The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About047-260-199 (14)Memorandum Supporting . Immediate Cancellation j California Housing Crisis California Housing .Needs' • .t •. � - � O.�l AVERY" � , 2 600022 m ' , t� Lr Y • ... - Y 1. A � F' •�t � .f c `^ i .'. ... ff- .. iii' �' '', ' _ .v 1, •�> �� `- r t � f • �, f'. :y ter' .. m WE r A 0 N 141 e. "AIN " N lzlo'ae l� PIN Ar Z.'N 6'tAi 'L LOP o ac. A -U- • Vs SaT t' �Z- AA.- ;a 4i ,N: rU+ - � : j , -43b 0 6S U4 7* iz' '�„r- so z I. rls-,t, 16 0, 7j '7 LEVY SUBDIVISION N ',,APN: 047-440-012 a I - V, 41 - -- - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . ��,.iM\�� ,.� � c � r� � yf: ' i 14 L 1MA 6613 04 01 L 'nif #W Ic WON Mi WZ tRA Zj � 0 1 k F-4 LEN E F4 m 'j R, V., i 11 1 k —Pill sm -09�---THE ENGINEERING GROUP, INC- NICOLAUS, ET AL KITTYHAWKILEVY 1250 EAST AVENUE SUITE MAY 30. 2006 LOT LAYOUT 66 MARYBILL RAINICH RO 10 CHICO. CA 95928 SUBDIVISIONS (530)899-0409 FAX(530)899-09tt 43 I f • � } - �. i � F. 44 �nr ''Ty � � -.� � 'dei � ,. �l '�� i Y , ` _ �= .. `'� � s �. �, �... t a • �.. �� _ s � i '� .. -� � ; � � • � �� '. � � .. F ` i� r P' i .. � ;, • ^a _ � i 7 � F Y f ,. � .f - � - _ V�, jq � ... .. �� . i < .. : 0 • • Land. Conservation Advisory Com''mItiee Petition for r - . Immediate Cancellation • : , Application 04-02, =� Parcel 047-260-199 f t 'Petitioner.: George R. Nicolaus _.1 n y Lw J T hi w.-ci y � � .•• Al C 0 LEVERENZ, FERRIS & LUCENA CARL B. LEVERENZ, P.C. TIMOTHY D. FERRIS KRISTEN A. LUCENA $15 WALL STREET CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95928 TELEPHONE (530) 895.1621 FAX (530) 894-5043 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSONACT CONTRACT (Liptrap A.P. No. 047-260-199) TO: Land Conservation Advisory Committee Members A FROM:'Tim6thy D. Ferris, Attorney for George Nicolaus - Petitioner SUBJECT: Request for Immediate Cancellation Evelyn C. Liptrap (George.Nicolaus) A.P. No. 047-260-199 Committee Members: With respect to the above entitled petition for immediate cancellation of the R existing Williamson Act contract encumbering the above described Parcel, please consider the following additional specific facts and information. It is my understanding that the Committee (LCA), County Counsel, and Planning Staff have expressed concerns that the administrative record in the matter, may lack adequate information to support the necessary findings to cE-ncel the contract. This office has reviewed the Agenda Report to the Board of Supervisors, dated November 5, 2005 and the January 3, 2006 Staff Report to the LCA Committee and the proposed findings contained therein pursuant to Government Code Section 51282. Although, it is the opinion of this office that the findings, as proposed, are adequate to support immediate cancellation, please consider the following additional information for the committee's consideration in support of the various findings not as a replacement but rather as an adjunct to those facts and findings already contained in that Agenda Report and Staff Report. ' A.) Government Code Section 51282. - (a) The landowner may petition the board or council for cancellation of any contract as to all or any part of the subject land. The board or council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a contract only if it makes o: ---ie of the following findings: ' Page 1 j I • (1) That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of this chapter; or (2) That cancellation Cisrn .the public interest. As noted in the Staff Reports other public concerns addressed by petitioner's proposed use substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act in that the proposed cancellation and development implements many of the goals and policies specifically outlined and enumerated in the North Chico Specific Plan, all of which have been studied and been subject to public hearing and determined to be in the public interest. 1.) With Specific Reference to the North Chico Specific Plan: a.) Page 2.2 Table 2.1 "Circulation: lack of an Fast/west connector" Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the construction of such a connector. b.) Page 2.3 Paragraph 5 "Circulation: route would become a new east/west route through the plan area... would • provide for improved internal circulation as well as alternative access routes into the plan area" Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the construction of a new east/west route as well the internal construction of roadways that would'. link future residential construction of contiguous parcels in the immediate area as well as the North Chico area at large. c.) Page 2.6 Table 2.3 Items 4, 5 and 9 Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the development and . construction that meet the specific policy criteria outlined. d.) Page 2.8 Item 8 "enhanced street entries skall be required at the following location" (a)., the new arterial / Highway 99 intersection. County Planning Staff has indicated that currently no funds have been generated or are available under the North Chico Specific Plan for such a project. Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the advance funding and construction of such an arterial. e.) Page 2.9. Fire, Item 1; Fire station placement • 2 Page 2 VJ l • Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the construction of a new east/west route which will benefit the entire North Chico area with respect to adequate and timely access to the existing fire station on Highway 99, thus improving public safety and response time for the entire area. L) Page 3.4 Paragraph 4 "Open space lands throughout the Plan areas are intended to protect natural and cultural resources" Petitioner's proposed use contemplates designated `open splice' areas on the contracted land. g.) Page 4.2 Paragraph 2 "The plan provides for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, et al..." Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the construction and implementation of roadways within the project including the east/west arterial as well as internal connectors to adjacent land in the near future. h.) Page 4.3 Paragraph 1 "Arterial streets are at the top of the street hierarchy system" Paragraph 3 "The major new circulation feature within the NCSP area will be the new arterial street originating at Hicks i Lane... extending westerly over Mud Creek to SR99" • Petitioner's proposed use contemplates and requires the construction of the new east/west arterial(the new Kittyhawk Drive). i.) Page 5.7 Item 2 "Design stormwater facilities, including detention basins, to ensure public safety... " .-Petitioner's proposed use contemplates and requires the cons ruction of stormwater facilities and detention basins. j.) Page 6.1 Paragraph 5 ` Petitioner's proposed use contemplates the initiation of Califc mia Water Service for the proposed development which will, by taking the lead and initiative benefit the North Chico area at large. Petitioner hat received correspondence from the Water Service indicating its intent to initiate water: service in the area 1 2.) Additionally, as stated in the BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES, Circulation, Appendix A-8: a.) 5.1.1 "All road system's shall provide for the safe evacuation of residents and adequate access for fire and other emergency services by providing at least two means of emergency. access to- an interconnected collector system." Page. 3. i • It appears that the existing Autumn Park subdivision, immediately to the east of the subject property with existing 45 homes was approved and exists today with a single point of ingress/egress at Kittyhawk Drive and Garner Lane in with what appears to be a violation of general plan policies and will remain so until such time Kittyhawk Drive is completed and connected to SR99. Petitioner's proposed use contemplates and requires the construction of the east/west arterial which will immediately address the current unsafe condition existing with Autumn Park and the other residences in the North Chico area and provide a more contiguous patterns of urban development than the prior or earlier development of proximate noncontracted lands. 3.) Policies statements of public benefit and interest with respect to the NCSP as contained in the Resolution(95-47) of the Butte County Board of Supervisors are as follows : . a.) Page 3 Paragraph 2 "The NCSP has been modfied to require the County to work with CalTrans on the installation of traffic signals at SR99 and the new arterial." Petitioner's proposed use has necessitated the completion of 2 traffic study.. Traffic study concludes and calls for an intersection at SR99 2nd the • continuation of the east/west arterial (Kittyhawk Drive). Intersection to be signalized with separate turn lanes. Completion of the signalized intersection is consistent with and meet the goals and policies of the North Chico Specific Planning area. Petitioner's proposed project will necessarily require the advance funding and construction of the signalized intersection due to inadequate funding presently for that specific purpose. b.) Page 3, Paragraph 3 "Chico General Plan identifies this land as a future growth area and constrains growth in- other areas...." Growth is further constrained in other areas through ag- preservation policies, zoning, greenline; and environmental constraints such as wetlands and meadowfoam. Page 4, Paragraph 3 "Chico General Plan require! the infilling and increased densities to create a more compact urban form. Thus, development within the NCSP area is necessary to accommodate future growth." • Page `4 3.) Petitioner's request for immediate cancellation for his proposed use promotes County policies of agricultural land preservation in more appropriate areas. In the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Chico and Butte County. regarding Cooperative Planning, specifically the NCSP, it was agreed that: J . a.) Page 3, Paragraph 7 "Such needed public facilities will include new streets" Petitioner's proposed use contemplates and requires the construction of new collector and arterials within the project to county standards and in anticipation of further residential development of adjacent and contiguous parcels. b.) Page'4, Paragraph 5 " desirable to foster and encourage orderly development in the NCSP area. Petitioner's proposed use is consistent and necessary for such orderly development. c.) y Page 4, Paragraph 6 "Gov Code Sections 65351 and 65352 contemplate that the public interest beyond individual city/county boundaries, shall be considered. Petitioner's proposed development provides for a buffer and open space along State Highway 99, as well as improved access and wideging of the State Highway, along with the increased supply of housing benefitting the State at large. . Outside of petitioner's proposed residential development and its . conformance to the North Chico Plan and the stated goals and policies within the Plan, immediate cancellation shall provide for public benefit and be in the public interest on.a' broader and larger scale than just on a local basis. Petitioner's proposed project allows local government to meet the statement and goals laid out under Government Code Section 65580 which reads: The Legislature finds and declares as follows.: (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm workers, is a priority of the highest f order. I J 1 v The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation • a of government and the private sector in an effort to expand"housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. ' (c)The provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income r ; households requires the cooperation of all levels of governrzent. (d), Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers t' vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing y ' to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic y segments of the community. ; = (e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this resp.gnsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, t environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the . '- general plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. r „ tea.) '-Th benefit of providing for the development of adequate -�. housing is of public interest statewide as well as locally. The Department of Housing and Community Development's report ; ,entitled "California's Deepening Housing Crisis" (Febniary 15., • 2006), co enclosed), states that the'avera e annual sKatewide need,,.' + (copy ) g ' for housing -units is approximately 220,000. Since 1999 less than 170,000 residential new construction permits have been issued on an• Y� ' • annual basis.) Median prices have increased due to increased costs,` . , ' and supply -and demand issues. The affordability of homes as measured against income has fallen. Additionally, according to the Housing and Community Development "Housing Policy Development", Chapter 2 California Housing Production Needs 1997: =2020, (copy enclosed), the Northern California Non Metropolitan, " f Region will have 2.1% of the states projected population growth with,, 75% of that growth in the Butte/Shasta counties area. See also the -' ; r' Butte County Association of Governments Regional Housing Needs • Plan, adopted January 2003 (copy attached). 3 Petitioner's proposed use and residential development of the land will r assist in•providing and meeting the housing and employment needs of those:- in the area now. Cancellation of the existing contract and•allcwing.. immediate development of the petitioner's parcel not only mee: s the Wale .F ; • n k Page 6 • needs of the Urban area of the City of Chico, and Butte Cour_ty, it assists Butte County in meeting its regional planning needs as well a's assisting in the overall housing crisis existing in the State of California, thus meeting the goals of Government Code Section 65580 and the public %nterest. provisions of Government Code Section 51282 with respect to the cancellation. b.) Additionally, it is the duty and obviously the intent of the County, through its approval of by the General and Specific Plans, as implemented, to comply with Government Code Secticn 65581, which reads: It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article: (a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (b)' To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goal. (c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the atta?nmeht of the •state housing goal, provided such a determination is c.9mpatible ' with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. (d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional housing, needs. Granting immediate cancellation so that Petitioner's proposed development may move forward allows the County to further acknowledge its responsibility and allow efficient and timely implementation or the Housing Element, a portion of which is.encompassed in the North Chic -9 Plan, showing and demonstrating good faith compliance. 4.) Government Code Section 51282. (continued) (b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a contract shall berc ns"istent with th pue'—rposes of this chapter only if the . board or council makes liof`the following findings: a.) (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of.. non -renewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245. Such a notice has been served. • Page 7 • �, , b) (2) That cancellation is not likely to,result in the removal of adjacent r lands from agricultural use. ; {sAs noted in staff reports adjacent lands are either developed as residential . ' or have been zoned for residential development pursuant to tae North Chico ' Specific Plan, which as part of the overall plan, protects agricultural lands. , r '' , • The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the'North Ch;co Specific Plan reviewed the impact on ag land uses in the planning area. The report - 'r , noted that. implementation of•the specific plan would result in the r 4 conversion of 475 acres of agricultural lands. Because 213 acres of those a land were not considered prime agricultural land and because the v s remaining 213 acres are substantially in conflict with adjacent residential development and are located on the urban side of the Greenli.-ce; the impact was considered less than significant... The report further explained the SR99 ` was established as the boundary between urban/suburban development to . the east and, agricultural to the west under the County Greenline policy. a u' Therefore theagricultural portion, of the plan, including petitioner's parcel' .are not located in an area identified for agricultural use with no impact.: anticipated by development as urban/suburban residential. ` S ~ '7l 1, 'r • '(3) rThat-cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with[' the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. y' a _ As noted in staff reports, petitioner's alternative use is a 48 loft, 1 acre subdivision, consistent with the General Plan and North Chico Specific " ' Plan. d.) : (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urbane' . ` Y development. �' ' `+ An noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is zoned for residential use` and.is contiguous to existing and planned development to the north, east r and.south. The cancellation will in fact allow and encourage contiguous.; i patterns of urban development, including, but not limited to the public interest and benefit of improved circulation and public safety. ' t e.)` - (5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both '1 available and suitable for the use to which itis proposed the contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land - would .� �' provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than r 'development of proximate noncontracted land. `• �. k 't Page 8 • - r '., - } „. ,1 :i � is .. . + ` l• 1 ��` Fws . '4�In addition to those facts noted in the staff report, the cance?lation will _ • indeed provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development; Development of the subject property represents a contiguous extension of' the developed Autumn Park subdivision to the east. Concurrent ' e development of, the Guernsey property to the south and Levy and Hauselt , properties to the north, (all zoned for residential development) can only F ; develop in a contiguous and rational manner following the immediate cancellation of the contract. Immediate cancellation would also address the plan area circulation; emergency vehicle access and health and safety r concerns as expressed in the North Chico Plan Goals and Policies. The - 'attached map illustrates the logical and orderly way in'whick petitioner's =.- ` ' development and adjacent parcels, similarly zoned under the•North Chico x Plan would link and flow. The efficient and orderly development,` • consistent with the North Chico Plan, of proximate non contra' cted land prior to petitioner's land would be seriously impacted due to -the limitations,.' imposed by the Agricultural Elements 300' set back, , the issues of nuisance : F and safety from agricultural herbicide and pesticide use, and thelack ore proper and necessary circulation. • J ,Fid - } 3 B.) In summary, immediate cancellation of the contract is proper in that petitioner's proposed use of residential development of the land, including residences and public infrastructure is in the public interest and will provide more, contiguous patterns of urban development in that: . The proposed development consistent with the Butte County General ; ' Plan and North Chico Specific Plan; 2.) The development and construction of a residential deve_opment which supplies badly needed housing for the county, region and the = . state at large. 3.) The construction of an east/west arterial providing access for - emergency services and more orderly circulation for the area, county r t ' and state; . ` 4.) The elimination of an old; marginally economic, and out of place f walnut orchard thereby eliminating the need for agricult-iral setbacks" ••` .= - (300 feet) on adjacent properties either already constructed with - residerices or severely restricting and/or precluding development -of. 'adjacent properties zoned residential under the Butte County General%' '., and North Chico Specific Plan until after the year 2012, as well as the ; page 9 v AM aij nuisance and safety considerations involved with herbicide and + . pesticide spraying associated with agricultural uses. T_1e land is not high value agricultural land due to the existing and proposed encroachment of urban residential development. The original agricultural orchard use has been greatly compromised. due to the change in- zoning and use of surrounding and adjacent properties. 5.) 4 The rational, orderly implementation and development,of the'North Chico area, including improved circulation, public utilities, and _ public safety. Without the cancellation and development of the • petitioner's land the adjacent lands, which are zoned for residential `. development, will not, in the near future, develop in a oontiguous and rational way with respect to circulation, emergency vehicle access and;health and safety -concerns as expressed in the North Chico Plan Goals and Policies. Based upon the above, the petitioner, George Nicolaus respectfully reeks the recommendation of immediate cancellation by the Land Conservaticn Advisory Committee. • xi C rr' • � t i • T Page10 ti 1'` y � � 1•t , � � 4 a n � (- •� � -.ay i � • r .. j ! , '� , ti -. �' � is • � ._ •r � '� �� .. � a •3 yy � J y ,� r • ,{ r C4 � �. ��. . � ' � ` V .. Y �' •. . � G R • _ 7 .. �yC � • � ` f a i � � S 1+ _ ,{ . , is i �, � .. �` is�. � � • y s s , . �. f �; • 'i � i .. �} j. � � � '+ � r' '' � � i. , + _ a . 1� 4 . , ;. 1 i + # ` v� � ��,". ' � .. � , — .t � _ "3 . � � 9 ni STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD-CHWAR7ENEGGER. Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Housing Policy Development o 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3177 FAX (916) 327-2643 California's Deepening Housing Crisis February 15, 2006 High Demand/Low Suppiy California continues to experience very high rates of population growth and further tightening of its housing markets. Even encompassing the recession of the early 1990s, California's population grew by.an average approximating 450,000 people annually and is projected to gain around 600,000 annually over the next decade.' As of January 1, 2005, California's population was 36,810,358 which increased by 539,267 people in 2004.2 The population increased 1.5% from the calendar year 2004, which was lower than the 1.8% growth between 2003 and 2004.3 As in 2001, the United States became home to more than one million immigrants in 2002. California was home to the largest number (291,191 • or 27.4 percent) of the 2002 immigrants .4 Housing production has not kept pace with the State's housing needs, particularly- in the ' coastal metropolitan areas and housing need has worsened, especially for renter . households and low income owner households throughout the State. During the 1980s, 2.1 million units were built whereas the 1990s saw only 1.1 million units built. While the .. average annual need is projected at approximately 220,000 housing units, construction has lagged substantively below the need. Since 1999, less than 170,000 residential new construction permits have been issued each year. During 2004, 212,960 new homes and apartments were built; representing the highest production since 1989.5 The greatest production gap is in multifamily housing. Multifamily development only accounted for approximately a quarter of all new units during the 1990s, a drop of nearly 70 percent from the levels of the 1980s. Since 2000, the number of multifamily ur..its has increased slightly, totaling approximately 28 percent of all new units constructed.6 ' State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, Sacramento, California, May 2004. 2 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/county Population and Housing Estimates, 2005, Revised 2001-2004 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005. , 3 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent •Change, January 1, 2004 and 2005. Sacramento, California, May 2005. 4 State of California, Department of Finance, Legal Immigration of California in 2002. Sacramento, California, October 2003 ,5 Construction Industry Research Board, California Construction Review, May 31, 2005. 6 lbid Page 2 of 7 California's Deepening Housing Crisis ` • + .J _ Increasing,Housing Costs/Decreasing Homeownership California's homeownership rate in 2004 was the second lowest in the nation (59.7%) and ' 10percentage points lower than the national homeownership rate (69%)..' As of December 2005, only 14 percent of California's households could afford to buy the { median priced single -family home, while nationwide, affordability was 49 percent8.: The , California Association of Realtors reported December 2005's median price of an,existing, } single -family detached home in California was $548,430 representing a 16 percent - increase over December 2004's median price of $474,270.9 The disparity between housing production and need has resulted in double-digit year-to-year percentage increases in the median price over recent years.10 California households, with a: median household income'of $54,140, are $73,810 short of the $127,950 qualifying income needed to purchase a median-priced home at $545,910 in California, according to the CaliforniaAssociation of Realtors Homebuyer Income Gap IndexTM (HIGI) report=for the third quarter of 2005.''1 Following is a,comparison of several county and community- t' median home prices reported for December 2005 and 2004 to reflect regional differences ' in the State.12 _ ' _,�_ •. :�w�� •� �� Metlian�•:� � . fir�o"�m Prior ' �,�� 'fir " . �' • . CountFy�° � Price � ' ;Yea �� . ., Riverside/San Bernardino $394,790 20.7% •, t Los_Angeles} ;. $552,760 19.3% • Central Valley $354,790 17.0% - ff '.i . y r Orange <. - $702,290 12.0% , Santa Clara $734,950: 11.4% .; `.Sacramento � � $379,010 9.0% Growing Income Inequality . While housing prices have been escalating, numerous studies have documented a widening gap in earning_ s reported by low-income versus high-income households throughout the nation. The share of reported earned income attributable to the top 20 percentof taxpayers has been rising whereas it has been falling. for the bottom 80. 13 �� percent. f 4 \ • •�, �f �" : ` � .. f . � ��" {•11.'4• �,. {.h . • US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Annual Statistics, 2004. 8 California Association of Realtors, Press Release, February 9,.2006, http://www.C'ar.org/index.php?id=MzU5Mjg= wt:•' t s Ibid- 10 California Association of Realtors,. Press Release, February 25, 2005. 11 F 3 - • California Association of`Realtors, Press Release, November 1, 2005, http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU2MlY '- `• 12 California. Association of Realtors, Press Release, February 9, 2006 . -13 California's Changing Income Distribution, Office of the Legislative Analyst, State of California, Augusta: ' { '2000. a ,r ., ♦- .. p ) lig•. • California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 4 of 7 Between 1980 and 1990, the percentage of overcrowded households in Californ a nearly doubled from 6.9 percent to 12.3 percent. Census 2000 reports more than 15 percent of California households were overcrowded with overcrowding most common among low- income households, and most prevalent in renter housing. Roughly 24 percent of renter households statewide were overcrowded; in some counties, nearly a third of renter households are overcrowded. One quarter of all overcrowded renter households contained more than one family. Of all owner and renter overcrowded households, estimates are that more than half are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 persons per room): Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Homeless Although reliable counts of homeless persons are illusive, in 1997 as many as 360,000 Californians were estimated to be homeless.21 In the worst circumstances, homeless persons live in places not meant for human habitation: cars, parks, sidewalks, stairwells, and door stoops. An estimated 80,000 to 95,000 children are homeless in Califo-nia, making the percentage of homeless children greater today than at any time since the Great Depression.22 Many persons in need of emergency shelter and transitional housing are employed but can not find permanent housing that is affordable. Farmworkers •Employment in California agriculture increased 22 percent between 1985 and 2000. As of September 2000, California farm employment peaked at 486,000.23 California s total farmworker population (including family members) is estimated to exceed 900,000. Approximately 60 percent of farmworkers are accompanied by a spouse, child or parent. The median number of children in families of farmworker parents is two.24 FarmvMorkers and their families cope with substandard housing conditions fraught with serious health and sanitation problems. To avoid harassment, they often live out of sight in undeveloped canyons, fields, squatter camps, and back houses. Privately owned employee housing (licensed by California) has been steadily diminishing. In 1976, employers owned 1,254 employee housing developments sheltering an estimated 45,000 farmworkers and household members. In 2000, there were onlw approximately 1,000 licensed employee housing developments with capacity for 23,000 farmworkers and household members. Assisted Housing/Preservation of At -Risk Units California received fewer federal housing assistance dollars in 1999 for each individual living below the federal poverty level than all but one of the ten largest states. Whale the federal government spent, on average, $286 on housing assistance for each impoverished person, California received only $171 per impoverished.person.25 In 2000, Z' California Housing Markets. 