counties included in the Golden Sierra Consortium : Nevada, Alpine, El Dorado, Placer and Sierra. This data is not available for Nevada County only. * Estimates provided by the office of
      the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools Teacher salary reflective of 8 working months. This is equivalent to $34.00 per hour for secondary school teachers and $22.50 per hour for elementary school (K-8) teachers.




      While Nevada County median and per capita incomes have kept pace with surrounding counties and the statewide
      average, Figure 18a below indicates that in terms of income distribution, there is still a larger share of lower
      income people in Nevada County (bar) than in California (line). In addition, Nevada County has fewer households
      than the state average earning $50,000 or over (which, if adjusted for inflation would be $72,414 today, or over
      120% of median income).


       Figure 18a — Household Income Distribution, by Percent of Households, 1990
         30%
                                                                                                                                                                                                     State



         23%               20%                                                                                                                                                                       Western
                                                                                                             20%
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Nevada
                                                       18%                        17%
                                                                                                                                         16%                                                         County

         15%

                                                                                                                                                                     9%

           8%

                            19%                                                                               18%                         18%
                                                       15%                         15%                                                                               15%

           0%
                        $0-14,999                 $15-24,999                  $25-34,999                 $35-49,999                  $50-74,999               $75,000 PLUS


                           Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Data is for family and non-family households.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                                                                Housing Demand— Page 38
      Like the Figure 18a, Figure 18b provides an estimate of the number of Western Nevada County households in each
      income bracket. By definition, 50% of households fall below the median income of $48,800, and 50% are above it.
      However, estimates of household income distribution by income bracket are key demand figures that will later be
      compared with home and rent values within the same brackets (supply). With the use of variable growth rates for
      the Grass Valley and Nevada City Census divisions, the most conservative of three estimates projects that there are
      6,870 households that average less than $24,400 a year in earnings. These households fall in the 0-50% of local
      median income bracket, are classified as low income, and account for about 22% of all households in Western
      Nevada County.


      Figure 18b — Number of Households by Income Bracket, Western Nevada County,
      1999
          Income level                                    Family Income                                          Number of Households
                                                          Ceiling
                                                                                           Low Estimate                   Median Estimate            High Estimate
        0 to 50% of median income                       $24,400                                      6,870                             6,927                6,985
        50 to 80% of median income                      $39,050                                      5,629                             5,674                5,719
        80 to 100% of median income                     $48,800                                      3,758                             3,788                3,818
        100-120% of median income                       $58,550                                      3,076                             3,102                3,128
        More than 120% of median income                 $58,550 plus                               12,333                             12,435               12,536
        Total Units                                     —                                          31,666                             31,926               32,186
      Source: Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico.
      Note: 1999 figures are inflation-adjusted Based on home affordability for a family of four, including use of a mortgage credit certificate.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                            Housing Demand— Page 39
Seniors
      In addition to income, demand for housing is also shaped by specific needs of special or targeted population
      groups, such as seniors or persons with disabilities. Nevada County has long been described as a retirement
      community, and current demographic data supports that theory. In 2000, there are about 28,000 persons ages 56
      and over (Figure 3, Chapter 1), comprising about 29% of the population — 11% more than the statewide average.
      To some degree the types of demand that seniors make on housing supply is income-related (previous figures), but
      it is also linked to special housing requirements such as universal design or convenient proximity to medical and
      social services. Many seniors will opt for assisted living situations when they can no longer live independently.
      Unfortunately, most assisted living centers are quite expensive.

      Figure 19 below indicates that most of Western County seniors are homeowners, which means they have equity
      (real estate) to draw upon should they move into an assisted living facility (though the value of their homes could
      vary by type — mobile home, condominium, or single family home). However, about 11% of households ages 55
      to 64 were renting, as compared to 24% for all households. Ten percent of households with the householder ages
      65-74 were renting and 18% of households where occupants were 75 years or older were renting, probably
      reflective of seniors moving to residential care / assisted living facilities. Seniors that are renting and do not have
      equity to draw upon can face serious challenges if they are supported by fixed incomes amidst ever increasing
      housing costs.


      Figure 19— Household Type by Age of Householder, 1990
                   Nevada City Division (Census Tracts 8-10)                    Grass Valley Division (Census Tracts 1-7)


          Age of                Renter         Home-            %     Age of                  Renter        Home-                %
          Householder                          owner       Renters    Householder                           owner           Renters


        15 to 24                     80            16          83%   15 to 24                    448            107            81%

        25 to 34                    315           267          54%   25 to 34                  1,473          1,302            53%

        35 to 44                    453           954          32%   35 to 44                  1,518          3,512            30%

        45 to 54                    173           742          19%   45 to 54                    630          2,709            19%

        55 to 64                     81           589          12%   55 to 64                    387          3,096            11%

        65 to 74                     77           653          11%   65 to 74                    463          4,059            10%

        75 years plus                79           411          16%   75 years plus               491          2,209            18%

        Total                     1,258         3,632          26%   Total                     5,410        16,994             24%

      Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.



      Economically speaking, the senior population is diverse. For instance, the Nevada County Community Assessment
      showed that the 194 senior respondents over age 55 were less likely than the average respondent to be paying more
      than a third of their income to housing. Overall, 40.6% of respondents paid more than a third of income for
      housing, as compared to just 34.2% for persons ages 55-64, 17.9% for persons ages 65-74, and 10.6% of persons
      ages 75-84. However, Section 8 caseload data provides a glimpse that there are seniors unable to afford housing;
      out of the 293 households receiving Section 8 subsidized housing, 150 or 51.2% are senior households. Indeed, in
      1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that some 56% of persons over the age of 64 were considered low income,
      having incomes less than 80% of median.



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                    Housing Demand— Page 40
      Several area professionals provided were contacted to provide insights into the housing needs of seniors. Julie
      Reaney, the director of the Alzheimer’s Service Connection, reports that the three new assisted living centers for
      seniors will benefit only those seniors with the ability to pay. She states there is a drastic need for assisted living
      housing options for moderate income seniors, as well as those with more limited incomes. Seniors with median
      incomes or less who cannot continue to live independently are forced to relocate outside of Nevada County, often
      leaving their local support systems.

      A second contact, Renee Chevreaux, LCSW, Medical Social Worker at Sierra Nevada Home Care, states there is
      a ―phenomenal need‖ for housing for low-income seniors. Although there are several board and care homes, many
      do not accept SSI or other housing subsidies. She said the greatest need is for an assisted-living center for low-
      income seniors. The largest skilled nursing facility in Grass Valley recently began refusing Medi-Cal
      reimbursement. She also said that although two other centers still do take Medi-Cal, she is not confident how long
      they will continue to do so. She said there is a real need for Medi-Cal supported skilled nursing beds. According to
      Ms. Chevreaux, the waiting list is at least one year for senior apartments. She said their agency cannot place 20-
      30% of their clients. The remaining 70-80% have family or their financial support.

      Finally, Janet Kelly, director of H.O.M.E., states that her company links seniors with housing by the type of need
      and the ability to pay. She said she received only 6 requests last year from seniors in need of assisted living in
      Nevada County. However, she said that the majority of her clients and the placement options available to them are
      outside Nevada County. Her web site, www.Housing-Options,com stressed that there was a severe lack of assisted
      living options for seniors without financial means to pay for a full-priced facility.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                             Housing Demand— Page 41
Persons with Disabilities
      Like older seniors, persons with disabilities often require specific universal design features in their homes, such as
      wheelchair access and bathroom supports. While new data is not available, 1990 Census data reported that out of
      the then 60,718 persons ages 16 and older, 8,060 or 14% had a mobility, self-care or employment-limiting
      condition (Figure 20, unduplicated count). In total, it is a safe conclusion that today, there are at least that many
      individuals and — if this subpopulation has kept up with general county growth — possibly 10-15% more that
      require either housing with universal design features or assisted living situations. According to area service
      providers, the greatest need for housing for special populations is for assisted living rentals for very low- and low-
      income seniors and disabled adults.


      Figure 20— Number of Persons with Disabilities, 1990
          Type of Disability               Age 16 to 64         Over age 65           Total

        Mobility limitation                               846         1,578           2,424

        Self-Care limitation                         1,018            1,109           2,127

        Work disability — Able to work               1,826               —           1,826

        Work disability — Unable to work             2,164               —           2,164

      Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.




      Liz Mantle at the Lutz Center Adult Day Services described the assistance their agency provides to
      approximately 90 families a year who have an adult who is unemployable due to their disability. Although a high
      percentage of their clientele qualify for Medi-Cal or Medicare, those who do not qualify often cannot obtain other
      forms of housing subsidies. Of all of their senior clients, only one was independent enough to be accepted into a
      senior apartment complex in Grass Valley. There are no assisted-living apartment complexes for either seniors or
      disabled persons with very low to moderate incomes anywhere in Nevada County.

      Mike Mann, supervisor at Alta Regional Developmentally Disabled Center, said that their clients have only two
      options for housing: either licensed care homes which have six or fewer beds or they leave the County. He said
      there is a tremendous shortage of low-income housing. He said their clients are often the most difficult to place,
      since landlords often refuse to rent to developmentally disabled adults. Sometimes their clients choose
      homelessness over having to leave the County. He said he has one client now active in their system who may soon
      become homeless, because this client was just evicted by his landlord who has decided to rent his apartment at the
      market rate. This man is employed within the County, as well as receiving SSI. He is adamant that he does not
      want to lose his job, so he may become homeless in order to stay in the County and hopefully, find housing while
      he tries to keep his job.

      Sierra Services for the Blind said that they receive 1 to 2 requests a year for housing and that they refer these
      clients to FREED or to the Health Line.

      Peggy Cone of FREED said that they see a need for housing for disabled adults. Those who cannot find adequate
      housing end up in nursing homes. Many seniors and disabled individuals live in homes that cannot be easily
      retrofitted to 504 handicapped-accessible standards.



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                            Housing Demand— Page 42
      Jeff Cowan of the Sierra Foothills AIDS Foundation, said that they administer a program called Housing
      Opportunities for People with AIDS which receives a $25,000 annual grant to assist with emergencies such as rent
      and utility subsidies. This grant pays for emergencies only, not on-going assistance. The foundation assisted 140
      clients in 1999 and has 60-70 persons in case management at any one time. Their clients are very low income with
      most having only SSI income ($600+ per month). Most clients share rooms, live in small apartments or live with
      family members. Jeff feels that the network for housing assistance needs to be strengthened.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                        Housing Demand— Page 43
Large Families
      According to the most recent data available (U.S. Census, 1990), Western Nevada County has fewer families of five
      persons or more, proportionally speaking, and more 1 to 2 person families than the statewide average. As seen in
      Figure 21 below, about 62% of all households in the Grass Valley and Nevada City divisions consisted of 1 to 2
      persons, as compared to about 37% statewide. Only 8% of Western County households consisted of more than 5
      persons, as compared to 14% of households statewide.

      The Department of Housing and Urban Development says that adequate housing for larger families is defined as a
      three bedroom unit for a five to six person family, and a four bedroom unit for a seven person family. Due to size
      specifications for housing and their comparatively low demand (resulting in low supply), families of 5 or more
      persons on restricted incomes face the greatest challenge in obtaining adequate housing in Nevada County. Even
      when they can afford it, large families have a difficult time competing for limited units because landlords/ property
      managers usually favor smaller families.


      Figure 21 — Household Size, 1990
          Nevada City Division (Census Tracts 8-         Grass Valley Division (Census Tracts 1-7)               State
         10)                                                                                                    Percent

         Household              Number     Percent       Household           Number        Percent
         Size                                            Size

        1 person                   1,123      23.0     1 person                4,615          20.6                  23.4

        2 person                   1,908      39.0     2 person                9,748          43.5                  31.1

        3 person                     781      16.0     3 person                3,302          14.7                  16.6

        4 person                     676      13.8     4 person                2,905          13.0                  14.6

        5 person                     260       5.3     5 person                1,241           5.5                    7.3

        6 person                      93       1.9     6 person                  386           1.7                    3.4

        7 or more                     49       1.0     7 or more                 207           0.9                    3.5

        Total                      4,890     100.0     Total                  22,404         100.0                  23.4
      Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                 Housing Demand— Page 44
Section 8 Housing
      Government lawmakers recognize that there will always be places where the cost of rental housing exceeds a fair
      value, and that there are certain populations that simply cannot afford to pay market rates for rental housing. Thus
      the assistance program referred to as Section 8 provides certificates or vouchers to income-eligible families to
      subsidized the cost of housing. Section 8 vouchers cover the difference between what the family can afford to pay
      (30% of their income) and the estimated fair market rent (FMR) of their unit (see Figure 16), as determined by the
      local Housing Authority. The Section 8 certificate is similar to the voucher but is used with participating landlords
      whose units are priced at fair market value. The program provides an important safety net for lower income
      families to meet basic housing needs. As a proxy indicator, it also reflects the minimum number of families who are
      unable to afford the current supply of housing (minimum because the program always has a waiting list, as seen in
      Figure 22 below).

      Figures 22 describes demand based on the current use and waiting list for Section 8 housing vouchers. Currently,
      seniors comprise the largest percentage of active Section 8 holders, but disabled persons make up the largest
      percentage of those on the waiting list for vouchers. Section 8 housing assistance programs in Nevada County
      seldom have openings. The Nevada County Section 8 waiting list was last opened in September 1997. When the
      next opening comes up, the Housing Authority selects recipients according to three priority criterion; 1- those
      displaced through natural disaster or government action, 2- those living in substandard units, and 3- those paying
      more than 50% of their income towards housing. Each category is then sorted by date of application for selection.
      The Housing Authority also reports that there are more families moving into the County with vouchers than
      moving out.


      Figure 22 — Current Section 8 Caseload
         Type of Household                     Caseload      Waiting
                                                                List

        Elderly                                        150       31

        Large Family                                   23        50

        Disabled                                       21       122

        Other low income families                      99       106

        Total                                          293      309
      Source: Nevada County Housing Authority, 2000.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                           Housing Demand— Page 45
Homelessness
      Families and individuals facing homelessness in Nevada County have very few options available to them. Section 8
      vouchers and certificates are a safety net designed to keep families in a housing unit they can afford. However, if
      this program is full, the only other options available are for families or individuals who‘ve already lost their place to
      live. Once they are homeless, there are a few measures such as emergency vouchers, temporary shelters,
      transitional housing that can house them temporarily.

      One of the few shelter facilities in the County is the Manzanita Family Center. In 1998, they served about 40
      families throughout the year, and have continued to do so since then. In Spring 2000, the Center has 10 families in
      the facility. Most of these families are working families, and none of them have certificates for subsidized housing.
      There are usually about 6-8 families on the waiting list, as the Center is always at full capacity. Families usually stay
      for up to 3-4 months. Only about 35% the families are successful at obtaining permanent housing of their own
      once they leave the shelter. The remainder either double up with other families or move out of the County.

      Liz McKay at the Domestic Violence Coalition said that they provide only temporary sheltering and safe housing
      for their clients and their families. She said they coordinate with Cal-Works‘ Transitional Housing and also
      Manzanita House. She did say they have a need for a permanent women‘s shelter. In 1999, they placed 36 persons
      in transitional housing (15 women and 21 children). She said they find a way to place everyone who is requesting
      services.

