Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT APRIL 1982*NEW FILE* REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT APRIL 1982 fr Regional Development Monitoring Report _I I E I Orr i ;E T- April 1982 JOUTHERA CALIFORAIA WOCIATIOA OF GOVERnMEAT! is 1981 DEVELOPMENT MONITORING REPORT APPROVED APRIL 1982 This report was prepared in part with funding from the Federal Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS z SCAG EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OFFICERS Robert 0. Townsend, President Bruce Nestande, 2nd Vice President Supervisor, San Bernardino County Supervisor, Orange County Pat Russell, 1st Vice President Nenry W. Wedaa, Past President Councilwoman, City of Los Angeles City of Yorba Linda Richard Acton, Mayor James R. Dougherty, Supervisor City of Placentia Ventura County Mike Antonovich, Supervisor Robert Farrell, Councilman Los Angeles County City of Los Angeles Thomas Bradley, Mayor Frank McDevitt, Mayor Pro Tem City of Los Angeles City of Ojai Patricia M. Burk, Mayor Pro Tem John A. F. Melton, Mayor City of Imperial City of Santa Paula Kay Ceniceros, Supervisor Jon D. Mikels, Councilman Riverside County City of Rancho Cucamonga Eleanor Cohen, Mayor Chester Shearer, Mayor City of Claremont City of West Covina Louis Curiel, Supervisor James H. Wilson, Councilman Imperial County City of Long Beach Deane Dana, Supervisor Regena Zokosky, Councilwoman Los Angeles County City of Indio ALTERNATES Hal Bernson, Councilman John W. Kennerson, Supervisor City of Los Angeles Imperial County Derald Chisum, Mayor Betty Mead, Mayor Pro Tem City of Ojai City of Placentia Dave Cunningham, Couhc{lpan Robert T. Older, Supervisor City of Los Angeles San Bernardino County Edmund 0. Edelman, Supervisor Peggy Sartor, Councilwoman Los Angeles County City of Victorville Naomi Feagan, Councilwoman Madge Schaefer, Councilwoman City of Norco City of Thousand Oaks John Ferraro, Councilman Herb Tice, Mayor Pro Tem City of Los Angeles City of West Covina Don Fox, Councilman Harriett Wieder, Supervisor City of Brea Orange County Loretta Glickman, Vice Mayor Marc Wilddr, Vice Mayor City of Pasadena City of Long Beach Kenneth Hahn, Supervisor Norton Younglove, Supervisor Los Angeles County Riverside County Edwin A. Jones, Supervisor Ventura County y y K SCAG'S COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OFFICERS Councilman Allen P. Baldwin, Chairman Supervisor David L. McKenna, Vice -Chairman City of Lake Elsinore Ventura County REPRESENTATIVES Councilwoman Ruth S. Bailey Councilman Dan F. Mackin City of Huntington Beach City of San Fernando Councilman James A. Bellomy Councilman Jon D. Mikels City of Barstow City of Rancho Cucamonga Director William J. Bogaard Councilwoman Nell Mirels City of Pasadena City of Rolling Hills Estates Mayor Pro Tem Donna L. Caddy Mayor Pro Tem J. A. Montgomery City of Bell City of Duarte Councilman Frank J. Carpenter Councilman Michael D.. Morgan City of Upland City of Camarillo Mayor Julius Corsini Councilwoman Jeanne F. Parrish City of Desert Hot Springs City of San Gabriel Supervisor James R. Dougherty Mayor Pro Tem Earl C. Roget County of Ventura City of La Habra Vice Mayor Mike Falabrino Councilwoman Pat Russell City of San Gabriel City of Los Angeles Councilwoman Pauline Garcia Mayor Eunice N. Sato City of Colton City of Long Beach Councilman E. J. Gaulding Councilman Alfred C. Serrato City of Pomona City of Santa Ana Vice Mayor Loretta T. Glickman Councilman Archie Snow City of Pasadena City of Redondo Beach Vice Mayor Harold L. Hall Councilman Arthur K. Snyder City of Lomita City of Los Angeles Councilman T. Milford Harrison Vice Mayor Antonio V. Soza City of Loma Linda City of Palmdale Councilwoman Barbara Hein Councilman Daniel K. Tabor City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Inglewood Councilman Guy J. Hocker Vice Mayor Robert G. Wagner City of Hawthorne City of Lakewood Councilmember John C. Holmberg Supervisor Harriett Wieder City of La Habra County of Orange Mayor Harold T. Jones Councilmember Dennis Zane City of Rancho Mirage City of Santa Monica i SCAG Planning Directors' Committee Robert W. Chave, Chairperson Los Angeles County James Rafferty, Ist Vice Chair City of Long Beach OFFICERS Patricia Nemeth, 2nd Vice Chair Riverside County REPRESENTATIVES Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner John Hnatek, Director of Planning City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Victorville Patrick 0. Brown, Director of Planning Irwin Moss Kaplan, Director of Planning & Building City of Beverly Hills City of Buena Park June Cataleno,•Oir. of Community Development City of Laguna Beach Jim Cutts, Community Development Director City of Lakewood Dennis T. Davis, Planning Division Mgr. Ventura County Kristin Duncan, Director of Planning City of Santa Paula Richard D. Mitchell, Director of Planning Imperial County Jim Morrissey] Director of Planning City of Lake Elsinore Norman Murdoch, Director of Planning Los Angeles County Robert J. Paternoster, Dir. of Planning & Building City of Long Beach Virginia Farmer, Director of Planning Marvin Roos, City Planner City of Grand Terrace City of Palm Springs Robert G. Fisher, Director of Planning Joyce Rosenthal, Dir. of Development Services Orange County City of Placentia Wayne Goldberg, Dir. of Community Kenneth C. Topping, Oir. of Planning Planning San Bernardino County City of Simi Valley Calvin S. Hamilton, Director of Planning City of Los Angeles Todd Beeler, Deputy Director County of Riverside Glenn F. Blossom, City Ping. Officer City of Los Angeles Arch 0. Crouch, Princip. City Planner City of Los Angeles Kim Hoching, Sup. Advance Planning Ventura County ALTERNATES Ron Matyas, Senior Planner San Bernardino County EPWA William Northrup, Dir. of Community Devel. City of Indio Elvin Porter, Director of Planning City of Whittier Glenn 0. Johnson, Princip. City Planner City of Los Angeles Walter Ladwig, Deputy Dir. of Planning San Bernardino County EPWA Robert Lane, Director of Planning City of erawiey Miguel Sanchez, Director of Planning City of Calexico Bryan Speegle, Mgr. Advance Ping. Div. Orange County EMA Harry Weinroth, Dir. of Community Devel. City of Chino r A 1 4 Mark Pisano William Ackermann William Boyd Frank Hotchkiss Jim Sims Richard Spicer SCAG MANAGEMENT STAFF - Executive Director - Director of Programming & Evaluation - Assistant Director of Programming & Management - Director of Planning - Assistant Director of Community & Economic Development - Assistant Director of Data Management DEVELOPMENT MONITORING PROGRAM STAFF Mark Alpers - Joel Kibbee - Dennis Macheski - Dennis Wambem - Jerry Hammond - Richard Hoffman - Wendy Murphy - Charles Noval - John Oshimo - Program Manager Program Manager Program Manager Program Manager Regional Planner Regional Planner Regional Planner Regional Planner Regional Planner P -iv- TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Executive Summary 5 Introduction 13 Chapter One - Methodology for Determining Consistency with 17 SCAG Forecasts Chapter Two - Forecasts Consistency Analysis 29 A. SCAG Region 29 B. Counties 37 C. Regional Statistical Areas 65 Chapter Three - Policy Monitoring 125 A. Job/Housing Balance Policy Monitoring 127 B. Conservation and Open Space Plan Policy Monitoring 132 1. Santa Monica Mountains 132 2. Bolsa Chica Wetlands 133 3. Chino Hills 133 -1- i i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purposes of this report are to assess consistency between monitored population, housing, and employment estimates with the SCAG-78 growth forecasts; to use this assessment to develop recommendations for con- sideration in the approval of the SCAG-82 forecasts; and to initiate an effort to evaluate the implementation of selected regional development policies. This is SCAG's second Development Monitoring Report. Last year's report monitored population, housing, and employment as of January 1, 1979. This report, using consistency criteria approved last year, updates the analysis to January 1, 1980 by interpolating census data backwards from April to January. Also, since this report comes at a time when SCAG is developing new forecasts which will be based on the Census, it is im- portant to realize that the monitored estimates will be used as baseline data in SCAG-82. At the regional, county, and Regional Statistical Area (RSA) levels, the report identifies numerous inconsistencies between monitored population and employment estimates and SCAG-78. The housing estimates are general•ly.• consistent with the forecasts. The principal findings are summarized as follows: 1) _R__e__gi__oon�n - The monitored housing estimate is consistent with SCA�8, however, population and employment levels were in- consistent. It is believed that the discrepancy in population is, in large part, due to undercount in the 1970 census, the baseline for SCAG-78. Undercount is particularly evident in Los Angeles County. The major reason for the employment incon- sistency arises from the underestimation of economic growth in all sectors of the economy. 2) Counties - In San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties the popuT—ation, housing, and employment estimates are consistent with SCAG-78. In Ventura County, population and housing are consistent' but employment is inconsistent. In Los Angeles County, housing is consistent and both population and employment are inconsistent; in Imperial County all of the monitored estimates are inconsistent. 3) Regional Statistical Areas (RSAs - As shown in Figure 1, very e� w RS�CIs s ow —mod population consistent with the forecasts. Of 55 RSAs, ten were consistent; 28 were inconsistent with population in excess of SCAG-78, and 17 were inconsistent with less popula- tion than anticipated. However, of the 45 inconsistent RSAs only 7 are considered to be inconsistent by a significant margin. Table 1 summarizes the consistency analysis for all of the RSAs. Housing and employment are not monitored at the RSA level. The results above, in identifying numerous inconsistencies, raise funda- mental questions about the accuracy of the population and employment forecasts and the validity of the consistency criteria which guide the monitoring program. The reasons for the inconsistencies are diverse: -5- FIGURE 1 i 5 M (See 4uertA.) ' 29 P41.1 50 �- f 47 �4;8 WMAT A .rrw rdn r �u�r wreir s ar. rr.r. • qMl.[ rnw�n .. emm� (See Insert A) REGIONAL STATISTICAL AREAS 4 3a E sub -county areas ••• 13 L53 SOMIIERN CAIIFORNIA ASSOCIA110N OF GOVERNMENTS w 49 , rwm 40 w wrw•r. • (See fused A) RSAs Consistent with SCAG-78....:. [� \ g RSAs Inconsistent above SCAG-TB...It RSAs Inconsistent below SCAG-78... ^t Significant Inconsistency............ County Boundary Line Regional Statistical Boundary I.Ine " - q + �• is iq fq q r The 1980 census counts which were used to monitor population and housing are probably more accurate than the estimates which were used as baseyear totals in the SCAG-78 forecasts. Monitored household size ratios (population per dwelling unit) differ substantially from those predicted in the forecasts. In urbanized RSAs, household size is probably underestimated in the forecasts. This is especially true where population was under- counted in the 1-970 Census. In suburban RSAs, those where 1979 population estimates exceeded the 1980 estimates, it is likely that household size was overestimated in SCAG-78. o The forecasts underestimate unemployment and labor force partici- pation rates. Housing vacancies are over -estimated. o The consistency criteria may be too stringent. The%monitored population is consistent with SCAG-78 in only ten of fifty-five RSAs. The population in seven other RSAs fall within 150 people of being consistent. o At the RSA level, growth is occurring faster or slower than -- anticipated. This is the case in a number of undeveloped and developing RSAs where the forecast methodology is less likely to generate accurate results. o The pattern of growth, as monitored, differs from that forecast in SCAG-78. Two major conclusions and recommendations can be drawn from the forecast's consistency analysis. First, SCAG-78 is adopted regional policy, discrep- ancies with the forecasts call to question the implementation potential of the Development Guide and related plans. This is especially evident at the RSA level where monitored population is inconsistent with the fore- casts in most RSAs. In some RSAs, which are considered to be environ- mentally sensitive areas, growth in excess of the forecasts also reflects an inconsistency with SCAG's more generalized development policies. This leads to recommendations to: o Develop improved monitoring techniques at the RSA level. o Reassess the rate of growth in certain RSAs; reallocate growth between RSAs; and o Increase coordinative efforts with local agencies to promote the implementation of the Development Guide. Second, to the extent which inconsistencies are attributable to factors which can be improved within the SCAG-82 development process (1980 Census, household size ratios, etc.), the results suggest that SCAG-82 will differ substantially from SCAG-78. The following recommendations are made to improve SCAG 82: -7- TABLE 1 POPULATION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 1980, CONSISTENCY RSA POPULATION RANGE* COMMENT VENTURA COUNTY 524,812 501,758-525,20g Consistent 1. Los Padres 482 400- 400 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 2. Ventura 131,827 126,046-129,668 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 3. Oxnard 193,376 176,663-191,756 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 4. Simi 89,240 89,946- 96,422 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 S. Thousand Oaks 96,665 89,717- 98,454 Consistent 6. Filimore 13,222 11,688- 12,099 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 LOS ANGELES COUNTY 7,462,101 7,114,859-7,168,207 Inconsistent 7. Calabasas 36.804 33,135- 35,002 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 8. Newhall 72,561 78,370- 84,646 Significant inconsistency below SCAG-78** 9. Lancaster 65,927 66,107- 72,880 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 10. Palmdale 45,136 37,992- 40,148 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 11. San Gabriel Mtns. 2,391 1,884- 1,904 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 12. W. San Fernando 573,691 578,877-586,337 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 13. Burbank 264,863 256,793-257,649 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 14, NE San Fernando. 