1990-1997, State Housing Plan Update, State of California Department of Housing & Community Development, 1998. ZZ California Housing Law Project, Facts and Issues; Homeless Children; • www.housingadvocates.org/default.asp?ID=170 23 http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/rural_data/housing/housing.html 24 California's Housing Markets 1990-1997; California Department of.Housing & Community Development, January 1999. 25 Ibid J l California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 5 of 7 • 4 465,340 families were on waiting lists for public housing and rental subsidies in 20 local jurisdictions; only about 130,000 families now live in existing public housing or receive federal tenant -based subsidies in these same 20 jurisdictions. At the rate/of two children in each family waiting for housing, almost a million children are on California's hcusing waiting lists. 6 The shortage -of subsidized housing and the potential loss of affordability restrictions on a substantial portion of the government -assisted rental housing stock estimated to house more than 375,000 persons is one of California's foremost housing problems. Over the 1990's, thousands of federally -assisted privately -owned rental housing developments have terminated affordability restrictions. Since 1996, California has lost more than 29,000 affordable units due to owners electing to opt -out of subsidy contracts and prepay loans.' The risk of owners converting units with subsidized rents for market -rate rents is greatest in the State's highest cost rental markets and is both immediate and continuing beyond 2010. In California, the number of federally assisted units approximates 150,000.28 California's experience with market -rate conversion of the older -assisted stock suggests that unless new incentives are created to retain Section 8 assistance, 15 to 20 percent of owners of Section 8 inventory are likely to opt -out and terminate their relationship with HUD. Due to tight rental markets in many parts of California, the State has had a level of prepayment and conversion among older -assisted HUD properties that is triple the amount of any other State. " 1 26 "The Long Wait, The Critical Shortage of Housing in California, K. Williams, Corp. for Supportive Housing, June 2000. • Z' California Housing Partnership Corporation, June 2003. 28 California Housing Partnership Corporation, June 2003. hc021506.doc - f California's Deepening Housing Crisis Page 3 of 7 Rent/Wage Gap/Tight Housing Market California is second only to Massachusetts in terms of the hourly wage needed to afford a two bedroom apartment at fair market rent (FMR). In California, an extremely low. income household (earning $19,327, 30% of the Area Median Income of $64,422) can afford monthly rent up to $483, while the FMR for a two bedroom unit is $1,104. A worker earning minimum wage ($6.75 per hour) must work 126 hours per week in order to afford the average two-bedroom unit. The Housing Wage in California is $21.24; this is the amount a full time (40 hours per week) worker must earn per hour in order to afford the average two-bedroom unit, and is more than three times (315%) the minimum wage ($6.75 per hour).14 . One of the main factors that accommodated the housing shortfall in the 1.990s was a reduction in both homeowner and rental vacancy rates, demonstrated by the significant drop in vacancy rates between 1990 and 2001. The homeowner vacancy rate decreased from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent, while the .rental vacancy rate decreased from 6.0 percent to 5.4 percent during the same time period. 15 Vacant units were used to absorb a significant amount of the housing demand during the later half of the 1990s, resulting in extremely tight housing markets limiting mobility in many populous metropolitan areas; an option that is no longer available to help address California's housing shortage. Overpaying Over four out of ten of all California households are renters, and renters face the greatest • affordability challenges. In 1997, nearly a quarter of the renter households in the State's metropolitan areas (1 million out of 4.2 million households) spent more than half of their income on rent. 16 HUD (Census 2000) data indicates that 35 percent of California households and 40 percent of renters spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. 17 In 2002, almost half a million of California's working families were "officially" poor with incomes below the federal poverty level (FPL). Many more families (nearly 1.4 million) with incomes above the FPL, up to twice the FPL, still fell short of earning) an income level to provide an adequate standard of living. 18 In many counties, fair market rents exceed the monthly payments families receive from CaIWORKs, (the State's cash assistance program for poor families), or the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) program, which providas cash assistance to the elderly, blind, and disabled. 19 The two-bedroom FMR exceeds the CalWORKs grant for a family of three in 31 counties, and equals at least 80 percent of the grant level in every California county. In 2003, FMR for a studio apartment exceeds the SSI/SSP grant for an elderly, blind, or disabled recipient in 13 counties, and exceEds 50 percent of the grant in 40 counties.20 Overcrowding 14 Out of Reach 2004, National Low Income Housing Coalition. 15 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Statistics 2002; Homeowner andl Rental Vacancies by State 1986 to 2003 (Tables 3 and 4). 16 Locked Out:California.'sAffordableHousing Crisis, California Budget Project, May 2000. 17 State of the Cities Data Systems: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, Census 2000. 18 Working Hard, Falling Short: Investing in California's Working Families, California Budget Project, January 2005 19 Locked Out 2004: California's Affordable Housing Crisis, California Budget Project, January 200,E. 26 lbid • 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 55% 9% 50% j 40% . 30% 20% �'� 10% 0% Housing Affordability Index December 2004 -December 2005 California December 2005 Median Home Price: $548,430 c^ 0119 C�� fos O,d' S'�,'f �0Q's di�o dC' �Oak 04 0 Dec -04 �° 13 Dec -05 Percentage of households able to afford a median -priced detached home Source: California Association of REALTORS® (C.A.R.), Press Release Thursday, February 9, 2006; Graphic representation by HCD. Modoc Shasta I Lassen Trinity Plumas EI Dorado Affordability Index December 2005 California Association of Realtors Median Price $548,430 ri j"4 Tuolumneono to -' � San Francisco Mariposa San Mate Santa Cru Madera Inyo United States- 49% California- 14% Percentage of households able to afford a median priced home. California Association of Realtors, Press Release February 9, 2006. Graphic representation by HCD. G:\HPD\DIV-STATS\C.A.R\CAR-DATA.XLS-Califomia2 Imperial Affordability Index 11 0% to 9% El 9% to 11% 0 11% to 14% ® 14% to 21% ❑ No data Percentage of households able to afford a median priced home. California Association of Realtors, Press Release February 9, 2006. Graphic representation by HCD. G:\HPD\DIV-STATS\C.A.R\CAR-DATA.XLS-Califomia2 Imperial rl 10i :91 .. .. �,• �'� fie. ' � � � .R . I , �• � . _ r k1 S 4 { i { . ;� i � �, �1 �� . � ;' i • �, t .i �i ,,,f ° i ,;� 1 ! j� I � y � i ��' h � �� a 1� � �� ' �t r r t � � . � `. r ' 1 i i i � .} }}� 1 � � �` f a �; 1 ? '� i � ti j l . f + f. �� i a f t � r ,a � � .r �� ,; . i � , ;; a � �� j l+ `` i f � � � � � 1 '� ,� j f1 � � 7 ' F' t i �+ t) i + t I { � �' j}+ 1 ' � � � � 1 ; ., aavuaiiigrV11VY "VVVLVFIILVuL rugc i vi L California Department of Housing and Community Development • Housing Policy Development Return to standard nage version. Chapter 2: California Housing Production Needs, 1997-2020 How many people will call California home in 2010, and how many housing units will they need? This chapter draws on recently updated population projections from .the California Department of Finance to develop 2010 and 2020 household and tenure projections by county, metropolitan area, and region. California Population And Household Projections After a slow start in the early 1990s—the result of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression—population growth in California has again picked up. Between January 1995 and January 1999, California's population increased by 1.8 million. If present trends continue, California's population will likely reach 35 million by 20001,40 million by 2010, and 45.5 . . million by 2020 (California Department of Finance, 1998; see Exhibit 1). On a • yearly basis, California's population is expected to grow'at a rate of 1.6 percent per year between 1997 and 2010, and 1.3 percent per year between 2010 and 2020. Age Group Trends Most of California's projected population growth will occur through new births. Net migration, which accounted for more than half of the State's population . growth during the 1980s, is expected to account for a significantly smaller share of 1997-2020 statewide population growth (California Department of Finance, 1998).1 All but 5 percent of California's projected population growth will occur in metropolitan areas. The age groups projected to grow the most will be those under 18 and those over 65 (see Exhibit 2): • 4.6 Million More Children: Between 1990 and 2020, the number of California children (those 18 and under) is projected to increase by 4.6 million. Children will account for almost 30 percent of the State's population growth.between 1990 and 2020, and comprise 27.4 percent of the state's population by 2020. . • 3.2 Million More Seniors: At the other end of the age spectrum, fileIMPat\timfileMousing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 nousing runty IJCVCIUPIIICIIL rage G U1 10 California's senior population (those 65 and older) is projected to increase • by 3.2 million persons between 1990 and 2020. Seniors will account for 21 percent of the State's 1990-2020. population growth, and 14 percent of its 2020 population. • 55- to 64 -Year -Olds: The number of Californians 55- to 64 -years -old is projected to increase by 3.1 million between 1990 and 2020. As of 2020, 55 -to -64 year olds will account for 12 percent of California's population. While the number of Californians 25- to 34 -years -old will increase in absolute terms (by nearly three-quarters of a million people between 1990 and 2020), their overall share of the State's population is projected to decline from 19 percent in 1990 to just over 14 percent in 2020. The number of 35 to 45 -year olds will also grow in absolute terms but decline in share. Race and Ethnicity Trends Population growth increments and rates will also vary widely by race and ethnicity (see Exhibit 3): • Hispanics—both immigrants and native-born—will, it is prof _cted, account for 64.5 percent of the state's population growth betty -len 1990 and 2020. Just under 40 percent of Californians in the year 2020 will be Hispanic, up from 26 percent in 1990. • Asians and Native Americans will, it isprojected, account fcr the next largest share -24.6 percent—of California's population growth between 1990 and 2020. Asians and Native Americans will comprise just under 15 percent of California's population in 2020, up from 9.8 percent: in 1990. • Whites, it is projected, will account for 6.4 percent of California's 1990- 2020 population growth. Statewide, the number of.white -Californians will increase by approximately one million persons between 1990 and 2020, even as their share of the State's population declines from 57.2 percent to 39.9 percent. • African-American Californians will account for 4.5 percent of the state's projected 1990-2020 population growth. California's Black population will likely increase by 700,000 persons between 1990 and 2020, even as their share of the state's population declines from 7 percent to 6.2 percent. Household Projections and Housing Production These numbers and percentages are projections, not facts, and projections are frequently updated. The 1998 Department of Finance (DOF) population projections, for example, are significantly lower than those issued in 1993. Those projections, as well as history, suggested that California's population would grow at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent between 1990 and 2020. file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 trousing roiicy veveiopment rage .i oz 10 The 1998 projections peg California's projected average annual growth rate at • 1.4 percent. Percentages aside, California will grow a lot during the next 20 years. In terms of households, the basic building block of housing demand, the state will likely add just over 3 million households between 1997 and 2010, and just over five million households by 2020. These population increases will put significant pressure on California's urban housing markets. To meet this level of demand, California homebuilders would have to construct an average of 220,000 additional housing units every year for the next 23 years. Producing this amount of new housing on a sustained basis will be a stretch: Since 1987, annual non-manufactured1ousing production in California (as measured by the number of permits) has averaged only 141,000 units per year. 2, 3 Annual production since 1990 has been much lower, averaging just over 100,000 units per year. Since 1980, statewide housing permit levels have exceeded 220,000 per year only four times—in 1985,1986, 1987, and 1988 (see,Exhibit 4). Even if such production levels are possible, it is unlikely they could be sustained. Housing production is cyclical. It declines when the economy contracts or interest rates increase, and expands when interest rates fall or the economy booms. Rarely do the boom years fully compensate for thy lean years. Particularly in coastal markets, California homebuilders are forever playing catch-up with demand'. If current tenure preferences hold, two-thirds of California's new households will want to be homeowners. 4We-say want, because if current housing supply and price trends continue, fewer than half of these new households will be able to afford home ownership. Homeowners currently make up 57 percent of California households. (see California Housing Markets 1990 u 1997, Statewide Housing Plan Update Phase 11, 1999.) Californians preference for homeownership and single-family housing is hardly new. Since 1987, single- family homes have accounted for more than 80 percent of annual statewide new home production. Regional Population Projections As always, population growth will vary from one part of California to another (see Exhibit 5). Comparing different urban regions: • Greater Los Angeles: The six -county Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan . Region (including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, • Ventura, and, Imperial counties) will, it is projected, account for almost half of California's 1997-2020 population growth. Altogether, fi-le Greater fileIMPaNimfileMousing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 f tiousing roucy lieveiopment rage 4 of io Los Angeles region is projected to grow from 16.1 million parsons in 1997,; . ' to 19.2 million persons in 2010, to 21.8 million persons in 2020—a 23 -year , increase of more than five -and -a -half million! Among individual counties, Los Angles County alone is projected to add two million more residents by 2020. Further to the east, Riverside and Sane Bernardino counties will likely add 570,000 new residents between 1997 and 2010, and 1.1 million.new residents by 2020. Orange County, which' ' by some measures, is already nearly built -out, is projected to add 458,000 new ret�h sidents by 2010 and 726,000 by 2020. Projected grow.increments ` in Ventura and Imperial counties will be considerably smaller. • San,Francisco Bay Area: Califomia's second-largest metropolitan region, A the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area, will, it is projected, add 1.1 . million residents between 1997 and 2010, and another 600,0010 by 2020. , y Home to 20.4 percent of the state's population in 1997, the San Francisco , Bay Area will account for a disproportionately -low 13.3 percent of , California's future population' growth. • More than half of the Bay Area's population growth will occu- in just two " counties: Santa Clara and Alameda. Santa Clara County's pop-alation is projected to grow by 525,000 persons between 1997 and 2020, while . - Alameda County's population will likely grow by 395,000. Elsewhere in the Bay Area, projected 1997-2020 population growth will exceed 200,000 - persons in Contra Costa County, and 140,000 in each of San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties. Even "built -out" San Francisco is projected ' to grow by 5,000 residents between now and 2010. Napa and Marin counties are expected to grow by 37 ,000 and 25,000 persons, respectively. • The San Joaquin Valley: The eight -county San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Region (consisting of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties) was home to just under ten , percent of California's population in 1997. By 2020, that share is projected ` to have increased to 11.2 percent. According to the California Department ti of Finance, the San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Region will likely grow by just over one million residents between. 1997 and 2010, and by 900,000 between 2010 and 2020. Within the San Joaquin Valley region, population growth will be fairly F evenly distributed. Kern and San Joaquin counties are projected to add the , most new population; and Madera, Merced, and Kings counties, the least. Projected population growth rates in the San Joaquin Valley w16.1 vary from..' rom.. A • a low of 43 percent in Fresno County to a high of 98 percent in Madera County. - file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 P 7 n mousing roiicy lieveiopment 4 rage:) of io • San Diego County, California's fourth largest metropolitan region, will; it is projected, grow by 6781000 residents between 1997 and 2010, and by 476,000 between 2010 and 2020. With 8.4 percent of the state's population, , in 1997, San Diego County will account for 9.2 percent of projected state' • population -growth between 1997 and 2020. t • The Sacramento Metropolitan Region—consisting of El Dorado, Placer, t Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba, and Yolo counties—is currently home to 1.8 million people, or 5.6 percent of the state's population. DOF projections suggest that this region will add another 544,000 residents by 2010, and another 923,000 residents by 2020. �. r Among individual counties, projected 1997-2020 population growth , increments will vary from a high of 504,000 in Sacramento County to a low of only 23,000 in Yuba County. Population growth in foothill counties of Placer and El Dorado is projected to exceed 175,000 during_ the 1997- 2010 period, and 275,000 during the 1997-2020 period. • The Central Coast Metropolitan Region is less an identifiable urban region than a combination, of several small and mid-sized cities strung A along Highways 1 and 101. From north to south, it includes Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties. Its northern portion, including Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, borders on -f ' and is sometimes considered to be part of the San Francisco Bay Area. Its southern county, Santa Barbara, is sometimes considered part A Southern , California. ► jy' ' t In 1997, this amalgam of coastal counties was home to 1.3 million j • residents, or)four percent of the state's population. By 2020, its population r. will be just under two million. Population growth will be evenly distributed -` 'throughout the region, with Monterey County likely to add the most additional population (+197,000), and San Benito likely to add the least ,.• .fr , ' • (+36,000). Altogether, the Central Coast Metropolitan Region will account' for 5.3 percent of the state's 199.7-2020 population growth. } The Northern California Non -metropolitan Region consists of five ;•`;: mostly rural counties (Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, and Tehama), each' having one or two small cities. The population of this region is expected to, grow from 460,000 in 1997, to 612,000 in 2010, to 722,000 in 2020. .. ` ` a Currently home to 1.4 percent of California's population, the Northern California Metropolitan Re on will account for 2.1 percent- of the states r P � P ` .1997-2020 projected population growth. Nearly three-quarters of this • r region's projected population growth will occur in just two counties: Butte and Shasta. The populations of California's 21 non -metropolitan counties file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 J .. }°4 ~ --tiousing''olicy i)evelopment rage o or io. will, DOF projects, grow from 1.1 million in 1997, to 1.7 million in 2020.5 • The non -metropolitan counties projected to grow the most during this period are Imperial (+156,026), Kings (+68,864), Nevada (+48,037),. Lake (+38,024), San Benito (+36,125); Mendocino(+32,848), Tuolumne (+25,199), and Calaveras (+24,794). From Population To Household Projections Headship Rate Trends Population projections can be converted into household projections—the building block of housing demand—by applying what are known as headship rates. Headship rates measure the statistical tendency of a given population to form households. Headship rates are calculated as the ratio of the number of household heads of a given age, gender; and race (as identified on census forms) to the population having the same characteristics. The higher the headship rate, the more new households are formed from a given population. A headship rate of .75 means that a population of 1000 persons will form 750 households. With a headship rate of .5, that same population of 1000 will form only 500 households. Headship rates vary by age—they tend to rise as people age; by gender—men have historically had higher headship rates than women; and by race and ethnicityiuwhites generally have higher headship rates than non-white Hispanics and Asians of similar age (see Exhibit 6). J Headship rates. change over time, but not always in predictable directions. Among male Californians, headship rates declined consistently during the 1980s, albeit more for younger men than for older ones, and more for Hispanic and Asian men than for whites and blacks. The story is different for .women. For women over 25, headship rates increased consistently between 1980 and 1990, regardless of race or ethnicity, with the largest increases occurring among women aged 35 to 54. Headship rates among white women aged 18-24 increased between 1980 and 1990, but fell for Black, Hispanic,, and Asian women of comparable age. Headship rates among black women over 65 rose during the 1980s, but declined among Hispanic and Asian women of comparable age. Headship'rates also vary by location. They tend to be higher in metropolitan areas and lower in rural ones. To accommodate these possible variations, age-, gender-, race-, and county - specific headship rates were estimated from the 1990 census (See 9.6 file://\\Pat\timfileMousing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 dousing rolicy i)evelopment,.-r rage i omo--- , Household Growth Patterns The pattern of household growth in California will more.or less follow the pattern of population growth. The Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Region (including Imperial County) will gain 1.4 milhon'new households by 2010, and. '977,000 additional households between 2010 and 2020. This region by itself is projected to account for nearly half of the Slate's household' growth through 2020. By 2020, if these projections hold true, the six-county Los Angeles Metropolitan Region will be home to more than 7.5 million households. Because its population is older and wealthier than that of the rest of.Califomia,, ' the San Francisco Bay Area will add proportionately fewer new households per increment of population growth than the rest of the state. Altogether, the nine- , ' county Bay Area will, we project, add 460,000 additional households between } 1997 and 2010, and 248,000 additional households between 2010 and 2020. Bay Area household growth will account for just under 14 percent of the state's , projected household growth between 1997 and 2020. By 2020, the Bay Area -, will, it is projected, be home to just over three million households. +' The largest percentage household growth between 1997 and 2010, and then again between 2010 and 2020, will occur in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Region. This region, which extends from San Joaquin County in the north to Kern and Kings counties in the south, will, we project, add 420,000 additional households between 1997 and 2010, and 320,000 more households between 2010 and 2020. By 2020 the number of households in the San Joaquin' f: Metropolitan Region will, it is projected, have increased more than 70 percent over 1997 levels. The number of households in San Diego County are projected to grow by 265,000 between -1997 and 2010, and by 165,000 between 2010 and 2020. These ' are 'increases of 28 percent and 46 percent, respectively. By 2020, we project } that San Diego County will ,be, home to nearly 1.4 million households. ' The number of households in the six-county Sacramento Metropolitan Region are projected to grow from 668,000 in 1997, to 890,000 in 2010, to 1`,042,000 in 2020. These are increases of 33 percent and 17.3 percent, respectively. _ Household growth in the Sacramento Metropolitan Region between 1997 and 2020 will likely account for 7.3 percent of statewide household growth. The number'of households in the state's two other metropolitan regions—the - five-county Central Coast Metropolitan Region and the five-county Northern California Metropolitan region—will, it is projected, increase by 67,000 and • 115,000, respectively, between 1997 and 2020. Although not as large. in absolute', terms as in other parts of California, these increases amount to percentage gains, 4 r file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 0 Housing Policy Development in excess of 58 percent and 63 percent, respectively. rage s of i o L� California's 21 non -metropolitan counties (including those in metropolitan regions), will, we project, gain 136,000 additional households by 2010 and 91,000 more households by 2020. These are increases of 35.1 percent and 17.3 percent, respectively, and will account for just over four percent o the state's total projected household growth. Because population and household growth will both occur in rough proportion to their current numbers, the distribution of population and households within California is not expected to shift all that much. Assuming current trends continue, by 2020 the Greater Los Angeles Region's share of the state's population is expected to remain at about 47 percent. The San Diego, Sacramento, Central Coast, and Northern Central Valley regions will also retain their current household shares well into the next century. By virtue of its slower population growth, the Bay Area's share of California households will decline from 22 percent in 1997 to 19 percent in 2020. The share of California households living in the San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan region will rise from 9 percent in 1997 to 11 percent iri 2020. Small in proportion but large in absolute number, there will also be some . significant population and household shifts within metropolitan regions. In the Los Angles County Metropolitan Region, for example, the share of households living in Los Angeles County will likely decline (from 59 percent in 1997 to 54 percent in 2020), while the shares living in San Bernardino and Riverside counties will likely grow (from 19 percent to 24 percent). In the Bay Area, San Francisco's share of regional households will likely decline from 13 percent in 1997 to 11 percent in 2020, while Santa Clara's share will increase from 23 to 24 percent. Fresno County's share of San Joaquin Valley households will,.we project, decline slightly (from 23 percent in 1997, to 21 percent in 2020). Sacramento County's share of its region's households will also decline slightly, as growth favors the more eastern counties of Placer and El Dorado. Among Central Coast counties, Santa Barbara's share of regional households will decline' from 31 percent to 28 percent, as household growth favors other counties, particularly San Benito. As large as these intra -regional changes are, they should not obscure the more important point that every metropolitan region and urban county in California will experience significant population and household growth during the next quarter-century. The number of households—and thus the demand for housing—will gr6w ata faster rate than the population. Alternative Household Projections file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development litm 5/25/2006 tiousing roiicy ueveiopmeni rage 7-ul -IV Implicit in all of these projections is the assumption that 1990 headship rates (as estimated using 1990 Census) will remain unchanged through. 