      Diana Haines, supervisor at Health Line, reported that they received 325 requests during the last 12 months for
      affordable and emergency housing. Of these, 170 requests came from women while only 52 came from men.
      Also, there was about an equal number of requests from persons over the age of 60 or under 60 (122 and 125,
      respectively). Seventy-eight (78) requests were for emergency housing only.

      The Nevada County Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery Center has two transitional houses. The
      women‘s house opened in Spring 2000 and has 7 bedrooms. The men‘s house has 2 bedrooms. Their clients stay
      in these houses for 6 months. If a client has children, they refer them to Manzanita House. The caseworker said
      they do receive five calls a week from people needing housing and they cannot place any of them.

      Another type of assistance available to families is provided through the Emergency Assistance Coalition. The
      Coalition issues one-time vouchers for motels, food and gas. In 1999, 164 vouchers were provided for emergency
      lodging (a family counts as one voucher). Of the people served, there were 135 families, 210 adults, and 125
      children. As indicated by Figure 23, provision of hotel vouchers in 2000 will surpass previous years if the
      remaining three quarters are like the first. Demand for food vouchers also appears to be increasing.


      Figure 23 — Number of Emergency Assistance Vouchers provided
                                                           1998                   1999           1st Quarter 2000            Projected 2000*

        Hotel Vouchers                                       135                   164                          58                            232

        Food                                                 129                   120                          75                            300

        Gas                                                   55                     41                          8                            32

        Total Vouchers                                       319                   325                        141                             564
      Source: Emergency Assistance Coalition, 2000 (Marilyn Tillford, personal communication).          * based on first quarter statistics



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                   Housing Demand— Page 46
Chapter 3 Summary: Housing Demand
         1     Industry and wage data report that the average worker‘s earnings fall below 80% of median income.
               Therefore families supported by single income parents have little income to compete with in the local
               housing market.


         2     Indeed, Western Nevada County has a higher proportion of lower income families than the statewide
               average.


         3     Most housing is ownership and not the more affordable rental housing. Renter-occupied housing
               makes up only 25% of the County‘s housing stock.


         4     There are 293 current Section 8 housing voucher holders and 309 persons on the waiting list. The
               majority of voucher holders are seniors, but the majority of those on the waiting list are disabled adults.


         5     The greatest need repeatedly voiced by social service agency personnel was for assisted living housing
               for low-income seniors and disabled adults.


         6     There is a need for both permanent affordable and emergency housing for women. Women make the
               most requests for both affordable and emergency housing.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                             Housing Demand— Page 47
Chapter 4: Housing Supply




   In-depth profiles and analysis of existing supply
    of housing for different income/ affordability
                       ranges.
Chapter 3 discussed the various types of housing currently in demand. While demand is shaped by particular
demographic characteristics that result from local, regional and macro economic forces, housing supply is also the
result of a combination of factors. At the most basic level, residential housing supply depends on the availability of
developable construction sites, but quickly becomes contingent on other more complex factors such as public
development policies and priorities, zoning ordinances, environmental considerations, the real estate market and
finally, like demand, macro economic forces.

Demand data presented in Chapters 1 and 3 have demonstrated that Nevada County has a need for low income
housing as well as housing for persons with special needs. To reflect available supply, data on homes sales prices
are presented, as well as results from the consultants‟ surveys of vacant rental units, apartment complexes, mobile
home and assisted living communities. Finally, because the „meeting point‟ of supply and demand is reflected by the
type of housing units individuals and families acquire, this chapter shows how many units are being purchased and/
or renter-occupied for each target income group.



Quantity of Housing Supply
      The supply of housing should keep pace with population growth, and the most common way of increasing housing
      supply of through housing construction (other methods are subdivision or renovation of existing stock). Figure 24
      again shows two ways in which residential construction in Nevada County has kept pace with the region, and far
      outpaces the statewide average. The first is the comparison between the growth rate (percent change) of units and
      population. Between the years of 1999, Nevada County population grew by 15%, but new homes increased by
      21%. Placer County emulates this pattern, whereas the statewide average growth in units (10%) is slower than its
      population growth (14%), which increases the density of households as there are not a sufficient number of units
      to accommodate new population growth (refer to chart 27).

      The second indication that construction has kept pace with population growth in Nevada County is evidenced by
      the rate of new units constructed per 100 new residents. Developers in Nevada County constructed 66 units per
      100 new/ additional residents, whereas this rate was 27.6 statewide. As with other indicators, Placer County
      mirrors Nevada County with a high rate of 56.9.


      Figure 24 —Rate of New Residential Construction per 100 Additional Residents,
      1990-99
          County            1990                   Net         Cumulativ              1990-99                              1990-99                    Net           New Units
                            Baseline           Increas            e 1999            % Change                             % Change              Increase in             per 100
                                                   e in                               in Units                                    in           Population                 new
                                                 Units                                                                   Population                                 population
        El Dorado              61,451            12,620             74,071                   20.5                                 20.1                25,305                 49.9
        Nevada                 37,352             7,786             45,138                   20.8                                 15.0                11,790                 66.0
        Placer                 77,879            31,101            108,980                   39.9                                 31.7                54,704                 56.9
        Sacramento            417,574            57,916            475,490                   13.9                                 14.2              147,881                  39.2
        Sutter                 24,163             4,853             29,016                   20.1                                 19.8                12,785                 38.0
        Yuba                   21,245             2,170             23,415                   10.2                                   3.4                1,972                110.0
        California        11,182,513         1,106,478         12,288,991                     9.9                                 13.5            4,007,787                  27.6

      Source: Department of Finance (Construction data from Construction Industry Research Board, 1990-1998 annual building permit data.
      Note: Baseline year (1990) is Occupied and Vacant housing stock of Single and Multi-family housing units, from the Department of Finance. Calculation to determine rate of
      construction: Net unit increase divided by net population increase, then multiplied by 100.



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                        Housing Supply— Page 49
      The addition of new construction and subtraction of demolished (intentional or accidental) units results in changes
      to the overall housing stock. Figure 24a shows that between 1990 and 2000, the total number of housing units
      within Nevada County have increased by 6,058 units from 37,352 to 43,437, or nearly a 22% increase in overall
      housing stock. This growth is second only to Placer County (38%) and far surpasses the state growth rate of 10%.

      However, total housing stock includes second homes and vacation units, of which Nevada County has its share
      (estimated 8,888 units, Figure 25). When determining how much of the housing stock is actually available for
      occupation, changes in occupied housing stock provides a more accurate estimate (24b, below). Between the years
      of 1990 and 2000, Nevada County has an additional 5,791 occupied housing units to house the additional 12,590
      people that have been added to the population during the same period (see Figure 1, Chapter 1).


      Figure 25a — Total Units                                                                        Figure 25b — Occupied Units
          County                     1990           2000           Net               %                       1990           2000        Net               %
                                                              Increase           Chang                                              Increas           Chang
                                                                                     e                                                    e               e
        El Dorado                  61,451         73,022       11,571             18.8                    46,845         56,433       9,588            20.5
        Nevada                     37,352         45,437        8,085             21.6                    30,758         36,549       5,791            18.8
             Grass Valley           4,385           5,029         644             14.7                      4,148          4,758       610             14.7
             Nevada City            1,399           1,507         108              7.7                      1,289          1,389       100              7.8
        Placer                     77,879        107,564       29,685             38.1                    64,101         90,605      26,504            41.3
        Sacramento                417,574        468,236       50,662             12.1                   394,530        439,663      45,133            11.4
        Sutter                     24,163         29,320        5,157             21.3                    23,111         28,045       4,934            21.3
        Yuba                       21,245         23,228        1,983              9.3                    19,776         21,428       1,652             8.4
        California              11,182,513     12,242,576    1,060,063             9.5                10,380,856     11,335,419     954,563             9.2

      Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census counts.



      Vacancy rates measure the difference between the total housing stock and the stock that is occupied. Figure 26
      illustrates the increase of both vacant units (a) and vacancy rates (b) in Nevada County and surrounding counties.
      Of the rural counties, Nevada County had the highest growth rate of vacant units. In Nevada and El Dorado
      Counties, two counties with highly visible resort areas, vacancy rates are distorted by the availability of seasonal or
      vacation rental housing, which means that a significant portion of the housing stock is not available on the market,
      thereby constricting supply and impacting prices. Though new detailed data is not available, the 1990 Census
      revealed how small the true vacancy rate was in Nevada County; of an overall rate of 17.65%, 15.2% was due to
      seasonal homes, leaving only 2.4% of the homes ‗truly‘ vacant.


      Figure 26a — Vacant Units                                                                           Figure 26b — Vacancy
      Rates
                                       1990           2000     Net Increase                   %                         1990                  2000
                                                                                         Change
        El Dorado                    14,606         16,589               1,983             13.6                         23.77                 22.72

        Nevada                         6,594         8,888               2,294             34.8                         17.65                 19.56

                 Nevada City            110            118                  8               7.3                          7.86                  7.83

                 Grass Valley           237            271                 34              14.3                          5.40                  5.39

        Placer                       13,778         16,959               3,181             23.1                         17.69                 15.77

        Sacramento                   23,044         28,573               5,529             24.0                          5.52                  6.10



Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                      Housing Supply— Page 50
        Sutter                         1,072           1,275                 203              18.9                                  4.43           4.35

        Yuba                           1,469           1,800                 331              22.5                                  6.91           7.75

        California                   801,657        907,157              105,500              13.2                                  7.17           7.41

      Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census counts.
      The impact that population has on Nevada County‘s housing stock can be seen in a measure referred to as the
      Persons per Household Unit (Figure 27). This indicator is derived from dividing the total population by the
      number of occupied housing units (occupied) in the area. Usually, the tighter (fewer vacancies) the housing market
      is, the more persons per household will increase, indicating that population growth has outstripped housing
      growth.

      In some areas of California, persons per household reach higher than 4.0 persons per household, such as a several
      rural communities in Fresno and Monterey Counties, as well as urban areas in Los Angeles County. However,
      Figure 27 shows two important points; not only does every county in our target area fall below the statewide
      average in terms of household size, but several counties including Nevada have decreased in household size since
      1990. Persons per Household may continue to decrease in the future given the anticipated increase during the
      next several years in Nevada County‘s ―empty nesters‖ population of persons age 55 and over.


      Figure 27 — Persons per Occupied Household Unit
          County                                                 1990                     2000

        El Dorado                                                 2.67                    2.69

        Nevada                                                    2.51                    2.45

        Nevada City                                               2.12                    2.04

        Grass Valley                                              2.18                    2.08

        Placer                                                    2.66                    2.56

        Sacramento                                                2.58                    2.70

        Sutter                                                    2.75                    2.74

        Yuba                                                      2.85                    2.76

        California                                                2.80                    2.96
      Source: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census counts.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                 Housing Supply— Page 51
Characteristics of Housing Supply
      The preceding Figures have shown that the
      quantity of housing in Nevada County has                      Figure 28 — New Units Constructed, 1990-
                                                                   99
      increased at a rate complementary to the                    1,200
                                                                                1,093                                                                Single
      population. However, data indicating the                                                                                                       Family
                                                                                   889
      sheer quantity of housing supply only tells a                                      792                                           786           Multi-
      partial story. The qualities of both new and                 800                                 703
                                                                                                                                 648
                                                                                                                                                     Family
                                                                                                             610
                                                                                               578
      existing housing stock reveal much more                                                                       526    537

      about what kinds of families can have
                                                                   400
      adequate access to them.
                                                                                                             120           108
                                                                                   74            82                 73
                                                                           52            32            34                              29
                                                                                                                                 20
      For instance, building permit data reveals         0
      that Nevada County continues its historic            1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

      pattern of emphasizing single-family
      construction (Figure 28), thereby maintaining 82% of its housing stock for single families (Figure 29, below). As
      seen previously in Figure 9a, Nevada County has the lowest share (9%) of multi-family units in the region, the kind
      of housing that is typically the most affordable. However, recalling the distribution of household incomes in the
      county, (Figures 18a and 18b), a sizeable portion of the County population earns low to very low incomes and
      cannot afford to purchase single family homes.

      Finally, Figure 29 reflects the characteristics of the County‘s housing stock resulting from the development climate
      of the 1990‘s. In terms of distribution of housing types, the unincorporated areas of the County mirror the overall
      county ratios of over 80% single family, and less than 10% multi-family. Grass Valley, by comparison, has over
      40% (2,042 units) of its housing stock allocated for multi-family units (duplexes, apartments, etc), probably due to
      its proximity to services often needed by seniors, families and persons with disabilities. Interestingly, the area with
      the largest share of mobile homes is the unincorporated area (12% or 3,516 units).


       Figure 29 — County Housing Stock, by Type and Percent, 2000

         100%
                                                                    86%                    86%                     82%
                      76%                                                                                                                    Single Family
          75%

                                                                                                                                             Multi-Family
                                           54%

          50%                                       41%
                                                                                                                                             Mobile Home


                             21%
          25%                                                             11%                          12%
                                                                                                  1%                       9%    9%
                                                        5%
                                   3%                                              3%

           0%
                Nevada City (n=1,507) Grass Valley (n=5,029)   Truckee (n=10,405)        Unincorporated        County (n=45,437)
                                                                                           (n=28,496)


         Source: California Department of Finance, City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2000. http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/repndat.htm




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                      Housing Supply— Page 52
       Cost of Housing Supply — Homes
       In addition to the overall quantity and characteristics of Nevada County‘s housing stock, the supply of housing is
       also characterized by the affordability of available properties for sale and rent. The following pages present several
       types of estimates that point to the affordability of local ownership supply, including value of housing stock (Figure
       30), Sales volume and price (Figure 31a and b), Sales volume and price by county area (Figure 31).

       The first Figure, 30, reports the projected number of owner-occupied housing units by both price and affordability.
       These estimates were derived from 1990 Census data, in which homeowners were asked to report the value of their
       home. Variable 1990-1999 growth rates (low, median and high) for the Grass Valley and Nevada City division,
       were used to estimate the current number of homes by their value (adjusted for inflation). This ‗inventory‘ was
       divided into brackets according to what families of different income levels could afford. Figure 30 shows that an
       estimated 73% of all homes are valued at prices affordable to those families earning above 120% of median
       income.


       Figure 30 — Number of Ownership Units Per Affordability Range, 1999
             % of Median Income                      Family Income             Affordable Home                                       Number of Homes
                                                                                          Value
                                                                                                               Low Estimate              Median Estimate              High Estimate
            0 — 50% of MI                                    $24,400                       $72,750                        407                           411                        551
            51 — 80% of MI                                   $39,050                     $111,451                       1,424                         1,436                       1,313
            81 — 100%                                        $48,800                     $141,485                       2,224                         2,241                       2,261
            101 — 120% of MI                                 $58,550                     $166,372                       1,944                         1,964                       1,982
            above 120% of MI                           $58,550 plus                 $166,372 plus                     16,425                        16,556                     16,686
            Total Units                                             —                            —                    22,424                        22,607                     22,792
       Source: Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico, 2000.
       Note: 1999 figures are inflation-adjusted Based on home affordability for a family of four, including use of a mortgage credit certificate. Data for Western Nevada County only.




