California state law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that covers seven topics or "elements." Those mandatory elements are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The general plan serves as a blueprint for community growth and change. The plan contains goals, objectives, policies, and programs to guide decisions by County government about private land development and providing public services and facilities. As social, economic, and environmental conditions change over time, it is important that the general plan be periodically revised to effectively address both current conditions and evolving community expectations about the future.

Preparation of this housing element was initiated as part of an update of the entire Butte County General Plan. Because of its comprehensive scope, the entire general plan revision is not expected to be completed until late 1993. State law, however, requires that the housing element be updated by July 1, 1992. In order to meet that deadline, the housing element has been placed on a faster track for completion ahead of the other general plan components. It is possible that the housing element will need to be further revised based on the work done on the other elements during the next year.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Housing Element Requirements

State law is more specific about the content of housing elements than any other portion of the general plan. The housing element is also the only part of the general plan that is subject to mandatory deadlines for periodic updates. It is the only element that is actually subject to review and 'certification' by the state.

This housing element includes all of the following information as required by state law:

A summary of the past housing efforts and an analysis of reasons for their success or failure.

Information about the existing housing stock. covering such items as the amount, type. cost. tenure. and structural conditions of the units. Other areas of concern include overcrowding and the needs of special subgroups of the population such as handicapped citizens, the elderly. homeless persons or single parent households.

An analysis of potential barriers to housing production including various governmental constraints as well as non-governmental ones.

Information about opportunities for improving energy conservation when rehabilitating existing housing and constructing new housing.

Information about existing subsidized housing and the possibility of its being lost due to conversion to market-rate units.

Specific goals. measurable objectives. policies and implementation measures. Objectives must include targets for housing unit production. based on a "fair share allocation".

The "fair share allocation" assigns a specific number of units in different price ranges to all the local jurisdictions in the State. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) generates estimates of the statewide need for housing. This is then broken down into regions. In each region, the area council of governments (in Butte County's case, the Butte County Association of Governments) prepares a more specific regional distribution of the needs to the local counties and cities.

Fair Share Allocation: Overall Production Objective

The Butte County Association of Government (BCAG) has calculated - based on number provided by the State - that the unincorporated area of Butte County should accommodate 5,131 new housing units between January 1991 and July 1997. This represents about 790 dwelling units per year - approximately a 1.7 percent annual growth rate, after accounting for vacancies and replacement dwelling units.

Between 1987 and 1991, the County approved 3,915 dwelling units, or 783 units per year on the average. The range of dwelling units approved per year was 612 in 1991 and 863 in 1988. Based on the number of building permits approved during the first seven months of 1992, the number of dwelling units approved by permit in 1992 will probably be about the same as in 1991. In addition, approximately 500 mobilehomes were located in the unincorporated county area in 1990 and 1991.

An objective of 790 dwelling units per year is not unrealistic in light of the unincorporated area building and mobilehome location history over the past five years. Unless the housing market recovers in 1993 from its current recession, however, it is doubtful that this objective can be met, particularly for lower-income households who rely primarily on mobilehomes and multifamily rental housing to meet their needs. The County can certainly create the regulatory conditions to accommodate the objective of 5,131 additional dwelling units between 1991 and 1997. Unless households have the income and the confidence to purchase or rent new housing, however, and unless infrastructure problems can be resolved, home builders and mobilehome manufacturers will not be able to provide the amount of housing projected in the BCAG Regional Housing Allocation Plan

Thus, the overall production objective called for in the BCAG plan suggests that the County needs to examine policies and programs that can increase the amount of land capable of accommodating housing in excess of six dwelling units per acre, and in particular in excess of 12 dwelling units per acre, to allow the housing market to provide needed low- and moderate-income housing. There are two issues involved in the determining the physical capacity of land to accommodate higher densities: 1) environmental issues (for example, slopes, environmentally sensitive habitats, and flooding and drainage patterns); and 2) the availability and capacity of infrastructure (roads, sewers, water delivery, etc.). The County will need to address these two aspects of land capacity in determining whether or not enough land can realistically be designated and developed at densities that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Fair Share Allocation: Affordability Breakdown

The BCAG Regional Housing Allocation Plan also distributes the total housing production goal among several cost categories: units affordable to households of "very low" income, to "low" income, to "moderate" income, and to "above moderate" income households. Median incomes for the county are estimated by HCD and vary with household size. In 1992, the median household income for a family of four was $31,500. Most governmental programs and private lending criteria assume that households should not spend more than approximately 30 percent of their income for housing expenses (rent or mortgage plus utilities, property taxes, and homeowner's insurance). The amount that a particular household can afford to spend on housing depends on the individual circumstances of that household. In general, one can reasonably assume that most lower-income households could not afford to spend much more than 30 percent of their income for housing without seriously affecting their ability to meet necessary food, clothing, transportation, and medical expenses. Moderate income households could probably afford to devote between 30 and 40 percent of their pre-tax income to housing expenses without seriously compromising their ability to meet other necessary expenses. For consistency in comparing housing costs in relation to income among the income groups, however, this report uses 30 percent of income-to-housing-expenses as the standard of affordability for all income groups.

The following table shows the percentage of median household income for each income classification; the actual range for Butte County given the 1992 median household income; the acceptable monthly housing expenditure for each classification, assuming a 30 percent income-to-housing ratio; and the fair share allocation by income group for Butte County according to BCAG:

t	Very Low	Other Low	Moderate	Above Moderate	Total
Percentage of Median Income	0 to 50	51 to 80	81 to 120	Above 120	t
Household Income Range	Up to $15,700	$15,751-$25,200	$25,201-37,800	Over $37,801	t
Monthly Expenditure Range	Up to $394	$395-$630	$631-$945	Over $946	t
Unit Production Goal	1,702	970	970	1,489	5,131

Needs, Resources, and Accomplishments

Historically, Butte County has been successful in accommodating its share of the region's housing needs based on the total number of dwelling units constructed in unincorporated communities. Because most of these communities lack basic public facilities, however, development in the county has been overwhelmingly in the form of single family subdivisions at four dwelling units per acre or less. Few, if any, of these homes are affordable to low-income households. The County has adopted various regulatory incentives to encourage the production of lower-cost housing, but without the basic infrastructure to support higher residential densities, these incentives cannot be used.

The County has attempted to make use of several state and federal funding programs to assist low-income households, primarily for housing rehabilitation, neighborhood improvements, street repairs, and sewer connections for existing developments. The County has not, however, had the staff or financial resources to effectively use state/federal programs and local strategies to assist the development community in producing housing affordable to low-income households. As a consequence, little affordable housing that has been constructed in the unincorporated area, and most of these units are scattered throughout the county (mobilehomes on single family lots and second dwelling units, primarily). Any higher density developments adjacent to Chico or Oroville and requiring urban water and sewer services have typically been annexed to those cities. The County cannot claim credit for past performance for annexed dwelling units, however.

Because of the persistent slump in the construction industry, which is expected to last through 1993, it is uncertain if the County's share of all dwelling units between 1991 and 1997 can be met, but the economic recession is beyond the County's control.

A comparison of the 1980 and 1990 Census reports and other information reveals several measures of housing needs which have increased:

The number large families in Butte County has increased.

Overcrowding and overpayment for housing have increased in both absolute and relative terms.

A larger percentage of the County's heads of household are single mothers, who have the highest incidence of poverty of any households group.

The number of elderly persons has increased, and although most are financially and physically independent at the time they move to Butte County, as older residents age, their physical and financial needs change.

There is likely a need for a homeless shelter and transitional housing in the unincorporated area, but the magnitude of the need is unknown, since none of the shelter providers could provide precise numbers of clients from unincorporated communities within the County. Logic would dictate that if a homeless facility or transitional housing were constructed in the unincorporated area, it should be located within the Chico or Oroville urban area.

The need for housing for farm worker families is greater than the present supply operated by the Housing Authority.

As explained in Chapter 3, Butte County has been successful in designating land to accommodate its share of the region's growth, in obtaining and using funds to rehabilitate and conserve the existing housing stock, and in obtaining funds for rental subsidies. Where the County has been lacking, primarily, is in its ability to access governmental programs to stimulate the construction of low-income housing and in encouraging developers to take advantage of local regulatory incentives for such housing. The policies and programs proposed below seek to continue those successful programs, therefore, and to focus on new programs that can provide housing for the large low-income families, single mothers, elderly households, farm worker families, and other special needs groups.

Because the County's low-income housing construction need is so large in relation to the availability of financial resources and infrastructure, the County will not be able to meet 100% of the low-income housing needs with the programs described below. Even though the County has committed in this Element to pursue long-term solutions to the lack of public facilities and services, these solutions will not have much impact on the County's ability to meet its low-income housing needs during the next five years. The most effective strategy during this short-term period is to make use of available development capacity within existing urban areas, encourage individual initiatives to provide affordable housing within the existing housing stock (second units), continue to allow mobilehomes on single family lots, and work with developers who have the capacity to construct large-scale developments with the potential to include a range of housing types and costs.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Consistency with Other General Plan Elements

The primary policy relationship between the Housing Element and the rest of the General Plan lies in the sufficiency of Land Use Element categories to accommodate the full range of housing needs and in the sufficiency of the Public Facilities Element to identify solutions to the lack of infrastructure in most unincorporated communities. Only those areas deemed suitable for residential development have been so designated in the Land Use Element, so there are no conflicts between resource conservation, noise, safety, other policies in the General Plan which could affect the location of residential development. The programs included in this Chapter address the relationship between housing need, adequate sites at sufficient densities to accommodate the County's share of the county-wide housing need, and public facilities and services that must be available to allow higher density development.

The Housing Element was prepared in conjunction with the revision of the other General Plan elements, although on a somewhat accelerated schedule to meet statutory deadlines. The discussion of constraints to housing development relies heavily on the environmental and public facilities information compiled for the General Plan Background Report. Because the General Plan is undergoing a simultaneous update of all its elements, adjustments can be made to the other General Plan Elements before they are adopted to ensure consistency with the Housing Element.

Public Participation

The revision of the Housing Element has proceeded in conjunction with overall revision of the County's General Plan. The public participation process established for the plan has included the periodic distribution of a General Plan Update Newsletter to county residents, "townhall" meetings in several locations throughout the County, meetings before the Board of Supervisors to update them on the progress of the General Plan revision, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Community meetings were conducted in October of 1991 to explain the General Plan update process and to solicit early public input, and again in June 1992 to solicit public comment on important issues and program options. Community meetings were conducted in Gridley, Paradise, Oroville, and Chico. "Community Concern" surveys were distributed at the first round of meetings to obtain early public input on issues that should be addressed in the General Plan.

Public comment on the draft Housing Element was solicited through Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings and through the environmental review process for the Element. Public hearings were conducted before the Planning Commission on December 10, 1992, and before the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 1993. Notices of these public meetings were published, distributed to interested community organizations representing special needs, minority, and low-income residents, and posted in governmental buildings.

County residents will also have opportunities to participate in the implementation of the Housing Element, so many of the implementation measures require the adoption of ordinances or other specific actions at Board of Supervisors meetings.

Through the measures described above, the County believes it has actively sought and pursued public participation and public comments on all phases of the Housing Element revision, and has attempted to include all segments of the community in its public participation process.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Organization of the Housing Element

Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 sets forth all the goals, policies, programs, and objectives for housing in Butte County. The background information and analysis on which these were based follows in Chapter 3, which is the longest part of the element and covers all the data required by state law.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
CHAPTER 2
GOALS, POLICIES, AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

The following goals, policies, and implementation measures represents the County's five-year plan of action to meet its housing needs through 1997. Each proposed implementation program contains a description of the intended action, an explanation of the agency responsible for administering the program, possible sources of funding (if applicable), the timeframe during which the program would take effect, and anticipated results. Whenever possible, the anticipated results have been expressed in quantified terms. Many of the programs contained in the Element are continued from the County's 1984 Housing Element. Other programs are new to the 1992 Housing Element.

The County will endeavor to accomplish the following programs within its financial ability to do so, including the ability to use staff time not compensated by fees for program administration, and other financial limitations facing the County.

Affordable Housing Supply

GOAL A
To Provide for the County's Regional Share of New Housing for All Income Groups

Policies

A.1. The County will continue to adopt community plans, within the financial ability of the County to finance these plans, to enhance the County's ability to meet its regional share of housing.

A.2. The County will continue to annually monitor zoning to ensure that sufficient land is zoned at various densities to meet the County's regional share of housing.

A.3. Zoning for higher density residential development will emphasize development within or adjacent to existing urban areas in which public facilities and services can be extended, or within large, master planned developments which the have the financial capability of providing needed public facilities and services for higher density development.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Programs

Provide Adequate Sites for Housing

As previously documented, there are approximately 28,000 acres of vacant land available in the unincorporated county zoned for residential use. About 67% of this land is zoned for large lot (2.5 acre minimum) residential use, while another 27% is zoned for single family residences or mobilehomes at six or fewer dwelling units per acre.

Most of the remaining vacant land in Butte County is designated for agricultural use (much of this land is in Williamson contracts), for timber production, or is located in state or national forests and parks. The supply of developable land with adequate infrastructure zoned for residential use in the County is a limiting constraint, especially for multifamily housing projects that could serve low-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Although annexation has accounted for a substantial portion of the County's share of low- and moderate-income housing in the past, Butte County recognizes that it cannot rely on the cities to provide for this segment of the housing market. To improve the capacity of vacant sites in the unincorporated area, the County will take the following actions:

a) Apply for available state and federal funding for water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements that would make low- and moderate-income housing feasible. As such funding is extremely limited, the County will have to evaluate methods of providing such needed facilities through private financing as well.

b) As part of a long-range plan for improving the development potential of residentially-zoned land, seek funding from the state for a planning grant to prepare a specific plan and facilities plan for the financing of needed facilities that would serve low-income housing.

c) Seek the financial assistance of developers in preparing community plans or specific plans which can address public service and facilities for new developments.

d) Seek to work out an appropriate financing arrangement with Chico and Oroville to charge reasonable fees on new development to pay for the expansion of water and sewer services within their spheres of influence.

e) Seek the cooperation of interested developers in establishing community facilities and community service districts to finance needed infrastructure and services where these are financially feasible.

f) Seek voter approval of assessment districts in communities in which planning studies conducted under 1a) identify feasible alternatives for water and wastewater systems.

Administration/Funding: Community Development Block Grant Program, Farmer's Home Administration, State Clean Water grants or loans, developer fees. Planning and Public Works department will be the lead agencies.

Timeframe: Planning/technical assistance grant applications and funding to be submitted in 1992, 1993, and 1994 if eligible activities can be identified. Financing arrangements with Chico and Oroville with appropriate developer fees to be negotiated between June and December of 1993. Seeking developer interest in preparing specific plans and establishing community facilities/service districts will be an ongoing process for larger developments. If planning studies identify feasible water and wastewater systems, seek voter approval of assessment districts at the general election in 1994 in unincorporated areas zoned, or which can be zoned for MDR and HDR use, and in which the feasibility of water and wastewater systems has been determined.

Expected Results: A plan showing the public facilities needs and providing for the financing of needed infrastructure.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Community Plan and Zoning Consistency

The General Plan for the County is based on a number of community plans for specified unincorporated areas, and other portions of the County for which there are no community plans. These plans address land use and other issues reflected in the County's General Plan. Local zoning must be consistent with these plans. During the development and revision of these community plans, the County must ensure that local land use policies, and any changes in zoning to reflect those policies, are not only consistent with the community's development goals, but with the county-wide housing goals and the County's regional share of housing for all income groups. As part of the community planning process, the County will ensure that goals, policies, and implementation measures for community plans are consistent with county-wide housing goals and needs. In particular, the County will ensure that community plans reflect zoning densities necessary to accommodate low- and moderate-income housing consistent with environmental limitations and the ability of the County to provide infrastructure of higher urban densities.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department is the responsible agency for county planning and will implement this consistency review as part of its on-going planning responsibility. No additional staff time would be required.

Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing.

Expected Results: Consistency of community plans with county-wide housing goals.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Development of Sites for Multifamily Housing

The most critical needs in the unincorporated county area are affordable multifamily rental housing and large family housing, especially for low-income families.

Because there are a limited number of sites with suitable physical and environmental characteristics that can be provided with the necessary public facilities, the County must encourage the most productive use of these sites. Multifamily rental housing does not typically provide dwelling units for large families, so the County must also encourage ownership opportunities for families.

The County's primary strategy will be to encourage small-scale multifamily projects located in those unincorporated communities that are closest to employment and services.

By focusing on a number of small projects, the County can ensure that no one community receives a disproportionate share of the multifamily housing, while at the same time accommodating development within the limits of the available infrastructure.

To encourage multifamily projects, the County will offer density bonuses, help interested developers apply for government financing and/or other government subsidies, assist interested developers in acquiring surplus government land suitable for multifamily development, expedite permit processing, and waive fees for low-income dwelling units. These options are discussed more completely under Goal Two.

This strategy will be necessary over the five-year period covered by this housing element, because it is unlikely that any substantial improvement in infrastructure capacity can be achieved within that timeframe. Over a longer period of time, improvement in public facilities can be accomplished as discussed in Program One of Goal One.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

To locate potentially interested developers and nonprofit housing corporations, the County will seek the assistance of the local building industry association and nonprofit housing corporations active in the Sacramento Valley.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will carry out this program as part of its on-going planning activities, using administrative funds from available state and federal programs whenever possible to pay for the costs of this activity.

Timeframe: Contact building industry and nonprofit representatives between January 1 and July 1, 1993. Attempt to identify interested for profit and/or nonprofit developers by December 1993. Identify state and federal programs which the County to use to help fund site selection, acquisition, and infrastructure by September 1993.

Expected Results: Development of 150 units of multifamily housing, of which 60% (90 units) would be affordable to very low-income households, and 40% (60 units) affordable to low-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Sites for Special Group Housing

There are a number of special population groups which the State has identified as in need of a residential living environment for their proper physical and mental fulfillment. These groups include mobility, developmentally, and mentally impaired individuals; elderly residents in need of 24-hour care; persons with mental illnesses; and individuals recovering from substance abuse.

Group homes of six or fewer individuals serving these and other special population groups will be allowed a residential use in any residential zone in the County. Group are best located within access to other social and medical services that mobility and developmentally disabled persons may require. Therefore, this program will likely focus on residential communities within the Chico and Oroville spheres of influence.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will review applications for such homes as part of its development permit processing responsibility. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program.

Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing.

Expected Results: No quantifiable estimate is available, as the number of individuals benefitted will depend on the level of demand for such facilities. In qualitative terms, a more enriched living environment will be provided to these special population groups.

Negotiate Transfer of A Portion of The County's Regional Share

State Housing Element Law provides a mechanism whereby jurisdictions may negotiate to transfer a portion of their share of a region's housing needs among neighboring communities within a county. This arrangement makes particular sense under circumstance in which land in a rural county is typically developed through annexation to an incorporated area which can provide urban services. Except in already urbanized unincorporated communities with services, or in unincorporated areas which are appropriate for the development of self-contained new communities, it makes little sense for a rural county to attempt to provide urban services among widely scattered communities, unless a proposed development can eventually be annexed to an existing urban community with those services.

Butte County finds itself in the position of having to accommodate a large share of the region's housing needs for low- and moderate-income households over a five-year period without practical tools to do so in the short term, except through cooperative agreements with the cities.

The County will attempt to reach agreements with the cities, therefore, to allow a reasonable transfer of the county's share of the region's housing needs where unincorporated areas can be served within existing spheres of influence. The basis of the negotiation will be the amount of unincorporated land that the cities could reasonable be expected to serve at higher densities through 1997.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Administration/Funding: The Planning Department will recommend agreements to negotiate with the cities which would specify the number of dwelling units of need, by income group, proposed for transfer.

Timeframe: Present recommendation to Board of Supervisors by January 1994, conclude agreements with cities by January 1995.

Expected Results: Cannot be quantified at this time until Planning Department can develop specific recommendation to Board.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
GOAL B
Encourage the Provision of Affordable Housing

Policies

B.1. Establish affordable housing goals, to be negotiated, for large-scale developments which contain a mixture of residential densities.

B.2. The County will work with other public agencies, developers, and non-profit housing corporations to make use of state and federal programs for low- and moderate-income housing.

B.3. The County will also investigate the feasibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds or mortgage credit certificates to provide low-interest financing for affordable housing development, if requested by a developer eligible to use this form of financing.

B.4. The County will provide density bonuses to home builders proposing to include a minimum specified percentage of low- and moderate-income dwelling units within residential developments.

B.5. The County will cooperate with the Housing Authority to seek funding from the State of California and the U. S. Farmers Home Administration to expand the supply of housing for migrant farm workers.

B.6. The County will identify surplus government property which could be used for the construction of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Programs
Density Bonuses

Density bonuses provide a developer with additional dwelling units in exchange for the provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. State law provides that if a developer proposes to include at least 20% of the dwelling units in a project at rents/prices that are affordable to low-income households or 10% of the dwelling units in a project at rents/prices that are affordable to very low-income households, the local jurisdiction must offer a 25% density bonus plus at least one other regulatory or financial incentive if needed to make the production of the low-income units financially feasible. State law also requires local government to offer a 25% density bonus to developers who propose to develop at least 50% of the dwelling units in a project for elderly residents.

The County presently has a density bonus ordinance in effect which complies with state law and will continue to implement this ordinance. In addition to continuing its present density bonus policy, the County will undertake the following actions:

Identify methods of obtaining greater interest by developers in using density bonuses in conjunction with affordable housing proposals,

Identify constraints that are preventing developers from using density bonuses, and

Prepare an amendment to the County's density bonus ordinance allowing density bonuses for single family housing in the LDR zone, if affordable to households earning between 80% and 100% of the Butte County median income, so long as such density bonuses do not discourage low-income housing proposals.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will implement the provisions of this program as part of its planning and development permit processing responsibilities.

Timeframe: Report to the Planning Commission by September 1993 on methods of encouraging greater developer use of density bonuses, removing constraints to the use of density bonuses, and amendments to the current density bonus ordinance which would allow limited density bonuses for moderate-income housing.

Expected Results: Development of 60 very low-income dwelling units, 40 low-income dwelling units, and 50 moderate-income dwelling units.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Affordable Housing Goals for Large-Scale Residential Development

Large-scale developments which include a range of residential categories have the potential to include affordable housing for low-income residents if infrastructure financing and financial incentives can be arranged. While there can be no precise threshold for the definition of "large-scale", these would typically be areas of a hundred acres or more developed under a specific plan, or some type of master plan, which includes a financing mechanism for infrastructure (such a community facilities district). While opportunities for such development are limited, the County can, through the General Plan, identify areas of the County where it believes such large-scale developments would be appropriate. The County cannot initiate development proposals for large-scale development, but it can certainly express its willingness, through its General Plan and zoning policies, to cooperate with one or more developers who have the capacity to work on a large scale.

If the County is presented with an opportunity to approve a large-scale development proposal, it will require that a developer prepare a specific plan or master plan for the entire area to be included in the development proposal. A development agreement would be required which specified the percentage of dwelling units that would affordable to low-income households. Depending on the size, location, and required public facilities, the affordable housing requirement could range from 5% to 25% of the units in a development. As part of the negotiated agreement, the County would request that at least 9% of low-income units be three and four bedroom units for large families (the percentage of large families in the population at-large).

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department would be the primary point of contact to initiate developer negotiations. The funding for the preparation of a specific plan or master plan would have to come from the developer.

Timeframe: County would meet with large landholders/developers interested in large-scale development between December 1993 and December 1994. County would explore feasibility and desirability of such proposals based on results of planning studies in Program 1.

Expected Results: Assuming no more than two such development projects of 1,000 dwelling units meets the criteria for this program between 1992 and 1997, the number of anticipated affordable dwelling units would be 100 very low-income and 100 low-income dwelling units.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Pursue Funding Under State and Federal Programs

There are a number of state and federal programs which provide low-cost financing or subsidies for the production of low- and moderate-income housing, although funding levels have decreased substantially over the past decade. Certain programs require an application and participation by a local public agency; other programs are for use by non-profit housing corporations and housing authorities, and the remaining programs require application and direct participation by a private developer.

Butte County will pursue funding under those state and federal programs that require its direct participation, and provide assistance to non-profit and private housing developers to make use of other programs which require their application and participation. The use of the programs listed below is predicated upon reaching agreements with interested non-profit or private developers to construct low- and/or moderate-income housing.

Programs which the County or the Housing Authority can pursue directly are as follows:
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

State Predevelopment Loan Program. This program provides low-interest, short-term loans to public agencies and nonprofit housing corporations to cover predevelopment costs such as land acquisition and preparation, installation of public facilities, plans and drawings, and development fees.

Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP). This program, funding for which has been re-established under Proposition 84 (1988), provides for the development of rental units by private, non-profit, or public agencies subject to the reservation 30 percent of the units for very-low and low-income households (two-thirds of which must be very-low). Funds can be used for long-term financing or a combination of long-term and construction loan financing.

California Farmworker Grant Program. This program provides grants to local governments and nonprofit housing corporations to construct or rehabilitate housing for farmworker families.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The CDBG program provides funding annually for three eligible activity areas: housing, public facilities, and economic development. Activities must address one of the following three objective: Serve lower-income people, eliminate slums or blight, or resolve urgent community development needs.

HOME/HOPE Programs. These are new federal program which provide funding for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition.

Butte County does not qualify as an entitlement jurisdiction under this program, and could either competitively apply for funding from a state pool of funds or seek to join other jurisdictions in Butte County to form an entitlement consortium. The City will evaluate which of the two alternatives would give the County the best chances of receiving funding on a regular basis.

Family Housing Demonstration Program. This is a state demonstration program that provides funding for the construction or rehabilitation of low-income rental housing projects that also provide support services and job training programs. The County would pursue an application under this program only if a non-profit housing corporation is interested in sponsoring such a project and can identify an eligible target population for the project.

There are a number of other programs which provide direct subsidies, mortgage insurance, or low-interest loans to non-profit housing sponsors and developers.

Agencies providing this assistance include the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U. S. Farmers Home Administration. Included in these programs are: Technical assistance grants for project feasibility and development, subsidies for shared housing for seniors, congregate housing, farmworker housing, senior housing, self-help housing, transitional housing for homeless individuals, and other targeted groups, mobilehome park purchase and rehabilitation, and project loans and loan insurance. While the County cannot initiate applications under these programs, it can certainly lend its support to low-income projects for which the developer is seeking state or federal assistance. County support would be in the form of regulatory incentives, expedited permit processing, deferred development fees, and density bonuses.

The County will pursue these programs, in conjunction with programs for which a developer or nonprofit housing corporation must apply, to meet special housing needs defined above for elderly residents, large families, farmworkers, mobility-impaired individuals, and single mothers.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department would be the lead agency for reviewing low-income development proposals which seek state or federal financial assistance. The Public Works Department or Community Action Agency (under its responsibility as the County's Housing Authority) would take responsibility for preparing state or federal funding proposals for programs which require the County to be the lead agency.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Timeframe: Identify funding cycles for potentially eligible proposals by June 1993, apply annually for available programs for which eligible projects are identified, depending on funding cycles.

Expected Results: 50 very-low income dwelling units and 75 lower-income dwelling units.

Tax-Exempt Bond Financing

Public agencies can issue revenue bonds, the interest on which is exempt from income taxation. Because the bonds are issued through a public agency, the investors pay no income tax on the interest earned, the bonds carry a lower interest rate than would otherwise be available to the borrower.

Housing financed through tax-exempt bonds can be of two types:

Ownership housing, typically single-family homes, in which income qualified first-time home buyers receive a discounted mortgage interest rate.

Multifamily rental housing, in which the project owner receives below-market interest rate financing in exchange for reserving a specified percentage of dwelling units for low- and/or moderate-income households.

To use this program, a public agency must first locate an interested developer, apply for and receive an allocation from the State Mortgage Revenue Bond Allocation Committee, and locate a bond underwriter to assist in the issuance of the bonds. The process typically takes between six months and one year from the time of application to the availability of funds for project development/financing.

In the event the County determines that it would be infeasible to issue bonds, it will pursue the alternative option of mortgage credit certificates, which may be issued to qualified borrowers. Mortgage credit certificates provide tax credits to borrowers, which have the equivalent effect of low interest rate financing. One requirement of the program is that the applicant make a deposit of 1/2 of one percent of the bond allocation being requested.

The County will seek an interested developer to take advantage of the mortgage revenue bond program and explore the cost and feasibility of issuing tax-exempt bonds. Because the size of a likely project would be small, it may not be financially feasible for the County to issue tax exempt bonds individually. In such a case, the County would look for one or more other interested public agencies to form a joint powers authority to issue bonds jointly.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department must first identify one or more interested developers in using this financing option. The Chief Administrative Officer must then take the lead in the applying for a bond allocation. If an allocation is received, the Chief Administrative Officer and County Counsel would take the lead in setting up necessary legal mechanisms to issue and administer the bonds.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Funding for the required deposit would have to be provided by the developer, and administrative costs of issuing the bonds could be covered through arbitrage (the difference between the interest rate paid to bond holders and the interest rate charged to the developer or home buyers).

Timeframe: Determine feasibility and locate interested developer(s) by December 1994. Apply for bond allocation in 1995. Issue bonds by the summer of 1995, and finish project construction by December 1996.

Expected Results: Finance at least one project with tax-exempt bonds, or provide mortgage credit certificates for borrowers in at least one project. Specified percentage of dwelling units to be affordable to low- and/or moderate-income households. Objective is for 50 very low-income and 75 low-income and 100 moderate-income units.

Construction of Scattered-Site Housing

The federal government has funds available that can be used by housing authorities to construct or acquire housing for low-income households. Funding has been substantially reduced, however. The Butte County Community Action Agency would apply for federal funding to construct one or more rental projects for low-income residents. Such projects would be small-scale, and every attempt would be made to design and construct housing so that it is indistinguishable from other housing in a community. Privately developed housing of two to six dwelling units may also be possible on scattered sites without public sewer service.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency would apply for funding from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and would be responsible for project management and operation. Development Services Department is responsible for reviewing development proposals.

Timeframe: Apply for funding in 1993 and 1995. If funded, complete projects in 1994 and 1996.

Expected Results: 25 dwelling units affordable to very low-income households and 15 dwelling units affordable to low-income households for publicly-subsidized units. Based on past development patterns, the County can expect about 200 units of small, scattered multifamily housing to be developed between January 1993 and June 1997. Based on rents in the unincorporated county area, it will be assumed that all 200 units will be affordable to low-income households, but that none would be affordable to very low-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act directs federal regulatory and deposit insurance agencies to encourage the institutions they regulate or insure to assist in meeting the credit needs of their communities, including low- and moderate-income needs. Federal agencies are supposed to evaluate compliance with the intent of this act when reviewing applications by financial institutions for charters, new branches, mergers, relocations, and other regulated transactions. Until recently, the provisions of this act were not widely implemented.