280,445 271,974-272,746 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 15. Malibu 16,417 16,515- 17,096 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 16. Santa Monica 304,761 317,311-321,398 Inconsistent below SCAG-78** 17. W. Central 986,099 898,632-901,638 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78 18. South Bay 510,388 509,582-511,185 Consistent 19. Palos Verdes 423,844 434,452-437,431 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 20. Long Beach 424,900 410,432-411,389 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 21. E. Central 903,916 771,458-772,204 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 22. Norwalk -Whittier 612,472 616,193-619,253 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 23. L.A. CBD 120,499 85,322- 87,824 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 24. Glendale 441,697 404,006-406,242 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 25. W. San Gabriel 688,613 650,396-653,464 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 26, E. San Gabriel 514,436 498,050-504,773 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 27. Pomona 172,241 173,952-178,148 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 882,463 824,947-888,578 Consistent 28. West End 346,091 321,362-365,995 Consistent 29. East End 340,080 320,956-354420 Consistent 30. S. B. Mtns. 36,314 26,434- 27,868 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 31. Baker 7,258 7,406- 7,578 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 32. Barstow 106,131 92,275- 95,894 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** 33. 29 Palms 39,990 33,799- 36,420 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 34. Needles 2,945 2,781- 2,830 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 ORANGE COUNTY 1,920,798 1,399,472-1,976,290 Consistent 35. 3 - Buena Park 155,639 157,337-159,808 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 36. Anah-Fullerton 167,841 166,513-172,007 Consistent 37. H - Anaheim 336,796 327,653-331,583 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 38. i-W Coast 319,346 307,884-314,791 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 19. F-C Coast 170,606 175,265-187,413 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 40. O-S Coast 133,904 131,058-146,242 Consistent 41. B - Canyon 116.035 118,300-132,127 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 42. G - Santa Ana 375,210 355,758-366,279 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 43. C - Trabuco 92,352 86,695-101,110 Consistent 44. El Toro 53,069 60,784- 75,985 Significantinconsistency below SCAG-78** 'J- Table 1 - Population Consistency Analysis Page Two RIVERSIDE COUNTY 655,814 635,212-680,533 Consistent 45. Jurupa 49,283 42,948- 45,830 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 46. Riverside 284,961 275,266-312,729• Consistent 47. Perris 43,360 36,753- 39,224 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 48. Hemet 62,547 58,322- 62,811 Consistent 49. Elsinore 27,100 23,092- 24,797 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 50. Banning 34,307 32,953- 34,406 Consistent 51. Idyilwlld 5,880 6,212- 6,924 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 52. Palm Springs 84,361 94,844- 95,300 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 53. Coachella 47,043 44,500- 46,809 Inconsistent above SCAG-78 54. Chuckawalla 16,972 18,199- 18,400 inconsistent below SCAG-78 IMPERIAL COUNTY 55. Imperial County 91,459 91,479- 96,300 Inconsistent below SCAG-78 REGION 11,537,447 11,131,787-11,292,311 Significant inconsistency above SCAG-78** *The consistency range is defined in terms of time. At the RSA level, consistency occurs where growth is within 2 years, one year each side, of the SCAG-78 forecast. Counties are consistent if growth is within Ik years, 9 months each side of the forecast. At the regional level, there is a one year range, six months each side, of the forecast. See Chapter One for details. **RSAs with this footnote are those where there is a significant inconsistency with SCAG-78. Whether the incon- sistency is significant is determined as follows: where the monitored population deviates from the forecast at a percentage greater than the percentage standard deviation of the square root of the regional population divided by the local population, the inconsistency is significant from a regional perspective. Where the percentage deviation is less than the standard deviation, the inconsistency is not considered significant from a regional perspective. '9- o Use 1980 monitored population, housing, and employment estimates as base year totals in SCAG-82. o Reassess household size assumptions in the new forecasts. o Improve employment forecast methodology to reflect anticipated unemployment trend, labor force participation rates and undoc- umented workers. Chapter Three adds a new aspect to development monitoring: assessing the implementation of the job/housing balance policy and recommendations from the Conservation and Open Space Plan (COSP). Both analyses show signifi- cant pro ems assoc ate with pan mplementation. The job/housing section concludes that most of the heavily urbanized subregions are becoming more balanced (adding jobs faster than housing) while urbanizing subregions remain unbalanced. Based on market trends and historical development patterns, this was anticipated. Heavily urbanized areas, even those which originally developed as suburbs, are currently adding more jobs than housing. Urbanizing areas, which are experiencing their first development cycle, are adding more housing than jobs. To improve the job/housing balance, this section recommends that the follow- ing strategies be examined to determine their effectiveness in improving jobs/housing balance: (1) to increase housing opportunities and densities in "job -rich" areas, and (2) to encourage job growth in primarily suburban areas. The open space analysis shows limited success in implementing COSR recommendations in areas which are under significant pressure to urbanize. Although implementation is still possible in each of the study areas (Santa Monica Mountains, Bolsa Chica, and Chino Hills), additional costs Will be incurred by deferring implementation. The analysis highlights the need to reassess these recommendations where urban development would also be consistent with regional policies. -10- INTRODUCTION In January, 1979, SCAG's Executive Committee authorized staff to establish the Regional Development Monitoring System which compares population, housing, and employment monitored throughout the region with the adopted SCAG-78 growth forecasts and regional policies. In July, 1980, Executive Committee approved SCAG's first Development Monitoring Report which assessed consistency between development as of January 1, 1979 and the adopted forecasts. This report takes development monitoring one step further. In addition to updating the forecasts consistency analysis to 1980, it also monitors the implementation of selected regional policies. The purpose of development monitoring is to assess the validity of the growth forecasts and to evaluate the effectiveness of regional develop- ment policies. Since the forecasts are intended to serve as a regional framework to make decisions with respect to growth -- decisions about the sizing and timing of major capital facilities (e.g. highways, waste- water facilities) or the implementation of measures to improve air quality --regional growth forecasts can become a self-fulfilling prophecy when they are implemented through decisions which determine the capacities of major capital facilities. By monitoring the forecasts, and proposing - changes, as warranted based' on new information, the forecasts can be kept up to date. If monitored trends differ from those in the forecasts, sizing decisions based on the forecasts may under- or overstate the need for new and/or expanded facilities, hence the need for periodic monitoring and amendments. Also, since regional policies (e.g. job/housing balance) tend to be general indications of how development should occur, develop- ment monitoring is geared to show whether these development patterns are emerging. The report is divided into three chapters. Chapter One includes descrip- tions of the methodologies employed in data collection, the determination of consistency with the adopted forecasts and the jurisdictional co- ordination of the follow-up analysis. Chapter Two evaluates the con- sistency of monitored trends with the forecasts, and based on this analy- sis makes recommendations which will be considered in the approval of the 1982 forecasts. Chapter Three monitors the implementation of SCAG's job/housing balance policy and key recommendations in the Conservation and Open Space Plan. In evaluating the findings .herein certain things must be kept in mind: (1) The monitored estimates of population and housing are based on the 1980 Census while the SCAG-78 forecasts are based on updates of the 1970 Census. Since the 1980 Census employs different definitions and has a different level of undercount, these differences must be accounted for in assessing consistency with the forecasts; (2) employment data are par- ticularly subject to error because of differing assumptions used by several agencies in estimating the number of self-employed and unpaid family workers in the labor force; and, (3) because land use, an important component of the SCAG-78 forecasts, is not monitored in this report, caution should be exercised in making any assumptions about the rela- tionship of the monitored data to the nature, density, or patterns of new development within the region. -13- In summary, this report is based on the best currently available data, within the limitations of data reliability and the lack of monitored land use information. It must be stressed, that while it contains data and recommendations which are relevant to developing the,new SCAG-82 fore- casts, specific recommendations to be considered by Executive Committee in their approval of SCAG-82 will be prepared in a separate report. -14- CHAPTER ONE METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING CONSISTENCY WITH SCAG-78 FORECASTS DATA COLLECTION: In order to evaluate the consistency of SCAG-78 with recent trends, current population and housing data were drawn from advanced 1980 census counts which are available at the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) level for population data, and at the county level for housing data. County employment totals for 1980 were derived from the State of California Economic Development Department with SCAG estimates of self-employment data and unpaid family workers in the labor force. The April 1, 1980 census data was interpolated back to January 1, 1980, so