       Home sales also data reaffirms what the Census-based estimates demonstrate. Figure 31a shows the volume and
       average price of home sales in Western Nevada County between 1997 and 1999, as reported by the Nevada County
       Board of Realtors in Nevada County Economic & Fiscal Indicator Review Report, 2000.


       Figure 31a.                  Average Home Sales Volume and Price, Western Nevada County,
       1997-99

                                Number of Units Sold                                                                              Average Sales Price
    1,600

                                                                  1,512

    1,200
                                                                                                 $200,000
                                                                                                                                                                       $212,866
                                             1,150                                                                                             $197,218

     800                  874                                                                                        $178,575




     400




                                                                                                 $100,000
       0

                    1997                1998                  1999                                                1997                     1998                     1999




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                            Housing Supply— Page 53
      Source: Nevada County Economic & Fiscal Indicator Review Report,2000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                         Housing Supply— Page 54
      Figure 31b also summarizes Western County home sales data in 1999 by affordability ranges for very low-income
      to 120% of median income families. Out of the 1,538 homes listed as sold by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS),
      the vast majority of home sales (92% or 1,413) were affordable only to families earning 120% of median income or
      above. Families in lower income brackets may have actually purchased those units, but they are paying more than
      30% of their income for them.


      Figure 31b — Number of Homes Sold Per Affordability Range, 1999
         % of Median Income            Affordable                                                                                                 Average
                                       Sales Price                Type                 Area                             # of Sales                Sales Price*

        0 — 50% of MI                $72,750                    —                    —                                                    0       No homes in this range
        51 — 80% of MI               $111,451                   Manuf.               n/a                                                76                        $82,000
                                                                Condo                n/a                                                31                       $111,000
        81 — 100%                    $141,485                   —                    —                                                    0       No homes in this range
        101 — 120% of MI             $166,372                   Home                 N San Juan                                         18                       $165,000
        above 120% of MI             $166,372+                  Home                 Washington                                           4                      $169,000

                                                                Home                 Grass Valley                                      351                       $186,000

                                                                Home                 Alta Sierra                                        46                       $188,000

                                                                Home                 Alta Sierra (Subd)                                153                       $190,000

                                                                Home                 Lake of the Pines                                 142                       $214,000

                                                                Home                 Penn Valley                                        88                       $215,000

                                                                Home                 Lake Wildwood                                     175                       $218,000

                                                                Home                 Peardale/ Chicago Park                             64                       $231,000

                                                                Home                 Nevada City                                       277                       $238,000

                                                                Home                 South County                                       76                       $271,000

                                                                Home                 McCourtney                                         37                       $291,000

      Source: MLS, Nevada County Board Of Realtors, 2000.   Note: Affordability range for a family of four, without use of a Mortgage Credit Certificate.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                     Housing Supply— Page 55
Cost of Housing Supply — Rentals
      Due to the growth in lower paying sectors such as Services and Retail Trade, affordable rental units will continue to
      be in demand. To illustrate the affordability of the rental market in Western Nevada County, a variety of
      complementary data were used, such as Cost of rental stock (Figure 32), Vacant rental units and their asking rents
      (Figures 33, 34, 35), and the characteristics and subsidies offered by area apartment complexes (Figure 36).

      Using the same methodology as in Figure 30, the following table provides data on the projected number of rental
      units being rented at prices affordable to families in various income brackets. Using the most conservative (low)
      estimate, there are approximately 8,834 total rental units in the County, 25% of which are affordable to very low
      income families averaging $24,400 or less.


      Figure 32 — Number of Rental Units Per Affordability Range, 1999
          % of Median Income                    Family Income             Affordable Rent                                 Number of Rental Units
                                                                          Payment
                                                                                                       Low Estimate           Median Estimate               High Estimate
        0 — 50% of MI                       $24,400                   $555                                      2,200                      2,220                       2,240
        51 — 80% of MI                      $39,050                   $921                                      3,306                      3,335                       3,364
        81 — 100%                           $48,800                   $1,165                                    1,521                      1,534                       1,546
        101 — 120% of MI                    $58,550                   $1,409                                   *1,807                     *1,821                       *1,834
        above 120% of MI                    $58,550 plus              $1,409+                                         *                         *                           *
        Total Units                         —                         —                                         8,834                      8,834                       8,984
      Source: Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico.
      * In 1990, the Census data did not provide cash rent data about units over $1,000, inflated to $1,356 in 1999. As a result, data cannot be articulated between rentals that
      are affordable to families at 100-120% of median income and those with 120% plus.




      To determine how many rental units were actually available on the market, a vacancy survey of rental housing was
      completed in the first week of April analyzing type of housing available and the asking rents. Two sets of tables
      describing this information have been provided. Figures 33 and 34 portray in graphic form how many apartments
      were available during the survey week by size and location of apartment. This graph shows that the greatest
      number of vacancies is two and three-bedroom units, with a somewhat smaller supply of studios and one-bedroom
      apartments. There was only one four-bedroom apartment vacant, providing almost no supply for families of five
      or more persons.


      Figure 33 — Number and Location of Vacant Rental Units: April 7-11, 2000
         60
                                                                                               40
                  50

         45
                                                                                               30
                                                                                                                                     28
                                                                                                                       24

         30                                                                                                                                         19
                                                                                               20

                                                                                                        11
                               13
         15
                                                                               8               10
                                            6
                                                       4
                                                                  2                                                                                                1
          0                                                                                     0
              Grass Valley Nevada City Alta Sierra    Lake      Chicago      Other
                                                     Wildood     Park
                                                                                                      Studio         One            Two          Three          Four
                                                                                                                   Bedroom        Bedroom       Bedroom       Bedroom




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                         Housing Supply— Page 56
      Figure 34 provides the complete list of available rental units and their locations. When analyzed by affordability
      ceilings and HUD minimum size requirements, there were no available for a four person family needing at least a
      two bedroom and who can afford just $555 a month. Fair Market Rents (FMR) are supposed to be set at the point
      at which 60% of units are more expensive, and 40% are less. The vacancy survey revealed however that for every
      bedroom size except two bedroom, FMR rents were at or near the lowest end of the actual rental price range.


      Figure 34 —Number of Vacant Units in Western Nevada County, April 7-11, 2000
                Type of Unit         Studio             1 BR          2 BR          3 BR                 4 BR              Location
       1       Apt                 400                                                                                   Grass Valley
       2       Apt                 450                                                                                   Grass Valley
                                                    Fair Market
       3       Apt                 450                                                                                   Grass Valley
                                                    Rent—
       4       Apt                 450                                                                                   Grass Valley
                                                    Studio: $384
       5       Apt                 485                                                                                   Grass Valley
       6       Home                495                                                                                   Chicago Park
       7       Apt                 500                                                                                   Grass Valley
       8       Apt                 550                                                                                   Grass Valley
       9       Apt                 575                                                                                   Grass Valley
       10      Apt                 600                                                                                   Grass Valley
       11      Apt                 625                                                                                   Grass Valley
       12      Apt                                    375                                                                Nevada City
       13      Apt complex                            480                                                                Grass Valley
       14      Apt                                    485                                                                Grass Valley
       15      Apt complex                            497                                                                Grass Valley
       16      Apt complex                            497                                                                Grass Valley
       17      Apt complex                            497                                                                Grass Valley
       18      Duplex                                 535          Fair Market                                           Grass Valley
       19      Apt                                    550          Rent—                                                 Grass Valley
       20      Apt                                    560          1 Br: $523                                            Nevada City
       21      Apt                                    575                                                                Grass Valley
       22      Apt                                    595                                                                ?
       23      Apt                                    600                                                                Grass Valley
       24      Granny unit                            600                                                                Penn Valley
       25      Home                                   600                                                                Grass Valley
       26      Apt                                    625                                                                Grass Valley
       27      Apt                                    645                                                                Grass Valley
       28      Granny unit                            675                                                                Grass Valley
       29      Home                                   695                                                                Nevada City
       30      Apt                                    700                                                                Grass Valley
       31      Duplex                                 750                                                                Grass Valley
       32      Home                                   775                                                                Grass Valley
       33      Home                                   775                                                                Nevada City
       34      Home                                   850                                                                Lake Wilwood
       35      Apt                                                   575                                                 Grass Valley
       36      Apt complex                                           593                                                 Grass Valley
       37      Apt complex                                           600                                                 Grass Valley
       38      Apt complex                                           600                                                 Grass Valley
       39      Apt complex                                           630                                                 Grass Valley
       40      Home                                                  635                                                 Grass valley
       41      Mobile Home                                           650         Fair Market                             Camptonville
       42      Apt complex                                           650         Rent—                                   Grass Valley
       43      Apt                                                   675         2 Br: $699                              Nevada City
       44      Home                                                  675                                                 Peardale
       45      Apt complex                                           675                                                 Nevada City
       46      Apt                                                   700                                                 Grass Valley
       47      Home                                                  725                                                 Grass Valley
       48      Condo                                                 750                                                 Nevada City
       49      Apt complex                                           750                                                 Grass Valley
       50      Apt complex                                           750                                                 Grass Valley
       51      Apt complex                                           750                                                 Grass Valley
       52      Home                                                  775                                                 Grass Valley
       53      Home                                                  795                                                 Grass Valley
       54      Home                                                  850                                                 Lake Wildwood
       55      Home                                                  900                                                 Nevada City
       56      Home                                                  925                                                 Britney Springs road
       57      Home                                                  970                                                 Grass Valley
       58      Home                                                  975                                                 Lake Wildwood
       59      Home                                                  1000                                                Beale Air Force Base
       60      Home                                                  1000                  Fair Market                   Grass Valley
       61      Apt complex                                           1465                  Rent—                         Grass Valley
       62      Home                                                  1500                  3 Br: $972                    Grass Valley
       63      Home                                                                775                                   Chicago Park
       64      Home                                                                925                                   Grass Valley
       65      Home                                                                1000                                  Grass Valley
       66      Home                                                                1000                                  Nevada City
       67      Home                                                                1025                                  Alta Sierra
       68      Home                                                                1050                                  Alta Sierra
       69      Home                                                                1100                                  Alta Sierra
       70      Home                                                                1175                                  Alta Sierra
       71      Home                                                                1200                                  Lake Wildwood
       72      Home                                                                1200                                  Grass Valley
       73      Home                                                                1200                                  Nevada City
       74      Home                                                                1275                                  Alta Sierra
       75      Home                                                                1275                   Fair Market    Alta Sierra
       76      Home                                                                1285                   Rent—          Lake of the Pines
       77      Home                                                                1300                   4 Br: $1,126   Nevada City
       78      Home                                                                1400                                  Grass Valley
       79      Home                                                                1400                                  Grass Valley
       80      Home                                                                1400                                  Nevada City
       81      Home                                                                1500                                  Near Sierra College
       82      Home                                                                                  2000                Nevada City

      Source: Applied Survey Research, April 2000


Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                        Housing Supply— Page 57
      Though the vacancy survey reflects only the month of April, it provides the most recent data about the rent ranges
      and averages. Figure 35 below illustrates the average rents per bedroom size, and how these compare to the
      County‘s Fair Market Rents.


      Figure 35 — Average Rental Price Vs. Fair Market Rent
                                                                                                              $2,000
                                                                                         $1,183                                          Average
          $1,200                                                                                                                         Rent
                                                                                                                         $1,126
                                                                                                    $972                                 Fair
                                                                                                                                         Market
                                                                      $805
                                                                                                                                         Rent
            $800
                                                                              $699
                                                 $606
                            $507
                                                              $525
            $400
                                     $384




               $0
                            Studio                1 Br                2 Br                   3 Br                 4 Br


               Source: Applied Survey Research, April 2000.




      In addition to the vacancy survey, a survey of Nevada County apartment complexes was conducted. The objective
      of the apartment survey was to determine overall capacity, as well as how many complexes took Section 8 housing
      vouchers, how many units were available for special populations, and how many vacancies there were.

      Twenty-three apartment complexes were surveyed, and all but three of them were in Grass Valley (two were in
      Truckee and one was in Nevada City). These apartment complexes contained a total of 1,369 units, ranging from
      studio apartments to four bedrooms. Out of the 23 apartment complexes, 16 were accessible to persons with
      disabilities. Out of the twenty apartment complexes that were in Grass Valley, thirteen (13) took Section 8 housing
      vouchers. Please refer to page ___ of the Appendix for the complete table of survey results.


      Figure 35 — Summary of Apartment Complex Survey, by Location
                                                                             Grass Valley           Nevada City              Truckee          Total
        Number of complexes                                                            20                    1                      2             23
            Number of units                                                          1,179                  26                    164         1,369
            Number of vacant units                                                     18                    1                      0             19
        Number of complexes accessible to persons with disabilities                    14                    0                      2             16
        Number of complexes accepting Section 8                                        13                    1                      2             16
        Number of senior only complexes                                                 5                    0                      1              6
      Source: Fred Consulting Associates, 2000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                              Housing Supply— Page 58
Cost of Housing Supply — Mobile Homes
      In addition to apartments, mobile homes offer another source of affordable housing. In March 2000, a
      comprehensive survey was completed for the County of Nevada by HCD Services and was entitled Nevada County
      Mobile Home Park Survey Report (please contact Nevada County Housing and Community Services for a copy of the
      report). This survey was conducted with both mobile home owners and residents to determine their housing and
      infrastructure needs. The survey found that there were 1,876 mobile home spaces and 1,186 RV sites, for a total of
      3,062 sites. Two-thirds of the homes are double-wides, providing about 1000-1200 square feet of living space. The
      remaining third are single-wides, and provide between 480 and 720 square feet.

      The study finds that of the 613 park resident respondents, the majority (70%) were over the age of 65. It follows
      that many of the park residents also living on a limited income; 75% of respondents reported incomes under
      $25,000 a year, and 36% reported incomes under $15,000. Figure 36 below presents the study‘s findings with
      regard to average rents and associated housing costs.


      Figure 36a — Average Rents and Associated Costs, All Parks, 1999

        Average Rent                                                                      $279

        Average Water/ Sewer/ Waste disposal costs                                         $31

        Average Gas/ Electricity costs                                                     $90

        Total Average Monthly Payment                                                 $400.00

        — Monthly Income Needed                                                      $1,200.00

        — Annual Income Needed                                                      $14,400.00

      Source: HCD Services, 2000.
      Note: ‘Needed Income’ estimates by Applied Survey Research, and assume 30% housing costs and no mortgage.




      The researchers of the report estimate that 75% of park residents are eligible for housing assistance programs such
      as Home and CDBG. The current assessment effort also conducted its own survey of mobile home park managers
      to determine acceptance of Section 8 housing vouchers (Figure 36b below). Twenty-three mobile home parks
      were surveyed, and 10 of the 23 were seniors-only parks (age 55 and over). Only five parks accepted Section 8
      housing vouchers, and one of these parks was a seniors-only residence. Most of the parks had access for disabled
      residents. Information was not obtained on how many of these homes were being rented out, or could be rented
      out in the future to non-owner occupants, as this information was already contained in above-mentioned report.