201 E) and 2020. This is probably not a realistic assumption. Headship rates can and do change, often in unpredictable ways. Forecasting with alternative headship rates is thus a tricky business, but also a necessary one. To test the sensitivity of.the prior household projections to possible changes in headship rates, the following additional assumptions regarding future headship rate trends were made: For the purposes of generating short-term household projections (2000 and 2003), 1990 headship rates were used, disaggregated by age, race, and gender. This method assumes that short-term household formation rates will not change from 1990 Census levels. For the purposes of generating longer-term household projections (2010 and 2020), a trend -line based on 1980 and 1990 headship rates (as always, disaggregated by age, race, and gender) was developed. For some groups, headship rates during this period trended upward; for others, cownward. Across all groups, headship rates declined. slightly. Once identified, the various headship rate trend lines were extender to 2010 and 2020, and used to estimate future headship rates (included as Appendix C). The resulting headship rates were then separately applied to DOF's 201C- and 2020 population projections. This method assumes that changes in headship and household formation rates observed during the 1980-90 period represent fundamental and embedded demographic and social trends, and that such trends will continue well into the future, albeit at a somewhat moderated pace. These revised headship rates were applied to DOF's 2010 and 2020 -population projections, shown in Table 5. We compared the resulting household projections (included as Exhibit 10. The principal effect of applying alternative headship rates is -to reduce the number of projected" 2010 and 2020 households by between three and nine percent, depending on'the county. Statewide, the effect of using alternative headship rates is to reduce total projected 1997-2010 household growth from 3.1 million to 2.5 million. For the 1997-2020 period, total projected household growth would fall from 5.1 million to 4.4 million. Instead of needing 220,000 new housing units every year, -the state would need 190,000. This is a significant reduction to be sure, but one which would still require a substantial increase in . housing production activity over current levels. Additional Caveats file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 • housing roucy Leveiopment L rage 1v vi io Several additional caveats also merit mention. Household growth -is typically the largest and -most important source of the demand for housing, but it is not the only source. Other sources of housing demand include: (i) the replacement of • demolished or unserviceable units; and, (ii) the addition (or subtraction) of units required to normalize local vacancy rates. When local vacancy rates are below normal levels, typically regarded as being in the range(of three to five percent, , owners and builders are able to make extraordinary profits. Conversely, when' vacancy rates rise above normal levels, new construction typically becomes • . ' .. unprofitable. ' More important than vacancy rates and replacement demand, especially in the ' short-term, are mortgage interest rates and lender qualifying ratios. When ' ` mortgage rates rise, fewer households qualify for homeownership, causing a s; ' ' decline in demand. The converse occurs when mortgage rates fall—housing demand rises. f • , Qualifying ratios also matter. Qualifying ratios are an underwriting measure = , ' used by mortgage lenders. They are calculated as the ratio sof annual Principal - Interest -Taxes -Insurance (PITI) payments to gross or after-tax income. The higher the qualifying ratio, the larger the mortgage loan a household of a given , income can afford. The lower the qualifying ratio, the smaller the mortgage. For conforming loans, (those which may be sold in the secondary market) qualifying . ratios are set by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or Fannie t Mae) and/or the Federal Home Loan/Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC, or = Freddie Mac). Homeownership affordability rises with increasing qualifying ratios, and declines with decreasing qualifying ratios. Another caveat concerns the usefulness of counties as the basis. for reporting demand projections. Counties are administrative units, not housing markets. - Sometimes county and housing market boundaries match each other fairly well, `as in the cases of San Diego and Fresno counties.- More frequently, housing market boundaries overlap county boundaries, leading to inter -county. ` . "spillovers" of housing demand. Projected housing demand which can not be `-.'i� accommodated in Alameda or Contra Costa counties for example, will spillover into San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties even though the former and latter • '; _ • ., counties are in different metropolitan regions. In much the same way, unaccommodated housing demand will spillover from Orange en County (and ev' `Y }, ,• , San DiegoCounty), into Riverside and San Bernardino counties; and from Los ' Angeles County, into Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. a . .. • Like water m'a channel, spillover housing demand seeks the path of least . , resistance, and the lowest housing prices. Recent job growth in Santa Clara County, for has led increase in housing example, to an construction in faraway- _ { but easy -to -develop Tracy, but had little effect on production levels in nearby* file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 mousing roncy Leveiopment— ragu i i vi iv°l but -harder -to develop, Santa Cruz County. Thus, while counties are a useful unit . of analysis for summarizing information on housing demand and supply, they are less useful for understanding. the subtleties and dynamics of the housing marketplace. From Household To Tenure Projections Like headship rates, long-term homeownership rates are slow to cl=ange. If one assumes that future homeownership rates—disaggregated by age aad ethnicity— will mirror current rates, then it becomes a straightforward operation to convert future household projections (see Exhibit l l). The demographic characteristics of California households (e.g., the aging of the population) will also constitute a strong bias toward homeownership. Statewide, the increase in the number of homeownership -oriented households will be double that of the increase in the number of renter -oriented households. All else being equal, and solely on the basis of anticipated demographic change, California's homeownership rate should rise from its current level cf 57.1 percent to 59.1 percent by 2010. Statewide, the demand for owner -occupied units in 2010 will be just over 8.3 million, while the demand for rectal units should exceed 5.8 million.I • Of course, all else is rarely equal, and California's high housing prices have long served to depress actual homeownership. rates below expected lever, especially in coastal markets. If future housing production levels continue to lag demand, instead of rising, California's homeownership rates will fall. Homeownership preferences will play out differently in different metropolitan regions. In the Greater Los. Angeles Metropolitan Region, for example, the incremental (demographic) demand for homeownership2 will be strongest in, Los Angeles and Orange counties, and weakest in Imperial County. Region - wide, and based on projected demographic characteristics alone, the incremental demand for homeownership will exceed the incremental demand for rental units by a ratio of 2.0 to 1. By 2010, if the appropriate supply of housing were made . available, the homeownership rate in Riverside and Ventura counties could well exceed 66.4 percent, while the homeownership rate in Los Angeles County ' could top 50 percent. Region -wide, the demand for ownership housing in 2010 . will exceed 3.8 million. The demand for rental housing in 2010 will approach 2.8 million units. Among Bay Area counties, and based solely on projected demographic characteristics, the incremental demand for homeownership will be s-xongest in • San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties. Region -wide, t1=e incremental demand for homeownership units could exceed that of rental units file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 p - housing roncy Leveiopment by a 2.8 -to -1 ratio. By 2010, given adequate production, the homeownership rate • in Contra Costa County could top 70 percent. Even in San Francisco, where only one in three households is currently a homeowner, the incremental!. demand for homeownership will likely exceed the incremental demand for rental units. Region -wide, the demand for ownership housing in 2010 will exceed 1.7 - million. Based on projected demographic characteristics, the incremental demand for homeownership in the San Joaquin Valley Metropolitan Region will exceed the incremental demand for renting by just over fifty percent. Comparing individual counties, the incremental demand for homeownership will be strongest in Madera and Stanislaus counties, and weakest in Kings and Merced. counties. Overall homeownership rates will rise only marginally by 2010, and range from a low of 52.2 percent in Kings County to a high of 64.3 percent in Madera County. Region -wide, the demand for ownership units in 2010 will exceed. 844,000, while the demand for rental units will approach 590,000. In Sari Diego County, the incremental demand for rental units will be just slightly less than the incremental demand for homeownership, basel on projected demographic characteristics. Region -wide, the demand foa ownership units in 2010 will exceed 660,000, while the demand for rental units will be just • over 550,000. Ownership units currently outnumber rental units in the Sacramentc Metropolitan region by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1—a disparity which lAill likely continue through 2010. Between 1997 and 2010, the incremental demand for owner -occupied units will exceed 145,000 while the incremental demand for rental units will be just under 75,000. Comparing counties, the incremental demand for homeownership (based on projected demographic chara.:,teristics) will be strongest among the foothill and Sierra Nevada counties of Flacer and El Dorado. Sacramento County by itself will account for more than half of the incremental demand for both ownership and rental units. Among Central Coast counties, the 1997-2010 incremental demand -,or owner - occupied homes will exceed the incremental demand for rental units by 65 percent. Comparing counties, the incremental demand for homeownership over renting will be strongest in Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara counties, and weakest in Monterey County. Region wide, the demand for ownership units in 2010 will exceed 340,000, while the demand for rental units will be just over 243,000. In the five -county Northern California Metropolitan Region, the 1997-2010 • incremental demand for owner -occupied housing will be just over 45,000 units, while the incremental demand for rental units will reach nearly 23,0010. The demand for homeownership will likely be strongest in Butte County, while the file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 tiousing roncy iieveiopment rage r.3 ' or i o demand for rental units will be strongest in Shasta County. As with any set of forecasts, care must be taken to treat these tenure projections with the appropriate caveats. They assume that current relationships.between household demographic characteristics—especially age and race—and tenure preferences will remain constant through 2010, and that they will rot be affected by short-term housing market or economic conditions. Should those conditions change on a permanent basis, then the various tenure projections would also be expected to change. Other changes that would likely impact the demand for homeownership would include: (i) changes in the availability of construction or mortgage credit and investment capital; (ii) significant shifts in U.S. housing, mortgage, or tax policy; (iii) changes in underlying housing preferences; (iv) the adoption of local land use policies that substantially limit housing production; and, (v) changes in the income distribution of the population. In all the discussion over homeownership, it's easy to overlook the fact that California will also need many hundreds of thousands of additional rental units. Statewide, we project that the number of renter -oriented households will increase by more than one million between 1997 and 2010 (see Figure 11). To meet this level of demand, California builders would need to produce an average of 75,000 new additional rental units every year between now and 2010. By way of comparison, between 1990 and 1997, California builders produced an average of only 27,000 new multi -family units each year.3 Among individual counties, the largest increments of new rental construction between 1997 and 2010 will be needed in Los Angeles (+216,000), San Diego (+125,000), Riverside (+76,000), San Bernardino. (+73,000), Orange (+57,000), Sacramento (+40,000), and Santa Clara County (+36,000). Finally, we note the substitutability of for -sale and rental housing priduction. The greater the production of for -sale housing (relative to demand), the fewer the number of households displaced downward into the rental market. As recent trends in the.Santa Clara and San Francisco rental markets so vividly indicate, shortfalls in the production of either for -sale or rental units quickly translate into rapidly escalating rents. Chapter Summary • State's Population to Grow: Bam*ng some unforeseen natural or economic calamity, California's population will likely grow from 34 } million people in 1999 to just under 40 million in 2010, to 45.4 million in . 2020. The number of households will grow at a faster rate than he population, reaching 14.2 million in 2010 and 16.3 million in 2020. • High Growth in Cities, Southern .California: Following past trends, fileIMPaNimfileMousing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 mousing roncy Leveiopmeni ragc I -t U1 IV almost all of the State's population and household growth will occur in • metropolitan areas; and more than half of it will occur in Southern California. Those counties that now have the lion's share of population— Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, Santa Clara, and Alameda—will also experience the lion's share of population growth. Thirteen of California's 58 counties are projected to add 100,000 or more new households between 1997 and 2020. Los Angeles County alone is projected to add more than two million people and one million households between now and 2020. • Varying Growth Rates: The Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Region and the San Diego Region are each projected to add population and households at the same rate as the state. The San Francisco Bay Area will likely grow at a slower rate, while the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Metropolitan Regions will grow at a faster rate. • Some Rural Growth: Although not the focal points of California's growth, some rural counties (e.g., Calaveras, Lake, and Nevada) will see their populations increase by 50 percent or more between now and 2020. • More Homeownership: Most new California households will be strongly inclined toward homeownership. Statewide—and only if sufficient homes and apartments can be built—the demand for owner -occupied housing in 2010 among current and new, households will be just over 8.3 million units, • while the demand for rental housing should exceed 5.7 million units. • 220,000 Units a Year: To meet demand, California homebuilders would have to construct an average of 220,000 additional housing units each and every year through 2020. Since 1987, new single- and multi -family home production has averaged just 141,000 units per year. These projections assume constant (1990) household formation rates. A decline in household formation rates (consistent with trends observed during the 1980s) would reduce projected 1997-2020 household growth from 5.1 million to 4.4 million. Instead of needing 220,000 new housing units every year, the state would need 190,000. References State of California, Department of Finance. 1998. County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail. Sacramento. December. State of California, Department of Finance. 1998. Historical County Population Estimates and Components of Change, July 1, 1970-90. Sacramento. December. State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. 1999. Statewide Housing Plan Update, Phase II. Sacramento. file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 tiousing roucy lieveiopment U.S., Bureau of the Census. 1990..1990 Census of Population and Mousing. • Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 Census of Population and _Mousing. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce. Endnotes • Migration proportions were developed for the two decades between 1970 and 1990 by a survived -population method. The 1970 population was aged forward in time to 1980 by 'adding recorded births to form new cohorts and subtracting deaths from existing cohorts. The survived population was compared.to the 1980 population and differences were assumed to be migration. The ten-year migration was annualized and divided by the total to derive a proportion. The same process was used for the per_od 1980 to 1990. The migration proportions for the two decades were then averaged and smoothed using a five-year moving average. • In enacting the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress eliminated almost all of the tax shelter benefits associated with investing or owning multi -family housing. This change in federal tax laws caused multi -family development activity to collapse. It also complicates direct, comparisons of pre- and • post -1987 multi -family housing production levels. • This estimate excludes new manufactured housing units put in place. Manufactured housing accounted for approximately 3.7% of new California homes between 1990 and 1996. • This estimate is based on a demographic determination of proi-cted homeownership rates; specifically, on the observation that homeownership rates rise with age. Thus, as California's population ages, all el3e being equal, homeownership rates should also rise. Homeownership does not require ownership of a detached -single-family home. As of 1990, 14 percent of California homeowners lived in attached structures. Thus, accommodating an increased demand for homeownership will likely require an increase in the production of both single- and multi -family housing units. • These estimates include the populations of Imperial, Kings, and San Benito countiesiuthree non -metropolitan counties which partially fall within metropolitan areas. To account for systematic deviations between DOF population projections . and census counts, we developed and applied a household projection correction factor. This factor was the ratio of projected 1997 households (using DOF 1997 population projections, series E-5) and 1990 census . headship rates) to DOF's 1997 household projections. • Our tenure projections extend only to 2010. Because we were reluctant to extend 1990 tenure rates beyond 20 years, we did not develop c-:)mparable file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Development.htm 5/25/2006 dousing roncy tueveiopment ° - rage iv ui 10 projections for 2020. • The incremental demand for homeownership measures the demand for homeownership among newly formed households. Not all rental units are multi -family units; and not all multi -family units are rentals.- Nonetheless, for historical purposes, the comparison between apartment construction levels and rental demand is a reasonable one. Copyright 02000. All rights reserved. Return to standard page version. file:/n\Pat\timfiles\iousing Policy Development. htm ! i T y1 ii � f.. t -.� f 1. `• F e „ . Y. � , 41 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICO AND THE COUNTY OF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN" WHEREAS, the City of Chico ("City") and the County of Butte ("County"), sometimes referred to collectively herein as the "Parties,"each 1 --Ave final land use authority within portions of the North Chico Planning Area, as that Area is defined herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement, ("Agreement") is to permit and encourage a cooperative planning approach by both jurisdictions and a sharing of personnel, costs and ideas regarding land use within the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, while both . jurisdictions intend' to retain their indepencent governmental authority to amend applicable general plan provisions and land use regulations,, both jurisdictions desire to cooperate in an attempt to develop a coordinated approach for the processing and review of applications.for landuse entitlements in the North Chico Planning Area which will be acceptable to both jurisdictions and will protect and enhance the health, safety and welfare of citizens residing in the said Area and of the public generally; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to protect agricultural .land and to ensure that its conversion. to urban .uses, when appropriate, shall be done in a well-planned manner, based on sound planning principles, and to work cooperatively to provide for urban growth within the Chicc Area of Concern fora 30=50 year planning horizon, and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is partially within the unincorporated area of the County, and partially within, the City's Planning Area, as depicted in Figure 3-1 of the City's general plan; part of the North Chico Planning Area has been designated as a special study area by ` the Butte .County Local. Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and the entire.Area will be the subject of a Sphere of Influence Study by LAFCo; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Planning Area is approximately 5000 acre.: in size, and the development of such a large area will generate complex social, economic, environmental and other concerns and a need for sensitive stewardship of the governmental and private res•:)urces available to address such concerns; and WHEREAS, it is desirable for the convenience of interested citizens, organizations and. various interested groups to establish a central clearinghouse for the compilation and dissemination of information relative to land use in the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, on November. 4, 1987, County and City entered into a Municipal Affairs . Agreement to resolve issues pertaining to the annexation of properties in the Chico Urban Area, defined as the.Chico Sphere of Influence as then or thereafter adopted.by the Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission; and • WHEREAS, the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites the desire of the Parties to set forth mutual understandings which would permit a cooperative approach to the future annexation of properties in the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area to the incorporated territory of the City; and WHEREAS, section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement recites the intent of the Parties that in the future City would assume responsibility to provide the following services to the unincorporated portion of the Chico Urban Area, subject to negotiation of a detailed agreement between the Parties relating to the level of such services, the reimbursement of costs incurred by _City in providing such services, the obligation of the owners of property benefitted by such services to annex such property to the incorporated territory of City, and any other matte- of concern to either County or City: Animal Control; Parks; Planning and Building Inspection; Law Enforcement; Sanitary Sewers; Storm Drainage; Street Lighting; Street Maintenance; Street Trees; and Public Transportation; and WHEREAS section 1.03 of the Municipal Affairs Agreement further recites the intent of the Parties to meet and confer to explore the feasibility of an agreement between the Parties in the following matters relating to -the fire suppression services provided by County and City within both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the Chico Urban Area: Automatic Aid; Location of Fire Stations; and any other matters relating to fire suppression services determined to be of mutual interest to both County and City; -and WHEREAS, the Parties have not fully implemented the intent of s,-,ction 1.03 of the • Municipal Affairs Agreement, but have moved effectively towards certain of the goals therein by subsequent agreements, including but not limited to execution of (1) the Chico Urban Area Fire and Rescue Agreement, dated June 29, 1999, implementing the desire of the Parties to provide the finest and most cost-effective level of fire and rescue services in their respective jurisdictions and to augment such services by responding to emergency calls within the Chico Urban Fire and Rescue Service Area, based on the closest County or City fire station rather than by the iurisdiction where the emergency exists, and (2) that certain Agreement between the County of Buie' and the City of Chico for the Extension of Sewer Services and Installation of Certain Public Im-irovements in the Chico Urban Area, dated December 5, 2000, which recites the desire of the Parties to cooperate in solving the groundwater nitrate contamination problem in the Chico Urban Area addressed by order no. 90-126 of the Regional Water Quality Board, and to cooperate regarding the funding and construction of specified road improvement projects in the Chico Urban Area, including some within, the North Chico Planning Area; and n U WHEREAS, use of septic systems was determined by the Regional Wate_- Quality Control' -Board to be the primary cause of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Chico Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the use of septic systems in the North Chico Planning Area has occurred and is occurring and, if allowed at densities greater than one residential unit per acre, may cause similar problems in that Area; and 2 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to prevent such groundwater problems and protect the health, • safety and welfare of persons residing in the North Chico Planning Area and in the Chico Urban Area by cooperatively planning to provide appropriate infrastructure to allow the connection of new development in the North Chico Planning Area to City's sewer system;' and .