Butte County will identify financial institutions operating in the County that fall under the requirements of this act and request that these institutions develop specific programs for providing financing for low- and moderate-income housing in the unincorporated area.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency would be responsible for assisting public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private developers in identifying local financial institutions willing to assist in the financing of affordable housing projects.

Timeframe: Meet with interested lending institutions by June 1993, obtain commitments for funding by December 1993.

Expected Results: Financing of one or more affordable housing project(s) at favorable terms--50 very low-income units and 75 low-income dwelling units.

Manufactured Housing Outside Mobilehome Parks

The County will allow manufactured homes on land zoned for residential use, subject to the same development standards as site built housing, according to the requirements of state law.

Administration/Funding: Development Services Department and Building Department will process applications. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program.

Timeframe: July 1, 1991 and ongoing

Expected Results: Increase in opportunities for mobilehomes and manufactured housing as a lower-cost alternative to site built housing--200 very low-income dwelling units and 150 low-income dwelling units.

Second Units and Mobilehomes

The County will evaluate its present zoning code requirements for second units and mobilehomes to identify changes which would make these alternative housing options available to a wider variety of households.

Administration/Funding: Development Services Department will recommend changes to its second unit requirements and make recommended changes to the Board of Supervisors.

Timeframe: Report to the Board by September 1993. Board to adopt changes by December 1993.

Expected Results: Approval of 100 permits for second dwelling units, 50 affordable to very low-income households and 50 affordable to low-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Conservation/Rehabilitation

GOAL C
Improve/Conserve the Existing Supply of Housing

Policies

C.1. Provide assistance to inspect and identify code violations in residential buildings. Code inspection shall be on a voluntary basis.

C.2. Continue to apply, when feasible, for state and federal assistance for housing rehabilitation for low-income households. Rental housing that is repaired with government assistance shall remain affordable to low-income households for a specified period of time.

C.3. Require the abatement or demolition of substandard housing that is not economically feasible to repair.

C.4. Seek, through code enforcement, the private rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units and provide financial assistance, when available, to owners of dwelling units occupied by low-income households. In applying this policy, the County shall seek to avoid the displacement of low-income households.

C.5. The County will periodically survey housing conditions in the unincorporated area to maintain a current data base on housing repair needs.

C.6. The Community Action Agency will continue to pursue all sources of funding for maintaining and expanding the supply of subsidized housing for low-income households.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Implementation Programs

Inspection Program

Butte County will, on a request basis, arrange for an inspection of residential properties to identify health and safety hazards, and other building code violations, which should be corrected. Health and Safety Code inspections are currently provided at no charge by the Health Department, and are usually performed on a complaint basis. A more comprehensive voluntary building code inspection would be performed by the Building Department for an inspection fee that covers the cost of this service. The fee may be waived for dwelling units occupied by low-income households, the owners of which would be offered an opportunity to participate in County housing rehabilitation programs.

Administration/Funding: The Health Department will perform Health and Safety Code inspections. The Building Department will administer the code inspection program, to be funded from inspection fees. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program.

Timeframe: January 1993 and ongoing.

Anticipated Results: Depends on the number of requests.

Code Enforcement and Abatement

The County will identify dwelling units that are unsafe to occupy and initiate appropriate action to have those units comply with building code standards or removed. This action would be taken only in the most extreme cases in which the owner of the dwelling units is unable or unwilling to make necessary repairs, in which repairs are not feasible, or in which the dwelling unit has been abandoned.

Administration/Funding: The Building Department will enforce code requirements and order unsafe units to be vacated (and demolished, if necessary). Staff time estimated to implement this program is less than four hours per month, as the number of anticipated number of code enforcement actions is one per month.

Timeframe: July 1991 to June 1996.

Anticipated Results: Removal or reconstruction of 155 dilapidated dwelling units.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Rehabilitation of Substandard Dwelling Units

The County has identified 550 dwelling units in need of rehabilitation, and 155 dwelling units in need of replacement or reconstruction. Most of these substandard dwelling units are occupied by low-income households. Most low-income owner-occupants lack sufficient financial resources to obtain private funding for home repairs. Owners of rental units occupied by low-income households often cannot financially support repairs to dwelling units from the rents they can charge.

To encourage private rehabilitation efforts, the County will apply for and/or assist eligible households in applying for various private, state and federal sources of funding for housing rehabilitation and home repairs, which would include the correction of health and safety hazards, weatherization, and the addition of space to alleviate overcrowding.

Administration/Funding: The Public Works Department will apply annually, or as frequently as feasible, for funding under the State Small Cities Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Program, the California Housing Rehabilitation Program, and the Farmer's Home Administration. In addition, the County will provide information to, and assist owners of, rental properties in applying for funding under the California Housing Rehabilitation Program, from the California Housing Finance Agency, and from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Development Services Department will assist CDBG-eligible homeowners receiving Social Security income in applying for Special Circumstances Grants (one- time grants of $750 for home repairs), and for private sources of financing for weatherization. In some cases, several of the above-mentioned programs will be combined to undertake home repairs. Owners of rental properties who are assisted in financing the rehabilitation of their dwelling units will be required to rent the units to low-income households and to sign a rent limitation agreement.

Timeframe: Apply in 1993 and 1995, at a minimum, for new funds, more frequently if demand exists. Continue to make rehabilitation loans from program income

Expected Results: 160 dwelling units.

Relocation Assistance

Butte County will consider adopting an ordinance requiring owners of dwelling units which are vacated for violation of housing and building codes to pay relocation expenses for displaced residents and to provide the displacee with the right of first refusal to return to the units upon its repair. The County will evaluate various relocation strategies and options to be included in the ordinance.

Administration/Funding: The Building Department and Public Health Department would administer this program, if adopted by the Board. The owner will be required to pay the relocation expenses.

Timeframe: Present ordinance to Board of Supervisors by December 1993. Adopt ordinance by April 1994.

Expected Results: Provide relocation assistance for up to 155 households living in dilapidated dwelling units.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Maintenance of Housing Condition Data Base

The County will maintain current information on the condition of dwelling units in the unincorporated County area by periodically updating its housing conditions data base. Approximately every two years, the County will resurvey housing conditions to ensure the currency of its housing conditions information.

Administration/Funding: The Public Works Department will direct these surveys, for which the County can apply for funding under the Small Cities CDBG Planning/Technical Assistance grant.

Timeframe: Conduct housing conditions surveys in 1993 and 1996.

Expected Results: Maintenance of housing conditions data base that is not more than 30 months old.

Zoning Flexibility For Housing Rehabilitation.

Many dwelling units in need of rehabilitation were constructed prior to adoption of current zoning standards. As a consequence, some of these dwelling units are non-conforming as to lot size, set-backs, yard requirement, location, and other zoning requirements. To avoid discouraging rehabilitation efforts, the County will continue to allow non-conforming dwelling units to be rehabilitated so long as the non-conformity is not increased and there is no threat to public health and safety.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will determine the zoning status of dwelling units to be rehabilitated based on inspection information provided by the Building Department. The staff time required for the determination of zoning status will be included in any permit fees, except that the County may waive any extra charges for low-income households.

Timeframe: Current and ongoing.

Expected Results: Zoning status to be determined for properties rehabilitated under programs one through four.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Preservation of Mobilehome Parks

Mobilehome parks represent an affordable housing alternative for many county residents, especially senior citizens. Rising operating costs, changes in ownership, and other factors can result in space rents increasing faster than the ability of residents to afford those rents.

One potential method for mobilehome park residents to control their housing costs is for residents to cooperatively own and operate the mobilehome park in which they live.

The residents would need to arrange for the financing of such an acquisition and the establishment of a reserve fund for the repair and maintenance of major capital facilities in the park. This program is for existing parks, and not the construction of new resident-owned parks.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency or Public Works Department would assist interested mobilehome park residents in applying for state technical assistance and financing for mobilehome park acquisition.

Timeframe: Any time assistance is requested.

Expected Results: Undetermined--depends on interest by mobilehome park residents and availability of state funding.

The Homeless

GOAL D
To Meet the Needs of Homeless Persons
Policies

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

D.1. To refer homeless persons within the service area of existing homeless shelters to those shelters.

D.2. To determine the need for a homeless shelter in the unincorporated county area for homeless persons in one or more portions of the county who do not have access to existing shelters in the Oroville and Chico urban areas.

D.3. To provide transitional housing as a bridge between homeless facilities and independent living.

Implementation Programs

Homeless Services Referral

The County will refer residents in the unincorporated area who are within the Chico or Oroville urban areas to homeless facilities in those cities.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will be the primary contact and referral agency for homeless services.

Timeframe: Current and ongoing.

Expected Results: Assist homeless persons in the unincorporated Chico and Oroville areas to access homeless services.

Homeless Services in the Unincorporated County Area

The County will determine the need for a homeless facility and identify appropriate areas in unincorporated communities that are not readily accessible to homeless services in Chico or Oroville. The County has not yet received any requests for homeless shelters outside of the Chico or Oroville. According to homeless service providers, there may be a potential demand, although this demand cannot be quantified.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will annually monitor client information from homeless service providers to determine if a demand exists for a facility in the unincorporated area. The Development Services Department will evaluate the Zoning Ordinance and recommend amendments to designate zones in which homeless facilities would be appropriate. If there appears to be a need for a homeless facility in the unincorporated county area, the Community Action Agency could request that the County apply for CDBG Planning/Technical Assistance Funds to identify a specific site and work with a homeless service provider to prepare preliminary plans for such a shelter.

Timeframe: Community Action Agency to evaluate homeless provider client records annually. Development Services Department to recommend zoning code revisions for Board of Supervisors adoption by December 1993.

Expected Results: On-going monitoring of homelessness in the unincorporated county area. Identification of areas in unincorporated communities which are appropriate for homeless facilities.

Provide Transitional Housing

The County will contact homeless service providers and nonprofit housing corporations to determine the interest in providing one or transitional housing sites in the unincorporated county area.

Suitable locations and communities would have to be determined. Transitional housing can either be temporary shelter, such as a single family home, or a group home, which provides a bridge between a homeless shelter and independent living in conventional housing. Job training, education, and other social services may be provided during this transition period to allow the homeless individual to prepare for independent living.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will be the primary contact agency. The Development Services Department would be responsible for reviewing applications for transitional housing.

Timeframe: Contact homeless service providers and nonprofit housing corporations by June 1993, identify the need and appropriate locations by December 1993. If the need is established and funding can be secured, provide one or more transitional housing facilities by December 1994.

Expected Results: Assist homeless persons in unincorporated communities to make the transition between homeless shelters and conventional housing.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Equal Opportunity

GOAL E
To Ensure Equal Housing Opportunity
Policies

E.1. The County will continue to provide referral services to state and federal agencies which process housing discrimination complaints.

Implementation Programs

Fair Housing Program

The County will provide referral services to individuals with housing discrimination complaints. The County will seek written materials from state or private agencies involved in fair housing compliance and distribute these materials, locally, to community organizations which serve client groups most potentially affected by housing discrimination. The County will also enlist the assistance of these community organizations in translating information into other languages.

Administration/Funding: The Community Action Agency will provide referral services.

Timeframe: Seek and distribute written information by December 1993.

Expected Results: Resolution or referral of 100 fair housing complaints, conducting of annual education/awareness programs.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Energy Conservation

GOAL F
To Promote Energy Conservation
Policies

F.1. Continue to implement state energy-efficient standards.

F.2. Develop site design guidelines for energy conserving development patterns.

F.3. Provide weatherization assistance to low-income households.

Implementation Programs

Implement State Energy Conservation Standards.

The State of California has adopted a number of energy conservation requirements for residential dwelling units. These conservation standards apply to all newly-constructed dwelling units and additions to existing dwelling units. Conservation requirements address insulation; the amount and orientation of glazing; shading by landscaping, mechanical, and architectural devices; heating and cooling system efficiency; the amount and placement of thermal mass (materials that absorb heat during the daytime and release heat at night); and other aspects of building energy efficiency.

Applicants for building permits must show compliance with the state's energy conservation requirements at the time building plans are submitted.

Administration/Funding: The County Building Department is responsible for implementing the state's energy conservation standards. This includes the checking of building plans and other written documentation showing compliance and the inspection of construction to ensure that dwelling units are constructed according to those plans. The cost of enforcement is paid for from fees paid at the time plans are submitted. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program.

Timeframe: Current and ongoing.

Expected Results: Checking of all building plans for compliance with state energy conservation requirements. Increase in energy efficiency will save an unspecified amount of energy and natural resources.

Site Development Standards

The State energy conservation requirements address energy conservation in the construction of dwelling units. Additional energy conservation can be obtained from development patterns which encourage conservation.

The County will prepare guidelines for site development that encourage energy conservation. These guidelines will address the use of landscaping to reduce energy use, the orientation and configuration of buildings on a site, and other site design factors affecting energy use.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will develop guidelines in consultation with the Building Department, the California Energy Commission, and other jurisdictions with such guidelines.

Timeframe: Guidelines to be prepared by December 1993.

Expected Results: Improved energy conservation in new residential developments. Energy savings cannot be estimated at this time.

Energy Conservation Assistance for Low-Income Households

Substantial energy conservation, and reduced utility payments, can be realized from weatherizing and insulating older dwelling units. Many low-income households and owners of rental units lack the financial resources, however, to undertake such home improvements. There are several programs that can provide financial assistance to low-income homeowners and rental unit owners whose tenants are low income: Community Development Block Grant Program, California Housing Rehabilitation Program, Pacific Gas & Electric, Special Circumstances Grants (specified homeowners on Social Security only), North Coast Energy Services, and Farmer's Home Administration.

Administration/Funding: The Development Services Department will include weatherization and energy conservation as eligible activities under CDBG and CHRP programs which it administers. The Agency will provide information and refer eligible property owners to other programs. No additional staff time would be required to implement this program.

Timeframe: Current and ongoing.

Expected Results: Weatherization and insulation of 200 dwelling units.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Summary of Quantified Objectives

Subsidy, Incentive,

and Density Market Rate % of BCAG

Bonus Programs Housing Total Allocation

New Construction Very Low 515 0 515 27%

Low 450 100 550 57%

Moderate 350 650 1,000 103%

Above Moderate 0 2,920 2,920 196%

Total 1,315 3,820 5,135 100%

Conservation of Existing Very Low 230 N/A

Affordable Housing Low 125 N/A

Relocation Very Low 125 N/A

Low 30 N/A

These quantified objectives are based the specific objectives of each of the previously described housing program in conjunction with the assumption that the private market will meet the needs of all other moderate- and above moderate-income households. It is assumed that density bonuses, state and federal subsidy programs, and bond financing (Goal B, Programs 1, 3, and 4) would be used in conjunction with other programs, so the very low- and low-income quantified objectives for these programs are not counted separately in the total objectives shown above.

CHAPTER 3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Introduction

According to State Law, every city and county in California must prepare a housing element as part of its general plan. The housing element must document in detail the existing housing stock and existing and projected housing needs. Responding to these requirements, this chapter profiles Butte County's existing housing, assesses existing and projected needs, analyzes resources available to meet these needs, and reviews governmental and nongovernmental constraints on the production of affordable housing.

County Housing Market

Between 1970 and 1980, the population of Butte County grew at a rate two and one-half times that of the state of California. During this time similar population growth was experienced by many non-urban foothill counties throughout California. Metropolitan counties, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, actually lost population to the slower-paced, more recreation-oriented counties of the state.

The fact that retirees are seeking the amenities of rural life is demonstrated by the 55 percent increase in the population of Paradise between 1970 and 1980. This community has been, by far, the fastest growing area in Butte County even though it contains some of the greatest environmental barriers to more intense urban development.