      Figure 36b — Summary of Mobile Home Survey, By Location*
                                                                        Grass       Nevad           Penn          Washing   Rough     North     Total
                                                                        Valley      a City         Valley            -ton     and      San
                                                                                                                            Ready     Juan

        Number of communities                                                  12         3             3               1       1         1       21

        Number of spaces                                                 1,359          32           154              14       29        26     1,614

        Number of vacant spaces                                                29         3            11               5       1       N/a       49

        Number of communities with handicap access                              8         3             2             N/a       0       N/a       13

        Number of communities accepting Section 8                               2         1             0               0       1       N/a        4

        Number of senior only communities                                       8         0             1               0       1       N/a       10
       Source: Fred Consulting Associates, 2000* see appendix for full table


Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                          Housing Supply— Page 59
Housing Supply for Large Families
      Large families of 5 persons or more with restricted incomes face the greatest challenge in obtaining adequate
      housing in Nevada County. While just 8% of households in Western Nevada County are 5 or more people,
      comparisons of supply and demand data indicate they face significant challenges in finding adequate housing. HUD
      states that a five or six person household requires at least a three bedroom unit. A seven person family requires a
      four bedroom unit.

      Figure 37 indicates that there were just 19 three bedroom and 1 four bedroom units that were HUD-suitable and
      affordable to rent during the week of April 7-11. Of those 19 units, none were affordable to a five person family
      earning less than $26,350 a year. Families at 80% of MI ($42,120) could afford just two of the 19 units; families at
      120% of median income, or $52,700, could afford 11 of the 19 units.


      Figure 37 — Availability of Suitable* Rentals for Large Families
        32
                                                                                                3 Br        4 Br

        24
                                                                                19              19

        16
                                                             11

        8

                                              2                                                         1
                   0       0                           0           0                  0
        0
             50% Median Income         80% Median Income   Median Income   120% Median Income   over 120%



         Source: Applied Survey Research, April 2000



      Perhaps as a sign of the hardships faced, 23 of the 293 families receiving Section 8 assistance are ‗large families‘; 50
      of the 309 families on the waiting list are also classified as large families.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                   Housing Supply— Page 60
Housing For Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
      Several sources have provided information on the supply of housing for seniors. For instance, the apartment survey
      indicated that there were six complexes were seniors-only residences, five of them in Grass Valley and one in
      Truckee. In Western Nevada County, there are a combined total of 326 units for seniors only. The Nevada County
      Mobile Home Park Survey Report found that 70% of mobile home residents are ages 65 and older. This is not
      surprising when there 10 senior-only mobile home parks in Western Nevada County that have a total of 743 plots
      (Figure 36b). Four of these six complexes accepted Section 8 vouchers. Of the remaining two seniors-only
      complexes, one did not take any form of housing subsidy and one took a partial housing subsidy. There were
      seven (7) vacancies at these seniors-only complexes. In comparison, there are more senior only mobile home
      communities (10). Our apartment and mobile home park surveys revealed that there is some housing available to
      physically disabled residents. However, a much more difficult population to house is developmentally-disabled
      adults.

      A fourth survey was conducted to identify the types of congregate housing available to seniors in Nevada County,
      the level of care provided, and the cost (Figure 38, following page). The two types of housing inquired about were
      independent living facilities and assisted living facilities.

      Independent living refers to seniors living primarily self-sufficient lives, but receiving some assistance including maid
      service, some meals, and transportation assistance. The survey results in Figure 38 (following page) reveal that
      there are no units available to moderate or low-income seniors in Nevada County for independent living. These
      seniors must obtain their own housing, by either living alone with few services, or moving out of the County.

      Assisted living refers to seniors receiving a higher level of care including bathing, grooming, dressing, supervision of
      medications, non-ambulatory care, etc. Although some of these facilities do have nurses on staff, none of these
      facilities are licensed skilled nursing facilities. Each of the assisted living facilities listed in Figure 38 house seniors
      up to the point where they would require more invasive medical treatment such as IVs or feeding tubes. Three of
      the facilities are licensed assisted living centers for Alzheimer‘s residents.

      Figure 38 indicates that that at presently, there are no assisted living units affordable to low to moderate income
      seniors or persons with disabilities in Nevada County. None of these facilities receive any housing subsidies and
      none of them have any units for seniors unable to pay the facility‘s full costs. Additionally, one of the local nursing
      homes has reportedly stopped accepting Medi-Cal reimbursement. Professionals who work with these populations
      are worried that other nursing homes may follow suit. In short, very low- and low-income seniors and adults must
      leave the county if they are in need of assisted living facilities.

      Nevada County seniors and persons with disabilities with financial resources will have three new assisted-living
      centers to choose from by June 2000. Although these centers will meet the residential and care needs of seniors
      with the ability to pay, there will be no beds in any of them for very low, low, or even moderate-income seniors
      who can no longer live independently.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                  Housing Supply— Page 61
      Figure 38 — Survey of Independent and Assisted Living Facilities
          Name/Address/Phone              Units       Vacant    Cost                          Comments
                                                      units


        Bret Harte Retirement Inn     42          5            Studio     $1,160/mo         This facility provides only independent living units.

        305 W. Main Street                                     1 BR:      $1,390-1570/mo

        Grass Valley, CA                                       2BR :      $1,455/mo

        (530) 273-7137                                         Penthouse: $1,620/mo

        Brunswick Inn                 52          31           Studio:    $1,690-3,500/mo   This facility provides both independent living and assisted living
                                                                                            units. They stated that they are equipped to care for level 2
        316 Olympia Park Rd.                                   1 BR :     $3,688/mo         Alzheimer’s patients. The cost depends on the amount of
                                                                                            services the resident requires. An expanded studio apartment
        Grass Valley, CA                                                                    costs $200 in addition to the studio cost noted above. They have
                                                                                            a fulltime nurse on-call, but no nursing beds on site.
        (530) 274-1992

        Highgate Retirement Village   48          3            Studio:    $1,645-1,845/mo   The studio apartments come in three sizes. This facility offers 16
                                                                                            beds to Alzheimer’s residents (included in the 48 units). They
        415 Sierra College Dr.                                 1 BR :     $2,195-2,400/mo   provide five levels of care to Alzheimer’s residents, and the cost
                                                                                            depends on the level of care received, ranging between $3150 -
        Grass Valley, CA                                       2 BR :     $2,750/mo         $5150/mo, which includes rent, utilities, meals, personal
                                                                                            assistance, and maid service. The cost of their independent
        (530) 272-8002                                                                      living units, however, covers rent, utilities and some meals.

        Eskaton Village               267         0            Cost not yet available       Construction beginning on the 42 acre site sometime within the
                                                                                            next few months. Costs for these units would depend on the
        Grass Valley, Ca                                                                    approvals they would obtain from the City of Grass Valley. All
                                                                                            units will be privately paid owner-occupied units. Their
        (800) 300-3929                                                                      independent living units will provide one meal/day, maid service
                                                                                            and transportation assistance. Will have 130 patio homes80
                                                                                            rental apartments57 assisted living apts.

        Hilltop Estates               84          0            Studio: $1,240/mo            This facility provides independent living units only, with no
                                                                                            assistance or meals.
        131 Eureka                                             1 BR : $1,440/mo

        Grass Valley, CA                                       2 BR : $1,465/mo

        Quail Ridge Senior Living     98          48           Studio: $1,675-1,850/mo      Opening the end of July. They now have 50 committed
                                                                                            residents. Of their 98 units, 14 are planned Alzheimer’s units.
        150 Sutton Way                                         1 BR : $2,200-2,400/mo       The costs for these units range between $2900/mo for basic care
                                                                                            to $4000/mo. The remaining units are both independent living or
        Grass Valley, CA                                       2 BR : $2,800-2,900/mo       assisted living units. This facility does not provide any skilled
                                                                                            nursing services.
        (530) 272-1055                                         Cottage: $1,850-2,200/mo

        Sierra Guest Home             15          3            Room rent: $950-1,500/mo     This is a licensed assisted living facility and is a large house with
                                                                                            separate rooms for rent. The administrator said that they do not
        10057 Glenwood Ave.                                                                 receive any housing subsidies, but would like to.

        Grass Valley, Ca

        (530) 273-3163

        Sierra View Manor             47          1            Studio: $1,100 (Semi-prvt)   Includes rent, food, laundry, cleaning, medical supplies, and
                                                                                            assisted living staff
        389 Joerschke Drive                                              $1,500 (Private)

        (530) 273-4849

        Squirrel Creek Manor          8           2            Room rent: $2000-3000/mo     This is a licensed assisted living facility, and is also a large
                                                                                            house with 8 rooms. Licensed for 6 residents, presently has 4
        12735 Squirrel Creek Rd.                                                            residents, residents often share a room. All of the rooms are
                                                                                            privately paid and they receive no housing subsidies.
        Grass Valley, CA

        (530) 274-2077




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                    Housing Supply— Page 62
Chapter 4 Summary: Housing Supply
         1     Most of the increase in housing over the last decade has been in homes priced above $200,000. Grass
               Valley‘s average home price is still far above the affordability range of low-income buyers.


         2     92% of all home sales in 1999 were affordable only to families at or above 120% of median income.
               Even median income homebuyers will find that half of the homes in Nevada County are priced out of
               their ability to pay. Very low-income families of four cannot afford to buy any type of house anywhere
               in Nevada County without assistance.


         3     Apartment and mobile home park surveys during the week of April 7 – 11, 2000 showed that there was
               only one apartment available for a very low-income single person, two apartments available to choose
               from for very low-income two-person households, and only one 4-bedroom apartment available,
               showing little to no supply for larger renting families.


         4     Seniors who are below median income and who are in need of assisted living units will have to leave
               Nevada County since there are no beds of this type available to this population


         5     While there were plot vacancies at the mobile home parks, most of these parks were senior-only
               residences and a new resident would have to purchase a manufactured home to place on the plot.



         In summary, it appears that only residents with median incomes or above will find adequate and ownership rental
         housing.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                           Housing Supply— Page 63
Chapter 5: Housing Gap




     Summary and analysis of
         variance between
    housing supply and demand.
Gap Analysis
      Chapters 3 and 4 discussed both the supply and the demand for affordable housing in Nevada County. By
      comparing and contrasting this data, we can arrive at the ―gap‖ between the type and quantity of housing available,
      and the demand for particular types of housing, both now and in the future.

      To summarize important demographic and economic data, Nevada County‘s population has grown by an estimated
      16% between 1990 and 2000. Over 91% of these new residents migrated into the County from other geographical
      areas. Nevada County is a ―graying‖ community, with 30% of its population aged 56 and over.

      To provide adequate housing choices for residents, a community‘s housing supply should keep pace with
      population and employment growth. However, housing supply should match the type of employment growth
      experienced in the County. The County‘s 21% employment growth rate during the 1990‘s points to an economic
      ―boom‖ compared to Sacramento County‘s 10% employment growth rate, supporting the theory of out-migration
      of jobs and population from the Sacramento Metropolitan Area. However, the highest employment growth rates
      were in the Services industry (55% job growth) and the Retail industry (26% job growth). These industries
      comprise the lowest paying wages compared to other employment categories. Unfortunately, most of the 18%
      increase in housing stock is in single-family units that are financially out of reach of low-income workers.

      Nevada County has one of the highest owner-occupied rates in California. Most of the increase in housing over
      the last decade has been in homes priced above $200,000; 92% of all home sales in 1999 were to persons at or
      above 120% of median income. Affordable housing is defined as housing which costs a person no more than 30%
      of their annual income. At that level, very low-income families of four cannot afford to buy any type of house
      anywhere in Nevada County without assistance. Low-income homebuyers can generally only afford to buy
      manufactured housing and condominiums.

      Again, the majority of workers in Nevada County earn wages in either the very low-income or low-income job
      categories. These employees cannot afford the requisite monthly housing costs, unless they are in households with
      combined incomes. Nearly all of the very low-income and low-income residents must pay 30% or more of their
      annual incomes on housing. During the week of April 7 – 11, 2000, our apartment surveys revealed that:
            There was only one apartment available for a very low-income single person within their affordability range.
            There were only two apartments available to choose from for very low-income two-person households.
            There was only one 4-bedroom apartment available, showing little to no supply for larger renter families.

      In short, assessment findings demonstrate that very low and low-income buyers or renters will have difficulty
      finding adequate housing in Nevada County. Even median income homebuyers will find that half of the homes in
      Nevada County are priced out of their ability to pay. In addition to low income families, other groups are
      vulnerable to the high cost of housing. For instance, seniors who are below median income and who are in need of
      assisted living units will have to leave Nevada County since there are no beds of this type available to this
      population. The majority of Section 8 voucher holders are seniors, but the majority of those on the waiting list are
      disabled adults. The greatest need repeatedly voiced by social service agency personnel was for assisted living
      housing for low-income seniors and disabled adults.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                              Housing — Page 65
Quantitative Housing Gap
      The following table indicates the estimated housing gap in western Nevada County, by demonstrating the
      difference between the total number of families with incomes at certain levels, and the number of rental and
      ownership units affordable to them. To arrive at this data, the total number of households are broken down by
      their household income, presented as ranges relative to the median income. This is the DEMAND. Secondly,
      census data on home value or amount of rent that these same families are paying for are disaggregated into
      affordability ceilings for a four person family. This is the SUPPLY. To project from 1990 census data, variable
      growth rates were used ranging from 15% to 17.9%, accounting for the differences in growth between Grass Valley
      and Nevada City. (These rates do not include Truckee or eastern County census tracts). The table indicates that
      given an overall sum of households, there is dramatic variance between the incomes of the occupants and the value
      of the units. On average, there is a shortage of over 4,200 affordable units for a very low income family, and an
      oversupply of about 3,600 units affordable to families earning more than $58,550 a year.