� WHEREAS, the historic pattern of flooding within the North Chico Planning Area and new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements rnrquire planning for appropriate flood control measures, and allowing additional development in the Area may jeopardize funding for such measures; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan ("the Plan") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte on March 28, 1995; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is defined in Butte County Code Section 3-152 F as the unincorporated area of the County described approximately as that area north of Eaton Road, east of Highway 99, south of Keefer Road and west of the Chico Municipal Airport and more particularly depicted in Figure 3-1 of the North Chico Specific Plan; and 4 WHEREAS, a substantial amount of new residential, industrial; commercial, office and school development can reasonably be expected to occur within the North Chico Specific Plan Area as.a result of the implementation of the Plan and the rezoning adopted as a part thereof; and WHEREAS, such development will create a need for the acquisition and development of • additional public facilities within the Plan Area, because the existing public facilites are insufficient in number, size, and location to meet the needs generated by such new development; and WHEREAS, such needed public facilities will include new street, trail, drainage, fire protection and 'park facilities, as contemplated by the Plan and the Environmental impact Report for.. the Plan. However,- adequate funding for such infrastructure facilities is not available, and the infrastructure needs and funding therefore need to be further addressed before additional- development dditionaldevelopment imposes undue burdens upon the existing, infrastructure; and r WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan Area is partially within City's Sphere of' Influence; and WHEREAS, City is developing a specific plan known as the Northwest Chico Specific Plan and a related general plan amendment, both of which contemplate changes in land use in the North Chico Planning Area; and WHEREAS, the North Chico Specific Plan and the City general plan both contemplate development in the North Chico Planning Area, but are not in full agreement regarding the type and `. density of development therein and the type and level of infrastructure necessaryy or desirable to provide necessary public services within said Area; and -3- WHEREAS, the independent, uncoordinated development of properties within the unincorporated portion of the North Chico Planning Area, which properties may at a future time be annexed by City, could cause conflicts .between the respective general and specific plans and zoning of the Parties, and conflicts between the infrastructure provided by the Parties, including but not limited to roads, sewerage, storm drainage and flood control, and water supply; and WHEREAS, County is currently conducting a general plan technical update and will, upon the completion of such update, conduct a full general plan review, including a review of the North Chico Specific Plan to determine its consistency or lack thereof with the Airport Land Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan as amended in 1999 and 2000; and . WHEREAS, City has reviewed its general plan to determine the consistency of it with the Airport Land Use Commission's Chico Municipal Airport Land Use Plan as amended in 1999 and 2000; and . WHEREAS, the approval of substantial development in the North Chico Planning Area prior to the completion by the County and the City of such update and reviews and the coordination of the Parties' goals for development of the Area would be premature and inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is desirable to foster and encourage orderly development in the North Chico Planning Area, to coordinate the actions of City and County so that necessary in and public services will be provided without wasteful conflict or duplication, and to consider the amendment of their respective general plans, zoning ordinances, and development regulations and standards to facilitate such coordination; and WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 65351 and 65352 contemplate that the public interest beyond individual city or county boundaries shall be considered and that general plan amendments by a legislative body shall be referred to any city or county within or abutting the area covered by the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65101, subsection (b), provides that two or more legislative bodies may create a joint area planning agency, planning commission, or advisory agency for all or prescribed portions of their cities or counties which shall exercise those powers and perform those duties under Title 7 of the Government Code, entitled "Planning and Zoning," that the legislative bodies, delegate to it, and further authorizes their planning agencies, or any components ofthem, to meet cooperatively to coordinate their work, conduct studies, develop plans, hold hearings,, or cooperatively exercise any power or perform any duty common to them; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for an agreement to be reached regarding the sharing of the costs of such coordinated efforts; and WHEREAS, the cooperative planning approach reflected in this Agreement has been developed. to meet the above concerns and to best serve the citizens within The North Chico Planning Area; and -4- ' J WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Parties, through this Agreement, to work together, diligently, to achieve concurrence on general and specific plans, zoning, and related actions to be taken concerning the future development of the North Chico Planning Area. NOW, THEREFORE, City and County agree, in view of the above recitals, as follows: 1. Cooperative Planning Approach. A. Goal - City and County agree to a cooperative planning approach for the North.Chico Planning Area, with the goal of amending their respective policies and lane- use development regulations as appropriate to make them as consistent with each other as is reasonably feasible. Oversight of this . effort is vested in. an ad hoc committee to be known as the City/County Cooperative Planning Committee, composed of two county supervisors appo_nted by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and three city council members appointed by the Chico City Council. B. Establishment of a Cooperative Decision-making'Process - The Courty shall provide to the City information on requests for Initial Development Review and copies of all applications or proposals for generalplan amendments, rezonings, and development permitswithin the North Chico Planning Area. The City shall provide staff to attend such Initial Development Re-iiew meetings and shall' provide written input for all such applications and proposals. Comments from the City shall be incorporated into the reports and analysis of these applications and proposals. C. Coordination of Staffing for Development Projects - TheCity.and Caunty shall create • a specific process for the compilation and dissemination of information relative -o. coordination of land use in the North Chico Planning Area and designated staff shall prepare a report to be submitted - to City/County Cooperative Planning Committee within 45 days as follows: (1) Overview. The report shall provide: a) an overview of the existing -general and specific plans of the City. and County in the North Chico Planning Area; b) a brief discussion regarding the consistency or lack of consistency between such plans, and Letween them and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the Airport Land Use Comr ussion regarding the Chico Municipal Airport; c) the zoning and subdivision regulations and improvement standards of City and County applicable'in said Area; and d) the development impact fees which apply within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of rhe North Chico Planning Area. (2) Recommendations.. The, report shall include recommendations regarding any initial and immediate amendments in the respective general and specific plans, regulations and fees of the City and the County deemed necessary or desirable in order to make them as consistent with each other as is reasonably feasible. (3) Infrastructure. The report shall include a discussion of the infrastructure needed for the ' -. anticipated development within the North Chico Planning Area which would be allowed pursuant to the development approach recommended. This reporl shall include recommendations regarding a) infrastructure required to provide necessary or desirable public services, including roads, sewerage, storm drainage and flood control, and water • supply, b) appropriate uniform development standards and impact fees within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area, and.c) other sources of funding, such as Mello Roos districts, assessment districts, and County Service Areas, for the capital outlay and other short and long term facilities costs, including related operation and maintenance costs. D. Duties of Ci /ty County Cooperative Planning Committee The City/County Cooperative Planning Committee shall review and consider the staff report and shall'make a recommendation to City Council and Board of Supervisors. E. Action to Implement Recommendations The City and the County will conduct workshops and hold meetings to fully inform the public of the analysis and recommendations to enact a cooperative planning approach. If the City Council and Board of Supervisors fail to reach consensus regarding the implementation of recommendations of the report, the City Council's position shall be given greater weight as to implementation affecting that part of the North Chico Planning Area which is south of Mud Creek and the Board of Supervisor's position shall be given greater weight as to implementation north of Mud Creek. F. Resources to be Provided. The City and County shall each provide necessary staff or consultant resources to achieve a cooperative planning program for the North Chico Planning Area.. G. Related Documents. Environmental review shall be conducted before adoption of any resolutions or ordinances, subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act • ("CEQA'). The procedures for CEQA compliance and the designation of the lead agencypursuant to CEQA shall be the subject of a. future agreement to be negotiated andimplemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. 2. Cost Sharing. City and County shall share equally the costs incurred to implement the cooperative planning program approved by the Parties, pursuant to an agreement to be negotiated and implemented by and between the Chico City Manager and the County Chief Administrative Officer. The Master Property Tax Agreement adopted by both the City and County on November 4, 1987, shall not be affected by this Agreement. 3. Timeline for Implementation It is the intent of the Parties to establish the cooperative planning process contemplated by this Agreement by January 1, 2004, in order to implement and foster a° cooperative approach to the immediate development projects and pressures for development in the - North Chico Planning Area. The City and County will work in good faith to extend the cooperative decision-making process to the Chico Area of Concern by December 31, 2004: 4. Definition of North Chico Planning Area For purposes of this Agreement, the North Chico Planning Area is defined as follows: that certain area which includes County's North Chico Specific. Plan, the City's Northwest Chico Development Area, the areas between these two areas and the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport, extending south to Lassen Avenue, west to the City's current Sphere of Influence line, and east to Cohasset Road, as shown on the diagram attached at Exhibit • -6- • "A" to this Agreement. 5. Definition of Chico Area of Concern. For purposes of assuring coordination of planning for the fiiture growth needs of the City, the cooperative planning process shall be expanded to include the Chico Area of Concern, generally defined' as: Meridian Road on the west, starting at Big Chico Creek, northerly along Meridian Road to State Highway Route 99, then northwesterly along State Route Highway 99 to the County boundary line with Tehama County, then easterly to the southeast corner of the southeast quarter of section 36 of Township 24 North, Range 2 East, then southerly along the range line to Durham-Pentz Road, then westerly along Durham-Pe,ntz Road and Oro -Chico Highway to Midway, then northerly along Midway approximately one mile, then southwesterly to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, then north along that right-of-way to Comanche Creek, thertmesterly along Comanche Creek to Lone Pine Road, then north along Lone Pine Road to Chico River Road,' then southwesterly along Chico River Road to the southerly extension of the western boundary line of the Ranchaero Airport property, then northerly along that line to Big Chico Creek; then along Big Chico Creek to Meridian Road, all as shown more particularly on the diagram, attached at Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. 6. Administration. 'This Agreement shall be administered by the County's Chief Administrative Officer on behalf of the County and the City Manager on behalf of.the City. 7. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Neither Party shall file an action against the other Party to compel performance or • other relief unless such Party first makes a 30 -day written demand for cure of a default of the Agreement on the other Party and such demand has not been satisfied. The prevailing,Party in such action shall recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 8. Duty to Defend and Indemnify. The County agrees that, upon demand by the City, it will defend and indemnify the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the County, or its officers, employees and agents, asto work done or caused to be done by the County pursuant to this Agreement. The City agrees that, upon demand by the .County, it will defend and indemnify the County, and the officers, employees and agents of the County, from any claim, liability, loss, damage, cost, expenses (including attorneys' fees), awards, fines or judgments (Claims) arising out of the acts or omissions of the City, or its officers, employees and agents, as to work done or caused. to' be done by the City pursuant to this Agreement. However, neither Party owes the other a duty of indemnification under this section as to any act or omission of the other Party that is the sole legal cause of the Claims and that constitutes an act or omission of sole negligence or willful misconduct on the part of that Party or any officer, employee or agent of that Party. _ 9. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement is effective upon its execution. However, the County and the City understand and agree that the ability of the City and County to perform all their respective obligations hereunder is dependent upon the availability to each Party of adequate financial resources to implement this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the time necessary for the Parties to complete the work contemplated herein or until such time in the future -7- as it is jointly deemed appropriate by the Parties that this Agreement shall no longer have effect or 0 shall be amended. This Agreement is limited to the above -listed work and no other work shall be undertaken pursuant to this Agreement unless authorized by both jurisdictions. 10. No Service Guarantees or Entitlements. The provision of land use planning services by the City or the County to any property within the unincorporated portions of the North Chico Planning Area shall not obligate the City or County in any way to provide any other service of any kind whatsoever, and neither the City nor the County assumes any responsibility to make available or provide any other service.. Nothing in this Agreement creates an entitlement to or guarantees the availability of any particular City or County service or public improvement or any particular level of City or County service to any persons or property within the North Chico Planning Area. 11. No Admissions. Assumptions of Liabilities, or Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely by and between the County and the City as public agencies committed . to public health, welfare, and safety: Therefore: A. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an'admission by the County or the City that either, or both of them, has caused or permitted, oris causing or permitting, or threatening to cause or permit, any improper development in the North Chico Planning Area. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed to be an assumption by one Party of any duty or liability, should any exist, of the other Party to alleviate, remediate or • otherwise abate the effects of any land use development in the North Chico Planning Area. C. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any third -party beneficiary rights with respect to any person, agency or entity, whether directly or indirectly affected by this Agreement., • 12. Notice. Reasonable notice shall be given to the other Party when either the City or County. Planning Commission, the City Council, or the County Board of Supervisors places a land use item on their respective agendas pertaining to the North Chico Planning Area. 13. Amendment._ This Agreement maybe amended only by a written document approved by the legislative bodies of both Parties. COUNTY OF BUTTE r By R.J. Beeler, Chair . .Butte County Board of Supervisors { -8- CITY OF CI ICO* By Trish Dunlap Assistant City Manager • ATTEST: *AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO CITY r COUNCIL MINUTE ORDER NO. 51-03 ADOPTED October 21, 2003 ul McInt Chief Addlinistrative Officer and -Ex -Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors r APPROVED AS TO BUDGETARY AND FISCAL CONTROL: By �v 1 11 -7 -per Dave Pouser Auditor -Controller County of Butte - API OVED S F APPROVED AS TO FORM: • By ' By Bruce S. Alpert David R. Frank County Counsel City Attorney County of Butte City of Chico -9- --mUr1Aj4V vm Ur JWKLZMLN C ULIWEEN THE CITY OFCHICO AND THE COUNTYOF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN Exhibit A Aig— Swe gnto JI Iii V Rlirar $I . O 04- 1 2 ins ® � CP C $ N1Mr I g � I RIE North Chico Planning Area. Including: County's North Chico Specific Plan Area, CSA W. >; City's Northwest Chico DevelopmentArea (Specific Plan) Remaining Land in North Chico Planning Area Area of Concern "Chico Area of Concern I" Butte County Land Not Included — E6dsting City of Chico Sphere of Influence Boundary , R I --mUr1Aj4V vm Ur JWKLZMLN C ULIWEEN THE CITY OFCHICO AND THE COUNTYOF BUTTE REGARDING COOPERATIVE PLANNING IN THE CHICO AREA OF CONCERN Exhibit A � 3 1I � � � i �t xi Si � _ ` .� L � K � 3 t .. r � + � z. � , � 1 � ` � . _ ian • t ' _ :. Y , t • i � � � . .;.. ,a r IR,' k• .. � �" it { � } .. M .�. � _ qtr[ '_ 6 � . t - � � r � � � E'. � � � - a i ,C_ -� �i . 1 � y ,l �, , - �, � , ,.: -. ;_ ; t - . _ r y ' • f 1 a Housing Policy Development Page 1 of 2 California Department of Housing and Community Development • Housing Policy Development Return to standard pagge version. Raising the Roof- California Housing Development. Projections and Constraints 1997-2020 Secretary Maria Contreras -Sweet of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency on May 19,- 2000 announced the availability of the publication, Raising the Roof, California's Housing Development Projections and Constraints, 1997- 2020. Press Release This publication represents an update of the California Statewide Housing Plan (CSHP), undertaken to facilitate efforts addressing this State housing goal. Updates of the CSHP are published by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50450 et. seq., in phases. This update and the prior one provide perspective on the State's housing needs for subsequent policy development. • This update takes a county -by -county look at California's projected housing needs through the year 2020, the.constraints to meeting those needs, and the possible consequences of not meeting them. The document is comprised of two volumes. Volume One is the main report, divided into seven chapters. Volume Two is the Appendix containing several appendices, in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. Volume One -Report Chapter . Introduction/ Executive Summary • California's Housing Projection Needs, 1997-2020 • Land and Site Constraints • Regulatory Constraints • Capital Constraints . Past and Future Housing Shortfalls . Conclusions • County GIS Maps file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy'Developmentmain.htm 5/25/2006 PAI Housing Policy Development Page 2 of 2 Volume Two - Appendix Appendices . 1990 Headship Rates by County, Race, and Age . 1990 Homeownership Rates by County and Race . Alternative .Headship Rates by County, Race, and'Age • Household Projections based on Alternative Headship Rates Land Supply Analysis: Summary of Map Layers and Data Sources . Explanation of Endangered Species Rating System • Results of Infill Regression Models . • Housing Construction and Rehabilitation Activity Undertaken by Local Redevelopment Agencies: 1988-1996 . UCB/HCD Growth Management Survey . Tabulation of UCB/HCD Growth Management Survey Results . Single-family Case Studies • Multi -family Case Studies . Housing Shortfall vs. Housing Price Regression Models Housing Market Indicators for Selected U.S. Metropolitan Areas: 1980, 1990, 1991 .'Housing Production Regression Models j file://\\Pat\timfiles\Housing Policy Developmentmain.htm 5/25/2006 01 101 F - 1, rr '�: >. � - .. • _ 1 �1 { , Y , •tL � it � �., r,`,. .. .. ( / - � ` _ .' '- y . .. .. - .. ..t ... _.-. _ t,�. - .. ,: - • .. � ' -, 1. �i .' _ ,. � 9' 0 - FINAL Butte County Regional Housing Needs Plan January 1, 2001. — July 1, 2008 Prepared by: Butte County Association of Governments ADOPTED • January 23, 2003 y: CA =a �z iG�`' IFp TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE ADOPTING RESOLUTION ........................................................ 3 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 5 REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW ............................................... 7 ASSUMPTIONS........................................................................ 9 METHODOLOGY....................................................................... 20 BASIC CONSTRUCTION NEED .................................................... 28 APPENDIX A - SUPPLEMENTAL DATA AND INFORMATION.......... 29 APPENDIX B - GOV. CODE SEC. 65584 ........................................ 37 • APPENDIX C - ANNEXATION/INCORPORATION REDIST. POLICY.... 41 • APPENDIX D -MEMBER JURIDICTIONS LETTERS OF CONCERN.....-..42 0 Resolution #200210343 RESOLUTION OF THE.BUTTE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ADOPTING THE BUTTE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL. HOUSING NEEDS PLAN WHEREAS, Cities and Counties are required by State law to prepare and adopt a general plan with a housing element that addresses the need to attain housing goals; and WHEREAS, Government. Code Section 65580 directs each City and County to address the housing needs of all segments of the community in the housing. element of its general plan; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65584 directs Councils of Governments to prepare regional housing needs plans, and requires that regional housing needs determinations make allocations specific to jurisdictions, including consideration of housing needs of all Income levels; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Association of Governments Regional Housing Needs Plan responds to State guidelines by Identifying: 1. Existing and projected housing need within the Butte County Region during :the time period January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008; and 2. Projected housing need among jurisdictions; and 3. Projected housing need by income group among jurisdictions; and 4. Other factors as required by statute. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Butte County Association of Governments does hereby approve and adopt the Butte County Regional Housing Needs Plan. 3 • • SLAG Resolution 2002/03-13 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Association of Govern ments on this 23rd day of January 2003 by the following vote: AYES: flowc, Ymaauchi, Heeler, Jos:iassen, Dolan, Jarvis, Mdoe, White NOES: n ABSENT:: Cook, Narklc" Y ABSTAIN: U BUTTE COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ATTEST: JON C K, XECUTIVE DIRECTOR BUTtg COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS t ' - 1 • 4 • REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS PLAN This document is the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) for the 3utte County Association of Governments (BCAG), comprising the cities of Biggs, Chicon Gridley, Oroville, the Town of Paradise, and Butte County. The purpose of the RHMP is to allocate to the Cities and County their "fair share" of the region's projected housing need by household income group over the seven and a half year (2001-2008) planning period covered by the plan. The plan is required by State law (Government Code, Section 65584) and is based on countywide housing projections developed by the Czlifomia Department of Housing and Community Development. Each BCAG member's share of the regional housing need shown in this plan must be used in that member's housing element as the local goal for accommodating additional housing. The number of dwelling units allocated to each BCAG member should be considered as minimum growth needs. Nothing in this plan restricts or prohibits BCAG members from planning for a higher number of dwelling units than its regional allocation. The major goal of the RHNP is to assure a fair distribution of housing among cities and county, so that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of housing affordable to all economic segments. The housing allocation targets are not building requirements, but goals for each community to accommodate through appropriate planning policies and land use regulations. They are not housing unit quotas that jurisdictions must achieve within the time frame of their next housing element update. Allocation targets are intended to assure that adequate sites and zoning are made available to address anticipated housing demand during the planning period and that market forces are not inhibited in addressing the housing needs of all econonic segments of a community. The core of the RHNP is Table Twenty -Nine, page twenty-eight, which indicates for each jurisdiction, the distribution of housing needs for each of four household income groups, and the projected new housing unit targets by income group for the ending date of the plan. These units are considered the basic new construction'need to be addressed by individual city and countyhousing elements. Tables Seventeen through wenty- Eight indicate how the allocation in Table Twenty -Nine was developed, and Appendix A includes supplemental data and information used in the allocation process. Appendix B contains the complete text of state law relating to regional housing needs plans, Appendix C addresses the policy for RHNP redistribution upon annexation or incorporation, and Appendix D contains letters received by BCAG from member jurisdictions expressing concern over HCD's RHNP process. The regional housing allocation provided for in this plan meets only one of several requirements of state housing element law. For example, each jurisdiction in its housing element must evaluate the needs of special population groups, the number of households overpaying for housing, and the number of overcrowded households. In addition, Butte County will need to apportion its share among unincorporated communities, or planning areas, within the County. 40 BCAG staff would like to express, our concerns with the RHNP process, specifically the countywide allocation of housing units as provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to BCAG for: the development of the RHNP. Our concerns center around the fact that the countywide allocation of housing units that were provided by HCD for Butte County were very high and generally not reflective of the growth trends that Butte County and the incorporated Cities and Town have experience over the last 20 years. HCD'provided BCAG with two sets of housing unit numbers that BCAG could chose from to develop the RHNP, which covers a 7.5 year period: a "middle" housing unit number of 20,505, and a "low" housing unit number of 18,393. To provide context, approximately 10,700 housing units were constructed in Butte County during the 11 -year period from 1990 to 2000. As might be expectedt this has raised much concern from City, County and Town planners who must use their RHNP allocation to develop their General Plan Housing Element updates next year. Butte County is not alone in facing unrealistically high allocations by HCD, as most counties and COG'S statewide have faced the same problem, resulting n several agencies taking up lawsuits against HCD. BCAG staff, along with staff from Butte County Development Services, met with the Deputy Director and staff members of HCD for a special meeting to address BCAG and County concerns regarding the unrealistically high allocation of housing units, as well as to address several methodological concerns with HCD's calculation of the allocation. At this meeting, HCD held steadfast to their methodology and would not consider reducing Butte County's allocation. BCAG staff, as well as City and County planning staff have come to a point where we realize that we must work within the confines of the RHNP process as setup by the State. Thus, we have developed a final RHNP that all member jurisdictions are reasonably comfortable with in light of the overall high allocations. This RHNP is the result of numerous meetings with City, Town and County planning staff, as well as the testing of six different methodologies. 