Unlike the state, which experienced a decrease in the importance of immigration as a component of population growth between 1970 and 1980, new residents moving into the County accounted for 90 percent of the County's population growth. During this same period, the increase in households in the unincorporated area comprised 63.49 percent of county-wide household growth. Population growth and household growth within the unincorporated County area accounted for 56 percent and 55.1 percent of the county-wide growth, respectively, between 1980 and 1990. Table H-1 shows these projections in detail.

Household Characteristics

In 1980, there were approximately 31,579 households in unincorporated Butte County. The projected growth rate for households in Butte County is slightly higher than that of population; this is because household size in the County is decreasing. (See section on overcrowding.) In 1990, the U.S. Census reported a total of 40,998 housing units in the unincorporated county area, representing a rate of increase of 29.8 percent, compared to a population increase during the same period of 22.2 percent.

The Department of Finance estimated 42,701 dwelling units in the unincorporated area as of January 1, 1992, of which 39,956 were estimated to be occupied.

TABLE H - 1 POPULATION CHANGE BY JURISDICTION - 1970-1990 County of Butte
t	1970 Total	Percent	1980 Total	Change 1970-80	Percent	Total	Change 1980-90	Percent
Biggs	1,115	1.1%	1,413	26.9%	1.0%	1,581	11.9%	0.8%
Chico	19,580	19.2%	26,603	35.9%	18.0%	40,079	50.6%	22.0%
Gridley	3,534	3.5%	3,982	12.7%	3.0%	4,631	16.3%	2.5%
Oroville	7,536	7.4%	8,683	15.2%	6.0%	11,960	3.7%	6.5%
Paradise	14,560	14.3%	22,571	55.1%	17.0%	25,408	12.5%	13.9%
Unincorp	55,644	54.5%	80,599	44.9%	55.0%	98,461	22.1%	54.0%
Total	101,969	100.0%	143,851	41.1%	100.0%	182,120	26.6%	100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970, 1980, 1990 (Summary Tape File l).

TABLE H - 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH - 1990-1992 County of Butte
t	1990 Total	1992 Total	1990-92	Change Percent
Biggs	1,581	1,659	4.9%	0.9%
Chico	40,079	43,701	9.0%	22.9%
Gridley	4,631	4,741	2.4%	2.5%
Oroville	11,960	12,291	2.8%	6.4%
Paradise	25,408	26,008	2.4%	13.6%
Unincorp	98,461	102,807	4.4%	53.7%
Total	182,120	191,207	5.0%	100.0%

Source: California Department of Finance, Population Research Unit, Report E-5, May 1992.

Group Quarters: In 1980, there were 835 persons residing in group quarters, such as student housing, convalescent and nursing homes, and boarding houses, in the unincorporated areas of Butte County. In 1983, the figure grew to 1,449, a considerable increase in a short period of time. The increase was due primarily to an increase in student housing and group homes for senior citizens. The predominant area in the County for group housing is in and around the City of Chico. The reason for this is that California State University, Chico, students share expenses and housing near the campus. Group housing quarters elsewhere in the County are generally nursing or rest homes.

In January of 1992, the California Department of Finance reported that there were 510 persons in group quarters in unincorporated Butte County (compared to 488 by the 1990 Census), substantially fewer persons than reported in 1980. This decrease is due, in large part, to the incorporation of Paradise.

The 1990 Census reported 4,705 persons in group quarters county-wide (2.58% of the population), 1,764 of which were persons in institutions. The percentage of persons in group quarters county-wide is much higher than in the unincorporated area due to the location of student housing, group homes for elderly residents, the county jail, and other group facilities in the cities.

The Department of Finance estimated a smaller group quarters population as of January 1, 1992 4,440 persons. One could expect seasonal shifts of this magnitude in the group quarters populations because of changes in occupancy in student housing, elderly group housing, and inmate populations at various times of year.

Age: As is true of most rural communities throughout the state, Butte County has become an attractive location for retirement. In 1980, 29 percent of the population was over 62 years of age. The attraction of retirees to Butte County is not a new phenomenon, as is particularly evident in the City of Paradise, which in 1980 had a median age of 46.5 years. Senior citizens (over 62 years) represent 33.8 percent of this City's population, and Paradise contains almost 30 percent of all County residents over age 62. Although the City of Paradise still contains many elderly persons (34.4% of City's population in 1990), the percentage of elderly persons in the County has decreased significantly since 1980.

In 1990, the Census Bureau reported that 20,285, or 20.6 percent of the population, were over 62 years of age or more in unincorporated Butte County. The Census Bureau reported 36,683 persons, 20.1 percent of the population, county-wide over 62 years of age in 1990.

This younger population county-wide reflects a shift in the average age of residents migrating into the County and an increase in child-bearing.

A net in-migration of younger households and families into the County would coincide with the statewide trend of younger households migrating out of highly urbanized areas. The population age characteristics for both the unincorporated area and county-wide are shown in Table H-3.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 3 AGE OF POPULATION Butte County - 1990
Age in Years	Unincorporated County Number % of Total	Total County Number % of Total
Under 5 years	6,708 6.8%	12,336 6.8%
5 to 9 years	7,530 7.7%	13,073 7.1%
10 to 14 years	6,786 6.9%	11,389 6.3%
15 to 19 years	5,930 6.1%	12,549 6.9%
20 to 24 years	6,438 6.5%	18,644 10.2%
25 to 29 years	6,367 6.4%	13,149 7.3%
30 to 34 years	7,265 7.3%	13,212 7.2%
35 to 39 years	7,702 7.9%	13,340 7.3%
40 to 44 years	7,137 7.2%	11,946 6.5%
45 to 49 years	5,429 5.5%	8,810 4.9%
50 to 54 years	4,406 4.4%	6,988 3.8%
55 to 59 years	4,503 4.6%	6,920 3.8%
60 to 64 years	5,329 5.4%	8,328 4.6%
65 to 69 years	6,014 6.2%	9,779 5.3%
70 to 74 years	4,871 4.9%	8,545 4.7%
75 years and over	6,046 6.2%	13,112 7.3%
Total	98,461 100.0%	182,120 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Ethnic Characteristics: In 1980, 7.2 percent of County residents in the unincorporated area defined themselves as racial or ethnic minorities. Of this figure, 1.2 percent were Black, 1.8 percent Native American, and 0.9 percent Asian-Pacific Islander. Persons of Spanish origin represented 5.3 percent of the total unincorporated population, but due to revised reporting practices, this figure is not comparable to the other percentages. (See Table H-4).

The most recent data reveals that Spanish-speaking households comprise 1.8 percent of all unincorporated area households and are located primarily in the non-urban areas of the County. Black households comprise 1.9 percent of all unincorporated urban areas.

In El Medio, an unincorporated area abutting the southern boundary of the City of Oroville, almost 16 percent (225) of the households are Black. This community contains 49 percent of all Black households in the unincorporated portions of the County.

In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 8,182, 8.3 percent, of the persons in the unincorporated area defined themselves as members of racial or ethnic minority groups. This is a slight increase from 1980. Of this figure, 1.3 percent were Black, 2.2 percent Native American, 2.0 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, and 3.5 percent defined themselves as other.

Even though the percentage of Asian-Pacific Islanders has more than doubled since 1980, the overall minority population is relatively small in Butte County. This is typical of most rural foothill and mountain counties in California.

In 1990, the total number of persons of hispanic origin was 7,106, or 7.8 percent of the total unincorporated area population. This is an increase from the 5.3 percent reported in 1980. The table below shows ethnic characteristics in both the unincorporated and total County in 1990.

TABLE H - 4 ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS Butte County - 1990
Ethnic Characteristics	Unincorporated County Number % of Total	Total County Number % of Total
White	90,269 91.7%	165,200 90.7%
Black	1,182 1.3%	2,361 1.3%
Mexican Indian, Eskimo or Aleut	2,021 2.0%	3,241 1.8%
Asian or Pacific Islander	1,823 1.8%	5,170 2.8%
Other Race	3,166 3.2%	6,148 3.4%
Total	98,461 100.0%	182,120 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Overcrowding: A common measure used to calculate the number of families which are inadequately housed is the extent of overcrowding (defined as by the state and federal governments as 1.01 or more persons per room). Overcrowding is considered by most housing experts to be harmful to the physical and mental well-being of the occupants.

The extent of overcrowding is directly related to the average number of persons per household. Specifically, household sizes increases at the same time that housing costs rise relative to income, the degree of overcrowding is likely to increase. Overcrowding is also directly related to the average number of rooms per dwelling. Clearly, if large housing units are being built, while household size is decreasing, the extent of overcrowding will decrease.

A comparison of the 1970, 1975 and 1980 Censuses indicated that the average County household size decreased from 2.8 to 2.6 to 2.25 persons. At the same time, the median size of dwelling units fluctuated between 4.7 and 5.2 rooms. These facts point to the probability that the proportion of overcrowded households has decreased. The number of overcrowded households increased, however, due to the large increase in the County's population.

The 1980 Census reported that the percentage of overcrowded households in the County had decreased from 6.9 percent in 1970 to 3.5 percent in 1980. The 3.5 percent figure, however, includes the number of overcrowded households in the entire County. The rate of overcrowding in the unincorporated area was 4.2% in 1980.

Table H-5 shows the rate of overcrowding for the entire County, each of the five incorporated cities within the County, and the resulting rate of overcrowding for the unincorporated County.

In 1990, the total number of overcrowded households in Butte County increased from 2,005 to 3,628. The percent of overcrowded households also increased, from 3.5 percent in 1980 to 5.1 percent in 1990. The total number of overcrowded households in the unincorporated County also increased, from 1,278 (4.2%) in 1980 to 1,910 (4.9%) in 1990. The reversal of the trend of overcrowding during the 1970s suggests that many families experienced difficulties during the 1980s in finding affordable housing of adequate size. The increase in the percentage of overcrowded households coincided with an increase in housing costs relative to family incomes.

With the incidence of overcrowding increasing county-wide during the last ten years, evidence exists that many minority and student households in live in overcrowded conditions. Farm worker housing in Gridley contains many eight- to nine-person households in two and three bedroom units. The Human Resources Corporation in Chico reports an average household size of 7.125 persons. Both the City of Chico and California State University, Chico believe that the proportion of students "doubling up" has also increased.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 5 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS - MORE THAN 1.01 PERSONS PER ROOM County of Butte - 1990
Area	Owner	Renter	Total	% of all Households	Change from 1980
Butte County	1,217	2,411	3,628	5.1%	45.7%
Biggs City	22	25	47	9.0%	95.6%
Chico City	100	634	734	4.7%	88.0%
Gridley City	92	101	193	1.2%	75.0%
Oroville City	51	360	411	9.1%	279.2%
Paradise Town	129	204	333	3.0%	20.0%
Butte County (unincorporated)	820	1,090	1,910	4.7%	11.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990.

Housing Unit Size: As mentioned previously, there has been an increase in dwelling unit size in the County. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, there was an average of 4.7 rooms per household. The table below shows the distribution of housing units throughout the County by number of rooms per unit.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 6 HOUSING UNIT SIZE County of Butte (Unincorporated) - 1980
Number of Rooms	Number of Housing Units	Percent
1 Room	513	1.5%
2 Rooms	1,684	5.1%
3 Rooms	3,163	9.5%
4 Rooms	7,915	23.7%
5 Rooms	9,605	28.8%
6 or More Rooms	10,497	31.4%
Total	33,377	100.0%

Note: Median 4.7 rooms per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980.

In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the number of housing units with one to three bedrooms decreased in the unincorporated area since 1980. As Table H-7 shows, the percentage of one to three bedroom housing units decreased to 14.8 percent from 16.1 percent of the housing stock in 1980. Although more three- and four-bedroom housing units were constructed in the unincorporated area since 1980, these units were not affordable to many large families and did not alleviate overcrowding.

TABLE H - 7 HOUSING UNIT SIZE County of Butte (Unincorporated) 1990
Numbers of Rooms	Number of Housing Units	Percent
1 Room	555	1.3%
2 Rooms	2,011	4.9%
3 Rooms	3,513	8.6%
4 Rooms	8,403	20.5%
5 Rooms	11,245	27.4%
6 Rooms	8,559	20.9%
7 Rooms	3,780	9.2%
8 or More Rooms	2,932	7.2%
Total	40,998	100.0%

Note: Median 5.5 rooms per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Household Size: The average household size in the unincorporated area of Butte County has dropped from 2.8 persons per household in 1970 to 2.25 persons per household in 1980. The Census Bureau in 1990 reported that the average household sized increased to 2.48 persons per household, the same average size estimated by the Department of Finance in 1992. The Department of Finance reported that there were 2.56 persons per household in unincorporated Butte County 1992. The Census and Department of Finance data suggest that the trend toward smaller household sizes has actually reversed, at least temporarily, as more families have children. Statewide data suggest that first generation immigrant families, on the average, do have more children and larger households sizes than second or third generation Californians.

Table H-8 shows the 1990 distribution in the County. The number of persons increased in each category except for households of 6 or more persons, which decreased from 1,087 households in 1980 to 907 households in 1990.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 8 HOUSEHOLD SIZE County of Butte (Unincorporated) - 1990 Households
Persons in Unit	Owners	Renters	Total	Percent
1 Person	5,547	2,973	8,520	22.1%
2 Persons	11,988	3,401	15,389	39.9%
3 Persons	3,884	1,947	5,831	15.1%
4 Persons	3,619	1,556	5,175	13.5%
5 or more Persons	2,364	1,261	3,625	9.4%
Total			38,540	100.0%

Note: Average, Occupied Units: 2.48 Persons Per Household Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Large Households: The 1980 Census indicated that approximately 10 percent of the households in the unincorporated County area were large households (five or more persons). About 31 percent of the dwelling units in the unincorporated area have six or more rooms (three or more bedrooms). A family of five or six persons could be housed without being overcrowded in a dwelling unit with three bedrooms. Families of seven or more persons, however, would need dwelling units with four or more bedrooms.

In 1990 the Census reported 3,625 large households (five or more persons) in the unincorporated area. Approximately 37 percent (37.3%) of the dwelling units in the unincorporated area have six or more rooms, an increase of 6 percent from 1980. Together, these two statistics could indicate that the County has an adequate supply to meet the demand of large households.

The Census reported 6,222 large households county-wide, approximately 8.7 percent of all households. Large households are slightly more common in the unincorporated area 9.3%. Table H-9 shows the household size in the unincorporated area and county-wide in 1990.

There is no shortage in the number of housing units of sufficient size to accommodate large families. This comparison of household sizes with the number of rooms does not explain, however, the extent to which large families are actually able to afford and occupy dwelling units with enough space to meet their needs. The County would need to request a special Census run to determine the percentage of income devoted to housing by income group for large families and the number of rooms in dwelling units occupied by large families to make this direct comparison. It is highly likely that many large families do not have enough income to afford dwelling units of sufficient size to meet their needs (although there is no way quantify this assumption without a special Census run). It would be difficult to explain, otherwise, why so many households remain overcrowded in the presence of an adequate supply of housing.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 9 HOUSEHOLD SIZE Butte County - 1990
Household Size	Unincorporated County	Total County
Family Households	t	t
2 Persons	13,384 34.9%	22,640 31.6%
3 Persons	5,428 14.1%	9,331 13.0%
4 Persons	4,908 12.8%	8,149 11.4%
5 Persons	2,114 5.6%	3,594 5.0%
6 Persons	895 2.3%	1,422 2.0%
7 or more Persons	551 1.4%	989 1.4%
Non-Family Households	t	t
1 Person	8,340 21.8%	18,182 25.5%
2 Persons	2,005 5.2%	4,691 6.5%
3 Persons	403 1.1%	1,317 1.8%
4 Persons	267 0.7%	1,133 1.6%
5 Persons	45 0.1%	148 0.2%
6 Persons	12 ---	39 ---
7 or more Persons	8 ---	30 ---
Total	38,360 100.0%	71,665 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

In 1985, the Department of Finance, Population Research Division developed population projections for the County through the year 2000. These projections were based on the historical trend of decreasing household size and less than optimal employment forecasts. The projections for Butte County's average household size are as follows (The 1990 projection is based on the U.S. Census Bureau Summary Tape File 1):

1985 2.40 persons per household

1990 2.55 persons per household (1990 U.S. Census)

1995 2.38 persons per household

2000 2.36 persons per household

In light of more recent population trends, the Department of Finance may need to revise its assumptions prior to updating its population forecast.