      Figure 39 a —Western Nevada County Housing Gap— All Unit Types, 1999
         Income Level               Family Income                 Type of                   Demand      Supply             GAP
                                    Ceiling                       Estimate
                                                                                        (Households)    (Units)
        0% to 50% of              $24,400                       Low                             6,785         2,607           -4,178
        median income
                                                                Median                          6,901         2,631           -4,270

                                                                High                            7,018         2,791           -4,227
        51% to 80% of             $39,050                       Low                             5,299         4,730              -569
        median income
                                                                Median                          5,387         4,771              -616

                                                                High                            5,476         4,677              -799
        81% to 100% of            $48,800                       Low                             3,559         3,745              186
        median income
                                                                Median                          3,615         3,775              160

                                                                High                            3,673         3,807              134
        100% to 120% of           $58,550                       Low                             3,047         3,751              704
        median income
                                                                Median                          3,097         3,785              688

                                                                High                            3,148         3,816              668
        120% of median            $58,550 plus                  Low                            12,717        16,425            3,708
        income or more
                                                                Median                         12,925        16,556            3,631

                                                                High                           13,131        16,686            3,555
        Total households          —                             Low                            31,407        31,664                —

                                                                Median                         31,925        31,920                -5

                                                                High                           32,446        32,190                —

       Source: Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico, 2000.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                  Housing — Page 66
      Figure 39 b —Western Nevada County Housing Gap — Renters Vs. Rent Values
          Income Level                Family Income                  Type of                   Demand                       Supply                       Gap
                                         Ceiling                     Estimate
                                                                                            (Households)                     (Units)


        0% to 50% of                $24,400                                     Low                        3358                       2,200                   -1,158
        median income
                                                                            Median                         3417                       2,220                   -1,197

                                                                               High                        3476                       2,240                   -1,236
        51% to 80% of               $39,050                                     Low                        1949                       3,306                    1,357
        median income
                                                                            Median                         1982                       3,335                    1,353

                                                                               High                        2016                       3,364                    1,348
        81% to 100% of              $48,800                                     Low                        1110                       1,521                      411
        median income
                                                                            Median                         1128                       1,534                      406

                                                                               High                        1147                       1,546                      399
        100% to 120% of             $58,550                                     Low                         785                       1,807                    1,022
        median income
                                                                            Median                          797                       1,821                    1,024

                                                                               High                         810                       1,834                    1,024
        120% of median              $58,550 plus                                Low                        1963                             *                        *
        income or more
                                                                            Median                         1994                             *                        *

                                                                               High                        2025                             *                        *
        Total households *          —                                           Low                        9165                       9,240                        —

                                                                            Median                         9318                       9,319                         1

                                                                               High                        9474                       9,398                        —

      * Unfortunately, supply data at higher income levels includes units affordable to median income families 100% and above. Specific detail of supply for families earning 120%
      and above is not available. However, if Demand categories of 100% —120% and 120% + MI were combined to compare with the Supply category of 100% +, there would be
      a shortage of units.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                            Housing — Page 67
      Figure 39 c —Western Nevada County Housing Gap — Homeowners Vs. Home
      Values
          Income Level          Family Income            Type of              Demand          Supply                Gap
                                   Ceiling               Estimate
                                                                           (Households)       (Units)


        0% to 50% of          $24,400                            Low                  3,427             407            -3,020
        median income
                                                              Median                  3,484             411            -3,073

                                                                 High                 3,542             551            -2,991
        51% to 80% of         $39,050                            Low                  3,350         1,424              -1,926
        median income
                                                              Median                  3,405         1,436              -1,969

                                                                 High                 3,460         1,313              -2,147
        81% to 100% of        $48,800                            Low                  2,449         2,224                 -225
        median income
                                                              Median                  2,487         2,241                 -246

                                                                 High                 2,526         2,261                 -265
        100% to 120% of       $58,550                            Low                  2,262         1,944                 -318
        median income
                                                              Median                  2,300         1,964                 -336

                                                                 High                 2,338         1,982                 -356
        120% of median        $58,550 plus                       Low                 10,754        16,425               5,671
        income or more
                                                              Median                 10,931        16,556               5,625

                                                                 High                11,106        16,686               5,580
        Total households      N/a                                Low                 22,242        22,424                   —

                                                              Median                 22,607        22,607                   0

                                                                 High                22,972        22,792                   —

      Source: Center for Economic Development, California State University, Chico, 2000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                          Housing — Page 68
                Chapter 6:
Improving the Housing Imbalance —
   Opportunities and Constraints




          Discussion about land availability,
      development opportunities and constraints.
In general, the Housing Needs Assessment has found that there is a critical shortage of affordable housing for all low
and very low income households in Nevada County. Because incomes have not kept up with the rise in rents and home
prices, this disparity continues to grow. This growing “gap” as discussed earlier in this report is supported by findings
such as home sales data and home value projections, both showing that the greatest share of housing is affordable only
to those families above 120% of median income. In addition, employment data indicates the growing number of jobs in
the retail and service sector, which provides some of the lowest paying jobs in the County. Overall vacancy rates are
low for all housing which places an even greater strain on the housing markets ability to house existing and in-coming
residents. Limited supply pushes prices higher and out of the reach of low-income households. Finally, Section 8
waiting lists reveal the increasing demand for assistance by households unable to afford the housing currently
available.

Chapters 6 and 7 will examine the major steps needed to provide more affordable housing to Western Nevada County‟s
residents, and finally, present recommendations to address the County‟s housing gap, These chapters concern
themselves largely with issues surrounding the development of additional affordable housing, although some strategies
to make existing units more affordable to lower income families are explored (through rehabilitation, mobilehome park
ownership, etc). Chapter 6 will discuss the opportunities and challenges in developing more affordable housing, by
focusing on the general development process and fees involved, followed by a look into the amount of land currently
available and suitable for development. Finally, constraints to development are identified.



Overview of the Development Process
      Two key factors come into play in addressing the affordability of housing. In both cases, the affordability issue
      comes down to the household and/or individual being able to afford the rent or price of the unit. Landlords
      and homebuilders set their rents and sales prices based on two factors – (1) what the market will bear based on
      supply and demand considerations and (2) what it costs to build the unit, and in the case of a rental unit, to
      manage the property. In addressing the latter point, the cost of construction involves material and labor costs as
      well as financing and fees. This last point, financing and fees, is a time sensitive matter in which a local
      jurisdiction has much of the control.

      One understands that with a rise in interest rates, construction-financing costs increase. Although a local jurisdiction
      has no control over interest rates (unless the resources are government controlled), the increase, however, can
      become excessive when the time of development is extended. In other words, in the development business as in
      other enterprises, the statement that ―time is money‖ holds true. Thus, a local government‘s development process
      can be instrumental in minimizing delays and providing an atmosphere conducive to development while still
      addressing the environmental sensitivities of the area. Similarly, impact and processing fees charged by governmental
      agencies can be discounted and/or deferred to allow for greater affordability.


      Figure 40 below compares the development process in Nevada, Placer and El Dorado Counties. As one can
      see, ―one stop shopping‖ and the ―pre-application‖ conference can assist the developer in moving through the
      countless steps that must be followed. Figure 41 compares impact and processing fees in the three counties.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                               Housing — Page 70
(Figure Pending)




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000   Housing — Page 71
Housing Development Opportunities To Increase The
Affordable Housing Supply
      In evaluating what the potential is for new housing and potentially affordable housing in Western Nevada County, the
      consultants reviewed land use maps with County staff to determine how many parcels were available for residential
      development, and which parcels had the greatest likelihood for development in the not-to-distant future.

      According to the GIS and Planning Department of the                                          Figure 42 —Total Acres of Land Allowing
      County government, there are approximately 287,816 acres                                     Residential
                                                                                                               Development, By Zoning Designation
      in unincorporated Western Nevada County, and 289,263
      acres including the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley.
      A comparatively large proportion of this land (67% or                                                              Multi-Family
                                                                                                                         (628 acres)
      193,387 acres) allows for residential development. Figure                                      Single Family          0.3%

      42 shows the zoning designations such lands. The bulk of                                       (6,210 acres)
                                                                                                          3%                                                   General
                                                                                                                                                             Agricultural
      residential land (150,301 acres) occurs in general agricultural                                                                                         (150,301
                                                                                                                                                                acres)
      zones, within which single family residences are permitted                                     Residential
                                                                                                                                                                 78%
                                                                                                    Agricultural
      in addition to general farming, low intensity uses and open                                  (36,247 acres)
                                                                                                        19%
      space. Map 1 illustrates the location of the 193,387 acres                                                                                           N= 193,387 Acres



      where residential development is permitted.

      Multi-family units are typically the most affordable housing options for lower income families and individuals.
      Although Nevada County has a significant number of parcels( 1,282) and amount of acreage (628) zoned for multi-
      family housing, much of that land has impediments to being developed or already has developments on it. In some
      cases, the land may not have infrastructure (sewer, water, streets, etc) and the cost and environmental constraints
      make development of those parcels unrealistic. Figure 43 below and the accompanying Map 3 identify the fourteen
      vacant parcels in unincorporated Western Nevada County which have the greatest potential for multi-family housing
      development due to proximity to services and environmental feasibility. The acreage and range of units is also
      included which reflect the number of units these parcels would yield if fully developed.


      Figure 43 — Vacant Sites for Multi-Family Housing (Map 3)
                  General Site Location                                              Size                  Zoning           Development Potential
                                                                                  (Acres)
                                                                                                                            Units/Acre        Max. Units
        1        Penn Valley                                                              11                   R2                   6                66
        2        Penn Valley                                                              26                   R2                   6               156
        3        Penn Valley                                                                5              R2-SP                    6                30
        4        Penn Valley                                                                5              R2-SP                    6                30
        5        North San Juan                                                            5                   R2                   6                30
        6        Higgins Corner/ Combie Road                                              13          R2-SC-D-SP                    6                78
        7        Higgins Corner South/ Combie Road                                        15         R3-PD-15UPA                   15               225
        8        Higgins Corner South/ Combie Road                                        15          R2-SC-D-SP                    6                90
        9        Nevada City                                                              16                 R2-D                   6                96
        10       Glenbrook/ Old Tunnel Road                                                 6              R3-PD                    6                36
        11       Glenbrook/ Brunswick                                                       4                  R3                  20                80
        12       Glenbrook/ Old Tunnel Road                                                 3                  R3                  20                60
        13       Dog Bar/ Birch Meadows & Rattlesnake                                    15              R2-UMD                     6                90
        14       Alta Sierra/ Dog Bar Road                                                21        R2-PD-2UPA-D                    2                42
                 TOTAL                                                                 160                                          —            1,109

      Source: Nevada County Planning Department (identification of sites by consultant and Dept of Housing and Community Services), 2000.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                        Housing — Page 72
      Figure 43 illustrates that out of the 628 acres zoned for multi-family development, only 160 are potential sites for
      further multi-family housing development. Furthermore, out of these 14 sites, just four of them (sites 9-12) are
      developable within the next few years given their proximity to a sanitary sewer district. These four sites could
      potentially yield 272 multi-family units. The remaining 10 sites still require sewage infrastructure before development
      can take place. In short, 272 potential multi-family units will only close the housing gap of 4,000 units by a small
      margin.

      One mechanism to increase the supply of developable parcels is the re-zoning of commercial and/or industrial zoned
      lands. In talking with Task Force members, local Realtors, lenders, County staff and others in the community, the
      consultants learned that many people feel that such parcels do exist. Land data supplied by the Planning Department
      showed that there are 1,708 acres zoned for Business Park, Industrial, Commercial and Light Manufacturing purposes
      in the Western portion of Nevada County. This acreage has also been displayed on Map 2. However, we have not
      delineated any specific parcels for rezoning in this report.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                              Housing — Page 73
Local Constraints
      Although there is a significant demand for affordable housing throughout the County, many constraints impede the
      development of such housing. A number of constraints effect the affordable housing inventory, most of which point
      to supply side and financial considerations.

      On the supply side, the issue of land availability and suitability comes to the forefront. Although the County is
      blessed with acres of undeveloped land, much of this land is not available for development due to its environmental
      sensitivity. For that land which can be developed, inadequate zoning and lack of infrastructure come into play.
      Zoning and infrastructure are decisions, which are made by local elected officials – decisions based on environmental,
      budgetary and neighborhood concerns. Balanced growth as well as sharing of the affordable housing responsibility
      are other issues which fall more into the realm of neighborhood and community concerns.

      On the financing side of the equation, land is expensive and often makes the development of affordable housing
      difficult, if not impossible. With little public assistance (e.g., redevelopment set-aside funds) available to subsidize
      developments, developers find it hard, if not impossible to build affordable housing –both rental and for sale.

      Figure 44 below identifies other constraints and possible solutions to providing housing for Nevada County residents.
      As one can see, each of these addresses either site availability and/or financing.


      Figure 44 — Summary of Constraints to Affordable Housing
          Constraints                                         Possible Solutions


         Land use controls                                   Re-zone parcels to mf designation

         Codes and enforcement                               Expedite processing of applications; presale
                                                             inspections to insure code compliance

         On/Off site improvements                            Approve and develop infrastructure

         Fees and exactions                                  Fee waivers and reductions

         Permit processing procedures                        Fast track for affordable housing

         Land costs                                          Local subsidies, friendly condemnations for
                                                             tax benefited sales

         Availability of financing                           Provide local matching funds to access other
                                                             funding

         Construction costs                                  Only use prevailing wages when required

         Sites limited to community regions and city         Increase such sites
         limits

         Access to transit, shopping, health care, and       Concentrate multi-family sites near service
         other amenities                                     amenities




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                               Housing — Page 74
Chapter 6 Summary

      As one can see from the preceding pages, there are opportunities to increase the supply of affordable housing in
      Nevada County. Although many constraints exist, the County has the ability to address some of these constraints.

      The supply of affordable housing in Nevada County is controlled by a number of factors related to the cost of
      providing that housing and the availability of suitable sites.

      High development costs are a factor of the supply of suitable sites, interest rates, fees and local processing of permits,
      and labor and materials. The local governmental institutions can assist in alleviating some of these cost burdens with
      the re-zoning or parcels, development of infrastructure, and regulatory relief (fees and permitting).




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                Housing — Page 75
                  Chapter 7:
Improving the Housing Imbalance —
    Program and Finance Issues




     Discussion about past housing initiatives,
    potential funding sources and model housing
        initiatives, followed by Task Force
     recommendations to address the housing
                       gap.
Chapter 6 presented issues surrounding the development of additional affordable housing, including the general
development process and fees involved, followed by a look into the amount of land currently available and suitable for
development. Finally, constraints to development were identified. The current chapter takes this discussion one step
further along the process of affordable housing development. Progress on County-assisted housing program is
reviewed, followed by future funding opportunities and model programs.



A Review of Programs Initiated in Nevada County
      In 1995, the County of Nevada adopted a general plan that included a housing element with specified housing
      production or improvement goals. As seen in Figure 45 below, these goals were further delineated by housing type
      and the type of families that would benefit (by income level). For instance, the housing element projected the need
      for 1,317 new housing units for families earning 121% of median income, or 34% of the 3,913 units that needed to be
      built. In total, the housing element proposed an increase in the housing stock by 4,854 units.


      Figure 45— County General Plan - Quantified Objectives of the Housing Element
         Household Income            % of Median       New Construction      Rehabilitation          Conservation          Total
         Category                    Income
                                                         Goal      Percent     Goal     Percent       Goal       Percent    Goal     Percent
         Very low income             0-50%                 1,229       31%         30         13%       358         50%      1,617      33%
         Low Income                  51-80%                  595       15%         45         20%       356         50%        996      21%
         Moderate Income             81-120%                 772       20%         76         33%            0       0%        848      17%
         Above Moderate Income       121% +                1,317       34%         76         33%            0       0%      1,393      29%

         Total                                             3,913      100%        227         100%      714        100%      4,854     100%
       Source: Nevada County General Plan— Housing Element, 1995


      The County‘s production goals are met through private and publicly-funded development initiatives. Aggregate
      building permit data shows that countywide, there have been 3,457 new units constructed since 1995 — 3,107 single
      family and 350 multi-family units, or coming within about 500 units of the County‘s target of 3,913. Unfortunately,
      this data is not currently available as to home values or public or privately-funded construction.