40 • REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW State housing element law (Section 65583 of the California Governments Code) requires that each city and county adopt a share of the regional housing need:3 in the housing market region in which it is located. Section 65584 of the Governn-ent Code specifies the considerations and procedure for determining what each jurisdiction's share of a region's housing needs should be. According to state law: A locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The distribution of regional housing need -3 shall, based on available data, take into consideration market demand for hcusing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farm -workers. The distribution shall seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households. Although state law includes the availability of suitable sites and public facilities among the criteria for apportioning a region's housing needs, the application of these criteria should not be used as a pretext for reducing a jurisdiction's share based on past land use or planning practices which have limited the availability of sites or public facilities for new development. The methodology in this plan must recognize that there may be legitimate environmental or other barriers that could constrain a jurisciction from designating suitable sites and planning for public facilities to meet its housing; needs. BCAG must balance such an acknowledgement, however, against the affirmative responsibility that all local governments have under state law to plan for their share of the region's future housing needs, despite past policies that may affect their ability to do so. The procedure outlined by state law requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), based on population projections provided by the California Department of Finance, or council/associations of governme_-its, to apportion the statewide housing need among housing market regions. These ragions coincide with council of government areas,*except for those parts of the state rot covered by councils of governments (HCD determines the housing market regions in tEose portions of the state). The portion of the statewide housing need assigned to tl-_e Butte County Association of Governments covers the period January 1, 2001 through July 1, 2008 and totals 18,393 housing units (using HCD's "Low" range). The adoption of a draft Housing Needs Plan by BCAG requires a ninety -day period during which the Cities and County will review and comment on the proposed plan. After this ninety -day period expires, BCAG will have sixty days to adop• any proposed changes, modify its prior determination, or make no change to the plan and indicate why the proposed change is inconsistent with the regional housing need. If a BCAG member still wishes to contest the determination of the Board, it may request a public hearing to discuss the revision of the draft plan. Such a request must be made within thirty days after BCAG's adoption of the plan. BCAG will then adopt a final housing allocation plan subsequent to the public hearing. Once a final housing allocation plan has been adopted, members of BCAG may request a change of the plan for one purpose only: to transfer a portion of the county's allocation to one or more cities within the county. The transfer must meet the standards applicable to the original allocation of BCAG's housing need and be approved by Butte County, the affected city or cities, and BCAG. Such a transfer might be justified by substantial changes in the local economy after the adoption of the plan, changes in annexation policies, the incorporation of a new city, or new information about the ability of BCAG members to accommodate population growth. The complete text of state law relating to regional housing need plans appears in Appendix B. U 8 0 ASSUMPTIONS The Regional Housing Needs Plan includes the following assumptions. • Employment -generated population growth will represent about half of the countywide population growth according to a California Employment Development Department projection of a 6,000 job increase in Butte County between 1999 and 2006. A comparison of 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data did not indicate significant shifts in the proportion of residents employed in different types of jobs in each community at that time. • Historic patterns of population growth (1980-2000) will continue over the period covered by this plan, with the exception that areas of southern Butte County will see an increase in residential growth. • The primary employment centers will continue to be Chico and Oroville, and employment generated housing demand will affect these two communities the most. • Enrollment at California State University, Chico will remain relatively stable at its current enrollment of 16,700 students throughout the planning period. Enrollment is expected to decrease slightly during the 2002/03 academic year, and then climb back up gradually until it reaches the current level near the end of the plan period. • The residence and commuting patterns of Butte College students will not change between 2001 and 2008. There is no information, either from Butte College or from a review of the 1990 or 2000 Census to suggest that the proportion of residents from each community attending Butte College has changed. • The percentage of homeowners relative to renters will remain stable between 2001 and 2008. • Renters and students will continue to have a higher percentage of lower- income households than the population at large. The percentage of student households who are low income will be substantially less than the percentage of students, however, because most students share living accommodations. Many students who share accommodations might qualify individually as low income but do not, in fact, live in low-income households. • The Town of Paradise and many of the unincorporated areas of the County will be affectedmore by retirement and commuter -driven population growth than by employment generated population growth. Despite the fact that the percentage of population 65 years of age or more has decreased by 3.4% in Paradise between 1990 and 2000 (Table Thirty - One), it is expected that retirees will continue to locate in these areas. • Allocations for the incorporated areas are intended for the incorporated • boundaries only. This means that it is assumed that all incorporated Cities 9 • and Town will only use their incorporated boundaries in the --lousing Element updates of their General Plans is Employment Opportunities BCAG's determination of regional housing needs is required to cons.der employment opportunities. An inadequate supply of available housing can impede economic growth by driving up the price of available housing, making it difficult for companies to attract new employees and resulting in a mismatch in the "jobs -housing balance". Table 1. Butte County Employment by Industry. ndust"� Num er ;ercea.t Educational, health and social services 22,978 27.9% Retail trade 10,840 13.2% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 7,618 9.2% Manufacturing 6,098 7.4% Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services 6,067 7.4% Construction 5,226 6.3% Other services (except public administration 4,811 5.8% Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 4,412 5.4% Public administration 3,764 4.6% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3,344 4.1% Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 3,064 3.7% Wholesale trade 2,368 2.9% Information 1,8131 2.2% Source: 2000 U.S. Census Butte County's economic structure is defined by education, health, social services, retail trade, and related industries. These industries alone account for 41.1% of all employment in Butte County. The high percentage of educational employers is affected by the high number of employees at California State University, Chico and Butte Community College. Enloe, Feather River, and Oroville Hospitals are the primary health care employers in Butte County. Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services account for an additional 9.2% of employment in Butte County. 10 • Table 2. Lareest Employers - Butte County. • C] m toerw{,' California State University, Chico 1,000 to 2,499 CSU, Chico Research Foundation, Inc. 1,000 to 2,499 Enloe Medical Center, Inc. 1,000 to 2,499 County of Butte 1,000 to 2,499 Oroville Hospital 1,000 to 2,499 Feather River Health Home Agency 500 to 999 Associated Students Bookstore 500 to 999 Lifetouch National Studios 500 to 999 Staff Resources Inc. 500 to 999 Butte Community College 250 to 499 Source: Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico 2002 Butte County Profile Table 3. Butte County Employment/Unemployment Data. rea:Namee4 `° Aorcea%� Employment Uneni Inent fi Nuinber South Oroville - CDP 2,750 2,260 490 18.0% Gridley - City 2,090 1,800 290 14.0% Thermalito - CDP 2,510 2,190 320 12.6% Oroville - City 4,380 3,870 510 11.7% Biggs - City 720 640 80 11.4% Palermo - CDP 2,330 2,080 250 10.8% Ma alfa - CDP 3,090 2,780 310 10.1% Chico - City 23,060 21,330 1,730 7.5% Oroville East - CDP 3,750 3,480 270 7.3% Concow - CDP 470 440 301 7.1% Paradise - Town 10,490 9,850 640 6.1% Durham - CDP 2,890 2,780 1101 3.9% Butte County 89,3001 82,4001 6,900 7.7% California 1 17,579,8001 16,480,6001 1,099,2001 6.3% Source: California Employment Development Department. Data Current as of July 1, 2002. Many incorporated cities and Census Designated Places (CDP's) in Butte County have unemployment rates much higher than the statewide average in California. For IF F Y h' (Table Four). Comparative data is not yet available from the 2000 U.S. Census.. Because employment patterns are expected to continue to be relatively unchanged over the 7.5 -year period covered by this -plan, commute patterns are also `' Tabl'e4�Btte�C un �Conmufe`DaTan � r .4^c.;ik"�lirt"- 'iT •example, for the month of July, 2002 South Oroville CDP has the highest unemployment-, r rate in Butte County at 18.0%, well above'the California statewide average of 6.3%. . i 'Other cities and CDP's in Butte County that exceed the statewide average for 91.6% unemployment include Gridley with 14.0%, Thermalito CDP with 12.6%, tl-_e City of Oroville with 11.7%, the City of Biggs with 11.4%, Palermo CDP with. 10.8:%, Magalia 8.4% CDP with 10.1%, the City of Chico with 7.5%, Oroville East CDP with 7.3%, and' Concow CDP with 7.1%. The only areas that fall under the statewide average of 6.3% are the Town of Paradise (6.1%) and Durham CDP (3.9%). Looking at uner iployment on a countywide scale, Butte County as a whole averaged 7.7% unemployment for July " 2002, which is not too far off the 6.3% statewide average. Butte County and its cities are not currently experiencing any major shifts in the •- , distribution or type of new job growth. Efforts by both the City of Chico and City of Oroville to attract additional manufacturing and high -tech -type jobs has had mixed ' s results, land based on the data provided by EDD, has not had much impact or. the overall employment picture in Butte County, which continues to be dominated by ecucation, j health care,,retail, and food industry jobs (manufacturing jobs comprise only 7.7% of F . employment in Butte County compared with 50.3% for the other categories mentioned). The County of Butte is currently researching possible sites for future business and - research parks to help attract higher paying manufacturing and high-tech type jobs, but it is not expected that these parks will come into fruition during the next 7.5 years covered " by this plan. Thus, it is expected that past trends of job growth in Butte County will continue over the course of this plan. Commuting Patterns , BCAG's determination of regional housing needs is required to consider commuting patterns. As previously noted, a "jobs -housing imbalance" refers to .Y - differential growth rates of jobs and housing. A mismatch forces families seeking affordable housing to move farther away from the communities in which they work. Results from the 1990 U.S. Census indicate that 91.6% of Butte County's - workforce was em to ed within the Coun ' ° • F Y h' (Table Four). Comparative data is not yet available from the 2000 U.S. Census.. Because employment patterns are expected to continue to be relatively unchanged over the 7.5 -year period covered by this -plan, commute patterns are also `' Tabl'e4�Btte�C un �Conmufe`DaTan � �'1`�..�yy �� •Y.a :�S6 YF�+4 'I<NY .4^c.;ik"�lirt"- 'iT TotalWgikes 69,561 100.0% WotkTn�Butte'• noun '. 63,743 91.6% Wolk Outside." . 5,818 ButteCouri 8.4% At the time of the 199U. U.S. u Census, mean travel time between .'home and work ranged between 14 and - ' ' 19 minutes (Table Five), indicating that .. ' a. majorityof trips between home and work within the County were short or local trips (employees residing near their place` of work). Available 2000 r° U S_. Census_data indicates a fairly substantial_ percentage increase in mean travel time, particularly for residents in ',:,,the Oroville and Chico area.. This .change is not likely due to a change in ' commute patterns, but rather is related x to an increase in traffic congestion on a b ble)5 1VI' d"MMEravel Timms e f� r cu,ltu�ralo�ir�modthes�� `�th �°alue.ofP�rcid�uc 'ons, � G �, � VMean , ,A - . Mean � ��l Increase. Rice 112.3 Imd e 3&.0 .; Plums, dried iomeo" ¢VI t11 ANA, . _ inuk es 1990 Iiicrase J,urisdichon99,� Nursery, , stock 24OQ0 Cattle and calves Biggs N/A 23' N/A N/A Chico 14.4 17.4 3 ' '20.'8%' - 20.8%0Gridle Gridley N/A 22.5- N/A N/A Oroville 14.5 19.7 5.2 '35.9% Paradise 19 22.4 .3.4 17.9% Butte County 17.7' 20.9. 3.2' 18:1% ource. 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census area roadways. r .. Farmworkers = { BCAG''s determinatiori of regional housing needs is required to consider the F housing needs of farmworkers. Farmworkers provide an important contribution to the' economy of Butte County. Agricultural production for 2000 employedover _3,000 • '' ,people, with ,countywide agricultural production value totaling $291.3 million. The ten leading crops identified by their 2000 dollar value are shown in Table Six. The farmworker' populationexperiences a ' distinetset of issues that contribute to unique housing challenges; including seasonaI income fluctuations- very low incomes, and a severe deterioration of existing, housing stock. There are several different groups within the farmworker,population, each with their own set of. housing issues. r «' Farmworker`characteristics are difficult to .f determine due to a lack of data regarding farmworkers: This deficiency, is caused by -several contributing factors, including'limited English speaking abilities, low .i. eucationai.attainment.levels; and a distrust of f� government agencies. w Regular or.year-round.farmworkersare defined x ' `by the Employment Development Department as -those, working 150 or more. days for the same employer. Seasonal workers are those who work less than 150 days ;.' annually fnr.the same emnlnver Alfiarant ceacnnal 3 bl'e�6. �L,eacl� n�� f� r cu,ltu�ralo�ir�modthes�� `�th �°alue.ofP�rcid�uc 'ons, � G t y 7 area roadways. r .. Farmworkers = { BCAG''s determinatiori of regional housing needs is required to consider the F housing needs of farmworkers. Farmworkers provide an important contribution to the' economy of Butte County. Agricultural production for 2000 employedover _3,000 • '' ,people, with ,countywide agricultural production value totaling $291.3 million. The ten leading crops identified by their 2000 dollar value are shown in Table Six. The farmworker' populationexperiences a ' distinetset of issues that contribute to unique housing challenges; including seasonaI income fluctuations- very low incomes, and a severe deterioration of existing, housing stock. There are several different groups within the farmworker,population, each with their own set of. housing issues. r «' Farmworker`characteristics are difficult to .f determine due to a lack of data regarding farmworkers: This deficiency, is caused by -several contributing factors, including'limited English speaking abilities, low .i. eucationai.attainment.levels; and a distrust of f� government agencies. w Regular or.year-round.farmworkersare defined x ' `by the Employment Development Department as -those, working 150 or more. days for the same employer. Seasonal workers are those who work less than 150 days ;.' annually fnr.the same emnlnver Alfiarant ceacnnal 3 bl'e�6. �L,eacl� n�� • r cu,ltu�ralo�ir�modthes�� `�th �°alue.ofP�rcid�uc 'ons, � G t Rice 112.3 Almonds 47.5 Walnuts, English 3&.0 .; Plums, dried 31:1 ' Peaches, clingstone 7.1 . Field cro s, 7.11 - Nursery, , stock 6.0 Cattle and calves 5.7 Kiwifruit 5.2 Seed, rice 4.5: Source: be artment o "finance ` "� �.c � � �,yft �,,.• a ` -. .• 1'. �� .. _. � .. • R i, `, a ..' " :r r -- -;t , The 2000 Censusf estimates that there .were approximately 3,000 workers r - employed in.agriculture in Butte County (Table Seven). This figure includes farmers and members -of their families who were unpaid, regular and seasonal hired domestic workers".* and agricultural workers°brought to California under contract from outside the United �. States. w` -Table 7. Farming Employment. �„u6risdichon J Em, _la, �ment Em �,lo�men� Fm+ _lo, �men� Biggs., '” 64 666 9.61% Chico '644 27,463 2.34% Gridley - 227 1,849 12.28% Oroville .: 91 4,119 2.21% Paradise • 79 9,763 0.811% Unincorporated .: 1,898 38,543 4.92% Butte County - otal - ' 3,003 82,403 3.64% .. . Source: 2000 U.S. Census. Farming Employment includes workers in farming, forestry, fisheries and, - *. "; hunting classifications. 41 . ryThe Regional Housing Need Plan concentrates on determining a needed increase • -', inhousing available for year-round occupancy. It is, assumed that seasonal and migrant R: `�• -" workers.;will continue to be housed in non -year-round units. For planning purposes, this x -' •. means that rio net increase in seasonal or migrant housing is calculated. Allocation of } regular farmworker households are assumed to be included in the projected 2008 ` households shown in Table Seventeen, page twenty. Each city and county, however, should consider_ this category of need in individual housing elements. ; Market Demand'for Housing s 'n BCAG's determination of regional housing needs is required to consider market .','demand for housing; including availability of suitable sites and public facilities, types and. tenure of housing .need, and loss of units'contained in assisted housing development that, •' -changed_to non -low-income uses. ` " " s �,'Availabtlity. of Suitable Sites and Public Facilities 'Measured,.in terms of vacancy, rates, Butte County's housing stock has grown ,;'commensurately with growth in the number of households (Table Eight), with the 'exception of Chico where vacancy has dropped slightly from 1990 to 2000. The total ` housing stock includes the number of single and multi -family units. A household. is + defined as one or more persons occupying a housing unit. 'fir Y .. � 1i - • -r ,+ ` • All, y; 14 � Source: 1990 and 2000 US.".Census ' a _ V77M • 4. Biggs 521 571 548 614 2.400 - 12.30% Chico 15,508 23,4761 16,295 24,352 5.70% 4.40% Gridley"'1,719 1,841 1,810 1,986 6.80% 8.80% Oroville, "4,512 4,881 4,831 5,469 7.00% 14.00% Paradise 11;045 11,591 11,633 12,319 5.50% 8.70% Unincorporated,` 38,360 37,209 40998 -40,783" 6:40% 7.30% ,CountyTotal 7.1,665 79,566 76:1151 85,5231 5.40% • 7.30% Source: 1990 and 2000 US.".Census ' a _ ,� • 4. Butte County and'its Cities, however the RHNP must still reflect the 18,393 housing units 'Butte provided by HCD. Over the last several years'land supply has emerged as a critical issue concerning future growth in Butte County. Environmental constraints, endartgered ,.. species critical' habitat, impermeable lava cap geology and agricultural preservation are'.' X . factors will create challenges for. the Cities, County and Town in developing Housing Elements for their General Plans.VI Source: 1990 and 2000 US.".Census ' Land supply for residential purposes is becoming increasingly constrEined in - Butte County and'its Cities, however the RHNP must still reflect the 18,393 housing units 'Butte provided by HCD. Over the last several years'land supply has emerged as a critical issue concerning future growth in Butte County. Environmental constraints, endartgered ,.. species critical' habitat, impermeable lava cap geology and agricultural preservation are'.' all factors that affect land supply available for development in Butte County' These . factors will create challenges for. the Cities, County and Town in developing Housing Elements for their General Plans.VI .`„ _., Type and Tenure of HousinQ Need ' K The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) recommends' consideration of several factors- to determine the type and tenure of housing need, which ` are discussed in this section. Existing tenure characteristics are first presented in terms of —numb rs of renter and owner housing units (Table Nine), and distribution of housing `units by type (Table Ten). ` An assessment of housing problems is then presented as indicators of type and -° tenure of housing need. - These housing problems include overcrowding (Table Eleven); µ : `overpayment (Tables Twelve and Thirteen), and substandard housing (Tables ?ourteen through'Sixteen): ;.:. Source ',2000 U.S. Census 4 Table 10. . Distribution of Housing Units byType.. 00411,10SO, Oct rill. I M 'wet," OW cc PI U n'i s Chico. Oe IUng p 1 -unit, detached Biggs 425 146 J4.40% 25.'60% 4.10% 8.20% - Chico , ,., 9,486 13,990 40.30%1 59.60% 1-80% 2.60% Gridle .1,051 790 57.10% 42.90% 220% 6.60% Oroville, 2,082 2,799 6.1% 57.30%. 3.70% 10.70% Paradise 8,215 3,376 70.90% 29.10% 2.50% 6.20% IUnincorporated. 27,0771 10,129 72.80% 2720%1 N/A - : N/A ICounty Total--'.: 48,3361 31,2301 60.70%1 39:30%1 2A0%J 5.20% Source ',2000 U.S. Census 4 Table 10. . Distribution of Housing Units byType.. 00411,10SO, Oct rill. I M Muffiello 0'"'1 �RRIP Chico. IUng nc 1 -unit, detached 60.4% 82.4% 48.7% 80.1% 53.1% =JA 69.0% 64.6% 1 -unit, attached 2.8% 4.6% 3.9% 2.2% 2.5%. 2.7% 2.1.1% 2 unitst 2.9% 2.9% ^ 4.7% 3.3% 5.1% 2.4% 1.6% 3 or 4 unitsr 6.1% 1.6% 11.9% 3.5% 9.1% 3.6% 3.1% 5 to 9 units 3.4% 0.8% 8.8% 1.7%- 7.5% 0.8% -:0.66/0 - 10 to 19'units 2.2% 0.0% 5.4% 0.6% 4.1% 0:5%0.6% 20 or more units 5.7%' -0'.0% 14.1% .4.8% 11.7% -1.1% 1.4% Mobile home 0 16.1/6 7.0% 2.4% 3.7% 6.5% 19.5% 25.2% Boat RV, van; etc. 0.5%'' 0.7% 0.2 % 0.0% '0.5% 0.4%, /10 0.80 'Source: 2,000 U.S. C67sus % j A Incidence of Overcrowding The -U.S. Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied.by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). U nits with more than 1.5, person per room are -considered severely overcrowded. shown in Table Eleven, overcrowding occurs in approxiffiately 6. 1 �/o of all ,As housing units in theregion. The Cities of Biggs and Gridley have the highest, occurrence fOV ercrowdingin the region; 12.8% of both jurisdictions' housing units are overcrowded. zlj 16 A. P; :'Source: 2000 US. Census_ ®ccu antlis Ilk W2 t q t -� �er�age sehold:fSize- - �,,u+t,�,isdictio 1 U0 or less ��„�'tal '` '.e�erc'ent 'p2oiv o E�50 Jotalt�,-_�ercent�To,al "rz 1 5 o More .., ri rercen - r A ®�veiner� Renter Biggs ; ° 500 87.3 48 8.4 25 4.4 3.11 3.23 Chico 22,139 94.7 638, 2:7 597. _ 2.6 2:52 2.35 Gridley- `.. _ 1,628 87.2 131 -7 108 5:8 2:9 " - 2.8 Oroville' 4,523 92.5 205. , ` 4.2 -162. 3.3, 2.4; ' 2.57 Paradise,-,, '^ -1-"1,176;, ; 96.6 255 ` _ .2.2- ' 140 .2; 2.23 ''°.2:2.1 Uninco .- _`• 34;780 93.51, 1,4291 A.81, 1,082 2.9 N/A N/A CountCo'untY Total- . -_,74,746 93.91 2,7061- --3.41 2, 1141 2.71. 2.48 ..: 2.48 P; :'Source: 2000 US. Census_ , 0 1�9�9 0 0%fo 49-0 50 to _9�9% 0 4 to h4�9% 50% more Biggs, ~ 26.0% 13.8% 15.8% 10.2% A ' Housing A ffordabihty Indicators c 23.7% Chico s ' . •.- �• a -..-' - - �' ' Affordabilit 'of housing may be quantified in terms of the percentage of the gross i F:.. 13.7% • household income a household spends for housing. Housing is considered affordable if a, ; 19.0% household spends less .than 30 percent of its gross household income on housing costs. 33:0% 16.8% Tables _Twelve and Thirteen display housing costs in the region as a percentage of 10.9%1 5.2% .`household-incon e, for both owners and renters. Overpayment occurs in approximately. �z 29.1% percent of all owner occupied housing units in the region, and in approximately 48 9`, 13.3% ' _26.2 . ' percent of all renter occupied units. t ' Paradise'_ 35.0%.r*, 16.3% 14.4% 9.5% 5.5% 18.4% Unincor i.'- ,, ` .. 36:1% 14.9%_ 12.3%. 9.9% 6.9%1 18.9% JC6unty,Total "34.1%` Table 12.'Monthl Owner Costs as a percenta a of Household Income..; 13.0% 10.3% �nrisdyct�on _ tha-11-5. 0°,0 0 1�9�9 0 0%fo 49-0 50 to _9�9% 0 4 to h4�9% 50% more Biggs, ~ 26.0% 13.8% 15.8% 10.2% 8.9% 23.7% Chico s ' . 3`l.l% 16.8% 13.7% 1 l.4%1 7:8% 19.0% Gridle F '' 33:0% 16.8% A.3% 10.9%1 5.2% 25.5% Oroville 29.1% 16.7% 13.3% 10.6% 7.0% 21.9% Paradise'_ 35.0%.r*, 16.3% 14.4% 9.5% 5.5% 18.4% Unincor i.'- ,, ` .. 36:1% 14.9%_ 12.3%. 9.9% 6.9%1 18.9% JC6unty,Total "34.1%` 15.7%. 13.0% 10.3% 6.9%1 19.3% .� Source 2000 US.'Census t� It 17, $ 1 ' Source: 2000 USr Census t Indicator's of Housing Stock Conditions r Substaridard.hou'sing may be defined as a lack of adequate kitchen, toilet, heat, or { . plumbing -facilities. Tables Fourteen through Sixteen display housing stock.condition t• ` indicators iri the region as a percentage of those units lacking complete plumbing } facilities and complete kitchen facilities, for both owners and renters. In particular, the.. < ' 3 percentage. of'un its builtbefore 1960 -can serve as an indicator of the housing stock, i condition of a jurisdiction, and an estimate of rehabilitation need., •. °� ' Approximately.26.2 percent of all housing units in the region were constructed' before 1960, however wide disparities are noted'. Only 24.0 percent of Chico's housing stock was` constructed prior to 1960, as opposed to Gridley's 44.2 percent . Table 14. Year Structure Built. R' ur►sd�ctton_3 1999 to March 2�0,Q0 MENEM 'y. Biggs '; 0to 5:0%0.9.x/0: � , o�more Biggs . r.. 18.7% 4 9.4% 10.1% 12.9% 19.4% Chico 10:2%:� 9:8% 11.6%`, 9.3% 8.2% 46.1% 1 ' Source: 2000 USr Census t Indicator's of Housing Stock Conditions r Substaridard.hou'sing may be defined as a lack of adequate kitchen, toilet, heat, or { . plumbing -facilities. Tables Fourteen through Sixteen display housing stock.condition t• ` indicators iri the region as a percentage of those units lacking complete plumbing } facilities and complete kitchen facilities, for both owners and renters. In particular, the.. < ' 3 percentage. of'un its builtbefore 1960 -can serve as an indicator of the housing stock, i condition of a jurisdiction, and an estimate of rehabilitation need., •. °� ' Approximately.26.2 percent of all housing units in the region were constructed' before 1960, however wide disparities are noted'. Only 24.0 percent of Chico's housing stock was` constructed prior to 1960, as opposed to Gridley's 44.2 percent . Table 14. Year Structure Built. R' ur►sd�ctton_3 1999 to March 2�0,Q0 MENEM �1�90�0 J11%60 0 1940 to 1939a .197�9t 969EarlH. , Biggs '; 0to 5:0%0.9.x/0: � , o�more Biggs . r.. 18.7% 19.4% 9.4% 10.1% 12.9% 19.4% Chico 10:2%:� 9:8% 11.6%`, 9.3% 8.2% 46.1% Gridle `;16.2% 10.8% 5.6% 8.4% 10.8% 47.6% Oroville: .. l 13.'8%,; 9.5% 11..5% -,10.4% 8.3% 39:8%a Paradise,;' ' '- 10.7% 13.2% 9.9% 8.0% - . 7.9% 42.8% Unincor :` 24.1% 10.5% 12.4% t 9.8%1 7.7% 35:5% Coun Total -1 12.3 %1 10.4%1 tl.5%1 9.4%1 8.1% 1 ' Source: 2000 USr Census t Indicator's of Housing Stock Conditions r Substaridard.hou'sing may be defined as a lack of adequate kitchen, toilet, heat, or { . plumbing -facilities. Tables Fourteen through Sixteen display housing stock.condition t• ` indicators iri the region as a percentage of those units lacking complete plumbing } facilities and complete kitchen facilities, for both owners and renters. In particular, the.. < ' 3 percentage. of'un its builtbefore 1960 -can serve as an indicator of the housing stock, i condition of a jurisdiction, and an estimate of rehabilitation need., •. °� ' Approximately.26.2 percent of all housing units in the region were constructed' before 1960, however wide disparities are noted'. Only 24.0 percent of Chico's housing stock was` constructed prior to 1960, as opposed to Gridley's 44.2 percent . Table 14. Year Structure Built. R' ur►sd�ctton_3 1999 to March 2�0,Q0 9 to 1:990 to�3 1980 to 3 998.. 1994 X1989 �1�90�0 J11%60 0 1940 to 1939a .197�9t 969EarlH. , Biggs '; 1.16% 2.6.0%' .5.50% 12.40% 24.10% ` 18.20%.20.8.0% 15:10% Chico,':, 3.10% 7.40%' 13.90% 20.60% 20.20% 10.60% 14.30% 9.70% Gridley, 1.10% 3.70% 2.70% 10:80% 1530%7_11.90% 37.20% � 17.00% Oroville 1, 0.10% 3:80% 5.60%. 10.30% 20.20% 19.20% 26.40% 14.30% Paradise. Y, :;1.10% 3.20% 5.10% 15.20% 27.60%. 18.90% 23.50%` -5.20% County Total 1.60% 4.70% 9.60%: 18.30% 25.30% 14.10% 18.20% . 8.00% ' So urce: 2000 U.S: Census <, , w ac ♦ WFy4 h - - '� j �. s Yy1�.. � ..s �� "!. .• is n ,�t. - " � zit .' � y . y+ _ t�� : _' auris_ ct�on" Utility s. tied, yank or P,Gs Y >lectrici.,; Ruel� er�osene e'' , , �+oal ,�,00d,s yac •'ng'° Solar Ener OII ther uel_r "sed � o Fuel Biggs . 87.8% 0.9% 7.2% 0.0% 0.0%1 3.