that comparisons could be made with SCAG-78 forecasts and (actual) monitored trends. A more detailed explanation of data collection procedures is 'found in Appendix A. PURPOSE OF CONSISTENCY: A major purpose of the Development Monitoring Report is to make findings of consistency/inconsistency between monitored trends and the SCAG-78 forecasts. Such findings are intended to determine if: Actual events match the forecast and are in accord with regional policies. o The growth assumptions in the Air Quality, Transportation and 208 Plans appear valid given recent data. Because of the importance of a finding of consistency, care must be taken in defining that term. As used in this report, consistency between an area's growth and SCAG-78 means that "given everything we know about observed trends, anticipated short-term development, and national, state and regional trends, development appears to be proceeding along the lines 'forecast by SCAG-78, and there appear to be no contradictions". Given this context, it should be emphasized that "consistency" in no way carries the same legal implications as identified in the California Subdivision Map Act or Planning and Zoning Law with regard to either internal con- sistency or consistency of implementing actions with local general plans. DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: (See flow chart) The art of determining the consistency between forecasts and actual growth is evolving and will require refinement. As the experience of several monitoring cycles is accumulated, the methodology is likely to change. Furthermore, because SCAG-78 was developed based on 1976 esti- mates (in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura Counties), and 1978 estimates (in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), some discrepancies can be expected. The text will also explain discrepancies between moni- tored estimates in 1979 and 1980. The 1979 population data consists -17- DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM SCAG-78 Growth Forecasts Data Estimates— POP, HSG, EMP, LU POP, POP, HSG, EMP, LU' 1st CUT Compare Estimates with Forecast b Gather Data on Antici- Consistent 4 pated Growth (Subdivn. No further Flagged maps, dwelling permits, action available land, buildings Change regional plans Consistent No further. action EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION Inconsistent Work with local govts. to alter growth trends PDC Review and Recommendation to Executive Comm. under construction, etc.) 2nd CUT Consistent Based on indicators of No further anticipated growth, de - action termine whether further study is required. Possibly Inconsistent Possibly Inconsistent Analyze National, State & M, Regional Development 1f Trends. Relate to area in question. 3rd CUT Determine consistency based on above analysis Consistent No further action r Land Use to be included in subsequent monitoring teports. of updates of the 1970 census, and consistency with the forecast was determined using California Department of Finance population estimates for January 1, 1979. However, the 1980 population data has the 1980 census as its new data base, and consistency with th.e forecast was as- sessed on the basis of advanced census counts that were interpolated back to January 1., 1980. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA To assess consistency with SCAG-78, the report uses the same three con- sistency criteria which were used last year: 1) SCAG-78 forecast timing of growth as compared to actual monitored growth; 2) anticipation of growth in the near future; and 3) analysis of National, State and Regional trends. These criteria were developed by SCAG's Planning Directors' Committee and approved by the Executive Committee in the report, implementing the SCAG Growth Forecast Policy (October, 1979). They are subject to further revisions by the Executive Committee. Step 1 Assessment of SCAG-78 Timinq of Growth: The first criteria fags RSAs whose monitored growth is significantly faster or slower than was forecasted in SCAG-78. Significantly faster or slower is defined as monitored growth falling above or below limits established as a function of time. A smooth curve has been drawn through the 5-year interval forecasts to the Year 2000. To determine consistency, the time period is delineated on each side of the monitored data along the vertical axis of the graph. These lines are extended to intersect the smooth curve, creating upper and lower limits of consistent population, housing or employment growth (See example below. Actual graphs appear in the following chapter). The monitored growth is plotted on the graph. Should this growth fall outside the limits drawn, the area is flagged for further study. -19- This procedure for determining consistency is used because: SCAG-78 is a phased forecast which views growth as a func- tion of time. o Timing of growth is also a key factor in SCAG's other plans which rely on the growth forecasts. For example, the Air Quality Management Plan phases the implementation of air quality mi- tigation measures consistent with the forecasted schedule of growth. o This method allows greater flexibility for rapidly growing areas. The steep growth slope exhibited by these areas yields a larger variance above and below the monitored data. This is important since these areas possess a greater probability for sudden spurts of growth or no growth. 1. The period between the two dates is made larger for small geographic levels. This requires greater conformance to the forecast at the re- gional scale due to the increased accuracy of the forecast at that level, likewise, greater flexibility is allowed at smaller geographic.. areas. This is due to the decreased accuracy of the forecast at smaller geographic levels. The consistency ranges for each geo- graphical analysis unit is given below: RSAs - 2 year range - 1 year deviance on each side of the SCAG-78 forecast. Counties - 1-1/2 year range - 9 months deviance on each side of the SCAG-78 forecast. Region - 1 year range - 6 months deviance on each side of the SCAG-78 forecast. Those RSAs whose growth falls within these limits are determined to be consistent. Any other RSAs are flagged and evaluated in detail using the other two criteria: anticipation of growth in the near future and analysis of national, state and regional development trends. Step 2 Anbici ation of Growth in the Near Future: Even if the first cut test s ows an area to be In need of further study, it could still be judged consistent, given other factors. This cut evaluates short term development. By examining expected growth, it can be determined whether the previous year's growth rate will continue for the duration of the forecast increment. These indicators may find the previous year's growth spurt, or lack of growth, exceptional and not one that will continue. In this case the area would be determined consistent. Step 3 Often local growth is influenced by national, state and regional development trends. Development generally occurs -20- in cycles which depend upon economic, climatic and energy conditions. These factors have been examined for their regional as well as local impacts. Certain local areas, more than others, might be particularly sensitive to these in- fluences. All RSAs deemed consistent at any stage in the above three- tier process will be determined consistent and not evaluated further. Any RSAs remaining inconsistent throughout the process will be subject to an interjurisdictional evaluation process and action determination. ASSESSMENT OF RELATIONSHIP TO SCAG-78 REGIONAL POLICIES: In this report, a determination of inconsistency with the SCAG-78 forecast merely indicates that growth is "out -of -step" with that originally antic- ipated in the forecasts. It does. NOT necessarily imply inconsistency with SCAG regional policies. On the other hand consistency with the fore- casts does not necessarily mean consistency with SCAG-78 policies. However, it does mean that the local jurisdiction(s) should present findings as to the nature of the growth that is occurring and the manner. in which regional policies are being implemented. Such findings would then be reviewed by staff and presented to the appropriate technical and policy committees which would be responsible for making a final determina- tion and recommendation to the Executive Committee. JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION FOR MONITORING ANALYSIS: Each city lying within an inconsistent RSA will be notified by staff of the inconsistency and its responsibility in the action 'determination process. The SCAG-78 forecasts for population and housing, in coordination with sub -regional agencies and the counties, have been disaggregated to the city level. These city forecasts were not adopted by the Executive Committee as part of the growth forecast policy but can be used as guide- lines for sub -RSA consistency'determinations. To determine consistency at the city level, each city will need to compare its population and housing monitoring data to the city guidelines forecasts in a manner similar to the RSA consistency determination. ACTION DETERMINATION: This report presents determinations of inconsistency at the RSA level in accordance with the factors mentioned above. Consistency is assumed for every RSA unless evaluated otherwise. If an RSA is determined to be inconsistent with the adopted forecasts, a staff meeting will be held between the county, concerned jurisdictions and SCAG to evaluate an appropriate course of action. Three alternative solutions would be possible for recommendation to SCAG's technical and policy committees: -21- 1. Determine RSA Consistent - Based upon additional information of appropriate findings, identify unique local development trends in the problem area and make a consistency determination. 2. Implement Additional Growth Management Mechanisms - Following a review of the implementation measures presently used by the jurisdic- tion in the inconsistent area, it might be determined that additional measures could be employed to effectively manage growth to be con- sistent with the SCAG-78 forecasts. The report "Implementing SCAG-78" presents the results of a survey showing various measures local governments could use to implement SCAG-78. As recommended in the Implementation Report, SCAG will provide technical assistance and information regarding growth management mechanisms. 3. Change the Appropriate SCAG Functional Plans - If growth is found unavoidable or proper, considering growth pressures or changes in economic conditions, SCAG-78 forecasts could be modified to become consistent with the growth. Further, the SCAG functional plans could be modified, if necessary, to remain appropriate to the modified growth forecasted. Any modifications to SCAG-78 would be the result of a process separate from this monitoring effort, and any recommendations or modifications would be presented a separate report. RELATIONSHIP OF DEVELOPMENT MONITORING TO OTHER REGIONAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES SCAG's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are all based, in part, on the SCAG-78 growth forecasts. SCAG's current efforts to develop the SCAG-82 forecasts will also be built into the planned revi- sions to the AQMP and RTP (SCAG is attemtpting to obtain funds to update the Area Waste Treatment Management Plan). Because of the relationship between SCAG-78 (82) and other regional plans, development monitoring plays an important role in assessing consistency with regional policies: 1) AMP - The adopted forecasts are built into the future emission estimates in the AQMP. If an RSA's growth is judged consistent with the forecasts, it would also be consistent with the AQMP so long as other consistency criteria are met (See Draft Air Quality Consistency Criteria). An inconsistent finding implies the need to mitigate the difference between the growth assumed in the AQMP and the monitored growth. 