      However, the County does keep detailed data on all publicly-funded developments. This data tracks not only the
      increase in the supply of affordable housing, but it also points to programs and funding sources that have been
      beneficial. For instance, Community Development Block Grants have been used to help rehabilitate some of Nevada
      County‘s older housing stock, thereby increasing the supply of liveable, affordable units. Weatherization programs
      have made homes more energy efficient, which makes them more liveable and frees up family income to pay for
      other housing or family costs.

      The Nevada County Department of Housing and Community Services serves as the affordable housing agency for
      the County. In this capacity, the Department oversees applications for funding to state and federal agencies who
      provide financing for affordable housing development as well as housing assistance to very low, low and moderate
      income households. Although some of this funding comes in the form of an entitlement based on population and/or
      the number of low and very low income households, much of the funding is competitive which requires well planned
      projects and/or programs which delineate need. Figures 46a, 46b, and 46c on the following pages provide a list of
      publicly-funded direct and indirect housing assistance programs. The direct assistance is real dollars provided by the
      County for programs and/or projects. Indirect housing assistance refers to projects in which the county was involved
      through the entitlement process and staff assistance.

Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                           Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 77
   Figure 46a— Publicly-funded Direct Assistance Programs
      Type of Direct Assistance Projects        Total Direct            Total        Total              Income Level                                 Housing Type
      and Programs:                             Assistance         Estimated       Housing
                                                                 Project Cost        Units   Very Low    Low   Moderate      Above            New    Housing      Home      Rental
                                                                                                                           Moderate   Construction    Rehab    Ownership
    Habitat for Humanity - CDBG                 $      75,000    $      600,000         6          6                                            6                      6
      50% Fee Waiver                            $        3,776
    Eden Ranch - Common Ground                  $     396,000    $     6,000,000       42          1      21        20                         42                     42
      50% Fee Waiver                            $      47,000
    Courtyards at Penn Valley - CDBG buy site   $     195,000    $     6,500,000       42         36       6                                   42                             42
      CDBG - off site improvements              $     269,000
      50% Fee Waiver                            $      36,000
    HOME down payment assistance - Co.          $     475,000    $     3,000,000       24                 24                                   24                     24
    HOME down payment assistance - Truckee      $     475,000    $     4,000,000       24                 24                                   24                     24
    Rural Gold Home Loans                       $    2,022,403   $     2,022,403       18          2      16                                   18                     18
    Mortgage Credit Certificates                $   32,219,767   $    32,219,767      288         28     230        30                       288                     288
    CDBG Housing Rehab. Portfolio-County        $     353,975    $      353,975        43          8      35                                             43           43
    CDBG Housing Rehab. Loans - 1992            $     386,962    $      386,962        29         22       7                                             29            7      22
    CDBG Housing Rehab. Loans - 1993            $     260,987    $      260,987        11          3       8                                             11           11
    CDBG Housing Rehab. Loans - 1994            $     397,775    $      397,775        17          4      13                                             17           17
    CDBG Housing Rehab. Loans - 1999 - Truck    $     368,730    $      368,730        18          2      16                                             18           10        8
    CHRPO Housing Rehab. Loans                  $     252,713    $      252,713        18          9       9                                             18           18
    Rural Housing Service Rehab. Loans          $      37,500    $       37,500         5          5                                                      5            5
    Weatherization - Low Income Energy          $     822,764    $      822,764       942        942                                                    942          560     372
    Weatherization- Dept of Energy                          ?
    Emergency Energy Assistance                 $     765,193    $      765,193      3072       3072                                                                1014    2058
    Section 8 Rental assistance                 $    5,189,435   $     5,189,435      532        266     266                                                                 532
    Section 8 - Family Self-Sufficiency         $      53,022    $       53,022        22         12      10                                                                  22
    Section 8 - Habitat                         $      60,000    $       60,000         1          1                                            1                      1
    Section 8 Preservation                      $     239,433    $     2,500,000       80         76                   4                                 80                   80
    Sec. 8 emergency vouchers - Dorsey Apts.    $     150,000    $      150,000        24         24                                                     24                   24
    Manzanita Family Center - homeless          $      32,850    $       32,850       176        176                                                                         176
    Tahoe Women's - rental assistance           $        9,885    $        9,885        6          6                                                                            6

    TOTAL of DIRECT ASSISTANCE PROJECTS         $   45,595,170   $    65,983,961     5,440     4,701     685        54           -           445       1,187        2,088   3,342




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                  Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 78
      Figure 46b — Publicly-funded Direct Assistance Programs
         Type of Indirect Assistance Projects                         Total             Total                 Income Level                                          Housing Type
         and Programs:                                           Estimated            Housing
                                                               Project Cost             Units    Very Low         Low     Moderate      Above               New      Housing           Home      Rental
                                                                                                                                      Moderate      Construction      Rehab         Ownership

       Nevada City Sr/Disab. Apts. - Old Tunnel Rd.            $     4,000,000              59         59                                                     59                                    59

       Nevada Meadows Sr/Disab Apts. - Old Tunnel              $     2,800,000              33         33                                                     33                                    33

       Nevada Woods Family Apts. - Sutton Way                  $     5,000,000              68         68                                                     68                                    68

       Old Tunel Apartments - planned                          $     5,000,000              34         34                                                     34                                    34

       Oak Ridge low income tax credits                        $       700,000              80         60         20                                          80                                    80

       Sutton Way low inc. tax credits - planned               $     8,000,000             100         60         40                                         100                                   100

       Dark Horse - So. Co - inclusionary planned              $     4,290,000              33                    17           16                             33                          33

       Joshuan Senior Gr Home Lake Wildwood                    $       300,000               6          6                                                                 6                            6

       Sierra View Mobilehome Park - preservation                             ?             16          8           8                                                    16               16

       Sierra Vista - low inc. tax credits                     $     6,500,000              75         60         15                                          75                                    75

       Riverview rental housing                                $     5,000,000              40         20         20                                          40                                    40

       Truckee Senior Housing - preservation                   $     5,000,000              60         60                                                                60                         60

       Donner Apts - tax credits planned                       $    12,000,000             160        100         60                                         160                                   160

       TOTAL INDIRECT HOUSING ASSISTANCE                       $    58,590,000             764        568      180             16             -              682         82               49       715




      Figure 46c — Summary of All Publicly-Funded Housing Assistance, by Income level and Type
                                                                   Total Direct   Total Estimated Total Housing                     Family Income Level                                 Housing Type
                                                                   Assistance        Project Cost         Units
                                                                                                                                                               Above      New         Housing       Home
                                                                                                                        Very Low       Low        Moderate   Moderate Construc         Rehab     Ownership      Rental

       Direct Assistance Projects                          $         45,595,170   $      65,983,961         5,440          4,701        685             54         N/a        445        1,187         2,088     3,342

       Indirect Assistance Projects                                               $      58,590,000          764             568        180             16         N/a        682          82              49     715

       Total Housing Assistance                            $         45,595,170   $     124,573,961         6,204          5,269        865             70         N/a    1,127          1,269         2,137     4,057

      Source: Nevada County Department of Housing and Community Services, 2000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                  Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 79
Model Programs
Although every community has some differences in their need for affordable housing, there are many
similarities. Many financing and technical assistance programs are available to both the private and public
sectors in Nevada County and which can be utilized in the development of affordable housing and/or simply
making the existing housing more affordable to Nevada County‘s residents. On the following pages are
descriptions of projects which have been implemented in various communities in California and in Oregon.
Because many of the funding sources come from federal programs, the experiences of projects in other states
often can be mirrored in a California and Nevada County setting.



                                                                                             Model Program

Park Place Apartments
Bakersfield, California                                           AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

   Golden Empire Affordable Housing, Inc. in cooperation with the Housing Authority of the County of Kern acquired
   approximately three (3) acres of surplus property from the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. The property is
   located in downtown Bakersfield and is accessible to the Senior Center in Central Park and other services and
   amenities. Eighty (80) one and two-bedroom apartments affordable to very low and low income seniors are
   currently under construction. Unit sizes would be approximately 600 -775 square feet with maximum rents from
   $325 - $400 per month. All units would be equipped with full kitchens including garbage disposals and
   washer/dryer hook-ups. Emergency (medical response) call buttons are provided in all units.

   The apartment complex will include a community room/library, a laundry room for residents without their own
   washers and dryers, and passive recreation areas - e.g., patio tables and chairs and area for horseshoes or similar
   types of recreation. Two elevators serve the two-story building.

   GEAHI, a 501(c)3 will serve as the managing general partner of the limited partnership. Primary financing includes
   low income housing tax credits, a grant from the City of Bakersfield's Community Development Block Grant
   (CDBG) funds and a low interest deferred loan from the Redevelopment Agency's set-aside funds.

 Project Financing
 HOME grant
 Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency (Deferred low interest loan)
 Deferred Developer Fee
 Low Income Housing Tax Credits
                                                                                                       Model Program

         Folk's Landing
         Napa, California                           AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED

         Folk's Landing was a dilapidated property located in Napa, California. Four of the Folk's Landing units are in this
         rehabilitated historic building. Several attempts had been made to rehabilitate the dilapidated property by the time
         its owners came to the Napa Housing Authority for help in late 1992. Several years earlier, the city had agreed that
         the site, in the Calistoga Avenue Historic District, was appropriate for much-needed housing for the elderly, but two
         sets of owners had been unable to secure adequate financing for the project.

         The plan called for 14 units; 4 in a rehabilitated historic structure and 10 in two new buildings, consistent in design
         with the original structure. The units would be affordable to elderly or disabled persons at or below 80 percent of
         the area median income, with most units renting to households at 50 or 60 percent of the median.

         The Napa National Bank had committed $600,000 to the project, but more than $350,000 was still needed. The city
         and the housing authority identified $116,000 in CDBG funds that could be used for rehabilitation, but substantial
         funds were still needed for new construction.

         HOME funds could fill that gap, but Napa is not a participating jurisdiction and thus does not receive HOME funds
         directly from HUD. However, in January 1993, the State of California made HOME funds available under its
         program, and the Napa Housing Authority submitted an application for $235,000 for the financing to complete the
         new construction. The funding was approved, but it took more than a year for all reviews to be completed and for
         construction to begin on the project, which was called Folk's Landing.

         In addition to environmental, floodplain, and relocation concerns, the project required extensive review by the State
         Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), because of its location in a historic district. The SHPO review resulted in a
         memorandum of agreement dealing with recordation of the property, methods of moving buildings, and continued
         historic significance. At the request of a local university, an archeological study of the site was also required.

         Construction of Folk's Landing finally began in February 1994 and was completed in two phases: The four
         rehabilitated units were finished in September 1994, then the new building was completed. The project was fully
         occupied by March 1995. HOME funding was critical to the project; both the HOME funds and the CDBG funds
         were structured as 3 percent deferred payment loans with 20-year terms.

         Prior to rehabilitation, the historic building was severely dilapidated. Both new buildings provide handicapped
         access. In addition to providing high-quality, affordable units for low-income elderly and disabled citizens, the
         development of Folk's Landing preserved and improved a previously blighted site in the historic district. There is no
         doubt that this project spurred other property improvements in the area.

         Close cooperation among agencies at different levels of government was crucial to the development of Folk's
         Landing. The Napa Housing Authority submitted the HOME application and has ongoing responsibility for
         monitoring the project. The city provided CDBG funds for the rehabilitation, while the state provided HOME funds
         for new construction. HUD staff worked closely with the other participants to overcome various obstacles that
         threatened the project. As a result of this collaboration, Folk's Landing is now a pleasant and convenient home to
         14 low and moderate income households.

       Project Financing
         Source                        Rehab                         New Construction               Total
         CDBG                          $116,000                                                     $116,000
         HOME                          $235,000                                                     $235,000
         Napa National Bank            $276,000                      $ 324,000                      $600,000
         Total                         $392,000                      $559,000                       $951,000




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                 Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 81
                                                                                                     Model Program

       Casa Mobile Home Park
       Fairfield, California AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENTS
         The City of Fairfield assisted the residents of a local mobile home park and their affiliate resident controlled
         corporation, Pacific Estates Residents' Association, in the purchase of the park from private owners. Space rents
         had continued to escalate to the point that living in the park was no longer affordable. With the purchase of the
         park initially by the City, long term affordability could be achieved.

         The structure of the transaction involved the Association paying $5,000,000 for an undivided interest in the
         property. The $5,000,000 was payable partially in cash with the remainder in the form of a tax-exempt purchase
         money bond from the City of Fairfield (or one of its municipal agencies), paying tax-exempt interest at 7.1% interest
         per year, with level monthly payments of principal and interest over a 30-year term. Concurrently with the sale, the
         seller contributed to the Association a percentage of interest in the property which provided him with tax relief.

         In addition to the bonds issued by the City, financing for the transaction was provided by the California Department
         of Housing and Community Development's Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPRP). This
         program provides below market rate deferred loans to mobile home park resident organizations that wish to
         purchase their park and convert it to resident ownership.


                                                                                                     Model Program

       Eureka Senior Housing
       Eureka, California                                                      AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

          The Housing Authority of the City of Eureka acquired and developed 22 one-bedroom apartments and
          cottages for very low income seniors with incomes at 46% or less of median income for the County of
          Humboldt. Unit sizes were approximately 625 square feet. Maximum rents for the units are $261/month. All
          units are handicapped.

          The units are located on five sites located in the southeast sector of Eureka near the downtown. All parcels are
          located in a residential neighborhood and are accessible to shopping and services. The sites were acquired by
          the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) as a result of their Eureka Freeway rescission.

          The Housing Authority served as developer of the project. The development is owned by a limited partnership
          whose managing general partner is a non–profit formed by the Housing Authority. The limited partner is a
          local bank who was interested in the tax benefit of low income housing tax credits as well as the Community
          Reinvestment Act (CRA) credits they receive. After fifteen years, the Housing Authority’s non-profit will have
          the option to purchase the project from the limited partnership. The housing is subject to a regulatory
          agreement which requires 100% of the units to remain affordable to very low income households for at least 55
          years. The Housing Authority is responsible for the day to day management of the project.


         Project Financing
         Tax Exempt Bond (30 year fully amortized loan – 6.5%)
         Eureka Redevelopment Agency (deferred loan – 5%)
         Housing Authority (deferred loan)
         Low Income Housing Tax Credits




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 82
                                                                                                             Model Program

       Carroll Inn Single Room Occupancy
       Sunnyvale, California    AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS

         In 1991, the Sunnyvale City Council recognized the need for affordable housing by adopting an ordinance and related
         building code amendments designed to make the development of single-room occupancy (SRO) housing more feasible.
         The impact of the 1991 ordinance was to increase the allowable density and lower the cost of developing an SRO in
         Sunnyvale by designating it a commercial development. To minimize community opposition, the council also devoted
         significant attention to the need for high quality development. The use of high quality design and materials was critical to the
         acceptance of the Carroll Inn by local residents. The city provided a site in the downtown area, convenient to services and
         transportation, and issued a request for proposals. The winning proposal came from Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, an
         experienced nonprofit housing developer.

         Assembling financing for an SRO project proved more difficult than expected. Because the goal was to produce affordable
         rents for a very low-income population, the project's rent structure could not support conventional debt service. It took more
         than two years — from the fall of 1991, when the developer was chosen, until early 1994—to assemble a viable financing
         package for the project. Seven sources of funds were required to build the $7 million, 120-unit project. The most significant
         sources were equity raised through the sale of low-income housing tax credits and a state rental housing construction loan.
         However, the commitment of HOME funds from both the city of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County was critical to enable
         the project to obtain other funding and to ensure that rents would be affordable to the target population.