Income: Among households in the unincorporated county area, 36.9 percent, (8,904 households), have incomes of less than 80% of the median Butte County median income. These households are considered to have low or very low incomes by state and federal definitions.

Several communities in the County have even larger populations of very low-income people. The Chapmantown (southeastern Chico) and El Medio (South Oroville) areas are chief among these communities. A 1980 door-to-door survey of the Chapmantown neighborhood found that 83.5 percent of all households in the area had annual incomes below 80 percent of the County median income. In 1978, the median annual income of Chapmantown households was $4,129.24, approximately one-half the County median income. Median income rose to $8,105 by 1980, but was still only 62 percent of the $13,012 County median.

The El Medio community has similar income characteristics. Almost 80 percent of all households in this area are low income.

Butte County has traditionally had a median income that is substantially below that of the state - generally $2,000 or $3,000 less. In 1980, for purposes of their Section 8 programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reported a median income of $14,700 for Butte County compared to a "non-metropolitan" median of $18,600. Butte County's median income in 1990 still lagged substantially from the statewide median. The $22,776 reported by the Census was only 64% of the statewide average of $35,798 in 1990. Table H-10 shows the income distribution reported by the Census Bureau in 1990.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 10 BUTTE INCOME 1990
Income	Households	Percent	Families	Percent	Income Groups
$ 0- 4,999	4,165	5.8%	1,529	3.3%	t
$ 5,000-9,999	9,717	13.5%	3,461	7.4%	t
$ 10,000-12,499	4,808	6.7%	2,500	5.4%	Very Low = $11,388
$ 15,000-14,999	4,573	6.4%	2,735	5.9%	t
$ 15,000-17,499	4,244	5.9%	2,443	5.2%	t
$ 17,500-19,999	3,875	5.4%	2,395	5.1%	Low = $18,211
$ 20,000-22,499	4,151	5.8%	2,797	6.0%	t
$ 22,500-24,999	3,227	4.6%	2,339	5.0%	t
$ 25,000-27,499	3,489	4.9%	2,424	5.2%	Moderate = $27,331
$ 27,500-29,999	3,043	4.2%	2,252	4.8%	t
$ 30,000-32,499	3,239	4.5%	2,462	5.3%	t
$32,500-34,999	2,178	3.0%	1,736	3.7%	t
$ 35,000-37,499	2,514	3.5%	1,910	4.1%	t
$ 37,500-39,999	1,669	2.3%	1,330	2.8%	t
$ 40,000-42,499	2,094	2.9%	1,767	3.8%	t
$ 42,500-44,999	1,351	1.9%	1,152	2.5%	t
$ 45,000-47,499	1,729	2.4%	1,420	3.0%	t
$ 47,500-49,999	1,064	1.5%	964	2.1%	t
$ 50,000-54,999	2,112	2.9%	1,781	3.8%	t
$ 55,000-59,999	1,666	2.3%	1,453	3.1%	t
$ 60,000-74,999	3,244	4.5%	2,773	5.9%	t
$ 75,000-99,999	1,895	2.6%	1,665	3.6%	t
$ 100,000 or More	1,731	2.4%	1,424	3.0%	tt
t	Median Income	t	Average Income	t	t
Butte County	$22,776	t	$30,168	t	t
Biggs	$21,694	t	$25,425	t	t
Chico	$19,005	t	$26,476	t	t
Gridley	$19,375	t	$23,522	t	t
Oroville	$16,614	t	$21,866	t	t
Paradise	$22,954	t	$29,072	t	t

Notes: Income bracket shown in bold represents the very low-income level, which was $11,388 in 1990.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Employment: The primary economic base of the County has traditionally been in agriculture and manufacturing. Recently, however, services and trade industries have contributed more to employment growth than agriculture and manufacturing. The occupational outlook for Butte County, as well as surrounding counties, is that skilled jobs will increase in the near future, gradually replacing the need for workers who rely on physical effort.

The implications of this within the housing market will be subtle and meaningful in the years to come. Although "professional" occupations will increase, the service industry will contribute more substantially to the County's job growth. Service occupations include the preparation and serving of food and drink, custodial work, retail sales, health services, personal services, and domestic services. The growth in services jobs is fueled by the overall increase in population, particularly among retirees and near-retirees. These jobs tend to be low-paying and tend to be associated with a higher percentage of low-income households.

However, the high rate of unemployment in Butte County may counterbalance this trend. The County continues to suffer from the lack of a strong economic base. In March 1980, the unemployment rate in Butte County was 10.9 percent, compared to a state rate of 6.0 percent. By 1982, unemployment swelled to 14.7 percent.

The economic recession across the country in 1980 and 1981 has been felt in Butte County where job losses have been experienced in both the building and lumber industries. Poor weather in 1981 and 1982 also contributed to the high unemployment rate.

In determining the future labor force and employment trends, two main sources were used: 1990 Census data and Employment Development Department's (EDD) "Annual Planning Information."

For projection purposes a constant 10 percent unemployment rate was assumed. According to the 1990 California Employment Development Department's (EDD) "Annual Planning Information", actual unemployment rates may vary from year to year.

EDD made projections based on a 1989 historical unemployment rate for Butte County of 7.9 percent, for example.

EDD projects a total employment within the County of 63,275 by the year 1993. This is an increase of 16,625 jobs from 1980, an increase of 5,950 jobs from 1988. According to the EDD, the bulk of this projected growth in jobs will be mainly the result of a growing population. According to the EDD report, the five-year forecast of wage and salary employment by industry for Butte County calls for growth, in spite of minimal increases in agriculture, a sluggish wholesale trade industry, job losses in transportation and public utilities, and the depressed state of the County's lumber and wood industry. EDD's projections for the 1993-96 period could be very different if the present recession persists into 1993.

Employment increases in Butte County through 1993 and beyond will be driven by population growth. The expanding population will keep the demand high for new housing; retail goods; and health, business, automotive, and personal services. More residents in Butte County will mean more children in the public schools, which will raise the demand for more teachers and other school related staff.

The EDD projections for employment in the unincorporated County are shown below.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Housing Affordability: The relationship of the cost of housing and the ability of residents to afford housing is a primary concern in the examination of any housing market. Until recently, a common standard has existed in gauging the percentage of income that should be allotted for housing expenditures: households paying more than 25 percent of income were considered to be "overpaying" for housing. Such a simple rule, applied during the relatively stable period of housing costs during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, made sense.

The "25 percent rule" became less relevant as household characteristics and housing financing began to change rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. New developments in the housing market are changing this common rule of housing affordability. The increasing price of housing, and, more recently, new mortgage instruments for financing a housing purchase, have changed the housing cost-to-income equation.

The reality of the 1990s is that the percentage of income that households can reasonably devote to housing expenses depends on household characteristics (i.e., single, married, or with children), the level of income (very low, low, moderate, etc.), and whether a household is a renter or a homeowner. A "reasonable" percentage of income devoted to housing expenses could range from as little as 15 percent of income (for a large, renter family at the poverty level, for example) to as much as 50 percent of pre-tax income (for a single, above moderate-income homeowner with no other long-term debts). In fact, many households in California pay 35 to 40 percent or more of their incomes for housing expenses.

Greater personal expenditure for housing is, in fact, one of the first adjustments made, as housing prices and financing mechanisms change.

TABLE H - 11 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS BY INDUSTRY County of Butte - 1980-1993
t	t	Residents	t
Industry	1980	1988 1993	1990*
Total, all Industries	46,650	57,325 63,275	70,880
Total Non-Agriculture	43,450	54,075 59,950	66,534
Mining & Construction	2,175	2,575 3,100	5,307
Manufacturing	4,100	5,450 5,550	7,120
Transportation & Public Utilities	2,625	2,475 2,350	3,809
Wholesale Trade	2,100	1,725 1,725	1,964
Retail Trade	9,775	12,975 14,800	14,319
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	1,950	2,800 2,975	4,103
Services	9,150	13,925 16,400	17,184
Government	11,575	12,125 13,050	12,728

* Job categories of employed civilian Butte County residents. The number of employed residents is higher than the number of jobs in Butte County as more county residents commute to work in other counties than commute to work in Butte County from other counties. Source: California Employment Development Department, 1990, U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

It is difficult at this time to establish criteria for an acceptable ratio of housing expense to household income. The flexible rate mortgage instrument, with no cap on interest rates, will make it difficult for any household making a housing purchase to predict or control the amount of their housing payment. Although no community standard for affordability can be set forth in the present environment of change, it can be said that in the future, Butte County households will spend more for housing. A conservative estimate would be a range of 30 percent to 40 percent of income is the maximum that most household could afford to pay for housing, depending on household income and lifestyle.

Most state and federal programs now use a 30 percent ratio of income-to-housing expenditures as the measure of affordability. Households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing expenses are considerate to be "overpaying" for housing.

An evaluation of the extent to which Butte County households are overpaying for housing can only be done using past standards and data that is available. For households residing in the unincorporated County, the relationship of household incomes to housing costs between 1975 and 1990 has been summarized below. The number of households in four categories of household income is compared to the housing supply, divided into four groups by its affordability, using the "25 percent rule" of affordability for 1975 and 1980. The "30 percent rule" is used in the 1990 part of Table H-12.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 12 RELATIONSHIP OF HOUSEHOLD INCOMES TO HOUSING COSTS Butte County (Unincorporated) - 1975, 1980, 1990
1975 Income Categories	0-$4,170	$4,171-$6,672	$6,673-$10,008	$10,009+
% of County Median	0-50%	50-80%	80-120%	120%
Number of Households	5,069	3,835	4,025	11,254
Housing Cost Categories	0-$87	$88-$139	$140-$208	$290+
Number of Units	4,425	4,232	5,465	10,060
1980 Income Categories	0-$6,506	$6,507-$10,409	$10,410-$15,614	$15,615+
Number of Households	7,801	4,838	6,688	12,550
Housing Cost Categories	0-$135	$136-$216	$217-$325	$326+
Number of Units*	812	2,236	3,113	1,362
1990 Income Categories	0-$11,388	$11,389-$18,221	$18,222-$27,331	$27,332+
% of County Median	0-50%	50-80%	80-120%	120%
Approx # of Households	8,312	6,558	5,894	17,620
Housing Cost Categories	0-$285	$286-$455	$456-$683	$684+
Approx # of Units	6,970	5,370	7,910	18,110

Note: *Only includes rental units. Sources: 1975 Special Census, Butte County; U.S. Census Bureau, 1980, 1990.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

According to the information in Table H-12, there are not as many housing units affordable to lower-income households (those with incomes below 80 percent of the County median) as there are households in this income category.

Table H-12 supports the hypothesis that overpaying for housing occurs primarily among low-income households, but the data are to limited to compare precisely the supply of housing affordable to each income group.

The 1980 and 1990 Censuses contain the most recent data on income devoted to housing expenses. The Census Bureau reported that 58 percent of all renter households in Butte County in 1980 paid more than 25 percent of their income for rent, up from 39 percent of all renters in 1978. In comparison, only 27.2 percent of all homeowners paid more than 25 percent of their income to housing costs in 1980, down from 27.65 percent in 1970.

According to the 1990 Census, 4,723 (26%) owners and 6,188 renters (64%) in the unincorporated county area paid more than 25% of their income for housing. The percent of owner households paying 25% or more of their income for housing has declined slightly, while the percentage of renters paying 25% or more for housing has increased substantially.

This difference in trends between owners and renters is probably explained by the difference in mobility between the two groups, and the greater affluence of home owners. Home owners do not move as frequently as renters, so their housing expenses do not rise as quickly. Conversely, rents in Butte County have risen faster than renter incomes.

Since 1980, a 30% of income-to-housing-expenses standard had become the most common measure of "overpayment." According to the 1990 Census, 3207 (18%) home owners in the unincorporated county area, and 4,999 (51%) renters paid more than 30% of their income for housing expenses.

In most regions of the state, the proportion of households devoting overly large percentages of their incomes to housing expenses is particularly high among low-income renter households and tends to be exacerbated by higher housing costs in cities. Butte County is no exception to this statewide phenomenon. Of the estimated 15,140 lower-income households in Butte County who paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing expenses in 1990, 2,940 were homeowners and 12,220 were renters. While more low-income homeowners paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing lived in the unincorporated area than in the cities (1,560 of 2,940), only one-third of low-income renters (4,280 of 12,200) paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing lived in the unincorporated area. The total number of low-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing expenses represented 39 percent of low-income households.

Female Heads of Households: In 1980, almost 12 percent of all families in the County were headed by women. The percentage of female-headed families whose incomes were below poverty level was 27 percent. Statewide, families headed by women have become an increasingly more common occurrence and thus are an important population group to analyze. Households headed by women tend to have lower incomes, which in turn requires an additional need for child care, transportation, and affordable housing.

In 1990, there were 4,955 female-headed households with children. These female-headed family households represented seven percent of the total households in the County. In the unincorporated area there were 2,372 female-headed households with children, or six percent of the total households in the unincorporated County. Single mothers have the highest poverty rate, as a group, of any population group. The 1990 Census reported that 53% of children living in single-mother households were below the poverty level. This is a typical pattern across the state, particularly in rural counties, in which between 40% and two-thirds of children of single mothers are impoverished. The rate of impoverishment of children of single mothers age five and under is especially alarming--nearly 70%

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 13 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD TYPE Butte County - 1990
Household Size and Type	Unincorporated County Number% of Total	Total County Number % of Total
1 Person	t	t
Male Householder	3,434 9.0%	7,332 10.2%
Female Householder	4,906 12.8%	10,850 15.1%
2 or more Persons	t	t
Family Households	t	t
Married/Couple Family With Related Children	9,032 23.5%	14,963 20.8%
No Related Children	13,464 35.1%	21,835 30.4%
Other Family	t	t
Male Householder, No Wife Present	t	t
W/Related Children	789 2.1%	1,392 1.9%
No Related Children	524 1.4%	951 1.3%
Female Householder, No Husband Present	t	t
W/ Related Children	2,372 6.2%	4,955 6.9%
No Related Children	1,099 2.8%	2,209 3.1%
Non-Family Households	t	t
Male Householder	1,645 4.3%	4,341 6.1%
Female Householder	1,095 2.8%	3,017 4.2%
Total	38,360 100.0%	71,845 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990. Percentage rounded out to the nearest hundredth.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Housing Stock Characteristics

Determining how well an area's existing housing supply meets the needs of its residents is one of the major purposes of any Housing Element. This determination is the foundation for an analysis of local government policies and actions needed to bring the housing supply into conformity with the housing needs of the population.

Before unmet housing needs can be accurately determined, however, a thorough inventory of housing characteristics and development trends must be made. This section contains such an inventory of unincorporated Butte County's housing supply.