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% Chico 66:3% 1.1%1 30.16/o 0:0% 0.0% 2.1%1 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% Gridley _ 76.7% 1.4% 16.2% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% Oroville' -, X69.4% 2:1% 24.5% 0.1% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 0.1%. - 0.40o Paradise-- 72.8% 4.5% 11.4% 6.0%1 0.00,46 10.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Coun Tot: ` 56.3% 9.8% -21.4%1 0.3% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0%1 0.5% -0.2% ` ,Source: 2000 U.S. Census : s, ticking a � kI yac •'ng'° C'om'p to f ! Lacking °` maple e t�chen FeIee urns vict�an lum.bm. � Facilhes ; _ SerVe Biggs ' : _ 0.5% 0.7% 3.3% Chico 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% Gridley; 0.0% 0.9% 2.5% Oroville `' %0.'8% . 1.9% 5.6% Paradise `0.3% 0.5% 1.0% Unincor . ; ; 0.7% 0.7% 2.1% Coup Total' 0.5% .0.8% x,1.8% ` ,Source: 2000 U.S. Census , `�' 44 Yk Loss of Units Contained; in Assisted Housing Developments that Changed to Non- •j • ` °` ' " _ . y, LL, S 'Low Income Use.: r. , Assisted `housing developments are multi -family rental housing.complexes that. N .receive government assistance which are eligible to'change to market rate housing due to ` *� .termination of a'rent subsidy, contract (e.g. Section 8), mortgage prepayment, or other expiring use restrictions.'r 4 '' :. BCAG'does not expect any assisted housing developments to change to market f rate housing during jhe.tim6frame covered by this plan. Q47 Y �N 19 . • • • REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION - METHODOLOGY The methodology for the housing needs allocation can essentially be broken down into two phases: the allocation of housing units by jurisdiction, and the allocation of housing units by income group. Allocation of Housing Units by Jurisdiction The first phase involved distributing the countywide housing allocation provided by HCD (Table Seventeen), among BCAG's six member jurisdictions. Several sources of data were used to develop this allocation, including member jurisdiction General Plans, and building permit data from 1980-2000. The first step involved determining whether to use HCD's "low" or "Middle" housing unit goals for the Plan. HCD generated two sets of numbers that could be used in the Regional Housing Needs Plan: a low allocation of 18,393 units, and a m:ddle allocation of 20,505 units. Because BCAG member jurisdictions felt that bosh the "low" and "middle" ranges were unrealistically high, BCAG opted to use the "low" range of housing units as shown in Table 17. Table 17. Butte County Regional Housing Needs Determination January 2001- July 2008. . 4-2_� e _ Inco"me Grou 1 _ Hopsin�a'�ts Very Low 4.966(27%) Low 3,495(19%) Moderate 2,391 13% Above Moderate 7,541 41% Total 18,393 100% Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development. The second step was to separate out from HCD's countywide housing need determination, the number of replacement units needed. According to HCD, of the 18,393 units to be planned for over the next 7.5 years, 1,386 units will go towards replacing dilapidated housing (Table Eighteen). This is based on a removal rate of 0.2% per year, as estimated by HCD. 20 Y L The third step was to determine the initial allocation of housing needs to each jurisdiction, which was based on each jurisdiction's projected share of the household increase over the 7.5 -year period covered by the plan. ' :This was accomplished by first identifying historic growth rates from 1980-2000, which was developed by Economic Planning Systems (EPS). EPS is a subconsultant for Fehr & Peers Associates, : who are currently under contract with BCAG to Update BCAG's Regional Travel Demand Model. EPS is responsible for developing land use and socio-economic forecasts for BCAG's Travel Demand Model out to the year 2025. EPS calculated Table18� Housmg�Teed by housing -unit, population, and employment projections for Butte County jurisdictions. Com �; I3ausn on�ent �ITnits House 2"I ti 1 11creaset� 17,007 Reacemri�, � Housmaeed . 1,386 Total 18,393 housing -unit, population, and employment projections for Butte County jurisdictions. - ' using buildingpermit data from 1980 to 2000 ti housing -unit, population, and employment projections for Butte County jurisdictions. - ' using buildingpermit data from 1980 to 2000 •In order to calculate the projections, EPS began with the housing unit stock in . Butte.County in 1980 as recorded by the 1980 Census. To calculate a housing unit growth rate, EPS then examined the number of residential building permits issued for all . - jurisdictions within Butte County. It was assumed that building permit statistics submitted by each jurisdiction accurately captured the number of single and multifamily • units constructed in each jurisdiction. Adding the 1980 housing unit data and 20 years of building permit data gave an ,� s , estimated number.of units for the year 2000. The annual growth rate was then calculated using the exporiential growth formula: ' r 1980DU's (x)21 = 2000 DU's R - where xyis the estimated annual growth rate in units constructed. " As a result of the annexation history of portions of the unincorporated .area over 4 the years, totals for the Town of Paradise and the Unincorporated County are ;ombined , - _ for all projections. This is because Paradise was not an independent jurisdiction until the - early 1980's. Units that were once considered part of the unincorporated county are now r counted as units in Paradise, thus drastically modifying the apparent growth rates of the. - unincorporated County as reflected in the 1980 counts. 44 The average annual growth rates from 1980-2000 as developed by EPS are ;; . detailed in Table Nineteen below. Ell" Q ttnual Ay�erage Growh Rates City of Biggs.- - Jou ��ctton �laow, Rate City of Biggs 0.8% City of Chico . 3.0% City of Gridley 1.0% Ci of Oroville 0.9% Town of Paradise*,. 1.2% Unincorporated . ,' ., = 1.2% County Total 1.7% 22 Table 19. EPS Annual 'Avera a Growth Rates 1980-2000 Ell" Q ttnual Ay�erage Growh Rates City of Biggs.- - Jou ��ctton �laow, Rate City of Biggs 0.8% City of Chico . 3.0% City of Gridley 1.0% Ci of Oroville 0.9% Town of Paradise*,. 1.2% Unincorporated . ,' ., = 1.2% County Total 1.7% " BCAG staff then recommended using•EPS' 207year growth with the addition of a r' -several, adjustments., These adjustments reflect the idea that the future,growth rates for . the City of Oroville and City of Gridley, as developed by EPS, were too low in light of 'current and expected future growth in the southern Butte County area. Adjustments were <' also made to lower theTown of Paradise and Unincorporated growth rates because •`` �BCAG staff felt these rateswere unrealistically high. These adjustments as a whole * x resulted in the county total .annual growth rate decreasing from EPS's 2.2% to 1.7%.. The, folloWing 11 steps..detail the methodology used"to allocation the 18,393 4 ` ' w housing:units among BCAG's six member jurisdictions. ' ` 1 Take Annual Growth Rates Developed by EPS that are based on builc":ing permit data from 1980-2000. ' Table 20. EPS Annual Average Growth Rates 1980-2000 f s Dem vloP�e� . City of Biggs.- - 0.8% City of Chico : 3.0% Ci `of Gridley' 1 1.0% Ci of Oroville 0.9% Town of Paradise • 1.2%0 Unincorporated " ` 1.2% Butte'Coun Total' '% 2.2% 22 Fable 20. Adjustment to EPS Growth Rate 1 = t Growth ,a e :ro�vtih Rate :e�eloped to be se Chan`ge"�` . City of Biggs 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% Ci "..of,Chico 3.0% 3.0% 0,0% Ci _`of Gridley. 1.0% 1.5% +0.5% CikofOro ville, 0.9% 2.0% +1.1% Town of Paradise 1.2% 0.9% -0.3% Unincor orated 1.2% 1-.0% : -0.2% BUtte'County Total 2.2% 1.7% -0.5% JuMrisdic on knt�ei, X24._ 0 , Sensus 2UU8 v ro';ec ►'o,4 City of Biggs 0.8% 1,793 1,908 City,of Chico '<' ` 3.0% 59,954 74,343 City. of Gridley 1.5% 5,382 6;028 City of Oroville 2.0% 13,004 15,085 Town of Paradise 0.9% 26,408 28,309 Unincorporated 1.0%1 96,630 104,360 Butte County Total 1 :5%1, 203,171 230,033 23 i. a Tu=rrsd�ct�on , xa y e UM on ri _ �Increase 20�00,�, �,tS Census 008 Pro ect�on � 2000,�2QD8, City of Biggs 1,793 1,908 115 City of Chico . 59,954 74,343 14,=89 City of Gridley 5,382 6,028 E46 City of.Oroville 13,004. 15;085 2,081 Town of Paradise 26,408 28,309 1,901 Unincorporated 96,630 104,360 7,730 Butte County Totall 203,171 230,033 26,852 �,�u4risdiction � "z ��„ opulat�e crease= _r'2000.200,�8 See IH � 0000 Increase ' �epsuss - � 2,�,0,�0�20,�08 City of,Biggs 1,15 3.14 - 37 City of Chico ; 14,389. 2.42 5,946 Cif y of Gridley 646 2.86 226 City of Oroville 2,081 2.50 832 Town of Paradise 1,901 2.22 856 Unincorporated • 7,7301 • f tia 5: Convert population increase to household (HH) increase by dividing population, 2.44 .11,014 increase. 2000-2008 b 2000 U.S. Census Average Household Size. � ) Y g 24 VA y :. Table 23' Household Increase 2000-2008 �,�u4risdiction � "z ��„ opulat�e crease= _r'2000.200,�8 See IH � 0000 Increase ' �epsuss - � 2,�,0,�0�20,�08 City of,Biggs 1,15 3.14 - 37 City of Chico ; 14,389. 2.42 5,946 Cif y of Gridley 646 2.86 226 City of Oroville 2,081 2.50 832 Town of Paradise 1,901 2.22 856 Unincorporated • 7,7301 2.48 3,117 Butte County Total' 26;862 2.44 .11,014 r, 24 VA y Jurrsdactt�n , > Enc ease �2�0�0008 er e� ntage of >Ootal IIFI :Incrte seg . City of Biggs 37 53.98% 9,181 0.33% Qit` of Chico 5,946 7.56% °'1,285 53.98% Ciiy of Gridle 226 28.30% 4,813 2.05% Ci .of Oroville 832 7.56%° Town of Paradise 856 7.78% Unincorporated` " 3,1171 28.30°/a Butte CountyTotall 11,0141 100.00% Table 25., Jurisdiction Share of Re ionaMousin ��u�r�sdictioxn M10th 4,20,011'12008 City of Biggs: 0.33%' 56 City of Chico 53.98% 9,181 City ofGridle 2.05% 349 City of Oroville .. 7.56% °'1,285 Town of Paradise, .. 7.78% 1,323 Unincor orated 28.30% 4,813 Coun `Total. ' 100.00% 17,007 Need ..�� '� '*.:,r _ Y t r `•,t� ,sir y� J . • 44 ..�� '� '*.:,r _ , ,� u..� `•,t� ,sir y� J . • 44 25 •1 • i � ♦ -i � ♦ .2.. .�� fy L � M� e 1 - w ., °° t• ,mall Initial }ReplacementbdlShareof Reg�e�nal 1., uFr�sd''icfion Dtsfribufion 4 1`Teed HousingI�lees Ju �lsd�ctio„n �lrn'�ts, -�., Biggs 0.5% Chico 0.2% Gridley' CityofBiggs 56 9 65 Ci of Chico ! 9,181 298 9;:479 City,of Gridley 349 28 ..377 City of.Oroville -` 1,285' 100 - 1,385 Town of Paradise 1,323 179 Unincorporated, 4,813 772 5,`_85 Court ' Total 17,007 1,386 18,393 _ _ x • �. � w_ r .Percent Ju �lsd�ctio„n �lrn'�ts, -�., Biggs 0.5% Chico 0.2% Gridley' Oroville 0.9% Paradise 0.5% Unincorporated orated ` 1.0% Source: City of Chico, Gridley, Oroville, Town Paradise and. Butte County. General Plans. City of Biggs estimated ' 'Th- allocation of they 1,390 replacement units among BCAG's member Jurisdictions "(Table Twenty -Six) was w P -' based on the estimated percentage of housing stock of each jurisdiction that was considered -in need of substantial rehabilitation or,'dilapidated" (Table Twenty -Seven): This information was obtained" from each jurisdiction's ' General Plan, except the City of Biggs whose dilapidated percentage was estimated based'on similar areas due to a lack of current data.. Once this " allocation based.on "dilapidated" ' percentages -was finished; there was a .remaining balance of housing units that -`•' e 'still needed to be;distributed among { member jurisdictions, and these were Table 27 ;P,ercent ,,, � ida... , ni �. � r .Percent Ju �lsd�ctio„n �lrn'�ts, -�., Biggs 0.5% Chico 0.2% Gridley' Oroville 0.9% Paradise 0.5% Unincorporated orated ` 1.0% Source: City of Chico, Gridley, Oroville, Town Paradise and. Butte County. General Plans. City of Biggs estimated based on similar areas -allocated based on each jurisdiction's percentage of fotal,county housing units; a + q ! 26 , 4�b it :.� r 7 .,h .j •t. ; - 1• t • • Allocation of Housing Units by Income Group In the second phase, the housing unit allocation by income group wF-s developed, which involved breaking out each jurisdiction's housing need into very low. low, moderate, and above moderate income groups. The income distribution for each BCAG jurisdiction is based on the relative income distribution of each community in 2000 (Table Twenty-eight), in comparison to the change in income distribution for the entire county projected by HCD (income percentages in Table Seventeen). An exception to this is the Unincorporated allocation, whose allocation of housing units by income group was not adjusted from the 2000 U.S. Census estimates. This was due to the fact 4hat the Unincorporated area has a small existing percentage very low and low income households due to the fact that these types of households are better developej in incorporated areas where infrastructure and services exist to accommodate tHs housing type. Thus, the methodology does not make an adjustment to give the Unincorporated areas an increased share of very low and low income housing, but rather keeps their allocation consistent with their existing distribution of housing types as identified in the 2000 U.S. Census. Table 28. Butte County Households by Income Group. Jur sd�?nWVe Low I.ow MMIW044 Above 1VIode�ate `13TV",'OajR City of Biggs 23% 16% 17% 44% 100% City of Chico 28% 16% 15% 41% 100% City of Gridley 31% 21% 15% 33% 100% City of Oroville 37% 19% 15% 29% 100% Town of Paradise 23% 18% 18% 42% 100% Unincorporated 20% 16% 18% 46% 100% Butte County Total 24% 16% 17%1 43% 100% Source: 2000 U.S. Census For incorporated communities with a relatively high percentage of lower-income households, the basic construction need by income group table (Table Twenty -Nine) reflects an adjustment to reduce the lower-income share of those communities, and to increase the lower-income share of those communities with a smaller percentage of low- income households. This adjustment is based on the state requirement that the -egional share allocation avoid further impacting communities with a higher than average percentage of lower-income households in comparison to the region. The methDd for accomplishing this adjustment is explained below. First, the percentage point difference between each jurisdiction's income distribution and the countywide distribution was calculated for 2000. • 27 ' *!r, ,� f V tit !,'- J .. \ `-�4 .. .• `I Second, an adjustment was'made in'theopposite direction to determine the • -desired income distribution. for 2008. For example, if the proportion of a cc.mmunity's very -low-income population was three percentage points higher than the county -wide , proportion in 2000, its.recommended share for 2008'was.set at three percentage points . lower than the countywide average. r .Third, minor adjustments of a percentage point or two were made to assure that ` the sum of each jurisdiction's number and percentage of dwelling units for each of the four income groups match the county -wide numbers and percentages estima-ed by HCD * for the;four income groups. 4 Table 29. Basic Construction Need by Income.Group. Mom Low � Moderate WWRo Moer",ateurisdbe Al' ocation %, location / w. �lloc�ation % 4PAlloVg tion' VA'llo`cation3 City of Bi ' s,:'z' 33% 21 21% 13 116/0 7 36% 23 65 City. of Chico. J,3 �-2905 21% 1987 11%. 10 501 37% 3538 9479 City of Gridley, ; s r 28% • 105 16%- 59 11% • 42 45Uo 171 " 377 City ofOroville 21%" 296 18% 248 11% 156 49% 684. 1385 Town of Paradise 35% 522 20% 293 9% 13.1 37% '556: 1502 Unincorporated' ; , 20% 1117 16% 894' 18% 1005 46% 2569 5585 County Total . _'`, :: 27% 4966 19%1 3495 , 13% 2391 41°x5 7541 '18393 HCD Requirement 27% • 4966 19%1 3495 13% 2391 41°o 7541 18393 14 28 41 • APPENDIX,A Sunnlemental Data and Information DEFINITIONS OF INCOME GROUPS According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the in-:ome limits for a four person household in Butte County are as follows: Very Low Income: Income not exceeding 50% of Butte County area median family income. Other low Income: Income between 50% and 80% of Butte County area median family income. Moderate Income: Income between 80% and 120% of Butte County area median family income. Above Moderate Income: Income exceeding 120% of Butte County area median family income. These income limits are based on a median family income of $31,924 in 200C for Butte • County established by the 2000 U.S. Census. Tahle 30_ Rutte C nnnty Pnnnlntinn C'hnnue 1990-2000. Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. • 29 `� '�990k - 2000: ;: �' u ��'ercent of { P,ercent'of .,Change Jurisdictionso`utaton k�o elation Po`ulaton `Eo` elation, ,1990.2b00;. Biggs 1,581 1% 1,793 1% 13.41% Chico 40,079 22% 59,954 30% 49.59% Gridley 4,631 3% 5,382 3% 16.22% Oroville 11,960 7% 13,004 6% 8`73% Paradise 25,408 14% 26,408 13% 3.94% Unincor . 100,241 55% 96,630 48% -3.60% County Total 183,900 100% 203,171 100% 10.48% Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census. • 29 fon. 18, 1 9U . 2'000 aV412� %Chan 'e1,990PON00 ' 4: ON 199 21, %Chan e Biggs 34:3% 34.2% -0.3% 7.7% 8.9% 1.2% 28.60/; .29.3% - 0.7% Chico fon. 18, 1 9U . 2'000 aV412� %Chan 'e1,990PON00 ' %ChangeIN ON 199 21, %Chan e Biggs 34:3% 34.2% -0.3% 7.7% 8.9% 1.2% 28.60/; .29.3% - 0.7% Chico '18:6% .21.1% 2.5% 33.1% 27.0% -6.1% 30.00/ 26.8% -3."2% Gridle ' .29.9% 30.1% 0.2%. 9.4% 10.0% 0.6% .25.4°/3 25.3%' -0.1% Oroville ".. 30.5% 30.1% -0.4% 9.4% 10.3%.- 0.9% 27.6%, 25.8% -1.8% Paradise ' 20.7% 20.4% -0.3% 5.3%1' 5.9%1,, 0.6%1 24.5%i 21.26/o =3.3% Ju+risdic r *' r t , MORN- m20,00 / W, 1990;» 2000 •-� '� khan e - •. }gip M •{� �.c &%s/tun Biggs 15.7% 17.1% 1.4% 13.5% 10.5% -3:0%j Chico ' ` 93% 15.2% 5.9% 9.0% 9.9% 0.9% Gridley17.4% 18.6%, 1.2% . 179% 15.9% -2.0% 15:1% 19.2% 4.1 % 17.4% 14.7% -2.7%Oroville Paradise 18.9% 25.3% 6.4% 30.6% 27.2% -3.4% Source.,1990 and 2000 US. Census' • *' r t , - Source.,1990 and 2000 US. Census' • *' r t , •-� '� r< ear - •. }gip M •{� �.c 41, 30 `� t r., y� r� .. ,,.. k , t�� '• , _ J y d on 4190'�99a IN Y° X992 I 93 A .:;J 9� 1 N Biggs 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A utte Co. -f; ` 746 604 433 302 323 196 Chico '296 272 3181 227 211 226 Gridle 4 3 - N/A N/A N/A 26 Oroville ►. "r ' 11 18 10 , 20 17 88 aradise - • ' "` 94 `. 74 82 60 72 44 Total 1152 :. 972 843 609 623 580 1 Jurisdiction 1996 Notes: Butte County Totkls for. / 992-2000 include City of Biggs permit activity, Butte County'Totals for: /992-1994 include City of Gridley permit activity. 200 : � ear ercentof� Biggs N/A N/A N/A . N/A N/A 2* 0.02%* Butte Co. >, ' : 252 223 3191 330 385 4113 48.14% Chico 2-13 281 441 546 339 3370 39.44% Gridle 12 ' 6 3 3 . 74 131 * 1.53%* Oroville = • '. " 12 6 6 7 37 232 2.72% Paradise ° ; 41 41 531 61 74 696 8.15% Total ` ?530 55d 822 947 909 8544 100.00% Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001 -" Notes: Butte County Totkls for. / 992-2000 include City of Biggs permit activity, Butte County'Totals for: /992-1994 include City of Gridley permit activity. ;s .. �. ,�- ,. Nlb ^. w 1 a 5 a .. � i 4 1 ,♦' i ,fir ( f r� • .T 71 31 n.� � �t�4 !•° e . _. .. �,� Y� - � a - . •' P1 � Awl • • • CHART ONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1990-2000 800 700 600 500 i! 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001. ky-j -- Biggs — 0 — Butte Co. —6— Chico Gridley — Oroville —0-- Paradise f J• t' 4.� s } F �Rtti x • ` 3 y � �� zs ,7 x , 4- �, ..;a a S i 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001. ky-j -- Biggs — 0 — Butte Co. —6— Chico Gridley — Oroville —0-- Paradise 4 'diction: Biggs 1990 0 OWED, 0 p99 N/A 'diction: Biggs 1990 0 OWED, 0 p99 N/A _ N/A s 999 N/A MA Butte Co. ' ' 25 8 .. 20 4 3 10 Chico -730 ,518. 51 80 63 •56 Gridley :, ` - 0 0 N/A , " N/A N/A 0 Oroville :.' 4 0 16 8 - 160 ' 0 aradise .t_ ' 0 0 10 6 6 -0 To `'759 52d 51 98 232 [Paradise a=risdic•,1on� �I996` 1997 " _ 998 1999 , 2000 IYWear . dotal Perceniof•' Toa Biggs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - * 0%* Butte Co. ` 0 16 0 0. 01, ' 86 4.08% Chico z ' 29 4 78 3 ' 169 174 .82.87% Gridleya '.3 0 0 8 0 II * 5.20% Oroville. 0 -.0 0 0. 0 IS8 8.92% [Paradise 30 14 10 0 0 7 3.61 Total ``' 62 34 88 13 1691 2108 100.00 Source; Construction Industry Research Board, 200/ M1 'Notes:' ButteCounty Totals for 1992-2000 include City of Biggs permit activity, ' Butte County for 1992-1994 include City of Gridley activity. S � q • 1 Source; Construction Industry Research Board, 200/ M1 'Notes:' ButteCounty Totals for 1992-2000 include City of Biggs permit activity, ' Butte County for 1992-1994 include City of Gridley activity. .Totals permit �r Q 33 AP V • be CHART TWO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1990-2000 800 700 600 500 c 400 LL 'F 300 200 100 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001. 34 O Bi99s ® Butte Co. OChico O Gridley ■ Oroville O Paradise - t ; F 3 _ z t. e i�. �• I 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001. 34 O Bi99s ® Butte Co. OChico O Gridley ■ Oroville O Paradise t sturisdiction 199�Q991 X992, 3 a9° .,1995 a s $31:3 $47.4 sturisdiction 199�Q991 X992, 3 a9° .,1995 a s $31:3 $47.4 N/A N/A NPA N/A Butte Co. $12,927.4 $12,524.8 $14,878.5 $10,836.3 $,13,403.2 $8,437.8 Chico $253801.1 $21,837.8 $18,025.1 $25,850.51 39,107.6 $14,884.9 Gridle ;$56.7 $259.6 N/A N/A NPA $234:7 Oroville -: $7,381.7 $2,265.4 $3;437:4 $51209.6 •$4,714.9 $7,6210 aradise. , " $2,692.7 $2,958.6 $1,401.9 $2,272.8 $1,260.3 $3,252.8 Total $489890:7 - $39,893.51 $37,742.81 $44,169.21 $28,486.01 $34,432.2 3: 1 I99xa7 4 :. 20Q Ta�tal 7q�4.. Biggs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $78.7 0.03%* Butte Co., 112,898.1 -$9,373,.9 $16,931.7' $11,567.6 $17,358.5 3141,137.5 28.25% Chico $14;562.8 .$26,640.5 $23,736.2 3: 1 I99xa7 �1 199999 �� Wictiol, :Tuari ,=99 I99xa7 �1 199999 :. 20Q Ta�tal 7q�4.. Biggs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $78.7 0.03%* Butte Co., 112,898.1 -$9,373,.9 $16,931.7' $11,567.6 $17,358.5 3141,137.5 28.25% Chico $14;562.8 .$26,640.5 $23,736.2 $29,756.6 $26,224.2 3236,427.3 47.32% Gridle` $550.0 $2;015.8 $3,236.2 $461.5 '$2,426.5 $9,241.0 0.24%* Oroville .:'✓ . $2,762.6 - $5,944.81 $6,094.2 $7,367.2 $17,937.2 $70,737.0 13.00% Paradise ->` $2,532.1 $3,817.6 $10,225.7 $1,837.1 $9,730.0 $41,981. 8.40% Total $33,305.6 $47,792.6 $60,224.01 $50,989.9 $73,676.31 3499,603.1 .100.00% Source: Construction Industry Research Board, 2001 :. -Notes: , Butte.County Totals for'1992-2000 include City of Biggs permit activity, - Butte County Totals for 1992=1994 include City of Gridley permit activity, rf'..' .47 ix. � i. rte- * •�� - `. �, 'Y`'� :4'� J. * � r_ F + 35 �� r W • CHART THREE TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1990-2000 $35,000.0 $30,000.0 v' $25,000.0 0 O $20,000.0 Q G m IL C Z $10,000.0 $5,000.0 $0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Source: Construction Industry Research Board. Do W — — Biggs —� Butte Co. w_ Chico —Gridley — Oroville �— Paradise • 100 APPENDIX B REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS (From Section 65584 of the Government Code) (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons of all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the city or county. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based .1pon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing emp',oyment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, coma nuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, the loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, that hanged to non -low-income use through mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall seek to reduce the concentration of lower income households in cities or counties that already have disproportionately high proportions of lower income households. Based upon data provided by the Department of Finance, in consultation with each council of governmert, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to tie second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the Department relative to the statewide rn.-ed for housing, each council of government shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination, the Department shall ensure that this determination is co_-isistent with the statewide housing need. The Department may revise the deterrnination of the council of governments if necessary to obtain consistency. The appropriate council of government shall determine the share for each city or county consistent with the criteria of this subdivision and with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. The council of governments shall submit to the department information regarding the assumptions and methodology to pie used in allocating the regional housing need. As part of the allocation of the regional housing need, the council of governments, or the department pursuant tc subdivision (b), shall provide each city and county with data describing the assumptions and methodology used in calculating its share of the regional housing need. The department shall submit to each council of government information regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used in allocating the regional share of the statewide housing need. As part of its determination of the regional share of the statewide housing need, the department shall provide each council of governments with data describing the assumptions and methodology used in 37 • calculating its share of the statewide housing need. The councils of governments shall provide each city and county with the department's information. (b) For areas with no councils of governments, the Department shall determine housing market areas and define the regional housing need for cities and counties within these areas pursuant to the provisions for the distribution of regional housing needs in subdivision (a). Where the department determines that a city or county possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to accept $ie responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for the identification and determination of housing market areas and regional housing needs, the department shall delegate this responsibility to the cities and counties within these areas. (c) (1) Within 90 days following a determination of a council of governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a city or county may propose to revise the determination of its share of the regional housing need in accordance with the consideration3 set forth in subdivision (a). The proposed revised share shall be based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation. (2) Within 60 days after the time period for the revision by the city or county, the council of governments or the Department, as the case may be, shall accept the proposed revision, modify its earlier determination, or indicate based upon available data and accepted planning methodology, why the proposed revision is inconsistent with the regional housing need. (A) If the council of governments or the department, as the case may be, does not accept the proposed revision, then the city or county shall have the right to request a public hearing to review the determine within 30 days. (B) The city ore county shall be notified within 30 days by certified ma.l, return receipt requested, of at least one public hearing regarding the determination. (C) The date of the hearing shall be at least 30 days from the date of the notification (D) Before making its final determination, the council of governments or the department, as the case may be, shall consider comments, recommendations, available data, accepted planning methodology, and local geological and topographic restraints on the production of housing. (3) If the council of governments or the department accepts the proposed revision or modifies its earlier determination, the city or county shall use that share. If the council of governments or the department grant a revised allocation pursuant to paragraph (1), the council of governments or the department shall ensure that the* current total housing need is maintained. If the council of governments or 38 r • Department indicates that the proposed revision is inconsistent with the regional housing need, the city or county shall use the share, which was original°y determined by the council of governments or the department. (4) The determination of the council of governments or the Departmen., as the case may be, shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 100 (5) The council of governments or the departments hall reduce the share of regional housing needs of a county if all of the following conditions are met: (A) One or more cities within the county agree to increase its share or their shares in an amount which will make up for the reduction. (B) The transfer_ of shares shall only occur between a county and cities within that county. (C) The county's share of low-income and very low-income housing units shall be reduced only in proportion to the amount by which the county's share of moderate- and above moderate -income housing is reduced. (D) The council of governments or the department, whichever assignee the county's share, shall have authority over the approval of the proposed reduction, taking into consideration the criteria of subdivision (a) of Section 6558,-. (6) The housing element shall contain an analysis of the factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying the revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision shall be made available upon request b- any interested party within seven days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproducing unless the costs are waived due to economic hardship. (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any ordinance, policy, or standard of a city or county which directly limits, by number, the building permits which may be issued for residential construction, or which limits for a set period of time the number of buildable lots which may be developed for residential purposes, shall not be a justification for a determination or a reduction in the share of tl-.e city or county of the regional housing need. (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any city or county which imposes a moratorium on residential construction for a set period of time in order io preserve and protect the public health and safety. If a moratorium is in effect, the city or county shall, prior to a revision pursuant to subdivision (c), adop*l finding which specifically describe the threat to the public health and safety and the reasons why construction of the number of units specified as its share of the regional housing need would prevent the mitigation of that threat. 