2) RTP - The RTP supports the construction or expansion of various 1� ghway and transit facilities based on the forecasts. Ac- cordingly, a consistent finding means that the facilities are properly sized. An inconsistent finding implies the need to amend the forecasts and/or reevaluate transportation facility needs. -22- 3) 208 Plan - The 208 plan includes adopted forecasts by sewer service area. These forecasts cannot be updated without ad- ditional funds. Monitoring of these forecasts is also dependent on new monies. Efforts are underway to secure funding for both activities. Since there is no direct monitoring of sewer service area forecasts, there can be no inference of consistency/ inconsistency unless these areas are coterminus with RSA bound- aries. -23- SUMMARY OF REGIONAL CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS As shown in this section, the 1980 monitored housing estimate is consis- tent with SCAG-78; the population and employment estimates are inconsis- tent. The discrepancy between the population estimate and the forecast is substantial, hence the monitored household size ratio (people per dwelling unit) is significantly greater than anticipated. Since the regional household size ratio plays a central role in SCAG's county and RSA fore- cast methodology, this discrepancy is reflected in the monitoring results at the county and RSA levels. The population inconsistency is largely due to 1970 undercount in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, the recommendations are to use the 1980 census -based estimate as the baseyear total in SCAG-82 and to modify household size assumptions in developing the new forecasts. -The reason for the employment inconsistency seems to be unexpectedly high growth rates in all sectors of the economy. This leads to recommendations to update the baseyear total and reassess employment growth assumptions in SCAG-82. -P7- CHAPTER TWO FORECASTS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS SCAG REGION Population During the 1970's, the SCAG region increased in population by 1.5 million, or 15%. This growth represents 41% of the state's growth during that period. The SCAG region now accounts for 49% of California's current population. If the six county SCAG region were a state, it would be exceeded in total population only by New York, Texas and Pennsylvania. In the early 1970's, the region experienced slow population growth which was probably brought on by the general business recession. Between 1970 and 1976, the region grew at an average annual rate of 0.7%: However, the second half of the decade witnessed a strong recovery in thb economy, with the average annual growth rate increasing to 2.6%. The monitored 1980 population estimate for the SCAG region exceeds that of the SCAG-78 Forecast by 322,048 people, or a difference of 2.8%: The higher 1980 population estimate may not be totally a result of in- creased growth but an improved and more complete census count. The 1980 Census, on which the monitored estimates are based, applied more aggres- sive techniques to solicit a complete count, in an attempt to avoid the undercount found in the 1970 Census. Special emphasis was placed on counting ethnic populations which historically have been undercounted. In the previous (1970) Census, it was estimated that 2.5% of the national population was undercounted. Because of the large ethnic population re- siding in the SCAG region, the undercount in the 1970 Census may have been more significant. Based on the monitored estimate for 1980, Los Angeles County accounted for the largest percentage of the region's growth between the years 1976-1980. Much of Los Angeles County's growth may be attributed to the more complete count of the 1980 Census. Since the 1979 monitored estimate was consistent with the forecast, and in view of the difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates, it seems unlikely that growth, by itself, can explain the monitored estimate for 1980. Consequently, the level of undercount seems significant at the regional level. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining baseyear population for the region in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. In view of the difference between the monitored household size ratio and that forecast in SCAG-78, modify household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecast. -P9- Housing The 1980 monitored housing estimate exceeds the forecast by 34,219 dwelling units, or 0.7%. This difference is within the consistency range. However, since the monitored population exceeds the forecast, the monitored household size ratio (population per dwelling unit) of 2.60 is greater than the rate of 2.55 forecast in SCAG-78. At least two factors may partially account for this discrepancy: (1) less undercount in the 1980 Census, especially in minority communities which historically have higher household size ratios than the population as a whole; (2) lifestyle changes (spurred in conjunction with inflation and decreased real earning power), whereby more single unrelated individuals are sharing dwellings than ever before. As shown in this chapter (see analyses of the counties and RSAs), the differences between monitored and forecast house- hold size ratios are significant in key locations throughout the region. The extent of these differences necessitates a thorough reevaluation of household size assumptions in preparing the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Finding The 1980 monitored housing estimate is consistent with SCAG-78 Employment The 1980 monitored employment estimate exceeds the SCAG-78 Forecast by 243,101 jobs, or 4.5%. This estimate is well above the upper limit of the consistency range. Since the 1979 estimate exceeded the forecast by 228,794 jobs, this inconsistency does not seem to be a result of growth which occurred just recently. It is viewed as a phenomenon which has occurred between 1976, the base year of the forecasts, through calendar year 1979. The discrepancy between monitored employment growth and SCAG-78 is most likely due to unexpectedly strong growth rates in all sections of the economy, particularly the aerospace industry (note: The multiplier effect associated with aerosapce growth certainly, in part, stimulated growth in other sectors of the economy). While employment grew more rapidly than expected, this growth did not necessarily induce significant population growth within the region. This seems true for the following reasons: 1) Even though the 1980 monitored population estimate was larger than expected, the 1979 estimate was consistent with the fore- casts. Also, in part, undercount is responsible for the size of the 1980 population estimate. 2) Labor force participation rates are higher than expected. 3) Unemployment rates are lower than assumed in SCAG-78. 4) More accurate reporting of undocumented aliens at their place of employment than in population estimates. -30- Finding The 1980 monitored employment estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining baseyear regional employment total in the SCAG-82 forecast. 2. Because of the magnitude of difference between the monitored estimate and the forecast, assess need to alter employment growth assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. -31- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST SCRG REGION S SCAG REGION POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 11,215,399 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 11,537,447 Absolute difference 322,048 ; Absolute % difference from forecast 2.8% Upper limit 7/80 = 11,292,311 Lower limit 7/79 11,131,787 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ - MOMITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1200 + . MAMI10RM ESTIMATE FSA t➢72 SCAG REGION HOUSING SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 4,396,899 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 4,431,118 Absolute difference = 34,219 Absolute difference from forecast = 0.7% Upper limit 7/80 = 4,434,915 Lower limit 7/79 - 4,356,109 *** CONSISTENT *** X • MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -32- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L979 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST ' SCRG REGION - MOMITOMED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MOMITOREQ ESTIMATE FOR 1979 SCAG REGION EMPLOYMENT SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 5,289,299 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 5,532,400 Absolute difference 243,101 Absolute A difference from forecast = 4.5p Upper limit 7/80'= 5,346,519 Lower limit 7/79 = 5,224,344 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RECORD COUNT = 62 *** END STEP3 *** N -33- SUMMARY OF COUNTY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS This section assesses consistency between the 1980 monitored popula- tion, housing, and employment estimates and SCAG-78 in the six counties. The results show that all of the estimates are consistent in Orange, Riverside, and. San Bernardino Counties. In Ventura County, popula- tion and housing are consistent but employment is inconsistent. In Los Angeles County the housing estimate is consistent, population and employment are inconsistent. In Imperial County, all of the monitored estimates are inconsistent with the forecasts. It is important to note that housing was found to be consistent in Orange and Ventura Counties based on the first consistency criteria, which establishes a consistency range within nine months each side of 1980. In Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties the con- sistency finding is based on the second criteria, which utilizes local building permit and demolition data -to assess consistency on the basis of anticipated near term (1980-1983) development trend. The results above lead to the following recommendations: 1) To consider using the 1980 estimates as baseyear totals in SCAG-82. 2) To reassess household size assumptions. 3) To reevaluate employment forecast assumptions and the signi- ficance of these inconsistencies in forecasting long-term em- ployment growth in SCAG-82. -37- VENTURA COUNTY Based on the 1980 monitored estimates, Ventura County represents 4.5% of the region's population. Between 1976 and 1980, housing grew by 32,906 dwelling units, an increase of 22.2%; population grew by 78,435 people, or 17.6%. The difference in growth in population and housing results in a drop in the persons per dwelling unit (P/DU) from 3.01 in 1976 to 2.90 in 1980. Both population and housing estimates of the county are considered consistent with the SCAG-78 Forecast. Last year's development monitoring report also showed the monitored population and housing estimates to be consistent with SCAG-78. , In employment, the monitored estimate is higher than SCAG-78 by 6,100 jobs. This difference is positive relative to SCAG policies because it results in a better job/housing balance. Last year's report which moni- tored growth in January, 1979, showed total employment to be •_lower than forecast but within the consistency range. Since subcounty (RSA) employ- ment estimates are not available, it is difficult to determine the signi- ficance this employment growth should have in the SCAG-82 employment forecasts for Ventura County. Findings 1. The 1980 monitored population and housing estimates are consis- tent with SCAG-78; the monitored employment estimate is incon- sistent with the adopted forecasts. Recommendations 1. Consider using the 1980 monitored estimates as baseyear totals in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Assess the significance of the monitored employment for its long term effect in the SCAG-82 forecasts. -39- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST , COUNTY TOTRL VENTURR CO. POPULATION VENTURA CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 514,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 524,812 Absolute difference - 10,812 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.1% Upper limit 10/80 - 5?5,209 Lower limit 4/79 - 501,758 +"* CONSISTENT *** ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L979 HOUSING VENTURA CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 178,700 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 181,233 Absolute difference - 2,533 Absolute n difference from forecast 1.4% Upper limit 10/80 - 182,737 Lower limit 4/79 - 173,835 *** CONSISTENT *** -40- t - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1000 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L979 I MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL VENTURR CO-. X • MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1950 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 EMPLOYMENT VENTURA CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 171,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 177,200 Absolute difference = 6,100 Absolute difference from forecast = 3.5% Upper limit 10/80 = 135-s099 Lower limit 4/79 = 166,486 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** a —41— LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County is the most populated county in both the SCAG region and the state. In 1980, it represented 64.7% of the region's population. The monitored population estimate in 1980 is 317,902 people higher than the 1980 SCAG-78 