Housing Stock: The 1980 Census reported 31,579 housing units within the unincorporated area. The most common type of dwelling in the unincorporated area is the single-family home, which accounted for approximately 65 percent of all dwelling units in 1980. Approximately 14 percent of the 1980 unincorporated area housing stock was composed of multifamily units in structures of two or more units.

In 1990, the Census reported 40,998 housing units in the unincorporated county area. Single-family homes, still the most common type of housing unit, accounted for 60.8 percent of all housing units in the unincorporated County. In the total County, single family homes accounted for 58.0 percent (44,182) of the 76,115 housing units in the County. Multifamily structures in the unincorporated County has decreased as a percentage of the total from 14 percent in 1980 to 10.4 percent in 1990.

The Department of Finance reported 42,701 dwelling units in the unincorporated county area as of January 1, 1992. Of the total number of dwelling units, 27,011 (63.3%) were single family units, 4,822 (11.2%) were multifamily units, and 10,868 (25.5%) were mobilehomes. Since 1980, it appears that more single family dwelling units and mobilehomes have been constructed or located within the unincorporated county area, and relatively fewer multifamily dwelling units have been constructed.

Mobilehomes have increased throughout the County at a greater rate than any other housing type. They are now the predominant type of new housing in Butte County. While the actual number of new mobilehomes in non-urban areas is low, the number of these units in relation to other types of housing is very high. Mobilehomes account for approximately 21 percent of all housing units in the unincorporated county area. In 1983, mobilehomes accounted for 31.5 percent of all new dwelling units.

The growth in the number of mobilehomes in the unincorporated County continued through the 1980s as the Census reported that 10,374 units (25.3%) were mobilehomes or trailers, an increase of 4 percent since 1980. The growth of mobilehomes then is not primarily a urban phenomenon. County-wide, mobilehomes comprise only 17.7 percent of the total housing stock.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Age: The median age of all dwelling units in 1977 was 15.7 years for the unincorporated community of Paradise, and 16.5 years for the rest of the unincorporated area. For the unincorporated area excluding Paradise, less than half of all units were constructed prior to July 1960. Dwelling units built before 1939 accounted for 14.8 percent of the total housing supply. The median age of all units in 1980 was 17 years, and for the unincorporated area the median age was 16. Because of rapid growth in the unincorporated area over the past twenty-five years, its housing stock is relatively new. Even so, there are 11,107 dwelling units in the unincorporated county area that are over thirty years old, about one-in-four dwelling units. These dwelling units are the most likely to require repair or rehabilitation.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Housing Conditions: Since 1980, there was no current, reliable source of information regarding the condition of housing in the unincorporated area. (The 1980 Census did not include information on substandard or dilapidated housing.) Although the 1975 Special Census collected data on housing conditions, subsequent surveys of individual communities within the County have proven that the 1975 Census seriously undercounts the extent of blighted housing conditions.

According to the 1975 count, housing units in the unincorporated area, excluding Paradise, that failed to meet local standards of health and safety (i.e., that are substandard) totalled 7.2 percent of all units. Dilapidated units comprised 0.7 percent of the unincorporated County housing supply, while substandard units capable of rehabilitation accounted for 6.5 percent of all units. Although these percentages for substandard housing are low, they are derived from the only county-wide survey of housing conditions since the 1970 Census. They have, therefore, been used in the analysis of housing needs as minimum estimates only.

The areas with the highest concentration of unsound housing in the unincorporated area are Chapmantown, which abuts the southeastern boundary of the City of Chico, and El Medio, located on the southern border of the City of Oroville.

A 1983 survey of Chapmantown indicated 46 percent of all housing units need rehabilitation or are beyond repair. The El Medio community has areas where as much as 80 percent of all dwelling units are in need of rehabilitation.

To remedy substandard housing conditions in these two neighborhoods, Butte County has applied for and received nearly $4 million in funding under various state and federal programs since 1975 for housing rehabilitation. Between 1980 to 1985, the County rehabilitated approximately 70 dwelling units, largely with Community Development Block Grant funds. Between 1986 and July 1992, the County has rehabilitated another 68 dwelling units, with ten additional rehabilitation applications pending.

Because of the extent of physical blight and the high levels of poverty and unemployment in the Chapmantown and South Oroville communities, the County will continue to designate these as project areas for its Community Development Block Grant program.

In 1990, Connerly & Associates, Inc., completed an updated housing conditions survey in Chapmantown, El Medio, and other unincorporated communities with a substantial number of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation. The results show that 104 of the 1,418 (7.3%) households surveyed were dilapidated and not suitable for rehabilitation. Table H-14 summarizes the survey results for Chapmantown and El Medio.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 14 HOUSING CONDITIONS County of Butte (Unincorporated) - 1990
Housing Unit	Sound	Minor	Moderate	Subst.	Dilapidated	Total
Chapmantown	t	t	t	t	t	t
Single-Family	479	29	22	19	45	594
Multifamily	105	0	0	0	0	105
Total	584	29	22	19	45	699
El Medio	t	t	t	t	t	t
Single-Family	526	51	39	13	55	684
Multifamily	9	4	6	12	4	35
Total	535	55	45	25	59	719
Butte County Total	t	t	t	t	t	t
Single-Family	1,005	80	61	32	100	1,278
Multifamily	114	4	6	12	4	140
Total	1,119	84	67	44	104	1,418

Source: Connerly & Associates, Inc., 1990.

Although Chapmantown and El Medio have the highest concentration of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation and replacement, there are other communities with substantial numbers of such dwelling units, as well. Connerly & Associates, Inc. also surveyed 1,776 dwelling units in Dayton, Durham, Feather Falls, Forbestown, Honcut, Nelson, Nord, Palermo, Pulga, Richvale, Stirling City, and Thermalito.

The consultant found 405 substandard dwelling units in these communities, of which 359 needed rehabilitation and 46 needed replacement, 23 percent of the total number of dwelling units.

Although the survey results show that 22 percent of the housing in the communities surveyed are substandard, it is likely that housing conditions in the unincorporated county area are better, overall, than in the communities surveyed. The consultant specifically excluded subdivisions that had been constructed within the past twenty years from its survey. The actual need for rehabilitation in the unincorporated county area will be between the 7.2 percent figure cited in the 1975 Special Census, and the 22 percent found in the 1990 survey of fourteen communities. Based on the age of the housing stock in the unincorporated county area, the overall housing conditions found in the 1975 Special Census, and the results of the 1990 survey in fourteen communities, a reasonable estimate of the total proportion of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation in the unincorporated County area is ten percent (4,300 dwelling units), and the proportion of dwelling units in need of replacement is one percent (430 dwelling units).

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Housing Rents and Values: The market price of single-family homes in the County has risen dramatically in the past several years, a trend experienced by prospective home buyers in every jurisdiction of the state. While housing development costs, such as labor, material, and land are certainly on the rise, the asking price for homes is also dependent on market demand.

There are a sufficient number of buyers in the County who can pay over $70,000 (the maximum price that a low-income Butte County family of three could afford in 1992) for a single family home to justify this price level or more. Obviously, market conditions have excluded a substantial proportion of lower- and moderate-income families from purchasing a home in Butte County.

A special study conducted in early 1984 focused on county-wide housing rental and sales price averages. The average price for a three-bedroom home in the north County was $93,617 (Chico-Paradise area) and $53,000 in the south County (Oroville area). The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment was $313 per month in the north area and $244 per month in the south area. This study also revealed that mobilehomes sold for an average price of $21,500 in north Butte County and $10,950 in south Butte County. Space in mobilehome parks averaged $97.00 in the north County and $77.00 in the south County.

In 1990, the Chico Board of Realtors reported an average home price in the Chico area of $170,000 for all homes sold, and an average of $70- to $75,000 in the Oroville area for three-bedroom houses. These home prices reflect both the incorporated and unincorporated areas in Chico and Oroville. These prices represent an 82 percent and 37 percent increase in average home prices between 1984 and 1990 in the Chico and Oroville areas.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported a median housing unit value of $94,000 in the County in 1990. The median for the unincorporated County reported by the Census Bureau, was $96,000. The results are shown in Table H-15.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 15 HOUSING UNIT VALUE Butte County - 1990
Housing Unit Value	Unincorporated County Number % of Total	Total County Number % of Total
Less than $15,000	116 0.7%	190 0.7%
$15,000 to $19,999	77 0.5%	109 0.4%
$20,000 to $24,999	106 0.7%	172 0.6%
$25,000 to $29,999	140 0.9%	201 0.7%
$30,000 to $34,999	210 1.3%	332 1.1%
$35,000 to $39,999	239 1.5%	393 1.3%
$40,000 to $44,999	315 1.9%	619 2.1%
$45,000 to $49,999	498 3.0%	888 3.1%
$50,000 to $59,999	1,330 8.1%	2,423 8.3%
$60,000 to $74,999	2,104 12.8%	4,089 14.0%
$75,000 to $99,999	3,637 22.2%	6,844 23.4%
$100,000 to $124,999	2,414 14.7%	4,610 15.8%
$125,000 to $149,999	1,894 11.6%	3,347 11.5%
$150,000 to $174,999	1,183 7.2%	1,931 6.6%
$175,000 to $199,999	664 4.1%	1,048 3.6%
$200,000 to $249,999	755 4.6%	1,074 3.7%
$250,000 to $299,999	387 2.4%	546 1.9%
$300,000 to $399,999	220 1.3%	302 1.1%
$400,000 to 499,999	51 0.3%	67 0.2%
$500,000 to more	35 0.2%	51 0.2%
Total	16,372 100.0%	29,236 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Between 1981-1983, rents increased an average of from 5 to 20 percent. Housing prices in the north County rose from 6 to 17 percent, during the same period. Additional analysis is needed to determine the trends in the south County market.

While some of these prices may seem high compared to the housing market in the County five years ago, they are low when compared to the state.

The 1990 Census Bureau reported a median rent payment of $369 in renter-occupied units in the County. The median rent for renter-occupied units in the unincorporated County was $377. The table below shows the rental payments as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 16 CONTRACT RENT IN SPECIFIED RENTER- OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Butte County - 1990
Payment Value	Unincorporated County Number % of Total	Total County Number % of Total
With Cash Rent	t	t
Less than $100	130 1.3%	286 1.1%
$100 to $149	351 3.4%	1,039 3.8%
$150 to $199	555 5.3%	1,425 5.3%
$200 to $249	808 7.8%	2,225 8.2%
$250 to $299	1,081 10.4%	3,076 11.4%
$300 to $349	1,407 13.5%	3,512 13.0%
$350 to $399	1,577 15.1%	3,873 14.3%
$400 to $449	1,333 12.8%	3,452 12.7%
$450 to $499	844 8.1%	2,200 8.1%
$500 to $549	561 5.4%	1,531 5.7%
$550 to $599	386 3.7%	952 3.5%
$600 to $649	248 2.4%	725 2.7%
$650 to $699	159 1.5%	537 2.0%
$700 to $749	99 1.0%	456 1.6%
$750 to $999	268 2.5%	755 2.8%
$1,000 or more	23 0.2%	95 0.3%
No Cash Rent	584 5.6%	956 3.5%
Total	10,414 100.0%	27,095 100.0%

.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

In comparison to these housing cost increase, the median income in Butte County increased by 75% between 1980 and 1990. Although the overall increase income for the entire population was sufficient to keep pace with the increase in housing costs, it is doubtful that the purchasing power of low-income households was able to keep pace with rising housing costs. The increase in overcrowding and the percentage of households "overpaying" for housing between 1980 and 1990 supports such a hypothesis.

Vacancy Rate: Since 1980, the Department of Finance has reported an increasing level of vacancy in Butte County. The Department estimated the vacancy rate for unincorporated Butte County to be 5.5 percent and 5.1 percent for the incorporated areas, compared to 5.3 percent for the entire County reported by the 1980 Census. In 1983 DOF estimated the vacancy rate for the entire County at about 7.3 percent, the same level as in 1990. Vacancy rates are typically higher in the unincorporated area (8.43 percent in 1990) relative to the incorporated areas (6.11 percent in 1990). Census reports show a lower vacancy rate than the Department of Finance estimates. The difference may be due to a difference in definition of vacant dwelling units.

In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 2,638 vacant housing units in the unincorporated County, a vacancy rate of 6.43 percent. The Census reported 4,450 vacant units in the total County, a vacancy rate of 5.85 percent. Both of these vacancy rates are much lower than estimated by the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance's 1992 estimate of vacant units was 6.43% in the unincorporated county area and 5.83% county-wide. These estimates appear to be very close to the Census Bureau's 1990 report.

The higher vacancy rate reported by the Census and the Department of Finance probably results from the increase in second homes and other dwelling units that are not available for sale or rent. According to the 1990 Census, 60% of all vacant units in Butte County were reported as being held for seasonal use, for migrant workers, as rented or sold and awaiting occupancy, or as "other" vacant. The vacancy rate for dwelling units actually available for sale or rent was only 2.3%. In the unincorporated area in 1990, the Census reported that 436 (16.5%) of the vacant units were available for rent, 186 (7.1%) units were available for sale, and the remaining 2,016 (76.4%) units were reported as other vacant. Vacant units reported as "other" include seasonal housing, second homes, and units that are uninhabitable. The overall vacancy rate of units actually available for sale or rent was about 1.5%. The optimal vacancy rate, assuming 2% for owner-occupied dwelling units and 5% for rental units, is about 3%.

A certain percentage of the variance in vacancy rates during the decade of the 1980s can be attributed to an absorption by the market of units under construction, thus reported vacant, in 1980. The tables below show the vacancy status by unit type for both the unincorporated and total County.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 17 VACANCY RATE STATUS BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County (Unincorporated) - 1990
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Vacant Units	% Vacant
Single-family (Detached)	24,925	1,367	5.5%
Single-family (Attached)	907	52	5.7%
Duplex	894	46	5.1%
3 to 4 units	1,628	59	3.6%
5 to 9 units	466	21	4.5%
10 to 19 units	488	13	2.7%
20 to 49 units	555	12	2.2%
50 or more	236	2	0.8%
Mobilehome or Trailer	10,374	780	7.5%
Other	525	286	54.4%
Total	40,998	2,638	6.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 18 VACANCY RATE STATUS BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNITButte County - 1990
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Vacant Units	% Vacant
Single-family (Detached)	44,182	2,239	5.0%
Single-family (Attached)	2,083	134	6.4%
Duplex	2,441	139	5.7%
3 to 4 units	4,692	197	4.2%
5 to 9 units	2,760	158	5.7%
10 to 19 units	2,359	116	4.9%
20 to 49 units	1,993	66	3.3%
50 or more	1,192	33	2.7%
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Vacant Units	% Vacant
Mobilehome or Trailer	13,486	992	7.3%
Other	927	376	40.5%
Total	76,115	4,450	5.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Tenure: Calculations on numbers of owner- and renter-occupied units in 1970, 1975, 1978 and 1980 indicate that the County percentage of owner-occupied units has increasing very slightly. This may be accounted for by the increases in owner-occupied mobilehomes in the County. As of 1980, 63.8 percent of all units were owner-occupied and 36.2 percent were renter-occupied.