39 y (e) Any authority to review and revise the share of a city or county of he Regional housing need granted under this section shall not constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in which the share of the city or county of the regional housing need is implemented through its housing progrzm. (f) A fee may be charged interested parties for any additional costs caused by the amendments made to subdivision © by Chapter 1684 of the Statutes of 1984 reducing from 45 to seven days the time within which materials and daia shall be made available to interested parties. (f) Determinations made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. 40 • go • a +J APPENDIX C TRANSFERS OF ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN JURISDICTION'S FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION OF THE RHNP Section 65584(c)(5) of the California Government Code sets forth specific provisions under which a COG is required to reduce the share of the regional housing nee3s of a county. This reduction applies only to transfers agreed to between jurisdictionE after the adoption by SACOG of the Final RHNP. Section 65584(c)(5) states: "The council of governments or the department shall reduce the share of regional housing needs of a county if all of the following conditions are met: (A) One or more cities within the county agree to increase its share or their shares in an amount which will make up for the reduction. (B) The transfer of shares shall only occur between a county and cities within that county. (C) The county's share of low-income and very low income housing shall be reduced only in proportion to the amount by which the county's share of moderate- and above moderate -income housing is reduced. (D) The council of governments or the department, whichever assigned the county's share, shall have authority over the approval of the proposed reduction, taking into consideration the criteria of subdivision (a)." 41 N APPENDIX D Member Jurisdiction Letters of Concern January 27, 2003 Butte County Association of Governments 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Proposed Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) for January 1, 2001 to July l,. 2008 Dear Boardmembers: The City of Oroville has reviewed the housing allocations assigned by the State of California to Butte County, and the subsequent allocations assigned by your staff to the City of Oroville. We understand that you will be asked to adopt your staffs' January, 2003 version of the RHNP, which assigns to the City of Oroville 1,385 of the' 18,393 new homes allocated by the State to Butte County. We appreciate that your staff met several times with State staff, and attempted to convince them to reduce the very unrealistic numbers assigned to Butte Count_. As the State did not respond favorably, we want the record of your proceedings to reflect our continued protest of the State allocation to Butte County, and the subsequent allocation to the City of Oroville. The City of Oroville objects to the State's unrealistic allocation, because the ability of the City to maintain its eligibility for the very grant funds that help p-oduce new housing depends upon the ability of the City to demonstrate it can help provide the number of new homes assigned to it. During the ten-year period between 1991 and 2000, a total of only 443 new homes were constructed within the City of Oroville, despite a flourishing economy and the best efforts of the City to encourage housing growth. It is completely unrealistic to expect that more than three times that number will be constructed in the City within the next 5'/z years. f If you have any questions about the information in this letter, please don't hesitate to contact me. 42 Sincerely, Ruben Duran City Administrator City of Oroville r, • • OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER 411 'Wit) St,eet GITYgCHCCO P.C,Box 342D' i87i Oka. CA .95927 (530) Wi-4Bt» rAX (530) 895.4825 ATSS 45q-4RM January 16, 2003 Butte County Association of Governments Board of Directors Attn: Jon. Clark, Executive Director 965 Fir Street Chico, CA 95928 Subject: Butte County Regional Housing Needs'plan Dear Mi, Clark: Let me begin by extending the City's appreciation for the process and assistance that BCAG has ,provided for preparation of the Regional I•Iousing Necdc Plan (R . P). TlK City recognizes that much of what can be criticiicd about the RIUNP initiates from numbers produced by the Department of Finnie; and Housing and Community Development departments using debatable methodology. The proposed R NP, when approved, will set housing construction numbers for all income groups for the period. January 1, 2001 to June 3 B, 2008. During this 7.5 year. period, Chico will be asked to produce 9,479 ,housing units, 52 pCrcent being affordable to very low and low income households. On an annual basis this would mean construction of 1;263 housing units with over 650 affordable to very loco and low income households. 'rho City of Chico has never produced 1,263 housing units ix a single -year! The average annual housing units constructed from 1980 to 2001 wes 468. Indeed our records indicate only a modest increase to 541 units for 2002. Over the first two years of the 2001-2008 planning period 1,057 houstng units have been consttucted. We arc now almost 1,500 units behind our RI -INP housing goal! Yet the City is currently experiencing a 16 and'3 percent vacancy rate .for single-family and apartment units, respectively. The City believes that the State estimates used to derive the RHNP are hopelessly flawed. The %181 housing units (discounting 298 replacement units) paeans that Chic:o's population is forecasted to grow at an annual tate of percent per yearl Chico's annual growth rate, during our most recent decade, was below 2 percent. In the i r_erest of acting rationally and reasonably, l ani at a loss to understand the use of such a high rate of growth, particularly since the planning horizon is only 2008. The level of our concern is heightened because so much. of the content of the Elnusing. Element depends on the RHNIP numbers_ Despite the City's effort it) implement tae General Plan by extending reliable and timely infrastructure, our ability to demonstrate 43 adequate land resources to meet this highly inflated housing demand .kill be problematic within thu planning; period. in addition, designing housing prognuns that reflect the RNNP may require programs that do not address meal commttnity needs and issues. In conclusion, the City does not believe the WiNP accurately and reasonably determines local housing need. A Housing Element based on the RHNP will be inconsistent with City's General Plan and other long range planning analysis. Please'contact ane if you have questions regarding the City's position. r J Sincere ' 'T o� .,an n City Manager -ce: CDD/PID/11-OP-19 44 • MEMORANDUM Date: January 16, 2003 To: Yvonne Christopher, Director, Department of Development Services, Butte County Bruce Alpert, Deputy County Counsel, Butte County Felix Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel, Butte County Jon Clark, Executive Director, Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) Chris Devine, Associate Planner, BCAG From: Rik Keller, Mintier & Associates Subject: Comments on BCAG's Regional Housing Needs Plan The following are comments regarding BCAG's most recent Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocations and process. 1) In a meeting with BCAG staff on December 19, 2002, the participants (including representatives from Butte County and the Cities of Biggs, Gridley, Oroville, and Paradise; representatives from the City of Chico did not attend this meeting and an additional meeting was subsequently held on January 10, 2003) discussed the updated RHNP allocation from BCAG dated December 18, 2002. This draft of the RHNP allocation was a revision to the December 3`d RHNP allocation that used a different methodology for its base growth projections (the December 18`h RHNP allocation used historic building permit data rather than the historic population data used in the December 3`d RHNP allocation). The following summarizes the outcomes of the December 19`h meeting. • The participants in the meeting concurred with the overall BCAG RHNP allocation of the regional housing need by jurisdiction with the following provision: that the allocation is based on projections relating to incorporated/ unincorporated areas and should apply to incorporated/ unincorporated areas. The representa-:ives from the cities agreed with Butte County's assertion that the RHNP allocation for the cities applies to incorporated limits only and that Butte County would use the Spheres of Influence (SOIs) of the cities, in part, to meet its housing allocation. In support of its position, Butte County presented evidence showing that if SOIs were taken into account, it should receive a lower allocation (estimated at approximately 2,700 to 3,500 less than its allocation of 5,585, based on a GIS analysis of growth within current SOI boundaries from 1990 to 2000). 45 Butte County also presented an argument that the income distribution in the , December 18`h RHNP for unincorporated Butte County was unfair, since the unincorporated area currently has a comparatively low percentage of very low - and low-income units and should not be assigned a higher percentage of these units. The unincorporated area does not have the infrastructure capability (sewer system) to support the densities required to economically build lower-income units and, in addition, lower-income households should not, as a policy matter, be located in areas where access to public transportation services and social services is difficult. The other participants in the meeting agreed with Butte County in principle, and BCAG stated that they would examine the possibility of modifying the distribution of units by income group to each jurisdiction. • All participants also agreed that BCAG should include within its final RHNP a discussion of its disagreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development's (HCD) methodology used in the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) for Butte County. 2) In the follow-up meeting with BCAG staff on January 10, 2003, BCAG presented a revision'to the December 18`h RHNP allocation to the participants (representatives from the City of Chico and Butte County) dated January 9`h. This revised allocation did not adjust the total number of units allocated to each jurisdiction, but changed the income distributions within each jurisdiction's allocation. The revised allocation does • not make an adjustment to move the unincorporated County's share of each income group to the countywide percentage, but rather keeps its allocation consistent with its estimated existing distribution of household income groups as identified in the 2000 U.S. Census. The following summarizes the outcomes of the January 10`h meeting. • The participants (Butte County and Chico) agreed that the allocation by jurisdiction in the RHNP should only apply to the current incorporated limits of the cities (including Chico) and that Butte County would use the SOIs of the cities to help meet its allocation. Contingent on the agreement on the overall jurisdictional allocation, the participants (Butte County and Chico) also accepted the new income distribution methodology. 46 I7 • MEMORANDUM Date: January 16, 2003 To: Yvonne Christopher, Director, Department of Development Services, Butte County Bruce Alpert, Deputy County Counsel, Butte County Felix Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel, Butte County Jon Clark, Executive Director, Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) Chris Devine, Associate Planner, BCAG From: - Rik Keller, Mintier & Associates Subject: Comments HCD Methodology Introduction This report consists of a review and critique of the methodologies used by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the Regional Housing Needs Determination and Regional Housing Needs Plan for Butte County for January 2001 to July 2008. Executive Summary This section summarizes the main conclusions of the analysis. A. HCD Methodology 1) Contrary to the requirements of State ' Housing Element law, HCD has not adequately taken the population projections in the Butte County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) into account. 2) HCD's methodology compared DOF projections for 2008 adjusted for :he Census undercount with DOF's count of households and housing units counts for 2001 that are unadjusted for the Census undercount, and has therefore overestimated , the number of housing units required to meet projections. In additior, the DOF projections themselves are unrealistically high, which makes the regrirement to use the RTP population projections even more important. 3) Our alternative regional housing need calculation using the "Middle" growth scenario is 17,943, or 2,562 units less than HCD's original figure of 20,505. Both HCD's calculation and. our alternative calculation used the same starting point of . R • 99,422 total households in July 2008 ( this startingoint should also be ;reduced to , account for the DOF adjustment for the estimated 2000 Census undercount). The key differences between the two calculations are an increase in th.- assumed existing permanent housing stock in 2001 (by counting almost vacant 2,000 units that HCD ignored and did not count toward the permanent housing sock) and a decrease in the housing removal rate based on overall removal rates in- California from 1990 to 2000, rather than an unsupported figure provided by HCL, (resulting in a difference of about 700 units). 4) Using the alternative methodology and using the Butte County RTP population projection, rather than slightly reducing the DOF "Low" series as HCD did, we calculated a "Low" regional housing need of 9,124 units for Butte County. This figure is 9,269 units smaller than the "Low" regional housing need of 18,393 calculated by HCD. 48 • 1I. Analysis of HCD Methodology The following is an analysis of the methodology that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) used in the overall Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) for Butte County for January 2001 to July 200.3, based on a thorough review of the methodology used in the document and the procedures set forth in State law. A. Use of Population Projections in Determining Regional Housing Need Government Code Section 65884(a) sets forth the procedures for determining regional housing needs. For reference purposes, Section 65884(a) is shown below (underlining and bold text ours): For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a general plan of the city or county. The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opport-anities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, the loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, that changed to non - low -income use through mortgage prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions, and the housing needs of farmwo:kers. The distribution shall seek to reduce the concentration of lower income households in cities or counties that already have disproportionately high proportion3 of lower income households. Based upon population projections produce] by the Department of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing regional transportation plans, and in consultation with each council of governments, the Department of Housing and Community Development shall determine the regional share of the statewide housing need at least two years prior to the second revision, and all subsequent revisions as required pursuant to Section 65588. Based upon data provided by the department relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of governments shall determine the existing and projected housing need for its region. Within 30 days following notification of this determination, the department shall ensure that this determination is consistent with the statewide housing need. The department may revise the determination of the council of governments if necessary to obtain this consistency. The appropriate council of governments shall determine:. the share for each city or county consistent with the criteria of this subdivisioc and with the advice of the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least one year prior to the second revision, and at. five-year intervals following the second revision pursuant to Section 65588. The council of governments shall submit to the department information regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used in allocating the regional housing need. As part of the allocation of the regional housing need, the council of governments, or the 49 • department pursuant to subdivision (b), shall provide each city and county with data .describing the assumptions and methodology used in calculating its share of the regional housing need. The department shall submit to each council of governments information regarding the assumptions and methodology to be used in allocating the regional share of the statewide housing need. As part of its determination of the regional share of the statewide housing need, the department shall provide each council of governments with data describing the assumptions and methodology used in calculating its share of the statewide housing need. The councils of governments shall provide each city and county with the department's information. The council of governments shall provide a subregion with its share of the regional housing need, and delegate responsibility for providing allocations to cities and a county or counties in the subregion to a subregional entity if this responsibility_ is requested by a county and all cities in the county, a joint powers authority established pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1, or the governing body of a subregional agency established by the council of governments, in accordance with an agreement entered into between the council of governments and the subregional entity that sets forth the process, timing, and other terms and conditions of that delegation of responsibility. • It should be noted that Section 65884(a) was modified by AB 438 in 1998 (the bill was introduced 2/24/1997 and chaptered 9/24/1998). AB438 was amended while under consideration to change the language concerning the use of population projections as follows: "Based upon , population projections produced by the Department of Finance and regional population forecasts used in preparing transportation plans, and in consultation with each council of gent governments ..." [amended 05/18/1998 - p. 17 (lines 26-31)] The Office of Senate Floor Analyses provided the following analysis regarding this change on 6/24/98 (underlining and bold text ours): "This bill makes the following changes to the process of determining regional housing needs: 1. Clarifies that HCD must use the Department of Finance's population projections. 2. Requires HCD to use reizional population forecasts used in nrenarine transportation plans." Further analysis by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses regarding the amendments made to the bill makes the following statement regarding population forecasts: "The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version, and instead:... 2) Requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in consultation with regional Councils of Government (COGs), determine the regional share of housing needs based not only upon the projections of the Department of 50 • Finance (DOF), but also upon population forecasts used in preparing rellional transportation plans." It is clear from both the text of the bill and from the legislative analysis that the intent of the bill was for HCD to give equal credence to both DOF projections and projections in regional transportation plans (RTPs) in their determination of regional housing need. As the Final Regional Housing Needs Plan for the SACOG Region (September, 200 1) states, "One of the major reasons, however, why COGs are assigned responsibility for RHNP preparation in the first place is that the State has an interest in having regional agencies that also prepare regional transportation plans prepare the RHNPs. This helps to provide consistency between the regional transportation planning process and regional housing allocations, since the same assumptions regarding regional population and housing growth are likely to be used as the basis for both." However, it is clear from discussions with HCD Policy Development Department staff that they believe that HCD is required only to use the DOF projection and to just "consider" the projections in regional transportation plan. As will be explained below, HCD has essentially discarded the population projections in the Butte County RTP because it is significantly lower than the DOF projection. This is clearly contrary to the intent of State law. Given the very high DOF population projections for Butte County , the required housing need determination based on the population forecasts in the Regional Transportation Plan • (RTP) (required of HCD by Section 65884(a)) is especially important to Butte County. However, as detailed below, HCD used a convoluted and unsupportable methodology to "modify" the RTP population projection and did not base a housing need determination on the RTP projections at all. HCD appears to have taken the position that if the RTP population projection is much lower than the DOF projection, then it is not valid. • Summary: Contrary to the requirements of State Housing Element law, HCD has not adequately taken the population projections in the Butte County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) into account. B. Department of Finance Projections HCD's calculation of regional housing need used the starting assumption of 99,422 total households in July 2008 in Butte County. This figure was provided by HCD as the "middle series" of California Department of Finance (DOF) projections. DOF provided 3 sets of projections for total households in Butte County for July 2008. All three numbers were based on same figures for total population, group quarters population, and household population for July 2008, and only differed based on the "headship rate" assumed. The July 2008 projections were derived by DOF from its Interim County Projections (June 2001), which, in its published form, provided total population projections for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 for all counties in California. 51 • The June 2001 Interim County Projections document was an update to DO, 's County Projections published in 1998. The June 2001 document adjusted the projections to account for 2000 Census data. However, DOF adjusted the 2000 Census population figure to account for the estimated Census undercount, using figures for the estimated national undercount'. In the case of Butte County, the April 1, 2000 pops=lation was adjusted up to 205,118 from the April 1, 2000 Census count of 203,171, an increase of 1,947. DOF then brought the adjusted April 1, 2000 figure up to July 200), and this figure of 205,400 was used as the base for the population projections. It is important to note that HCD used unadjusted 2001 DOF estimates for to*:al housing units as the base in their methodology (2001 housing units are from DOF E -S City County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001 with 2090 Census Counts2) at the same time that they were using adjusted DOF projections. As discussed, Interim County Projections was based on a population estimate of 205,118 (for April 2000)that was greater by 1,947 persons than the April 2000 Census estimate of 203,171. This figure translates into about 800 households (at 2.45 persons per householc.). Since HCD used the 2001 DOF estimates (which are unadjusted and use 2C00 Census figures as a benchmark) as the baseline, at the very start of the process Butte County was already about 2,000 persons or 800 households behind to meet the 2008 projec-ions. In addition, the DOF projections for Butte County in Interim County Projections • themselves are unrealistically high, which makes it even more important to .00k at the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) figures. It is instructive to compare the July 2005 DOF projection to the January 2002 DOF-estimated population. The July 2005 population projection of 235,000 represents an AAGR of 3.69% from the January 2002 population of 207,001. This growth rate is over 3.3 times the AAGR for population in Butte County from April 1990 (182,120) to January 2002 (207,001) of 1.1°l. It is also more than twice as high as the population AAGR from 1980 to 2000 of 1.74%. Furthermore, the population growth from April 1990 to January 2002 was 24,881. In comparison, the DOF population projection for July 2005 represents an increase of 27,999 from the January 2002 population. The DOF projection, in other words, shows a projected population growth for the 3.5 -,period from January 2002 to July 2005 that is larger by 3,118 persons than the actual population growth in the 11.75 -gear period from April 1990 to January 2002. Based on Census figures, Butte County grew by 38,269 persons from 1980 tc. 1990 and 21,051 persons from 1990 to 2000, for a total population growth of 59,320 pe -sons from 1980 to 2000. The .DOF 2010 population projection represents a growth of 56,629 from The nationwide net.undercount for the 2000 Census was estimated by the Census Bureau at 1 18% for population. The net estimated undercount in California in 1990 was 2.7% compared to the national figure of 1.6%. 2 As stated in DOF's accompanying notes for this data: "The estimates' benchmark file is the Census 2000- • Summary File 1. These data have not been adjusted for estimated undercount." 52 • the 2000 Census population, almost equivalent to the actual total population growth in the last twenty years. The previous round of projections for Butte County by DOF were similarly high. DOF's Interim Population Projections (April 1991), projected the 1995 population of Butte County at 205,900 and the 2000 population at 226,700. Therefore, the actual 2000 population of Butte County was less than the DOF projection for 1995. Actual growth rates in Butte County for 1990 to 2000 were less than half of DOF's projection 3. These large DOF projections point to the importance of using the RTP population projections as an alternative, as mandated by State law. Summary: HCD's methodology compared DOF projections for 2008 adius-ed for the Census undercount with DOF's count of households and housing units founts for 2001 that are unadiusted for the Census undercount, and has therefore overestimated the number of housing units required to meet projetitions. In addition, the DOF projections themselves are unrealistically high, which makes the requirement to use the RTP population projections even more important. C. HCD Methodology for Regional Housing Needs Determination Table 2 below compares HCD's calculation for the "Middle" regional housing need to our recalculation of this need, using the same conceptual methodology, but using different assumptions and calculations. The table includes extensive notes tl-_at explain each step of the calculations and the assumptions used. For comparison purposes, both HCD's calculation and our alternative calculation use the same starting point: an assumption of 99,422 total households in July 2008 in Butte County. As discussed above, this figure is based on adjustments to the 2000 Census. Since unadjusted Census figures are used in the calculations shown below, this total household number should be reduced by approximately 800. The alternative regional housing need calculation using the "Middle" growth scenario is 17,943, or 2,562 units less than HCD's original figure of 20,505. The alternative need is lower primarily for the following reasons (there are several other smaller adjustments to the calculations): 1) Using corrected vacancy allowances (see Steps #14 & 15) reduces :otal units needed in 2008 by 35 units. 