         Once the financing was secured, construction began in March 1994. As a result of the extraordinary cooperation and
         creativity of city departments and others involved in the project, it was completed in only 10 months. In addition to the 120
         SRO units, the three-story wood-and-stucco structure also contains community rooms with full kitchen, TV sets, and a small
         library. There is a landscaped interior courtyard, children's play area, exercise room, mini-convenience store, and social
         service office for job searches, counseling, and support services. There are laundry facilities and a community room on
         each floor. The units range in size from 165 to 355 square feet. Each has a full bath and efficiency kitchen facilities
         consisting of a half-size refrigerator, freezer, sink, and microwave. All units are fully furnished and have large, operable
         windows that look out on open space or the street. Twelve units are handicapped accessible and the remainder can be
         adapted if necessary.

         All of the units are affordable to very low-income households. Rents range from $276 a month for the smallest units to $371
         a month for the largest and include all utilities except telephone service. These rents are about half the market rent for
         comparable units in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County.

         Eighty-three percent of the Carroll Inn units are occupied by single persons, eight percent by couples, and nine percent by
         single parents with one child. Twenty-eight percent of the residents are disabled and 21 percent are elderly. More than a
         third of the singles have incomes at or below $8,000. Nearly half of the Carroll Inn residents receive some wages, but 37
         percent rely on Social Security Income as their sole source of income. The project has had a substantial waiting list since it
         was initially leased.

         The Carroll Inn is managed by the developer, MidPeninsula Housing Coalition. Social services are provided by a variety of
         local agencies, including Sunnyvale Community Services, Support Network for Battered Women, the Department of Public
         Health, and Hope Rehab, which provides jobs and job training for developmentally disabled persons.

       Project Financing
         Low-Income Housing Tax Credits                                               $ 4,000,000
         Rental Housing Construction Program (State)                                  $ 1,420,536
         HOME Loan (City of Sunnyvale)                                                  $ 964,750
         HOME Loan (Santa Clara County)                                                 $ 200,008
         Coswell Foundation Grant                                                      $ 150,000
         Red Cross Loan                                                                $ 125,000
         Pacific Gas & Electric Loan                                                   $ 120,000
         Total                                                                         $6,980,294




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                     Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 83
                                                                                                       Model Program

       Supportive Group Living Model
       Portland, Oregon                                                                SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING

          The Group Living Model fits well on small sites in traditional Portland neighborhoods.

          Like many cities, Portland, Oregon, has a substantial need for housing for very low-income individuals with special
          needs, particularly the chronically mentally ill. The city's five-year housing and community development strategy
          and the county's Consolidated Plan both identify affordable housing with linked services for persons with serious
          disabilities as a high priority in the Portland area.

          However, developing such housing was problematic for several reasons. First, the residents typically would have
          very low incomes, so the development could support little or no debt. Second, there is often neighborhood
          opposition to such development. Third, Portland needed a flexible group living home design that could meet the
          physical and program needs of residents, fit on an infill lot, and not stand out as special needs housing.

          In response to these needs and concerns, the Housing Authority of Portland (HAP) developed a Group Living
          Model, an architecturally designed model for construction of group homes. The model, a residence containing five
          single room-occupancy (SRO) units, features a menu of design options to fit each home's residential needs. The
          model includes five bedrooms, each with a private bath, and a shared kitchen, living room, and dining area, as
          well as an upstairs sitting area. Each resident has an individual food storage area. The exterior design uses
          traditional forms and materials to ensure that the structures will fit well into surrounding neighborhoods.

          After developing the model, HAP issued a request for proposals from service providers with which it could form
          partnerships. From the response, HAP created a list of providers to match available sites for future developments
          of the Group Living Model.

          Once the design model was completed and service provider partners identified, the major concern was finding
          sources of debt-free financing. The residents of these units typically cannot afford rents high enough to support
          any debt service; consequently, HOME funds administered by the City of Portland have been a significant source
          of funding for the 7 projects completed to date. Other sources have included Oregon State Trust funds, the
          Oregon Department of Mental Health Services, and a community development block grant. The county has
          contributed several tax-foreclosed lots.

          Since 1994, the process has been used to develop seven structures housing 35 residents. HAP develops and
          owns the housing and commits to preserving it as affordable for at least 25 years. Management and service
          provision are handled jointly with the nonprofit service provider partners. These partnerships allow HAP to
          minimize operating costs to the point that they are covered by rents.

          The development and use of the Group Living Model enabled HAP to reduce the time, energy, and effort usually
          required to produce special needs housing. The housing that has been built using the model has provided a
          secure environment for disabled residents who may have been living on the streets or in emergency shelters.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                               Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 84
                                                                                                         Model Program

       Misty Village Apartments
       McKinleyville, California                                                   AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING

          Misty Village is a development of 24 rental units, consisting of 20 new construction apartments and
          rehabilitation of 4 existing units on a flat 1-acre parcel of land, in an upper middle-class neighborhood.

          The project is a multi-family housing project that will serve individuals as well as families. The Project targets
          low and very low income families & individuals. Five units will be reserved for people living with HIV/AIDS, and
          served by outside agencies, which will offer on-site services and programs to support HIV/AIDS tenants. We
          have been working with local providers housing people living with HIV/AIDS in many of its other properties. The
          balance of the units will be rented to individuals or families at or below 60% of median income, with 50% for
          those at 50% of median income.

          The final configuration after construction and rehabilitation (May 2001) will be 12 one-bedroom units, 10 two-
          bedroom units and 2 three-bedroom units. The project design has varied rooflines, extensive landscaping with
          open courtyards and a community room, which mixes aesthetics and comfort. The community room will have a
          laundry facility, small office, and provide residents with a meeting place and a location to arrange on-site services
          and programs.

          Humboldt Bay Housing Development Corporation (HBHDC) will serve as the developer of the project. The
          development will be owned by a limited partnership whose managing general partner is a non–profit subsidiary
          of HBHDC. The limited partner is a nationally recognized tax credit investor. HBHDC also will take on the role of
          property manager.


          Project Financing
         Tax Exempt Bond (30 year fully amortized loan – 7%)
         HOME funds (deferred loan – 3% simple interest)
         Federal Home Loan Bank (grant)
         Local Bank (grant)
         Local Foundation (grant)
         Low Income Housing Tax Credits
         Equity Loan from General Partner




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                   Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 85
Program Funding Opportunities for Nevada County
      The figures below provide a listing of affordable housing programs available to Nevada County households. This list
      resources was compiled by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The figures reflect
      whether the particular program is currently being provided in the County, whether it can be provided in the county
      and by whom.


  Figure 47a— Current and Potential Programs and Funding Sources for Rental
Housing
                                                                                 Currently Provided By:                              Could be Provided By:
     Type of Program
                                                                          County     Cities   Non-profit       Private    County          Cities   Non-profit       Private
                                                                         Hsg. Dept            Hsg. Orgs.       Sector    Hsg. Dept                 Hsg. Orgs.       Sector
     223(f) Mortgage Insurance for Purchase/Refinance (HUD)                                                                                        X            X
     241(a) Rehabilitation Loans for Multifamily Projects (HUD Loan
     Guarantee)                                                                                                          X            X            X            X
     501(c)(3)Preservation Mortgage Program (Govt. issuers of tax-
     exempt bonds)                                                                                                                                 X
     Acquistion and Rehabilitation (California HCD)                                                                      X            X            X            X
     Bridge Financing/Loan Programs (Tax Credit Projects)                                                                                          X            X
     CHFA Bridge Loan Program (Bond Financing for 4% Tax Credits)                                                                                  X            X
     CRA Lending (private lenders)                                       X                    X            X             X            X            X            X
     California Community Reinvestment Corp. (Permanent Financing)                                                                                 X            X
     FHLB Affordable Housing Program (BMR loans, grants)                 X                    X                          X            X            X            X
     Farmworker Housing Assistance Program (Fed. Tech. Assistance
     Grants)                                                                                                             X            X            X            X
     Farmworker Housing Grant Program (HCD Loans and Grants)                                                             X            X            X            X
     Flexible Subsidy Program (HUD operating assist and construction
     loans)                                                                                                                                        X
     Government-Assisted Project Loans (tax exempt loans-private
     lenders)                                                                                                                                      X            X
     Loan Packaging Program (Low Income Housing Fund)                                                                                              X
     Low-Income Housing Preservation--TA/Capacity Build (HUD)                                                                                      X
     Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Equity (Cal. Tax Credit Allocation
     Committee)                                                          X           X        X            X             X            X            X            X
     Mercy Loan Fund (private non-profit lender)                         X                                               X            X            X            X
     Multi-family Low-Income Housing Program (Tax-exempt bonds -
     CDLAC)                                                                                                              X            X            X            X
     Multifamily Affordable Financing Program (Private lenders' CRA
     Programs)                                                                                                           X            X            X            X
     Non-profit Program (Local Initiatives Managed Assets Program)                                                                                 X
     Predevelopment Loan Program (CHFA)                                                                                  X            X            X            X
     Preservation Financing Program (CHFA Program to preserve
     assisted housing)                                                   X                    X            X
     Rural Housing Preservation Grants (Rural Housing Service- grants)                                                                             X
     Rural Predevelopment Loan Program (HCD for affordable housing)                                                                                X
     Rural Seed Money Loan Programs (Housing Assistance Council)
     Sec. 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans (Rural Housing Service)                                                                                   X
     Sec. 521 Rural Rental Assistance Payments (Rural Housing
     Service)                                                                                                                                      X
     Sec. 523/524 Rural Housing Site Loans (Rural Housing Service)                                                                                 X
     Sec. 538 Rural Rental Housing Program (Rural Housing Service)                                                                                 X
     Sec.8 Housing Assistance Payments (HUD)                             X           X                     X             X            X                         X
     Second Mortgage Loans for Equity and Acquisition (HUD)                                                              X            X            X            X
     Tax-Exempt Affordable Mortgage Program (CHFA and other Bond
     Issuers)                                                            X           X                     X             X            X                         X




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                 Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 86
       Taxable Affordable Mortgage Program (Insured) (CHFA)               X            X                     X         X           X                    X



Figure 47b — Current and Potential Programs and Funding Sources for Homeownership
                                                                          Currently Provided by:                             Could Be Provided by:
Type of Program                                                County                Non-profit    Private        County               Non-profit    Private
                                                              Hsg. Dept     Cities Hsg. Orgs.      Sector        Hsg. Dept    Cities Hsg. Orgs.      Sector
Affordable Housing Partnership Program (CHFA)                                                                                          X         X
Affordable Housing Program (Federal Home Loan Bank)                                                                                    X         X
Alt 97 Mortgage (Freddie Mac)                                                                                                          X         X
Builder-Lock (BLOCK) Program (forward financing
commitments-CHFA)                                                                                                                      X         X
CHAP 100% Loan Program (CHFA)                                                                                                          X         X
Cal-Vet Home Loan Program (downpayment assistance)                                             X                                                 X
CalPERS' Housing Development Program (public/private
partnership)                                                                                   X                                                 X
CalPers Member Home Loan Program (dp loans, permanent
mortgages, etc)                                                                                X                                                 X
California Self-Help Housing Program (California HCD)                     X        X                             X           X         X         X
Downpayment Loan Program (California Housing Loan
Insurance Fund)                                                                                                                        X         X
FDIC Affordable Housing Program                                                                                                        X         X
FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance                                                           X                                       X
Fannie Mae Flexible 97 Program (downpayment mortgage)                                          X                                       X
Fannie Mae Start-Up Mortgage (downpayment mortgage)                                            X                                       X
Fannie Mae/CaHLIF 3% Downpayment Home Loans                                                    X                                       X
Freddie Mac Affordable Gold Program                           X           X                    X                 X           X         X
HOPE III--Homeownership of Single-Family Homes (HUD)                                                             X           X         X         X
HOPE II--Homeownership for Multifamily Housing (HUD)                                                             X           X         X         X
HUD Single-Family Property Disposition Program                                                                   X           X         X         X
Housing Benefits for Veterans (VA loan guarantees)            X                                X                 X                               X
Housing Counseling Agencies (HUD)                             X                                X                 X           X         X         X
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program (HUD)                                                              X           X
Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (Cal. HCD)         X                    X           X                 X           X         X         X
Mobilehome Park Tenant Acquisition Program (CHFA)                                                                                      X         X
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (CDLAC and County of
Nevada)                                                       X           X                    X                 X           X                   X
Rural California Gold Lease Purchase Program (Cal Rural
Home Mortgage Finance Authority)                              X           X                    X                 X           X                   X
Rural Self-Help Housing Technical Assist. Grants (Rural
Housing Service)                                              X                    X                             X           X         X
School Facility Fee Downpayment Assistance Program (CHFA)                                                                              X         X
Sec. 203(k) Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance (HUD)                                                                                              X
Sec. 502 Direct Loans (Rural Housing Service)                                                                                          X         X
Sec. 502 Rural Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (Rural
Housing Service)                                                                                                                       X         X
Sec. 504 Low-Income Home Repair Program (Rural Housing
Service)                                                      X                                X                 X           X                   X
Section 502 Mutual Self-Help Housing Loan Program (Rural
Housing Service)                                                          X        X                             X           X         X
Self-Help Builder Assistance Program (CHFA)                   X                    X                             X           X         X
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (Housing
Assistance Council)                                           X                    X                             X           X         X
Single Family Homeownership Program                           X           X                    X                 X           X         X         X
Title I Mortgage Insurance (HUD)                                                               X                                                 X




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                 Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 87
Figure 47c — Current and Potential Programs and Funding Sources for Special User
Housing
                                                                      Currently Provided by:                             Could Be Provided by:
Type of Program                                            County                 Non-profit   Private    County                   Non-profit        Private
                                                          Hsg. Dept     Cities    Hsg. Orgs.   Sector    Hsg. Dept        Cities   Hsg. Orgs.        Sector
Congregate Housing Services Program (HUD - grants for
meals and supportive services)                                                                           X           X            X              X
Continuum of Care for Homeless Persons (HUD)                                                             X           X            X              X
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
(FEMA)                                                                                                   X           X            X
Emergency Housing Assistance Program (Cal HCD)                                   X                                                X
Family Housing Demonstration Program (Cal HCD)                                                           X           X            X
Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program (Cal HCD)                                X                                                X
HUD Emergency Shelter Grants                                                                                                      X
Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program (Dept. of
Veterans Affairs)                                                                                                                 X
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS(HOPWA)
(HUD)                                                                                                    X                        X
Passport Fund (Macy's West/Federated Foundation)                                                                     X            X
Rural Homeless Housing Assistance (HUD)                                                                                           X
Sec. 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (HUD)                                                                                 X              X
Sec. 811 Supportive Housing for the Disabled (HUD)                                                                                X              X
Shelter Plus Care Program (HUD)                                                                          X           X            X
Special Needs Affordable Housing Lending Program (CHFA)                                                  X           X            X              X
Tax Credit Excellence Awards (Affordable housing Tax
Credit Coalition)                                                                                        X           X            X              X
The Do Right Foundation                                                                                  X           X            X              X
The Kresge Foundation                                                                                    X           X            X              X
Transamerica Foundation                                                                                  X           X            X              X
Veterans' Transitional Housing Loan Program (Dept. of
Veterans Affairs)                                                                                        X                        X
Youthbuild (HUD)                                                                                         X           X            X