In 1990, the Census reported that in the unincorporated County 27,222 units (70.9%) were owner-occupied and 11,138 units (29.1%) were renter-occupied. The Census reported 43,649 units (60.9%) county-wide that were owner-occupied and 28,016 units (39.1%) that were renter-occupied. Two trends are evident from the Census data: homeownership county-wide declined between 1980 and 1990, while homeownership in the unincorporated area continued to be substantially higher than in the cities. Information on housing tenure is shown in Tables H-19 and H-20.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 19 HOUSEHOLD TENURE BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County (Unincorporated) Owner-Occupied - 1990
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Units	Percentage
Single-family (Detached)	23,558	18,853	49.1%
Single-family (Attached)	855	276	0.7%
Duplex	848	64	0.2%
3 to 4 units	1,569	26	---
5 to 9 units	445	14	---
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Units	Percentage
10 to 19 units	475	12	---
20 to 49 units	543	3	---
50 or more	234	0	---
Mobilehome or Trailer	9,594	7,864	20.6%
Other	239	110	0.3%
Total	38,360	27,222	70.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

TABLE H - 20 HOUSEHOLD TENURE BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT Butte County - Owner-Occupied - 1990
Housing Unit Type	Total Units	Units	Percentage
Single-family (Detached)	41,943	32,391	45.3%
Single-family (Attached)	1,949	532	0.7%
Duplex	2,302	153	0.2%
3 to 4 units	4,495	90	0.1%
5 to 9 units	2,602	52	---
10 to 19 units	2,243	48	---
20 to 49 units	1,927	8	---
50 or more	1,159	0	---
Mobilehome or Trailer	12,494	10,184	14.2%
Other	551	191	0.4%
Total	71,665	43,649	60.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Availability of Land and Services

Land: As a predominantly rural county, Butte County has an abundant supply of land for future development. Attempts to quantify land suited for development are difficult and have only recently been initiated. Two measures of the amount of land available for residential development are presented here. The first is an inventory of both developed and undeveloped residential parcels in the County. This inventory is completed by planning areas in the County; residential parcels within incorporated areas are shown within planning areas as well as separately. This inventory does not list undeveloped parcels by size or by specific zoning, and, thus, does not measure the amount of development that can be accommodated. It provides only a general overview of undeveloped land which has been designated for residential development in Butte County. This inventory reveals that of 13,501 vacant parcels in the County, 13,190 are in unincorporated areas. The most recent estimate of land use designations in the unincorporated area (1989) is that 44,800 acres of approximately 1.1 million acres (four percent) are designated for urban development. Forestry accounts for 34 percent of the acreage, agriculture 47 percent, recreation six percent, and wetlands and other designation nine percent.

This listing is supplemented by an analysis of the residential holding capacity of Butte County as designated by land uses in the General Plan. This inventory lists the number of acres zoned for all uses within separate areas of the County, and estimated the number of dwelling units that can be accommodated in each area. The inventory concludes with a summary of the holding capacity of the County, in terms of both dwelling units and population. An ultimate population of 968,153 is determined based on land use designations of the General Plan.

While land zoned for residential development is plentiful in Butte County, not all sites are adequately served by the public facilities which are necessary to accommodate a residential use. In January 1981, the Butte County Development Services Department prepared a report summarizing the availability of public facilities to serve new development. The Development Services Department updated this report in 1984. There have been no additional community sewer systems developed since 1984, with the exception of a small system in Villa Verona. The following information on sewer and water system capacities is current as of 1992.

A critical factor confronting the housing industry in many housing markets, especially in California, is the availability of land suitable for residential development. The absence, or shortage, of housing sites contributes greatly to the gross imbalance that frequently exists between housing supply and market demand.

While a constraint, this factor is less of a constraint in Butte County than in other more developed areas of the state.

Data presented in earlier demonstrates that residential land use designations under the County's General Plan will allow an ultimate residential population of 968,153, which is over six times the present population of the County. At current rates, the General Plan will accommodate 62 years of growth. The estimated acreage in the County's residential land use designations are as follows:

Urban Areas All Other Areas

Agricultural Residential 40,660 141,400

Low Density Residential 26,960 3,900

Medium Density Residential 9,673 650

High Density Residential 1,770 -0-

These totals include both acreage that is developed and undeveloped. Unfortunately, the County's present efforts to inventory the land supply do not go beyond this level of specificity. However, in terms of population, it may be said that the County has achieved 15 percent of its holding capacity. This provides some picture of the amount of remaining residential land available. The Agricultural Residential land use is included in the previously cited 47 percent of the land designated for agricultural use. The other three residential categories are part of the 44,800 acres previously cited as designated for urban development.

Higher residential densities will reduce the rate of land consumption. It is also important to emphasize that it will not be necessary to commit presently rural or undeveloped lands to residential uses, in all instances, to satisfy projected housing needs. The assessment of required acres takes into consideration that land already committed to residential development or other urban uses may be developed through "infilling" or redevelopment techniques. Although it is virtually impossible to forecast the extent to which such techniques will contribute to satisfying the need for residential sites, preliminary studies indicate that the impact of such techniques could be significant. For example, in the Chapmantown and El Medio communities alone, it is conservatively estimated that an approximate 20 net acres could be aggregated, through the neighborhood redevelopment and "infilling" for residential development. The County's community development program has already demonstrated the feasibility of using these techniques in these specific neighborhoods.

More detailed information on land uses and land capacity is included in Table 1, Chapter 1 of the Butte County General Plan Background Report. Table 1 is reproduced below, with the corresponding zoning densities for the General Plan categories and the estimated number of dwelling units that could be produced at the mid-range of the allowed density for each category without a density bonus. As discussed below, the lack of public water and sewer systems, and other public facilities, in most of the unincorporated areas of the County constrains development to four dwelling units per acre or less.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 21 BUTTE COUNTY VACANT LAND USE INVENTORY (ACRES) (Acreage rounded to Nearest Whole Acre)
t	t	Within Sphere of Influence				t
Gen. Plan	Ag Res Acres	(0-.4) Units	LDR Acres	(1-6) Units	MDR Acres	(7.13) Units
Chico	377	75	638	1,914	56	560
Gridley	48	10	213	639	114	1,140
Biggs	16	8	0	0	147	1,470
Oroville	4,253	850	5,705	17,115	809	8,090
Paradise	2,058	411	909	2,727	0	0
Total	6,752	1,354	7,465	22,395	1,126	11,260

Outside Sphere of Influence

Gen. Plan	HDR Acres	(14-20) Units	Ag Res Acres	(0 - .4) Units	LDR Acres	(1-6) Units	MDR Acres	(7-13) Units	HDR Acres	(14-20) Units
Chico	10	170	6,420	1,284	109	327	0	0	0	0
Gridley	0	0	1,457	291	80	240	41	410	0	0
Biggs	0	0	875	175	0	0	19	190	0	0
Oroville	43	731	1,953	390	0	0	0	0	0	0
Paradise	0	0	1,362	272	19	57	0	0	0	0
Total	53	901	12,067	2,412	208	624	60	600	0	0

Key: Ag Res = Agricultural Residential, LDR = Low Density residential, MDR = Medium Density Residential, HDR = High Density Residential. * Total acreage for agricultural residential outside spheres of influence is approximate.

Densities of 7 dwelling units per acre, or more, were historically adequate in the unincorporated county area to encourage and accommodate the development of affordable housing for very low- and low-income households, including mobilehomes and small multifamily structures. Since 1985, there has been no multifamily developments in the unincorporated area of more than 12 dwelling units, and most of the multifamily structures developed between 1985 and 1992 were duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes.

Given the limited land market for larger multifamily projects, and the lack of recent sales information for multifamily zoned-land, it would be difficult to speculate whether current multifamily zoning densities present a constraint to the development of lower-income housing independent of the lack of water and sewer services in many unincorporated communities.

The only information available to the County during the preparation of the Housing Element regarding densities of recently developed, and proposed, multifamily development affordable to low-income households was from the City of Oroville, where several multifamily developments containing 76 units have been constructed over the past decade, and another 206 multifamily units have been approved or are pending approval. The density of affordable housing constructed in past years was 14 dwelling units per acre or less. The densities of multifamily developments approved by, or pending before, the City range from 14 to 29 dwelling units per acre. At present, the County believes that maximum base multifamily densities of 13 and 20 dwelling units per acre, with density bonuses, are sufficient to encourage the production of affordable housing. A developer proposing to include at least 10% very low-income units or 20% low-income units would be eligible for a 25% density bonus, allowing development at 16 to 25 dwelling units per acre, well within the density range of affordable housing constructed or approved in Oroville.

Methodology for Estimating Housing Production and Affordability to Income Groups

The total number of housing units produced by type is based on three sources: the Department of Finance annual building permit reports for cities and counties, the 1990 U. S. Census, and the 1992 Department of Finance E-5 (Population and Housing Unit Estimates) report. The County reviewed building permit valuations, land costs, and reported housing cost and rents from local real estate and property management sources to approximate the cost range of the three housing types reported above for the period 1985 to 1992. The County then examined incomes as reported in the 1984 Housing Element, the 1990 Census, and the Department of Housing and Community Development's annual income guidelines.

Based on the estimated cost range for each type of dwelling unit and the incomes of households in Butte County, the County calculated the approximate percentage of each type of dwelling unit that was affordable to each income group. The numbers reported above indicate the lowest income level to which each type of dwelling unit was estimated to be affordable. For example, the multifamily units developed between 1985 and 1992 were estimated to be affordable, as shown above, to very low- and low-income households. These units would also be affordable to moderate- and above moderate-income households, as well, but are credited towards meeting the needs of lowest income groups to which the units were estimated to be affordable.

According the calculations above, the County has zoned 27,722 acres of land that would accommodate 39,546 if developed at the mid-range of the allowed densities on the average. The unit breakdown is as follows:

Land Use Category Density Acres Potential Units Income Group

Ag. Res/Low Density 0 - 6 26,483 29,785 Above Moderate

Medium Density 7 - 13 1,186 11,860 Above Moderate, Moderate, Low*

High Density 14 - 20 53 901 All Income Groups*

* Dwelling units could be affordable to low- or very low-income households the density range indicated with regulatory incentives, fee reductions, and/or governmental subsidies.

According to the Regional Housing Allocation Plan prepared by BCAG, Butte County's share of the county-wide housing need between 1991 and 1997 is 1,702 very low-income units, 970 low-income units, 970 moderate-income units, and 1,489 above moderate-income units. Presently zoned vacant land could, therefore, accommodate the County's share of the region's housing needs if infrastructure can be provided to sites zoned for more than six dwelling units per acre and regulatory and financial incentives can be offered to developers of low-income housing.

Because the Oroville Sphere of Influence is the only identified unincorporated area which could potentially be served by excess urban sewer capacity (see below), the County estimates that only those areas zoned MDR and HDR within the Oroville Sphere or Influence, representing 8,090 units at 7-13 units per acre and 731 units at 14-20 units per acre, could be developed at their zoning potential. Vacant land elsewhere in the unincorporated area could only be developed at a maximum of six dwelling units per acre without sewer service, typically less if individual septic systems must be used.

The County could easily accommodate its share of the region's housing needs for low- and moderate-income households in the Oroville Sphere of Influence, and its share of above moderate-income households in other areas at 1-6 dwelling units per acre. It is not desirable, from a housing policy perspective, to concentrate 100% of the County's low- and moderate-income housing need in the Oroville area, however. The County has adopted policies in the Housing Element to encourage alternative types of housing (mobilehomes, second units, etc.) which could be developed at 1-6 dwelling units per acre but still provide some housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.

The County can not, at present, accommodate its share of the region's housing needs for very low-income housing because of the shortage of land zoned for 14-20 dwelling units per acre with sewer service, and the limited potential for the County to rezone land for higher density use in light of this constraint. To address the constraints on the County's ability to accommodate 100% of its very low-income housing need, the County has adopted several programs in its Housing Element to address the shortage of public facilities and services in unincorporated areas and to negotiate a transfer of a portion of the County's share of the region's housing needs to the cities.

One of the primary constraints the County faces in being able to zone residential land for higher densities is imposed by the State of California through clean water laws. The Water Quality Control Board has required the County to impose low densities in residential developments employing septic systems to assure that their use does not cause groundwater pollution exceeding state water quality standards.

Services

Sewer System: Waste disposal services are provided by community-wide collection and treatment systems only in the urban areas of Butte County. Rural areas, and areas on the periphery of urban areas, in most cases use individual, on-site disposal methods (septic systems) for waste disposal.

Community-wide systems have the following capacity for additional waste disposal services; additional capacity may be provided by expansion and/or enlargement of the treatment facilities.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITIES
System	Capacity	Current Use
Chico	6.00	4.50
Oroville	6.50	3.00
Gridley Biggs	1.05 0.37	0.70 0.35
Paradise	Unknown
mgpd= millions of gallons per day

In addition to these systems there are three small community sewer systems in the unincorporated county area serving individual subdivisions: Stirling City, Skansen Subdivision, and Villa Verona. None of these systems have significant capacity to serve additional residential development.

Chico, Gridley, and Biggs sewage disposal systems are provided by incorporated communities and are available only upon annexation. Oroville services are proved in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. The City of Paradise is served entirely by on-site disposal systems (septic systems).

Neither the Biggs nor Gridley sewer systems have sufficient capacities to serve additional urban development in surrounding unincorporated areas. Biggs has applied for state assistance to improve and expand its sewer system, but is on the "C" list for state aid. No improvements are planned, at present, in the Gridley system, although the construction of a second aeration pond could substantially increase its sewer capacity. The City of Chico has sufficient capacity to meet its needs through 1996, including some limited annexation. Chico is currently planning for an additional two mgpd expansion of its sewer capacity after 1996. At present, only the Oroville sewer system has substantial unused capacity to serve new unincorporated urban development (although developers would have reach an agreement with SCOR to expand its service area to include the most likely areas of development north, south, and west of Oroville).

The greatest constraints to residential development are in urban areas of the County not served by a community-wide sewer system (Paradise and unincorporated Chico). The extension of distribution lines of existing systems (Oroville and Chico) could alleviate these constraints. Service to new development outside of Chico may require further expansion of the City's plant prior to 1996.

SCOR serves customers by one of three service districts, the City of Oroville, the Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District, or the Thermalito Irrigation District. In 1989-1990, SCOR provided service to 13,792 households, also referred to as Dwelling Unit Equivalents (DUE). In 1984-85, the total DUE serviced by SCOR was 12,335. Since then the total DUE growth has been 1,457, an average increase of 243 DUE per year.

In September 1990, SCOR projected capacity and growth within the region through the years 2001-2002. Projected totals are 14,917 DUE provided for in 1994-1995 and 16,042 DUE provided for in 1999-2000. Based on these projections, the average DUE growth per year from 1990 to 2000 is 205. Current capacity in the system is sufficient to accommodate this growth.

Without the development of community sewer systems in unincorporated communities, however, higher density urban development requiring community sewer systems will be limited primarily to areas within the service range of SCOR.

The City of Paradise has made preparations for a central sewage system that could provide service to areas in the Paradise Ridge Area beyond the incorporated City limits. There have been legal and financial constraints however slowing the design process, and the system will not likely be completed until 1994. Development in or adjacent to Paradise is constrained, at the present time, by the suitability of on-site septic systems or small scale holding facilities. This constraint virtually eliminates the possibility of new multifamily housing development in the Paradise area until a sewer system is in place.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

To make use of these systems would require a conscious county policy of approving development primarily near the existing cities where they can be served by sewer systems. With the exception of the Villa Verona sewer system, which will have some limited capacity to serve vacant properties, development elsewhere in the unincorporated County area would be confined to development projects that can use on-site wastewater systems or small-scale wastewater holding facilities. Even with this limitation, there is sufficient capacity to meet county-wide housing needs between 1984 and 1992. After that time period, however, the County will need to plan for the construction of sewer facilities to serve outlying unincorporated communities or the extension of sewer lines from existing city facilities.

For more detailed information on the status of wastewater systems, see Chapter 6 of the General Plan Background Report.