2) The revised figure for the "permanent" housing stock in 2000 (see Step #21) has several repercussions on the allocation, some of which increase it and some of which decrease it. The most prominent effect, however, is the increase in the estimated figure for the existing permanent housing stock in 2001 ('Step #24) which reduces the permanent housing needed from 2001 to July 2008 1Step #25) by 1,904 units. 53 HCD used a questionable methodology to calculate the existing "permanent" housing stock that excluded a large number of vacant units that did not happen to be for rent or for sale at the time of the Census. As shown in the table under Note (1) below, there were 1,016 vacant units for sale and another 1,728 vacant units for rent in Butte County in 2000. These units were added by HCD to the occupied owner and rental units to calculate "permanent" units ("permanent" units, as HCD is using the term, means units that are available for permanent year-round occupation as opposed to temporary/seasonal use). However, as shown in the table under Note (1), there were 524 vacant units that had been rented or sold but were not yet occupied 3, and another 1,330 vacant units classified as "other vacant". It is clear that units that are rented or sold but not occupied are part of the permanent housing stock. Since "other vacant" units can include units that, at the time of the Census, were under construction but not yet rented or sold4, were held for settlement of an estates, were being renovated, were in a multi -unit structure being held for sale of the entire structure, were model apartments or model homes in a development that were not yet for sale or rentb, or were not on the market due to lack of demand or other reasons, these units should also clearly be considered part of the housing stock available for permanent occupation. It should also be noted that these "other vacant" units do not include abandoned, uninhabitable structures. The Census Bureau does not count units as vacant "if they are exposed to the elements, that is, if the roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Also excluded are quarters being used entirely for nonresidential purposes, such as a store or an office, or quarters used for the storage of business supplies or inventory, machinery, or agricultural products.0 It is perhaps justifiable to exclude vacant units "for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" and "for migrant workers from the "permanent" housing stock calculation, since these were units that were specifically inventoried by the Census as being used for temporary purposes at that point in time. However, it should be noted that the status of these units can change at any time in response to 3 Includes units for which any money rent has been paid or agreed upon but the new renter has not yet moved in, or where the unit has recently been sold but the new owner has not yet moved in. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Definitions). Note: the American Community Survey questions were "the same as the 1990 and 2000 decennial census questions." 4 New units not yet occupied are classified by the U.S. Census Bureau as vacant housing units if "construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place." (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey, Second Quarter 2002, Definitions and Explanations. s Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey, Second Quarter 2002, Definitions and Explanations. 6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Basic Monthly Survey, Interviewer's Manual. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey, Second Quarter 2002, Definitions and • Explanations. 54 • market conditions. Many areas in California have seen increases in their "permanent housing stock due to "conversion" of units that were prev.ously used seasonally. The status of these temporary units is not, in other words, se in stone, and will fluctuate due to market conditions, changes in ownership,, and other factors. For the purposes of the alternative scenario calculations, only vacant units "for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" and "for migrant workers" have been excluded from the "permanent" housing stock. As discussed above, excluding all of these units from the existing "permanent" housing stock may not fully capture the housing potential that these units offer. 3) The revised figure for the "removal factor" (0.108% per year — see Step #26) reduces the allocation by another 700 units. HCD used a questionable annual removal rate and it is unclear how they derived this figure. HCD's removal rate assumption states that 0.2% of the existing building stock will be removed each year. This is equivalent to removing 1.5% of the housing stock for the 7.5 -year. period. The assumption is excessive based on actual rates of housing -emoval in California. An estimate of housing removals from 1990 to 2000 can be made by comparing the total housing stock in 1990 to the housing stock in 2000 while taking into account new housing constructed from 1990 to 2000. The 1990 Census counted 11,182,513 total housing units in 1990. Adding the 1,106,478 • new units estimated to have been added to the housing stock from 19.0 through 19998, plus the estimated 46,284 new mobile home units from 195'0 through 19999, results in an estimated total of 12,335,275 housing units at t -ie start of 2000. This figure is 120,726 units greater than the 2000 Census count of 12,214,549. The 120,726 units are assumed to have been removed from the housing stock from ,1990 to 2000. This figure represents only 1.08% of the total 1990 housing stock and is half of the "removal rate" assumed by HCD. It is important to,note that even this estimate of housing removals is likely too large, based on the 2000 Census undercount of housing units. 8 California Department of Finance (DOF), Housing Units Authorized by Building Permit, Singe & .Multiple, :California Annual: from 1975 (May 31, 200 1) (source: Construction Industry Re.:earch Board); figure is slightly higher than the 1,105,814 figure used in The Great Housing Collcpse in California. • 9 DOF figure from The Great Housing Collapse in California. 55 • Table 2: Alternative "Middle" Regional Housing Needs Determination for Butte Countv • 56 HCD Calculations Alternative Butte County Calculations HC New Variable Description # formula # formula note D Step s step # #1 total units from 2000 Census 85,5231 85,523 #2 total occupied units from 2000 79,566 79,566 Census #3 owner -occupied units from 2000 48,336 48,336 Census #4 renter -occupied units from 2000 31,230 31,230 Census #5owner HH % from 2000 Census 60.75% _ #3/#1 60.75% _ #3/#1 #6 drenter HH % from 2000 Census 39.25% _ #4/#1 39.25% _ #4/#1 #7 homeowner vacancy rate from 2000 2.10% (1) Census #8 renter vacancy rate from 2000 5.201 (1) - Census #9 vacant units from 2000 Census 5,957 5,957 1 #10 vacant units for seasonal, rec., or - 1,359 (2) occasional use, or for migrant workers #11 % vacant units for seasonal, rec., - 1.59% _ #10/#1 (2) or occasional use, or for migrant workers #12 vacant units for permanent use - 4,598 = #9410 #13 DOF HH ("middle series" for 99,422 99,422 (3) July 2008 #14 owner vacancy allowance 1.80%1 1.73% 4 # 15 renter vacancy allowance 4.60% 4.62% 4 #la #16 July2008 owner HH 60,398 = #5*#13 60,398 = #5*#13 #2a #17 July 2008 renter HH 39,024 = #6*#13 39,024 = #6*#13 # 1 b #18 July 2008 total owner units needed 61,506 = #16/ 61,462 = #16/ (5) (permanent) 100%-# 14 100%-# 14 #2b #19 July 2008 total renter units needed 40,905 = #17/ 40,914 = #17/ (5) (permanent) 100%-# 15 100%-# 15 #20 July 2008 total units needed 102,41 =#18+#19 102,37 = #18 + #19 (permanent) 1 6 #4 #21 permanent stock in 2000 82,310 = #3+#4+ 84,164 = #1 - #10 (6) (1,016 for sale vacant 56 • • Notes: (1) According to the U.S. Census, the homeowner vacancy rate "is the proportion of the homeowner housing inventory which is vacant -for -sale. It is computed by dividing the number of vacant -for -sale units by the sum of the own.,r-occupied units and vacant -for -sale units, and then multiplying by 100." According to the U.S. Census, the rental vacancy rate is the "proportion of the rental inventory which is vacant -for -rent. It is computed by dividing the number of vacant -for -rent units by the sum of renter -occupied units and the number of vacant-fcr-rent units and then multiplying by 100." The following table summarizes the vacant units in Butte County according to the 2000 Census. As shown in the table, the homeowner vacancy rate was calculated at 2.06% in 2000. The renter vacancy rate is calculated at 5.24%. The total vacancy rate, on the other hand, is calculated by taking the total numb. -,r of vacant units and dividing by the total number of units. In Butte County, the overall vacancy rate was 6.97% in 2000. 1990 2000 Total housing units 76,115 85,523 Owner -occupied units 43,649 48,336 • 57 units+1,728 for rent vacant units #5 #22 permanent units as share of 96.24% _ #21/#1 98.41% _ #21/#1 housing stock #23 DOF total units in January 2001 86,218 86,21E 7 #6 #24 permanent housing stock in 2001 82,979 = #22*#23 84,84F _ #22*#23 #7 #25additional permanent units needed 12001-2008 19,432 = #20424 17,52E _ #20424 (8) #26 removal factor 0.002 0.0010 (9) E #8 #27 loss of units per year from 2001 185.4 _ #26 * 91.6 = #24*#26 (10) permanent housing stock average existing units 2001 to 7/2008 #9 #28 normal loss of units - 1/2001- 1,390 = #27*7.5 68' = #27*7.5 7/2008 #29 units on tribal lands - 2000 1,255 1,253 11 #30 tribal units share of 2000 1.52% = #29/#21 1.49% = #29/#21 housing stock #10 #31 —permanent tribal units portion of 2001-7/2008 317 = 272 = need (#25+#28)* (#25+#28)* #30 #30 #11 #32 Regional Housing Need 2001- 20,505 = #25+#28- 17,943 = #25+#28- 7/2008 #31 #31 Notes: (1) According to the U.S. Census, the homeowner vacancy rate "is the proportion of the homeowner housing inventory which is vacant -for -sale. It is computed by dividing the number of vacant -for -sale units by the sum of the own.,r-occupied units and vacant -for -sale units, and then multiplying by 100." According to the U.S. Census, the rental vacancy rate is the "proportion of the rental inventory which is vacant -for -rent. It is computed by dividing the number of vacant -for -rent units by the sum of renter -occupied units and the number of vacant-fcr-rent units and then multiplying by 100." The following table summarizes the vacant units in Butte County according to the 2000 Census. As shown in the table, the homeowner vacancy rate was calculated at 2.06% in 2000. The renter vacancy rate is calculated at 5.24%. The total vacancy rate, on the other hand, is calculated by taking the total numb. -,r of vacant units and dividing by the total number of units. In Butte County, the overall vacancy rate was 6.97% in 2000. 1990 2000 Total housing units 76,115 85,523 Owner -occupied units 43,649 48,336 • 57 0 • • n Renter -occupied units 28,016 31,230 Total Vacant 4,450 5,957 For rent 1,166 1,728 For sale only 621 1,016 Rented or sold, not odcu ied 468 524 For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 1,037 1,350 For migrant workers 20 9 Other vacant 1,138 1,330 Owner vacancy rate 1.40% 2.06% Renter vacancy rate 4.00% 5.24% Total vacancy rate 5.85% 6.97% Source: 1990 U.S. Census STF-IA File & 2000 U.S. Census Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 -Percent Data (2) This figure combines the vacant units "for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" and "for migrant workers" shown in the table under Note (1) Ebove. The figure represents the number of units used for temporary uses that we are not considering part of the "permanent" housing stock for the purpo4es of this calculation (note that this may unnecessarily exclude some units that may convert to "permanent" uses). HCD considered "non -permanent" every vaca:it housing unit that was not classified as "for rent" or "for sale only". However, a3 shown in the table above, there were 524 units that had been rented or sold and were not occupied, and another 1,330 vacant units classified as "other vacant". According to the Census, "if a vacant unit does not fall into any of the classifications specified above, it is classified as "other vacant." For example, these units can include units that, among other things, were under construction but not yet rented or sold, were held for settlement of an estate, were being renovated, ca- were not on the market due to lack of demand10. These units should clearly be considered part of the "permanent" housing stock. (3) The 99,422 figure for projected households for July 2008 was provided by HCD from the "Middle" series for Butte County provided by DOF. DOF's Interim ' County Projections (June 2001) adjusted the projections to account for 2000 Census data. However, DOF also adjusted the 2000 Census population figure to account for the estimated Census undercount, using figures for the estimated national undercount DOF's projections for Butte County were based on , a population estimate of 205,118 (for April 2000) that was greater by 1,947 persons than the April 2000 Census estimate of 203,171. This figure translates into about ,10 . The Census Bureau does not inventory housing units "if they are exposed to the elements, flat is, if the ' roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there s positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned," or if the unit is being used "entirely for nonresidential purposes," 58 • • 800 households (at 2.45 persons per household). The 99,422 projected households figure is, therefore based on 2000 Census data adjusted for an estimated undercount. This figure should only be compared therefore to household or housing unit estimates for 2000/2001 that are also adjusted for tae Census undercount. However, HCD has not done this. (4) This figure is the average of 1990 & 2000 Census figures. Based on the data in the table above, the figures should actually be 1.73% (average of 1.40% and 2.06%) for the owner vacancy rate and 4.62% (average of 4.00% and 5.24%) for the renter vacancy rate. In using these figures, HCD is assuming that the structural vacancy rate that should be planned for is equivalent to the average of the 1990 and 2000 homeowner and renter vacancy rates. These rates only take ir_to account occupied units (owner or renter) and the number of units either for sale or for rent.. This assumption excludes units that have been sold or rented but were not occupied at the time of the Census; it also excludes units that were vacznt because they were for "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use and for othTr reasons. The assumption seems reasonable for an estimate of the structural vacancy in owner and renter units, though. Both owner and renter vacancy rates increased in Butte County from 1990 to 2000. (5) Total. needed permanent units are calculated by multiplying househclds by the vacancy allowance. This accounts for the extra units needed for structural vacancy assumptions. (6) HCD used a questionable methodology to calculate "permanent" units that excluded a large number of vacant units that did not happen to be for rent or for sale at the time of the Census. As shown in the table under Note (1) above, there were 1,016 vacant units for sale and another 1,728 .vacant units for rent. These units were added by HCD to occupied owner and rental units tc calculate "permanent" units. However, as shown in the table above, there were another 524 units that had been rented or sold and were not occupied, and another 1,330 vacant units classified as "other vacant". These units should be considered as part of the "permanent housing stock- in the county. Our alternative "permanent" housing stock' calculation excludes vacant units "for seasonal, recre=ational, or occasional use" and "for migrant workers" (note that this may unnecessarily exclude some units that may convert to""permanent" uses). (7) Thisfigure uses the 2000 Census as a benchmark and is unadjust.d for the estimated Census undercount. (8) Additional units needed from 2001 to 2008 are calculated by subtracting the housing stock in 2001 from the 2008 total housing units needed. However, since the 2001 estimated of the total housing stock is based on 2000 Census numbers that are unadjusted for the estimated undercount, and the 2008 total units needed are based on a projection that is adjusted for the estimated 20C-0 Census undercount, this calculation overestimates the number of additional units needed • from 2001 to 2008. As discussed earlier in this report, comparing unadjusted to adjusted figures is equivalent to a difference of about 800 households. (9) We have used an annual removal rate of 0.108% per year, based on hisbrical rates of housing removal, compared to HCD's figure of 0.2% per year. It is unclear how HCD derived their removal rate assumption that states that 02% of the existing building stock will be removed each year. This is equivalent to removing 1.5% of the housing stock for the 7.5 -year period. The assumption is excessive based on historic rates of housing removal. An estimate of housing removals from 1990 to 2000 can be made by comparing the total housing stock in 1990 to the housing stock in 2000 while taking into account new housing constr-.tcted from 1990 to 2000. The 1990 Census counted 11,182,513 total housing units. Adding the 1,106,478 new units estimated to have been added to the housing stock from 1990 through 199911, plus the estimated 46,284 new mobile home units from. 1990 through 199912, results in an estimated total of 12,335,275 housing units at the start of 2000. This figure is 120,726 units greater than the 2000 Census count of 12,214,549. The 120,726 units are assumed to have been removed from the housing stock from 1990 to 2000. This figure represents only 1.08% of the total 1990 housing stock and is half of the "removal rate" assumed by HCD. (10) HCD calculates the number of housing units to be removed by ass-aming that some of the housing built from 2001 to 7/2008 will need to be replac.�,-d in same period. This assumption is questionable. The removal rate should apply only to • existing housing as of 2001. It does not appear reasonable to apply the removal rate to housing assumed to be built to meet the housing need within tie 2001 to 2008 period. If HCD is claiming that the assumption includes new- units that convert from residential uses, it should also include a calculation for units that will convert to "permanent" residential uses from non-residential uses or from "temporary" residential uses. (11) HCD provided this figure. It is unclear how they derived'this figure. Summary: Our alternative regional housing need calculation using the "Middle" growth scenario is 17,943, or 2,562 units less than HCD's original figure of 20,505. Both HCD's calculation and our alternative calculation used the same starting point of 99,422 total households in July 2008. This starting point, however, should also be reduced to account for the DOF adjustment for the estimated 20010 Census undercount in its projections. The key differences between the two calculations are an increase in the assumed existing permanent housing stock in 2001 (by counting almost vacant 2.000 units California Department of Finance (DOF), Housing Units Authorized by Building Permit, Single & Multiple, California Annual: from 1975 (May 31, 200 1) (source: Construction Industry Research Board); figure is slightly higher than the 1,105,814 figure used in The Great Housing Collapse in California. • 12 DOF figure from The Great Housing Collapse in California. 0117 • that HCD ignored and did not count toward the permanent housing stcck) and a decrease in the housing removal rate based on overall removal rates in California from 1990 to 2000, rather than an unsupported figure provided by HCD (resulting in a difference of about 700 units). D. HCD Methodology for "Low" Regional Housing Needs Determination Table 3 below shows an alternative methodology and calculation for the "Low" 2008 Regional Housing Need Determination. HCD used a convoluted methcdology to determine the "Low" projection. The following summarizes the HCD methodo_ogy: 1) A regional need of housing units of 19,964 units (18,887 units needed + 1,386 replacement units — 309 Tribal unit share) was calculated based on a figure of 98,893 total households for July 2008 based on the "Low" series for the county. As a note, this 98,893 households figure is only 529 households le:.s than the 99,422 households projected using the "Middle" series. Using the alternative calculation methodology shown in Table 2, the 98,893 households figure results in a regional housing need of 17,893 units (16,983 units needed + 1,273 replacement units — 1,255 Tribal unit share). 2) The calculated regional need for housing units of 19,964 units is, according to HCD, reduced by the "relationship of the county's households to the adjusted • DOF projection for 2010" in order to take into account the 2010 population projection in the Butte County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). C7 3) The 2010 population projection in the RTP of 244,044 is accepted by HCD as the total 2010 projected population. 4) The 2010 RTP population projection (244,004) is reduced by the population in group quarters (5,844) to derive a household population figure for 2010 (238,160). However, in order to do this, HCD used the group quarters population as of 2000. It did not increase the group quarters population proportionately based on total population growth. Since Butte County showed significant gains in its group quarters population from 1990 (4,705) to 2000 (5,844) accorcing to the U.S. Census, and in 2001 (6,186) and 2002 (6,203) according to DOF, this assumption is questionable. The group quarters population should be increased for 2010. 5) In order to "bring the 2010 household population back to 2008," the "rat:, -o" of total 2008 (241,621) to total 2010 (257,766) unadjusted population based on DOF projections is "applied" to the 2010 household projection above. However, this "ratio" is meaningless and does not provide a valid adjusted 2008 household population figure. This is because HCD is comparing total population figures. from different years. The correct methodology would be to compare t= -le 2001 to 2008 growth increment to the 2001 to 2010 growth increment for the DOF 61 • projections and use this ratio to calculate the growth increment from 2001 to 2008 for the RTP figures. 6) Projected households for 2008 are calculated by dividing projected household population for 2008 by the mid -point of the DOF figure for persons per household (2.45). It is unclear where this 2.45 figure is from and it represents a decrease in the 2001 persons per household figure of 2.48. Since the figure applies to all households (existing and new) it represents a de facto "uncrowding" of existing households or a much lower persons per household in new households, or a combination of the two. 7) Finally, HCD modified the regional housing need by using a "comparison ratio" of the total projected households figure for 2008 to that of the total "Low" total households figure from DOF. This "ratio" is multiplied by the regional housing needs determination calculated from the DOF "Low" households projection. Once again, HCD is using a meaningless "ratio" and this time it compares totals and applies the result to a figure that represents incremental growth. HCD compared two different totals for 2008 households and then multiplied the result by a previously determined projected housing unit growth for the 2001 to 2008 period. A correct methodology would be to compare the 2001 to 2008 increments in household growth and use this ratio to modify the growth increment represented by the original regional housing needs determination. However, even this • methodology is unnecessarily convoluted. An alternative methodology is presented below. is If HCD truly "accepts" the 2010 RTP population projection, as they state, they should actually use this population as the starting point for the calculations. As discussed above, State law requires HCD to use the RTP projection. A far simpler and defensible methodology would be to: 1) use the 2010 RTP population projection; 2) subtract the projected group quarters population; 3) determine the 2001 to 2010 household population growth; 4) calculate the 2001-2008 household population growth based on a ratio of 2001-2008 to 2001-2010 DOF growth, 5) apply a persons per household assumption to determine 2001-2008 household growth; 6) determine 2008 total households; and 7) use the total 2008 households figure to determine regional housing need using the "standard" methodology. Table 2 below shows this updated methodology for determining 2008 total households based on the 2010 RTP population projection (Steps #a -q) and then uses this household projection to determine regional housing need using the_same updated methodology as shown in Table 2 (Steps #1-32). The AAGR for households in the alternative projection is 1.64% (90,727 HH in July 2008; 80,293 HH in January 2001), compared to the 2.82% household AAGR for HCD's calculation (98,893 HH in July 2008; 80,293 HH in January 2001). It should be noted that the 2001-2008 household AAGR of 1.64% based on the RTP population projection still is significantly larger than the historical 1.1% population 62 r� U • • AAGR from 1990 to 2002 and is very close to the historical population AAGR from 1980 to 2000 of 1.74%. As shown in the table, using the alternative methodology, Butte County hFs a "Low" regional housing need of 9,124 units. This figure is 9,269 units smaller than the "Low" regional housing need of 18,393 calculated by HCD. Summary Using the 'alternative methodology and using the Butte County RTP population projection, rather than slightly reducing the DOF "Low" series as HCD did, we calculated a "Low" regional housing need of 9,124 units for Butte County. This figure is 9,269 units smaller than the "Low" regional housing need of 18,393 calculated by HCD. y 63 r.. • Table 3: Alternative "Low" Regional Housing Needs Determination for. Butte County • • Step # formula note s a Jan. 1, 2001 households from DOF 80,293 b Jan. 1, 2001 population from DOF 205,399 c Jan. 1, 2001 household population from DOF 199,213 d Jan. 1, 2001 group quarters population from DOF 6,186 e Jan. 1, 2001 G % from DOF 3.01 % = kd/#b f 2010 population from RTP 244,004 2010 GQ population 7,349 =#-�*#f 1 h 2010 HH population 236,655 =#f-# I 2001-2010 HH pop. growth 37,442 =#h -#c ulation from DOF 2�20O 257,786 2 k 2010 population growth using DOF figures 52,387 =h5, -#b l 7/2008 population from DOF 241,621 3 m 2001-7/2008 population growth using DOF figures 36,222 =#]-#b n ratio of 2001-7/2008 growth to 2001-2010 growth 69.14%=#.m/#k 0 200:1-7/2008 HH pop. growth from 2001-2010 RTP figure based on DOF ratio 25,889 =#1*#n Jan. 1, 2001 persons per household from DOF 2.481 2001-7/2008 HH growth 10,434 =#o/# 4 1 total units from 2000 Census 85,523 5 2 total occupied units from 2000 Census HH 79,566 3 owner -occupied units from 2000 Census 48,336 4 renter -occupied units from 2000 Census 31,230 5 lowner HH % from 2000 Census 60.75% = 43/#1 6 Irenter HH % from 2000 Census. 39.25% = 94/#1 7 homeowner vacancy rate. from 2000 Census 8 renter vacancy rate from 2000 Census 9 vacant units from 2000 Census 5,957 10 vacant units for seasonal, rec., or occasional use 1,359 11 % vacant units for seasonal, rec., or occasional. use 1.59% =,:#10/#1 12 vacant units for permanent use 4,598 =49410 13 2008 total HH - Based on RTP 90,727 =4a+# 14 owner vacancy allowance 1.73% 15 renter vacancy allowance 4.62% 16 July 2008 owner HH 55,117 = #5*#13 17 July 2008 renter HH 35,611 = #6413 18 July 2008 total owner units needed (permanent) 56,087 =#16/(100%- #l4 19 July 2008 total renter units needed (permanent) 37,336 =#17/(100%- #15 64 a • 20 July 2008 total units needed(permanent) 93,423 = 418 + #19 21 permanent stock in 2000 84,164 = 41 - #10 22 permanent units as share of housing stock 98.41%= 421/#1 23 DOF total units in Januar 2001 86,218 24 1permanent housing stock in 2001 84,848 = 922*#23 25 ladditional permanent units needed 2001-2008 8,575 = #20424 26 removal factor 0.00108 27 loss of units per year from 2001 permanent housing stock 91.6 = #24*#26 . 28 normal loss of units - 1/2001-7/2008 687 =#27*7.5 29 units on tribal lands - 2000 1,255 30 tribal units share of 2000 permanent housing stock 1.49% _ #29/421 31 tribal units portion of 2001-7/2008 need 138 = (#25+#28)*#3 a 32 Regional Housing Need 2001-7/2008 1 1 9,124 = #25+#28- (1) keeps. percentage of group quarters population constant (2) from HCD; does not match figure in Interim County Projections for 2010'(259,800) (3) from HCD; could not confirm figure _ (4) keeps 2001 persons per household figure constant (5) Steps #1-32 are identical to those in Table 2 } 65