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                             Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 88
Figure 47d — Current and Potential Programs and Funding Sources
                                                                      Currently Provided by:                                 Could Be Provided by:
Type of Funding Source                                     County                 Non-profit       Private    County                   Non-profit        Private
                                                          Hsg. Dept     Cities    Hsg. Orgs.       Sector    Hsg. Dept        Cities   Hsg. Orgs.        Sector
Bank Enterprise Award Program (US Dept of the Treasury)                                                                               X              X
BankAmerica Foundation                                                           X                                                    X              X
CDBG--Planning/Technical Assistance (Cal HCD)             X           X          X                           X           X            X              X
Community Facilities Loans (Rural Housing Services)                   X                                      X           X            X
Community Reinvestment Act Loan Program (Private
Lending Institutions)                                                                                        X           X            X              X
Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management                                                                                           X
Economic Development Initiative (HUD)                                                                        X           X
Fair Housing Initiatives Program (HUD)                                                                       X           X
Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators                      X                                                  X
HELP Program (CHFA)                                                                                          X           X            X              X
Home Depot Corporate Community Affairs Program                                                                                        X              X
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) (Cal HCD
& HUD)                                               X                                         X             X           X            X              X
Housing Application Packaging Grants (Rural Housing
Services)                                                                                                                             X              X
Housing Development Program (Northern California
Community Loan Fund)                                                                                                                  X              X
Neighborhood Housing Services (Neighborhood
Reinvestment Corp)                                                                                                                    X
Permanent Loan Program (RCAC)                                                    X                                                                   X
Physical Disaster Loans (Small Business Administration)   X           X                        X             X           X            X              X
Predevelopment/Construction Loan Program (RCAC)                                                              X           X            X              X
Revolving Loan Fund (Low Income Housing Fund)             X           X          X                           X           X            X              X
Section 108 Loan Guarantee (HUD)                                                                                                      X              X
Single Loan (SL) Process (CHFA)                                                                                                       X              X
Surplus Land Priority Sale (CalTrans)                                                                        X           X            X
Surplus Property Sale (Cal Dept of Water Resources)                                                          X           X            X              X
Transition Reserve Program (CHFA)                                                                                                     X              X




Chapter 7 Summary
        As one can see from this chapter there are programs and financial resources which when tapped can make housing
        more affordable to both renters and homebuyers/owners. It is important that the County be aware of the programs
        which are available and either access the funding directly or assist other entities – both private for-profit and non-
        profit and other public entities in accessing these funds.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                 Housing Program and Finance Issues — Page 89
                 Chapter 8:
Improving the Housing Imbalance —
   Task Force Recommendations




                   A list of final
     Task Force recommendations to address the
                   housing gap.
Affordable Housing Task Force Recommendations
      After 16 months of review, analysis and discussion, the Affordable Housing Task Force arrived at a set of
      recommendations which will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Some of the
      following recommendations came out of the Housing Summit which took place in the fall of 1999. However, most
      of the recommendations were a direct result of the Task Force members‘ analysis of the materials presented to
      them by staff and consultants.

      In total, there are 36 recommendations that fall into the categories of :

         Housing Supply: Strategies to maximize existing supply and/or develop new supply

         Housing Design Standards: Strategies to develop new and/ or renovate existing units to be accessible for
          seniors and persons with disabilities, and make affordable and multi-family housing aesthetically pleasing.

         Development Process: Strategies to improve the bureaucratic process necessary for housing development, and
          to provide incentives to affordable housing developers.

         Financial Resources: Strategies to acquire the necessary funding sources to implement the recommended
          programs, such as Affordable Housing Trust Fund, etc.

         Community Education: Strategies to educate the public and important stakeholders, and solicit support for
          the recommended programs and initiatives.


      These recommendations were then deliberated by the Task Force, and finally voted on. The complete list of
      recommendations are on the following pages, along with the tally of how many priority votes and how many total
      votes each recommendation received. Please refer to page 10 for the summary of the ten highest scoring
      recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000
Task Force Recommendations— Page 91
A. Housing Supply                                                                                                                                          Short term:  within 1 year
                                                                                                                                                           Medium term: 1-3 years
                                                                                                                                                           Long term:   3 years or more



   Recommendation                                                             Who Will This Recommendation Help?                  Who’s         Time           Number of        Total
                                                                                                                                  Responsi      Frame          Priority         Number of
                                                                           Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/      Large     ble                          Votes            Votes
                                                                                     owners             Disabilities   Families


 To Preserve and Maximize Existing Housing Supply

                                                                             X         X        X            X            X       County,       Ongoing        3                3
   1.   The county and cities should secure funds for rehabilitation                                                              City
        and weatherization of low income mobilehomes, single
        family homes and apartment buildings. Potential funding
        includes HOME, CDBG and private sector funding.

   2.   The county should help create a housing sharing/matching             X                  X            X                    County        Medium         0                2
        to better utilize the existing housing stock for affordable
        housing, specifically for matching seniors, disabled adults
        and working individuals and families. This program might be
        administered through an existing, or new non-profit.

   3.   The county and cities should to expand homeownership                           X                                  X       County,       Short          0                3
        opportunities for first time homebuyers, utilizing all available                                                          City
        affordable finance mechanisms.

   4.   The county should work with residents and /or non-profits to                   X        X            X            X       County,       Medium to      0                0
        purchase mobile home parks.                                                                                               City,         Long
                                                                                                                                  Non-Profit

   5.   The county will continue to evaluate mobile home park rent           X                  X            X            X       County,       Short to       0                1
        stabilization issues.                                                                                                     City          Medium

   6.   Adopt the second unit recommendations (please note the               X                  X            X                    County        Short          2                6
        details of this recommendation in Appendix >>>)




   Recommendation                                                                    Who Will This Recommendation Help?                 Who’s           Time         Number of      Total



 Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                           Task Force Recommendations— Page 92
                                                                                                                                                 Responsible      Frame      Priority    Number of
                                                                                         Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/      Large                                  Votes       Votes
                                                                                                   owners             Disabilities   Families


To Increase the Housing Supply:

                                                                                                                                        X        County, City,    Medium          0            0
  7.   Twenty percent of all rental units in new publicly funded housing                                                                         Nonprofit,
       developments of 10 or more units should be 3 bedroom.                                                                                     Profits

  8.   The county and cities should secure funds to land bank parcels for future           X         X        X            X            X       County, City     Medium to        0            3
       development of affordable housing and utilize public sources of excess land                                                                               Long
       such as Bureau of Land Management (BLM), CalTrans, schools, etc.

  9.   Allow mixed-use developments, combining higher-density residential (in              X         X        X            X                    County, City     Small to         4            8
       particular for seniors) within office-professional, commercial and retail                                                                                 Medium
       districts. The county and cities should also identify industrial,
       commercial/retail sites that are eligible for re-zoning to include higher-
       density multi-family residential (mixed use), without affecting jobs to housing
       balance.

  10. The county should increase the capacities of existing sanitary sewer                 X         X        X            X            X       County           Long             0            1
      systems within the unincorporated areas in order to increase the potential for
      additional affordable housing.

  11. Facilitate senior housing with density bonuses and flexible parking, setback,                           X                                 County, City     Short            0            1
      lot coverage, and other standards

                                                                                           X         X        X            X            X       County, City     Short to         1            2
  12. All county subdivisions of ten lots, or more, in all zoning districts, shall be                                                                            Medium
      provided a density bonus of at least 25% of the number of housing units
      allowed per the zoning, and those units kept affordable for the longest
      possible term.

  13. The county should evaluate a Below Market Rate (BMR) program in which                X         X        X                         X       County, City     Short to         0            0
      developments of 10 or more units are required to provide 10-20% of the                                                                                     Medium
      units at BMR rents, sell them at a BMR rates, and/or provide a fee in lieu of
      units.

  14. The county and cities should allow duplexes and duets mixed-in with single-          X         X        X            X            X       County, City     Short to         0            6
      family residential developments of ten lots or more in all single-family zoning                                                                            Medium
      districts.

  15. The county and cities should increase the supply of sites zoned for multi-           X         X        X            X            X       County, City     Short           0             3
      family and low and moderately priced new single-family developments
      where infrastructure and services are available

  16. The county and cities should require that all senior assisted care residential                          X                                 County, City     Short           3             4
      developments include at least 20% of the total units affordable to low-
      income seniors.




Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                                     Task Force Recommendations— Page 93
B. Housing Design Standards

  Recommendation                                                                 Who Will This Recommendation Help                      Who’s          Time        Number of   Total
                                                                                                                                        Responsib      Frame       Priority    Number of
                                                                           Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/     Large Families   le                         Votes       Votes
                                                                                     owners             Disabilities


  17. The county should develop specific design thresholds for the           X                  X           X               X           County          Short      0           0
      development and construction of multi-family housing that include
      such features as increased energy efficiency, weatherization, etc.

  18. The local housing industry should conduct an annual housing            X         X        X           X               X           Profit          Short      0           0
      design competition and award program for affordable single-family
      and multi-family housing.

  19. The county and the cities should adopt an expedited review and         X         X        X           X               X           County,         Short      1           2
      approval procedure for affordable housing utilizing innovative                                                                    City
      design and technology.

  20. The county and cities should evaluate the option that new                                 X           X                           County,         Short      1           1
      developments of 10 or more units provide inclusionary units with                                                                  City
      universal design standards for persons with disabilities and
      seniors.

  21. The county and cities should evaluate the option that all existing                                    X                           County,         Short to   0           0
      developments of 5 or more units undergoing a minimum                                                                              City            Medium
      renovation of $3,000/unit that 10% of the units be retrofit for
      accessibility by persons with disabilities.




 Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                            Task Force Recommendations— Page 94
C. Development Process

  Recommendation                                                                                                                 Who’s              Time        Number of     Total
                                                                                                                                 Responsible        Frame       Priority      Number of
                                                                        Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/ Large Families                                  Votes         Votes
                                                                                  owners             Disabilities


  22. The counties and cities should cooperate in creating a              X         X        X           X            X          County, City       Long         1            4
      countywide umbrella Housing Authority.

  23. The county and cities planning departments should provide           X         X        X           X            X          County, City       Short        2            4
      affordable housing pre-application meetings, accurate and
      consistent processing information and priority processing.
      The county and cities should reduce the number of
      processes that an affordable housing development
      proposal must follow under existing state and local
      regulations..

  24. The county should assign an affordable housing                      X         X        X           X            X          County             Short        0            0
      development expeditor function to the Department of
      Housing and Community Services to work with for-profit
      and non-profit housing developers and county departments
      to improve the affordable housing development process for
      each application.

  25. The county and cities as well as schools, fire districts,           X         X        X           X            X          County, City       Short        4            7
      parks and rec, NID etc. should adopt a policy to allow for
      deferred payment of fees, and/or partial or full waiver, of
      planning, mitigation and building permit fees as incentives
      to for-profit and non-profit builders of affordable housing for
      developments of five or more units per application.

  26. The county should maximize the development potential of             X         X        X           X            X          County, City       Short        0            4
      sites that will eventually be annexed to the cities by
      increasing the number of "real" sites for development and
      through the provision of higher density zoning and
      infrastructure. In addition, the county should exercise the
      use of annexation agreements with Grass Valley and
      Nevada City to assure that sites zoned by the county for
      multi-family housing will remain zoned at the same or
      higher density once annexed to the cities.




 Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                           Task Force Recommendations— Page 95
D. Financial Resources for Development of Affordable Housing

  Recommendation                                                                                                       Who’s           Time         Number of     Total
                                                                                                                       Responsible     Frame        Red           Number of
                                                                Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/      Large                                  Priority      Votes
                                                                          owners             Disabilities   Families                                Votes

  27. County should create an Affordable Housing Trust            X         X        X            X            X       County          Long          3             4
      Fund to be used for affordable housing development.
      The Board of Supervisors should initiate discussions
      about appropriate sources for affordable housing trust
      funds (such as impact fees, exactions) and affordable
      housing development incentives.

  28. The county and cities should review and distribute the      X         X        X            X            X       County, City    Short         0             3
      list of affordable housing funding sources provided by
      the Affordable Housing Task Force consultants to
      identify additional sources of funding.

  29. The county and cities should support legislation to         X         X        X            X            X       County, City    Short to      0             2
      improve the allocation methods in order to increase the                                                                          Medium
      share of housing funds for rural communities.

  30. The county should seek funding to expand existing           X         X        X            X            X       County          Medium        0             3
      sanitary sewer systems within the unincorporated area,
      with 25% of such improvements to be reserved for
      affordable housing (inclusionary).

  31. The county and cities should utilize new state                        X                                  X       County, City    Short to      0             0
      homeownership programs which are targeted to                                                                                     Medium
      teachers and other public employees such as deputy
      sheriffs, firefighters, etc.

  32. The Housing Authority should create a subsidiary non-       X         X        X            X            X       County          Short         0             1
      profit organization in order to develop affordable
      housing throughout the county. The non-profit would be
      independent of the Housing Authority and thus not be
      subject to Article 34 constraints and HUD regulatory
      requirements.

  33. The county should pursue funding under the                  X         X        X            X            X       County          Short         0             2
      Governor's new (FY 2000) budget for affordable
      housing.




 Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                                 Task Force Recommendations— Page 96
E. Community Education

  Recommendation                                                                                                  Who’s           Time         Number of    Total
                                                                                                                  Responsible     Frame        Red          Number of
                                                           Renters   Home-    Seniors   Persons w/      Large                                  Priority     Votes
                                                                     owners             Disabilities   Families                                Votes

  34. Community, decision-makers and local leaders           X         X        X            X            X       County, City,   Short /      2             4
      need to be educated by private, non-profit and                                                              Nonprofit,      ongoing
      public housing industry representatives about the                                                           Profit
      need for affordable housing in Western Nevada
      County, especially for rental housing for working
      families, homes priced for purchase by moderate
      income households and new assisted living
      housing affordable to low income seniors.
      Mechanisms to do this might be:
          a. Road show
          b. Speakers bureau
          c. on-going forums with the public
                (developers, community, etc)
          d. annual status update of housing status
                and progress made
          e. radio program

  35. The elected and community leaders of the county        X         X        X            X            X       County, City,   Medium       0             2
      and the cities of Western Nevada County should                                                              Nonprofit,
      develop common community goals for the location                                                             Profit
      and density of affordable housing.

  36. In updating their housing elements, the county and     X         X        X            X            X       County, City    Short to     0             3
      cities should work together with the Sierra                                                                                 Medium
      Planning Organization to develop reasonable
      regional fair-share housing allocation numbers
      based on locally determined housing needs
      assessments.




 Western Nevada County Housing Needs Assessment, 2000                                                                              Task Force Recommendations— Page 97

				
DOCUMENT INFO