Water Services: Water supply is not a constraint to development in the County, as abundant groundwater and surface supplies are generally available. There are presently twelve public water systems in Butte County. As of 1990, the community water systems served 159,160 County residents and provided 14 million gallons of water per day to all users. The storage capacity of these twelve systems is 25,74 million gallons, so there is adequate unused capacity to meet future needs during the period covered by this Housing Element.

The delivery capabilities of the County's community water systems will have to be expanded to serve new residential users. Such expansion is simply a matter of adding distribution lines to connect new development to public water supply systems. Several of the water systems will require upgraded treatment to assure that minimum state water quality standards are met.

Even though capacity exists, the several of the water supply distributions systems are in need of improvement. Chico water service lines are expanded in response to specific development proposals. Other areas of the County contain abundant sources of water and future development will not be constrained by this factor. Although there are no technological or physical barriers to supplying water to new residences and maintaining water quality, the cost of delivering and treating water will have to be borne by those users.

For more information on the status of water systems, see Chapter 6 of the General Plan Background Report.

Drainage Facilities: While not quantifiable in the same sense as sewage treatment facilities or community water systems, drainage facilities are essential to the orderly urban development of an area. Housing is directly dependent upon the availability of land suitable for urban development.

With the exception of the Paradise area, Butte County's urban communities are constrained in varying degrees by a lack of drainage facilities. Drainage facilities are particularly necessary for the provision of higher density developments needed to meet low-income housing needs and to maintain an effective supply of rental housing. Any multifamily development in outlying unincorporated communities (those not adjacent to existing cities) would need to develop an adequate drainage plan to direct run-off to the appropriate facilities downstream. The cost of such drainage facilities would have to be borne by the proponent of the development. The issue of drainage capacity is not so much a physical constraint as a potential economic constraint. It may not be financially feasible for an individual developer to provide necessary drainage facilities for one project.

Drainage studies have been conducted for fourteen areas in Butte County and have identified the drainage problems and potential solutions.

None of the drainage problems would prevent residential development, but the cost of proposed solutions would add to the cost of development.

Chapter 6 of the Butte County General Plan Background Report describes the fourteen drainage study areas and proposed drainage solutions.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]
Streets and Traffic Circulation: Residential development within and on the periphery of urban areas of the County creates a need for expansion and improvement of the existing street system to accommodate increased usage.

The absence of an available funding source to finance needed expansions and improvements is an obstacle to residential development. With the passage of Proposition 13 in California, and the elimination of general obligation bonds as a mechanism to finance public facilities, Butte County, with the rest of the state, is searching for new mechanisms to finance construction of the necessary facilities which must accompany residential development.

In some areas of the County, specifically the Paradise Ridge Area, development in the unincorporated area will create a strain on the existing traffic infrastructure. The County has adopted a requirement to encourage traffic considerations and preparations during the construction of additional housing units. Developers are expected to take a greater responsibility for paying the cost of necessary on-site and off-site traffic improvements to serve new residents. This expectation translates into an additional financial burden for new residents.

The County has identified 57 state highways, county roads, and arterial roads serving the county, incorporated urban areas, and unincorporated communities. These roads are generally functioning at a level of service of "C" or better, a level of service considered acceptable by the County for traffic flow.

Plans are currently being prepared by CalTrans, the County, and the cities for improvements to tow state highways and several arterial roads in anticipation of future development. There are no physical barriers that would prevent the County from expanding its system of roads to accommodate new development. New developments will have to bear the cost of those improvements from which they benefit, however. More detailed information on the County's road system and planned improvements is included in Chapter 5 of the Butte County General Plan Background Report.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Opportunities for Energy Conservation

The Butte County is fully enforcing the provisions of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which provides for energy conservation in new residences. The standards found in Title 24 create energy savings of approximately 50 percent over residential construction practices used prior to the standards. The Building Department of the County evidences an awareness of energy conserving design innovations and solar technology. The Department uses the Solar Systems Code Review Manual and its companion document, the Pool and Spa Solar Systems Code Review Manual, both published by ICBO to facilitate the installation of appropriate solar systems.

Under existing state law (the California Resources Code), local jurisdictions may adopt structural energy conservation standards in excess of the existing state standard. The County has chosen not to adopt more strict local standards. Higher conservation standards would generally increase home buyers' costs more than the expected energy cost savings and would, therefore, increase the housing affordability gap for many Butte County residents.

The County has a relatively large remaining amount of land available for development on which energy efficient subdivision designs and development orientations could be tested. Through the use of its zoning (police) powers, the County could require that new residential developments take advantage of solar orientation and lay out their streets on an east-west axis when possible.

There are also a number of jurisdictions in California which have adopted solar access ordinances. Such ordinances, which include bulk-plane standards and other techniques, can increase the use of energy efficient and solar designs in residences.

A major concern in the area of energy conservation is the relationship of housing to employment and the necessary transportation lines between them. While specific energy savings are difficult to quantify because of the myriad of variables involved in transportation systems, it is generally true that a close physical proximity between home and work provide transportation energy savings. The County, in its land use decisions, should be aware of this issue and include it in the decision-making process.

With regard to other "alternative" energy sources, it should be noted that Butte County is not in an area of either geothermal or significant wind activity, and, therefore, cannot take advantage of these sources.

It appears that the County, through the enforcement of Title 24 and by its sensitivity to innovative design, is making adequate use of residential energy conservation opportunities. The institution of the above described orientation and solar access standards would enhance the County's efforts in this regard.
[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

Market and Governmental Influences

The ideal housing market is one in which private industry is able to satisfy the needs and demands of its users without the benefit of government assistance. The housing market is frequently deterred from functioning effectively, however, because of constraints imposed by government as well as those whose origin is from the private sector itself.

A principal objective of the Housing Element is to identify those factors which inhibit the housing market from properly performing and to attempt to correct those deficiencies which are within the sphere of local influence.

The production and delivery of housing is a complex process, involving several layers of government and countless private participants. It is largely because of this complexity and multiple involvement that housing costs can rarely be directly influenced solely by one segment of the housing delivery system.

Government Constraints

Although there are several components of housing production which are beyond the control of local government, such as the cost and availability of mortgage capital, labor, and materials, there are key elements which are directly controlled by local government and are, thus, legitimate subjects of inquiry for a Housing Element. The most obvious and significant factors falling within the influence of local government are summarized in the following pages.

Land Availability: Through its planning and zoning policies and practices local government dictates how much and in what location land will be made available for residential development, the timing of land availability, and the conditions under which such land may be utilized. (See page 27 for an inventory of vacant land by zoning density).

Land Development Process: Through its subdivision ordinances, and other land use controls, local government provides the framework within which development may take place. The process established may frustrate or facilitate residential development.

Depending on the location of a proposed residential development, development impact fees can range from $3,000 to $6,000 for a single family dwelling unit and from $1,500 to $3,500 for a multifamily dwelling unit. These fees are relatively low in comparison to those charged in most urban communities. They do represent an added development cost which could affect the financial feasibility of some affordable housing developments, however. The County could mitigate the impact of these fees on low-income housing by reducing or deferring the fees for certain types of development or seeking state or federal subsidies that can help to defray necessary public costs for which the fees are charged.

Table H-22 shows the planning fees for the County and the zoning regulations for agriculturally and residentially zoned land in the unincorporated County.

Tables H-23 and H-24 summarize the County's zoning regulations. Any of the 23 zones listed in Table H-23 can be developed for housing. The regulations for each of these zones permit at least one dwelling unit per lot. In addition to the 23 zones listed in Table H-23, there are the four residential zones, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. Table H-24 shows the specific County regulations for these four residential zones.

Butte County also imposes certain minimum standards applicable to building sites throughout the County regardless of zone. Such standards may be reduced or increased by the regulations of a particular zone by explicit regulation in the section of Article III containing regulations for that zone. Table H-25 summarizes these standards.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 22 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES County of Butte
Activity	Fee Required
Appeal/EIR Requirement	t
Appeal/PC* Decision	$ 250.00 + staff time & materials
Boundary Line Modification	$ 578.00
Determinations (Certificate of Compliance)	$ 390.00 + $20/lot
Development Agreement	$ 2,380.00
General Plan Amendment	$ 2,043.00
Land Conservation Agreement (Inclusions)	$ 250.00
Land Conservation Agreement (Withdrawal)	$ 1,000.00 Deposit
Mining Permit/Reclamation Plan	$ 1,685.00
Parcel Map	$ 1,529.00 + $20/lot + EHD
Pre-Application Review-OPA	$ 250.00
Publication of Adopting Zoning Ordinance	$ 500.00 deposit min.
Rezone	$ 2,291.00
Rezone-PUD	$ 2,466.00
Specific Plan	$ 2,180.00
Subdivision Map	$ 1,615.00 + $5/lot + EHD (1-49 lots) 1,865.00 + EHD (50 + lots)
TPZ Zone	$ 1,160.00 minimum
Use Permit	$ 1,258.00
Variance	$ 1,358.00
Waiver	$ 1,687.00
Impact Fees	t
Thermalito Area Drainage Fee	$ 425.00 per dwelling unit
Chico Area Park Fee	$ 1,189.00 per dwelling unit
School Fees - All Areas	$ 1.58 per square foot
Sheriff Fee - All Areas	$ 360.00 per s.f. unit $ 252.00 per m.f. unit
Street Improvements - Chico Area	$ 1,331.00 per s.f. unit $ 804.00 per m.f. unit $ 602.00 per mobilehome
Street Improvements - Thermalito Area	$ 507.00 per s.f. unit $ 304.00 per m.f. unit

Note *PC refers to the Planning Commission Source: County of Butte Development Services Department, effective 1990. (Updated: September 1995)

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 23 ZONE DISTRICTS County of Butte
Zone	Specifics
Agricultural	t
U	Unclassified (20 acres min.)
A-5	Agricultural (5 acres min.)
A-10	Agricultural (10 acres min.)
A-15	Agricultural (15 acres min.)
A-20	Agricultural (20 acres min.)
A-40	Agricultural (40 acres min.)
A-160	Agricultural (160 acres min.)
Residential: Agricultural-Residential	t
A-R	Ag.-Residential (***)
AR-1/2	Ag.-Residential (½ acre min.,) ***
AR-1	Ag.-Residential (1 acre min.)
AR-2 ½	Ag.-Residential (2 ½ acres min.)
AR-5	Ag.-Residential (5 acres min.)
AR-10	Ag.-Residential (10 acres min.)
Residential: Agricultural-Residential Mobilehome	t
AR-MH	Ag.-Res. Mobilehome (***)
AR-MH-1	Ag.-Res. Mobilehome (1 acre min.,) ***
AR-MH-2 ½	Ag.-Res. Mobilehome (2 ½ acres min.)
AR-MH-3	Ag.-Res. Mobilehome (3 acres min.)
AR-MH-5	Ag.-Res. Mobilehome (5 acres min.)
Timber	t
C-F	Commercial Forestry
TM-1	Timber Mountain (1 acre)
TM-2	Timber Mountain (2 acre)
TM-2-1/2	Timber Mountain (2-1/2 acre)
TM-3	Timber Mountain (3 acre)
TM-5	Timber Mountain (5 acre)
TM-10	Timber Mountain (10 acre)
TM-20	Timber Mountain (20 acre)
TM-40	Timber Mountain (40 acre)
TM-160	Timber Mountain (160 acre)
TMZ-160	Timber Preserve (160 acre)
Residential: Subdivision-Residential (Mobile Home)	t
R-MH	Residential Mobilehome (500 sq. ft. home min.)
RT-1/2	Medium Density Residential-Mobile Home (½ Acre)
RT-1	Medium Density Residential-Mobile Home (8125 sq. Ft.)
RT-1-A	Minimum Density Residential Trailer (1 acre)
Residential: Foothills	t
FR-1	Foothill Recreational (1 acre)
FR-2	Foothill Recreational (2 acre)
FR-3	Foothill Recreational (3 acre)
FR-5	Foothill Recreational (5 acre)
FR-10	Foothill Recreational (10 acre)
FR-20	Foothill Recreational (20 acre)
FR-40	Foothill Recreational (40 acre)
FR-160	Foothill Recreational (160 acre)
Residential	t
R-1	Residential (6500/7000 sq. ft.)
R-2	Residential (6500/7000 sq. ft.)
R-3	Residential (6500/7000 sq. ft.)
R-4	Residential (6500/7000 sq. ft.)
Residential: Suburban Residential	t
S-R	Suburban Residential (8125 /6500 /7000 sq. ft.)
SR-1/2	Suburban Residential (½ acre)
SR-1	Suburban Residential (1 acre)
SR-3	Suburban Residential (3 acre
SR-5	Suburban Residential (5 acre)
Special Zones	t
A-SR	Ag.-Suburban Residential (8,125 sq. ft. min.)
MHP	Mobilehome Park Zone (10 contiguous acres min.)
M-R	Mountain or Recreation Subdivision - Residential
PUD	Planned Unit Development
P-Q	Public, Quasi-Public
R-C	Resource Conservation
S-H	Scenic Highway
R-N	Residential-Nonconforming
WP	Watershed Protection Overlay
Commercial	t
C-1	Light Commercial
C-2	General Commercial
C-C	Community Commercial
H-C	Highway Commercial
N-C	Neighborhood Commercial
R-P	Residential-Professional Office District
Industrial	t
L-1	Limited Industrial
M-1	Light Industrial
M-2	Heavy Industrial

Source: Butte County Zoning Ordinance, 1995.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 24 RESIDENTIAL ZONES County of Butte
t	R-1	R-2	R-3	R-4
(a) Height (feet) Principal	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.
Accessory	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.	Must Conform to the provisions of County Building Code Section 26-3.5.
b) Parcel size (sq. ft.)	*6,500	*6,500	*6,500	*6,500
Corner	*7,000	*7,000	*7,000	*7,000
Split single-family on zero lot line (halfplex)	N/A	4,000	4,000	4,000
Corner	N/A	5,000	5,000	5,000
(c) Building site area per unit (sq. ft.) with two off-street parking spaces	6,500	3,250	3,250	2,150
(d) Parcel width (feet) at setback line interior	65	50	50	50
Corner	70	65	55	55
(e) Public street frontage Curve or cul-de-sac (ft)	40	40	40	40
(f) Front yard setback (ft) From edge of ultimate right-of-way	20	20	20	20
Side street prop. line**	10	10	10	10
(g) Side yard setback (feet)	5	5	5	5
(h) Rear yard setback (feet)	15	10	5	5
(I) Distance between buildings on same parcel (ft)	10	10	10	10

Parking: Two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit are required in all residential zones. Notes: * On public sewage disposal service. All other lots to meet requirements of the Environmental Health Division for septic systems. ** Or edge of right-of-way on private roads. *** Site Requirements Source: The County of Butte Development Services Department, Butte County Zoning Ordinance, March 1989.

[RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE]

TABLE H - 25 GENERAL ZONING SITE REQUIREMENTS Butte County
(a) Lot area or building site	Minimum required lot area per dwelling unit is 8,125 square feet, excepting where public sewage disposal service is provided, in which case a minimum of 6,500 square feet may be allowed for inside lots and 7,500 square feet for corner lots.
(b) Lot Width	Minimum lot width is 65 feet.
(c) Front yard	Minimum front yard is 50 feet from the center line of the road, except where the road is classified by the County as a Federal Aid Secondary Road, in which case the minimum building setback requirement is 55 feet from the center line of said road.
(d) Side and rear yards	Minimum side and rear yard is five feet.

Sources: Butte County Zoning Ordinance, Section 24-33; County of Butte Development Services Department.