Forecast. This difference may not be totally attributed to population growth, but rather to a more accurate count in the 1980 Census relative to the 1970 Census, from which the pre-1980 estimates were based. In the 1970 Census it is estimated that a significant number of people (2.5% of the nation) were undercounted. The 1980 Census made a concentrated effort to improve the count. For housing, the monitored estimates are higher than forecast by 17,274 dwelling units, however, this represents an absolute difference of only 0.6%. With population higher than anticipated, the monitored household size ratio of 2.62 people/dwelling unit is significantly higher than that assumed in SCAG-78 (2.52) for 1980. As discussed previously (see pg. 30), this is to be expected because the county includes numerous areas with large minority populations and single unrelated individuals. Both the monitored population and housing estimates fall outside of the - consistency range as shown on the graphs. However, data submitted by Los Angeles County indicate an anticipated decline in housing starts between 1980 and 1983. If this occurs, housing growth would revert to the SCAG-78 trend. In terms of employment, the monitored estimate for 1980 exceeds the forecast by 228,701 jobs, or 6.1%. While this is a significant dif- ference, the 1980 estimate is only 80,000 above that reported last year. This indicates that this inconsistency is not necessarily due to growth in 1980, but to growth that occurred between 1976 and 1980. As documented last year, the employment growth rate in Los Angeles County (based on historical data) greatly exceeds the rate assumed in the forecasts. It is also likely that employment participation rates, e.g. the number of secondary wage earners in the labor force, have increased markedly since the SCAG-78 forecast, in accordance with national trends. Findings 1. The 1980 monitored population and employment estimates are inconsistent with SCAG-78. Based on near term trends, however, the 1980 housing estimate is consistent with the adopted fore- cast. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored estimates should be considered in determining baseyear totals in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Assess the significance of the monitored employment estimate for its long term effect in the SCAG-82 forecasts. -43- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL LOS RNGELES CO, POPULATION LOS ANGELES CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 7,144,199 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 7,462,101 Absolute difference = 317,902 i Absolute % difference . from forecast = 4.4p Upper limit 10/80 - 7,1fi8;'207 Lower limit 4/79 = 7,114,859 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 * . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 HOUSING LOS ANGELES CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 2,829,999 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 2,847,273 Absolute difference = 17,274 Absolute p difference from forecast = 0.6% Upper limit 10/80 = 2,847,011 Lower limit 4/79 = 2,810,956 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 11 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -44- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST COUNTY TOTRL LOS RNGELES CO. G It a MOMITOMEO ESTIMATE FOM 1900 EMPLOYMENT LOS ANGELES CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 3,692,999 Monitored estimate 1/80 3,921,700 Absolute difference 228,701 Absolute % difference from forecast = 6.11001 Upper limit 10/80 - 3,+728,343 Lower limit 4/79 = 3,649,251 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** -45- - SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Between 1975 and 1980, the population in San Bernardino County grew by 26.8%, the highest growth rate in the region. The 1980 population represents 7.6% of the regional total. The monitored estimate is con- sistent with the SCAG-78 forecast. The monitored 1980 housing estimate is 17,938 dwelling units, or 5.1%, higher than forecast, which is outside the consistency range. When considered in conjunction with the population estimate, this results in lower household size ratio (2.50 people/dwel- ling unit) than was assumed in the higher SCAG-78 forecast for 1980 (2.42). With more housing than anticipated and the monitored employment consistent with the forecast, the potential to improve job/housing balance is reduced. The monitored housing estimate falls outside of the consistency range shown on the graph. However, data submitted by San Bernardino County indicates an anticipated decline in•housing starts between 1980 and 1983. If this occurs, housing growth will likely revert to the SCAG-78 trend. Findings The 1980 monitored population and employment estimates are consistent with SCAG-78. Based on near term trends, however, the 1980 housing estimate is consistent with the adopted forecast. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored estimates should be considered in determining baseyear totals in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. -47- MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL SRN BERNRRDINO CO. POPULATION SAN BERNARDINO CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 864,500 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 882,463 Absolute i difference 17,963 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.0010' Upper limit 10/80 = 888,578 Lower limit 4/79 - 824,947 *** CONSISTENT *** x - MOMITOMED ESTIMATE FOR 196O + - MMIITWO ESTIMATE FOR 1979 HOUSING SAN BERNARDINO CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 3460100 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 364,038 Absolute difference 17,938 Absolute difference from forecast - 5.1'n Upper limit 10/80 = 354,465 Lower limit 4/79 - 332,479 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** _ X - MONITOMED ESTIMATE FOA taOO -48- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE raft E979 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL SRN BERNRRDINO CO. N - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 EMPLOYMENT SAN BERNARDINO CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 287,500 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 285,000 Absolute difference = 2,500 Absolute % difference from forecast = 0.8% Upper limit 10/80 = 293.764 Lower limit 4/79 = 282,447 *** CONSISTENT *** N 11 -49- ORANGE COUNTY In 1980, the monitored population and housing estimates for Orange County exceeded the forecasts by 0.9% and 2.5% respectively. These differences are within the consistency range used in this report. Monitored employment was 0.8% greater than the forecast and this is also consistent with SCAG-78. Even though population and housing are consistent with the forecasts, household size ratios differ substantially from SCAG-78. The monitored estimates result in a ratio of 2.6B people/dwelling which compares to a 2.64 figure assumed in SCAG-78. The monitored household size ratio is slightly less than that reported in last year's report (2.69). This tends to confirm suspicions that the actual decrease in household size will occur at a slower rate than forecast. Accordingly, household size assumptions will be reevaluated in developing the SCAG-82 .,forecasts. In regards to employment it should be noted that Orange County is cur- rently reassessing its employment forecasts. This may result in proposed modifications which would eventually be submitted to SCAG. Finding The 1980 monitored estimates are consistent with SCAG-78. -51- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCAG-78 FORECAST COUNTY TOTAL ORANGE CO: POPULATION ORANGE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 1,938,699 " Monitored estimate 1/80 - 1,920,798 Absolute difference •. = 17,901 Absolute /'Q( difference from forecast = 0.,9% Upper limit 10/80 = 1,976,290 Lower limit 4/79 = 1,899,.472 *** CONSISTENT *** ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 HOUSING ORANGE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 734,700 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 716,259 Absolute difference 18,441 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.5% Upper limit 10/80 - 753,735 Lower limit 4/79 = 714,632 *** CONSISTENT *** N ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -52- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST COUNTY TOTRL ORANGE CO. EMPLOYMENT ORANGE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 878,900 " Monitored estimate 1/80 . 886,200 Absolute difference . 7,300 Absolute % difference from forecast - 0.8% Upper limit 10/80 . 907,469 Lower limit 4/79 - 844,959 *** CONSISTENT *** A - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1000 + . MONTTANF11 FRTIN9TE FM 11179 5 -53- RIVERSIDE COUNTY In Riverside County, the monitored population estimate is consistent with the SCAG-78 Forecast. The population increased by over 124,000 between 1975 and 1980 for an average annual growth rate of 4.7%. This compares to an annual rate of 3.2% between 1970 and 1975. The monitored housing estimate falls outside of the consistency range shown on the graph. This may be true because vacant mobile homes are included in the 1980 Census or because housing growth has exceeded the forecast. Based on information submitted by San Bernardino County, near -term (1980-1983) housing growth is also expected to be consistent with the rate anticipated in SCAG-78. The monitored housing estimate exceeds the forecast by 13,532 dwelling units, or 4.8%. This increase in housing results in a change in the 1980 household size of 2.38 people/dwelling unit estimated in SCAG-78. The monitored estimate was 2.26 people per dwelling unit. The monitored employment estimate for Riverside County exceeds the forecast by 500 jobs, or 0.2%, but is consistent with the SCAG-78 employment forecast. Finding The 1980 monitored population and employment estimates are consistent with SCAG-78. Based on near term trends, however the 1980 housing estimate is consistent with the adopted forecast. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored estimates should be considered in determining baseyear totals in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. -55- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST COUNTY TOTAL RIVERSIDE CO. POPULATION RIVERSIDE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 659,900 „ Monitored estimate 1/80 = 655,814 Absolute difference 4,086 Absolute % difference from forecast - 0.6% Upper limit 10/80 = '680,533 Lower limit 4/79 - 635,212 *** CONSISTENT *** ` I ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MONITORE0 ERTIMATE FOR 1979 HOUSING RIVERSIDE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 276,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 290,432 Absolute difference = 13,532 Absolute % difference from forecast - 4.8% Upper limit 10/80 - 286,067 Lower limit 4/79 = 265,460 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** -56- A - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 Il MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCAG-78 FORECAST COUNTY TOTAL RIVERSIDE C'O. x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + . MOMTTRAEO ESTIMATE FOR 1979 I EMPLOYMENT RIVERSIDE CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 214,400 .. Monitored estimate 1/80 214,900 Absolute difference = 500 Absolute % difference from forecast = 0.2% Upper limit 10/80 = 21'9,586 Lower limit 4/79 - 210,162 *** CONSISTENT *** -57- IMPERIAL COUNTY Based on the 1980 monitored estimates, population, housing, and employment are all inconsistent with the SCAG-78 forecasts for the year 1980. Population estimates were lower than the forecasts by 2.8% with absolute difference of 2,641 people. Monitored housing exceeded the forecast by 1,383 dwelling units, or 4.5%. This results in significantly less people per dwelling unit than was assumed in the forecasts: the forecasts assume a ratio of 3.09 while the monitored estimate is 2.87 people per dwelling unit. Monitored employment exceeded SCAG-78 by 6.7% Finding The 1980 monitored estimates are inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored estimates should be considered in determining baseyear totals in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts... -59- 3 i z r I w MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL IMPERIRL CO. x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR ISeO + . MENITERED ESTIMATE FOR t979 POPULATION IMPERIAL CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 94,100 " Monitored estimate 1/80 = 91,459 Absolute difference = 2,641 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.8% Upper limit 10/80 = 95,770 Lower limit 4/79 = 92,186 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** HOUSING IMPERIAL CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 30,500 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 31,883 Absolute difference 1,383 Absolute % difference from forecast = 4.5% Upper limit 10/80 = 31,208 Lower limit 4/79 = 29,705 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** a -60- I - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1000 + --MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST COUNTY TOTRL IMPERIAL CO. ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 EMPLOYMENT IMPERIAL CO. SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 44,400 .. Monitored estimate 1/80 . 47,400 Absolute difference s 3,000 Absolute % difference from forecast - 6.7% Upper limit 10/80 a 44,974 Lower limit 4/79 - 43,956 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 0 r -61- SUMMARY OF RSA CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS This section assesses consistency between the 1980 monitored popula- tion estimates and SCAG-78 at the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) level. Because of difficulties of disaggregation, neither housing nor employment were monitored at the RSA level. Lacking housing data, the findings and recommendations are considered tentative. The results show numerous inconsistencies with SCAG-78. Of the 55 RSAs, ten were consistent; 28 were inconsistent with population in excess of the forecasts; and 17 were inconsistent with populations lower than anticipated. The reasons for the large number of incon- sistencies vary: 1) Undercount is evident in highly urbanized RSAs (South -Central Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana). Except for Santa Ana, this situation is specific to RSAs in Los Angeles County. 'Undercount can be corrected for by using the 1980 monitored population estimates as baseyear totals in•SCAG-82. 2) The results suggest that RSA household size ratios vary signi- ficantly from those in the forecasts. Without housing data at" the RSA level, it is not possible to determine the magnitude of these variations. Discrepancies between monitored ratios and those used to forecast RSA growth are not limited to undercounted RSAs. In a few RSAs where the 1980 monitored population is less than the 1979 monitored estimate, SCAG-78 apparently overesti- mated household size; with undercount, this ratio would be underestimated. Because of the importance of this ratio in the forecast methodology, it is recommended that a thorough reassess- ment of household size occur in developing the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3) In a few RSAs, local development policies have changed leading to significantly different growth than forecast. Where this occurs, these changes should be evaluated in terns of regional policies, and the forecasts should be revised accordingly. 4) Growth has occurred faster or slower than forecast. This is especially true in sparsely developed RSAs and where it occurs the recommendations are to reassess the rate of growth and/or the distribution of growth for RSAs in certain counties. 5) The monitoring criteria may be too stringent. Even though only ten RSAs show population consistent with the forecasts, monitored estimates in seven others are within 150 people of being consistent. The tendency is to find them consistent with SCAG-78. However, this should not occur before it can be deter- mined whether these variations are significant from a policy perspective. To make these decisions, it is recommended that staff work to develop improved monitoring techniques to determine the reasons for these discrepancies. In sum, two categories of inconsistencies are evident in this analysis: Those that can be remedied by technical adjustments to the forecasts, and those which have implications in implementing the adopted forecasts. -65- Where the issue is technical, these problems can be resolved by using the monitored data in the SCAG-82 development process. Policy differences can also be reconciled in the forecast approval process, but may also require increased efforts to work With local agencies in implementing the Development Guide. -66- NTURA � � s 10 � (See Insert A) ' 6 _ 2 n:., `.1. y..r—�� __.fit J_J---'i - )I —^LLOS ANGELES L so S = 14 3 12 'L M SA Bf RRHAARDINO s \ 7 4 27 26 y 29 z`I IS 16 17 `-26 -V .. 4s ,21 . - '�50 f zz 41 19 Q 39 3T 47 48 .42 �+. N G E RIV d 1 I : 9 ,.,... . w+ 39 43 .. `� 49 mart mina - eo, 8u's \ .y. o r�40 su nu• . • 1 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 1 LOSPRDS VENTURR'CO. 31 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 0 0 RSA 1 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 400_ Monitored estimate 1/80 = 482 Absolute difference 82 Absolute % difference from forecast - 20.4% Upper limit 1/81 - 400 Lower limit 1/79 - 400 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 1280100 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 131,827 Absolute difference 3,727 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.9% Upper limit 1/81 - 129,668 Lower limit 1/79 - 126,046 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** I I - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -68- + - MONITOMED'ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 3 VENTURA COUNTY RSA 1. LOS PADRES All of RSA 1 is in the Los Padres National Forest, located in the north- ernmost portion of Ventura County. It has the smallest population of all RSAs in the region. In 1979, the monitored population was 298 people. Using 1980 Census data, interpolated from April to January, 1980, the estimated population was 482. The 1980 estimate exceeded the SCAG fore- cast by 20.4%, but the absolute difference of 82 people is relatively insignificant. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendation The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 1 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Note: Both the finding and recommendation are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 2. VENTURA RSA 2, which includes the City of Buenaventura, showed a 1980 population estimate which exceeded the forecast by 3,727 people, or 1.9%. Because the monitored estimate for the county, as a whole, is consistent with the forecast, it appears that a redistribution of growth within the county should be considered to reflect recent trends. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 2 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. Evaluate the need to redistribute forecasted growth among Ventura County RSAs in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -69- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST , RSR 3 OXNRRD VENTURR CO, RSA 3 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 186,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 193,376 Absolute difference - 7,376 Absolute % difference from forecast - 3.9% Upper limit 1/81 - 191,756 Lower limit 1/79 - 179,663 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 9 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 4 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 93,400 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 89,240 Absolute difference - 4,160 Absolute % difference from forecast - 4.40% Upper limit 1/81 - 96,422 Lower limit 1/79 - 89,946 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -70- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 3. OXNARD The 1980 monitored population estimate for RSA 3 exceeds the forecast by 7,376 people, or 3.9%. In last year's report the monitored estimate for 1979 was lower than the forecast. Between 1976 and 1979 this RSA grew by an average of 5,800 people. However, in comparing the 1979 and 1980 estimates, the RSA grew by 15,600, a number which is slightly less than the total population growth experienced in the last four years. A number of factors may explain this difference: (1) a major spurt in new development activity in 1979, (2) increased household size and/or ethnic population, and (3) a more accurate 1980 Census Count. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored popul'ation estimate should considered in determining the. baseyear population for RSA 3 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess' household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note• Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 4 SIMI The 1980 monitored population estimate is 4,160 people or 4.4% less than the SCAG-78 forecast. This is consistent with last year's report which showed the monitored estimate to be 4.7% less than the forecast. Since last year's report showed housing growth to be consistent with the forecast, it was recommended that household size assumptions be revised to reflect less population per dwelling unit. When 1980 housing data is available, household size assumptions should be reassessed. If the 1980 population per dwelling unit is also less than forecast, the SCAG-82 forecasts should be adjusted to reflect this trend. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendatons 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in deter- mining the baseyear population for RSA 4 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess house- hold size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. NOTE: Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -71- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCAG-78 FORECAST RSA 5 THOSAKS VENTURA CO. RSA 5 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 94,200 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 96,665 Absolute difference 2,465 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.6p Upper limit 1/81 - 98,454 Lower limit 1/79 - 89,717 *** CONSISTENT *4* X . MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR WOO + . MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 0 RSA 5. THOUSAND OAKS POPULATION IN RSA 5 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SCAG-78 FORECAST. RSA 6. FILLMORE The 1980 monitored population estimate for the Fillmore RSA exceeded the SCAG-78 Forecast by 1,322 people or 11.1%. Since the monitored estimate for the county, as a whole, is consistent with the forecasts, a redistribution of population within the county should be considered to reflect this trend. The 1979 monitored population estimate also exceeded the forecast. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 6 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. Evaluate the need to redistribute forecasted growth among Ventura County RSAs in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -73- MONITORED ESTIMRTE CGMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 7 CRLRBRS LOS RNGELES CO, 0 0 11 MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1900 1 - WIYrTMRfl itTtYOTV VFM 1079 RSA 7 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 34,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 36,804 Absolute difference - 2,804 Absolute % difference from forecast - 8.2% Upper limit 1/81 - .35,002 Lower limit 1/79 - 33,135 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 8 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 82,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 72,561 Absolute difference 9,539 Absolute % difference from forecast - 11.6% Upper limit 1/81 = 84,646 Lower limit 1/79 - 78,370 �** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** r ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR t9OG -74- II i - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 ,r LOS ANGELES COUNTY RSA 7. CALABASAS The 1980 monitored population estimate shows a continuation of high growth rates which have been evident for the past five years. The monitored estimate exceeds the forecast by 2,804 people, or 8.2%. Until recently, it was assumed that population growth would continue at a rapid pace in the early years of the forecast period with slower growth in the 1990's. This is reflected in the forecasts provided by Los Angeles County for last year's report. More recent discussions reflect uncertainty about the amount of population to be allowed in this area. It is possible that growth in the 1990's will occur at a rate faster than was previously assumed. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered .in• - determining the baseyear population for RSA 7 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. Reevaluate both the phasing assumptions and long-range forecasts in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be assessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 8. NEWHALL The 1980 population estimate for the Newhall RSA is 9,539 people or 11.6% below the SCAG-78 forecast. Last year's report showed similar results: monitored growth was 13.7% less than the forecast. Data from the Los Angeles County Santa Clarita Valley Community Community Plan show rapid growth in the 1990's due to the anticipated expansion of the Palm- dale International Airport. However, based on SCAG's monitored estimates and County data, the population growth rate in the early part of the forecast seems too high. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 8 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reevaluate phasing asssumptions in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be assessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -75- MONITORED ESTrMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 9 LRNCR'ST LOS RNGELES CO. O O • MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 190O - Y TlAukn e011WATV ew. 4.1a RSA 9 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 69,400 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 65,927 Absolute difference 3,473 Absolute % difference from forecast - 5.0% Upper limit 1/81 - 72,880 Lower limit 1/79 - 66,107 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 10 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 . 39,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 . 45,136 Absolute difference - 6,036 Absolute % difference from forecast a 15.4% Upper limit 1/81 - 40,148 Lower limit 1/79 - 37,992 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 4 -76- 1[ • MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MOMITOMEO ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 9. LANCASTER The 1980 monitored estimate for the Lancaster RSA is 3,473 people, or 5.0% less than the forecast. Slower growth in this area is balanced by higher growth in neighboring RSA 10 (Palmdale). SCAG-78 shows both RSAs to grow slowly in the early years of the forecast period. More rapid development is anticipated later due to the planned expansion of the Palmdale International Airport. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 9 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note: 2. Reevaluate phasing asssumptions in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts.,. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 10. PALMDALE RSA 10 which includes the City of Palmdale exceeded the forecast by 6,036 people or 15.4%, based on 1980 monitored estimates. This could be the result of picking up growth from RSA 9 although other explanations should also be examined: rapid growth, undercount in the 1970 Census, household size. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 10 in the SCAG-78 growth forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data becomes available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. NOTE: Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be assessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -77- MONITORED ESTTMRTE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 11 S G MTS LOS RNGELES CO. q RSA 11 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 1,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 2,391 Absolute difference = 491 Absolute % difference from forecast = 25.8% Upper limit 1/81 = 1,904 Lower limit 1/79 - 1,884 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ - MONITOMED ESTIMATE FOR WOO i . NENITBAM MTMNTE rao 1079 a 0 11 RSA 12 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 582,600 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 573,691 Absolute difference 81909 Absolute % difference from forecast = 1.5% Upper limit 1/81 - 586,337 Lower limit 1/79 - 578,877 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** a - MONITORED ESTIMATE FM -73- - MONITOMHD ESTIMATE FM 1979 RSA 11. SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS Most of RSA 11 is in the Angeles National Forest. The SCAG-78 Forecast was intentionally kept low to reflect policies to limit development on national forest land. The monitored estimate exceeds -the 1980 forecast. While the percent difference is large (25.8%), the absolute difference is only 491 people. This probably reflects an increase in the RSA's house- hold size. While 1980 housing numbers are not available, the 1979 housing estimates showed the population per dwelling unit ratio to be greater than anticipated. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 11 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 12. SOUTHWEST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY This RSA is located in the western portion of the San Fernando Valley, adjacent to Ventura County. It includes the communities of Chatsworth, Canoga Park, Northridge and Reseda. The monitored population estimate in 1980 is 8,909 people, or 1.5% lower than the SCAG-78 forecast. Since last year's monitoring report showed both population and housing exceed- ing the forecast, it is likely that the household size assumptions in SCAG-78 overestimated the ratio of people per dwelling unit. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 12 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -79- MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMFRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSA 13 BURBRNK LOS RNGELES CO. RSA 13•POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 257,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 264,863 Absolute difference = 7,763 Absolute % difference from forecast = 3.0% Upper limit 1/81 = 257,649 Lower limit 1/79 - 256,743 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *'** 7R - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR IWO + r MMWTTMRETI E4TTMATE FMR 1974 RSA 14 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 272,300 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 280,445 Absolute difference = 8,145 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.9% Upper limit 1/81 - 272,746 Lower limit 1/79 - 271,974 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** T 4 1 -80- 3K - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 13. BURBANK Between 1970 and 1979, the population of this RSA had decreased at an average of 1,500 people per year. However, based on the 1980 monitored estimate, RSA 13 increased by 13,310 people above the 1979 estimate. The new 1980 monitored estimate is higher than SCAG-78 for the year 1980 by 7,763 people, or 3%. A number of factors could explain the difference between the pre-1980 and 1980 monitored estimates. Undercount and changing household size seem most likely. Last year's report docu- mented the need to increase household size assumptions. The magnitude of the 1980 estimate compared to previous counts points to undercount. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 13 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 14. NORTHEAST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY This RSA, which is the northern portion of San Fernando Valley, includes the city of San Fernando and the communities of Pacoima and Sylmar. The monitored estimate is higher than SCAG-78 by 8,145 people, or 2.9%. Again, this may be due to undercount or a higher household ratio than assumed in SCAG-78. A more likely explanation, however, is that the population increase is more a function of rapid growth in this RSA. Last year's report documented the influence of multiple family housing construction occurring faster than anticipated. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, this trend can be confirmed. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. Increase the population forecast in the early years of the forecast period. Keep the year 2000 forecast constant to reflect anticipated development. Both the findings and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when housing data is available at the RSA level. -81- .f MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSA 1S MALTBU LOS ANGELES C.O. IF - HONITOMED ESTIMATE FOR IWO i - NANITAP" ERTINRTE FAR 1979 RSA 15 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 16,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 16,417 Absolute difference 383 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.2% Upper limit 1/81 = 17,096 Lower limit 1/79 = 16,515 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 16 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 319,600 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 304,761 Absolute difference 14,839 Absolute p difference from forecast - 4.6% Upper limit 1/81 - 321,398 Lower limit 1/79 - 317,311 *** FUMMR STUDY REQUIRED *** ' - MONITOMEO ESTIMATE FOR L990 -82- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 i RSA 15. MALIBU The 1980 monitored population estimate exceeded the forecast by 383 people or 2.2% Since the 1980 estimate is less than that estimated for 1979, household size assumptions in SCAG-78 probably over -estimated the number of people per dwelling unit. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population in RSA 15 in the SCAG-82 forecasts.] 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 16. SANTA MONICA This RSA includes Santa Monica and a portion of the City of Los Angeles. The 1980 monitored estimate is lower than the forecast by 14,839 people or 4.6%. It is also lower than the 1979 estimate. Decreased household size is the most likely reason for this inconsistency. This can be confirmed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 16 in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the funding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. MONITORED ESTrMRTE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 17 WCENTRL LOS RNGELES CO. RSA 17-POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 900,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 986,099 Absolute difference - 86,099 Absolute p difference from forecast = 9.5% Upper limit 1/81 - 901,638 Lower limit. 1/79 - 898,632 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** X - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 19811 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 0 0 RSA 18 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 510,300 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 510,388 Absolute difference 88 Absolute % difference from forecast = 0.0% Upper limit 1/81 - 511,185 Lower limit 1/79 = 509,582 *** CONSISTENT *** If I -g¢- x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 17. WEST CENTRAL RSA 17, which has the largest population in the region, had a 1980 moni- tored estimate which exceeded the forecast by 86,099 people, or 9.5%. The 1979 Development Monitoring Report showed a population of 904,650. The 1980 Census estimate was 986,099. Since it is unlikely that new development of this magnitude occurred in this highly urbanized setting, undercount and/or increased household size are the most probable reasons for the inconsistency with SCAG-78. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 17 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess - household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Findings and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 18. SOUTH BAY THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR RSA 18 IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. -85- MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 19 PRLVRDS LOS RNGELES CO. RSA 19 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 436,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 423,844 Absolute difference = 12,156 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.7% Upper limit 1/81 - 437,431 Lower limit 1/79 - 434,452 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 9 + MOMITOMEO ESTIMATE FOR 196O + = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L979 RSA 20 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 410,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 424,900 Absolute difference 14,100 Absolute difference from forecast = 3.4% Upper limit 1/81 - 411,389 Lower limit 1/79 = 410,432 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** i + ; MOMITCAEO ESTIMATE FOR 198O -86- + MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR t979 RSA 19. PALOS VERDES The 1980 monitored estimate was lower than the forecast by 12,156 people, or 2.7%. The 1980 estimate is also lower than that forecasted for 1979. SCAG-78 forecasts an annual population growth rate of 1.2% in this RSA. The monitored growth rate is approximately a third of that in the fore- cast. Since the 1979 and 1980 estimate do not, on the surface, reflect undercount, the reason for this inconsistency is probably a lower house- hold size than was forecasted in SCAG-78. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 19 in SCAG-82. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess._ household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 growth forecasts. Both finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 20 LONG BEACH This RSA includes the cities of Long Beach and Lakewood. Past trends have shown a declining population. SCAG-78 forecasts the population to stabilize at 410,000 in 1980. The monitored estimate showed a population of 424,900 which exceeds the forecast by 14,000 people, or 3.4%. This increase is most likely due to undercount and/or a higher household size ratio than was forecast in SCAG-78. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 20 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. The finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. MM MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 21 E CENTRL LOS RNGELES CO. RSA 21 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 771,800 Monitored " estimate 1/80 - 903,916 Absolute difference 132,116 Absolute % difference from forecast - 17.1% Upper limit 1/81 - 772,204 Lower limit 1/79 - 771,458 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** c W • MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 22 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 617,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 612,472 Absolute difference 5,428 Absolute % difference from forecast = 0.8% Upper limit 1/81 - 619,253 Lower limit 1/79 = 616,193 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -88- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 21. EAST CENTRAL This RSA, which encompasses part of South Central Los Angeles -- an area with a large ethnic population -- shows a dramatic difference between the 1980 monitored estimate and SCAG-78. The monitored estimate for 1980 is 132,116 people, or 17.1%, above the SCAG-78 forecast. Because of the significant undercount of the 1970 Census, especially in areas with large ethnic populations, SCAG-78 probably understated the population for this RSA. The 1980 Census is a more complete count and this is reflected in the monitored estimate. When housing data becomes available from the Census, household size should also be reevaluated because of the pre- ponderance of minority groups in this area. Last year's report documented recent trends which show decreasing population and housing counts in this RSA. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered to " determini-ng the baseyear population for RSA 21 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. If reas- sessment confirms trends documented above, reduce population and housing forecasts as necessary. Note: The finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 22. NORWALK/WHITTIER For 1980, the monitored population estimate was less than the SCAG-78 forecast by 5,428, or 0.8%. Since the 1979 monitored estimate exceeds the 1980 estimate in this RSA, the ratio of population per dwelling unit was probably overestimated in the SCAG-78 forecast. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 22 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. MIZ MONITORED ESTTMRTE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST , RSR 23 LR CBD LOS RNGELES CO. 0 0 z 0 P x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1970 Wt RSA 24 GLENDRL n RSA 23 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 86,700 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 120,499 Absolute difference 33,799 Absolute % difference from forecast - 38.904 Upper limit 1/81 - 87,824 Lower limit 1/79 - 85,322 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 24 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 405,I00 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 441,697 Absolute difference 36,597 Absolute % difference from forecast = 9.0% Upper limit 1/81 = 406,242 Lower limit 1/79 - 404,006 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** -90- 9 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L98O + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 V RSA 23. Los Angeles CBD This RSA is the downtown area (Central Business District) of Los Angeles. The 1980 monitored estimate is 38.9% higher than forecast under SCAG-78, and about 50% higher than the 1979 estimate. Because this RSA is also the region's largest employment center, higher population may contribute to a better job/population balance which is consistent with SCAG's policies. The higher estimates may result from shifts in household size and/or a more accurate count in the 1980 Census. They also may reflect the recent construction of housing in the Central Business District. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 23 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note: Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 24. GLENDALE The major city in this RSA is Glendale. The 1980 monitored estimate exceeds the forecast by 36,597 people or 9.0%. The last Development Monitoring Report also monitored population above the forecast but only by 1.6%. The difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates is exceedingly large, leading to the assumption of substantial undercount in the 1970 Census. As noted last year, household size was also larger than that assumed in SCAG-78, and this can be confirmed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 24 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. wo a MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSA 25 WSRNGRB LOS RNGELE'S CO. 0 P RSA 25 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 652,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 688,613 Absolute difference - 36,613 Absolute % difference from forecast - 5.6% Upper limit 1/81 - 653,464 Lower limit 1/79 - 650,396 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** I - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 26 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 502,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 514,436 Absolute difference - 12,336 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.4% Upper limit 1/81 - 504,773 Lower limit 1/79 - 498,050 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** R - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -92- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 25. WEST SAN GABRIEL The 1980 monitored population exceeds the forecast by 36,613, or 5.6%. As in other urbanized RSAs in Los Angeles County, undercount and changing household size seem to explain the discrepancy with SCAG-78. For this RSA, the difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates is much too large to be explained in terms of local development activities and historical annual growth rates. Last year's report showed housing to be growing slower than anticipated in SCAG-78. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in de.termining the baseyear population for RSA 25 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess' household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 26. EAST SAN GABRIEL The 1980 monitored population estimate exceeds SCAG-78 by 12,336 people or 2.4%. Since the 1979 monitored estimate was consistent with SCAG-78, and the difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates greatly exceeds historical annual growth rates, this inconsistency seems attributable to undercount and/or increased household size. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 26 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -93- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 27 POMONR LOS RNGELES CO. 0 RSA 27-POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 176,600 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 172,241 Absolute difference 4,359 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.4% Upper limit 1/81 = 178,14$ Lower limit 1/79 - 173,952 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** I - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 28 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 352,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 346,091 Absolute difference = 5,909 Absolute p difference from forecast = 1.6% Upper limit 1181 = 365,995 Lower limit 1/79 = 321,362 *** CONSISTENT *** f x - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1980 -94- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR L979 RSA 27 POMONA RSA 27, which includes the Pomona area, shows a 1980 monitored population estimate which is 4,359 people, or 2.4% below the SCAG-78 Forecast for 1980. The 1980 estimate is consistent with that for 1979, which also showed both population and housing growth slower than anticipated in SCAG-78. Even with relatively slow growth for the last two years, this area is expected to grow rapidly in the 1980's and in accordance with SCAG-78 in the later years of the forecast period. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 27 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 28. WEST END Note: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY THE 1980 MONITORED POPULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. San Bernardino County is currently re-examining its growth manage- ment policies and forecasts in RSA 28. Staff expects the county to request a modification to the forecasts to serve planned develop- ment. -95- MONITORED ESTIMR'TE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 29 ERSTEND SRN BERNRRDINO CO. X - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MENITRREn ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 29 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 341,600 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 340,080 Absolute difference 1,520 Absolute % difference from forecast - 0.4% Upper limit 1/81 - .354,320 Lower limit 1/79 - 320,956 *** gONSISTENT *** H RSA 30 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 27,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 36,314 Absolute difference 9,214 Absolute % difference from forecast = 33.9% Upper limit 1/81 - 27,868 Lower limit 1/79 - 26,434 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** K - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1080 -96- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 r . RSA 29. EAST END THE 1980 MONITORED POPULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. RSA 30. SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS This RSA includes the San Bernardino Mountains, which is considered an environmentally sensitive area. The monitored 1980 population estimate exceeds SCAG-78 by 9,124 people or 5.1%. Since last year's growth was consistent with the forecasts, this inconsistency may be due to undercount or increased household size. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations NOTE: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 30 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. A -97- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSA 31 BAKER SAN BERNARDINO CO. S z M I - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 19OO + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSR 32 BARSTOW x RSA 31 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 7,500 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 7,258 Absolute difference - 242 Absolute % difference from forecast - 3.2% Upper limit 1/81 - 7,578 Lower limit 1/79 w 7,406 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 32 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 94,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 106,131 Absolute difference = 12,131 Absolute % difference from forecast = 12.9'0' Upper limit 1/81 = 95,894 Lower limit 1/79 = 92,275 *'** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED **'* . _ x - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1000 -98 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 31. BAKER This RSA is located in the northern deserts of San Bernardino County. The 1980 monitored estimate is 242 people, or 3.2% less than forecast. The 1979 estimate also was lower than SCAG-78. Even though growth has been slower than anticipated, San Bernardino County expects growth in excess of SCAG-78 in this RSA. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendation Note• The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 31 in the SCAG-82 fore- casts. Both the finding and recommendation are tentative and will. -be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 32. BARSTOW This RSA includes the cities of Adelanto, Barstow and Victorville. The 1980 monitored estimate exceeds the forecast by 12,131 people or 12.9%. The 1979 estimate also exceeded the forecast. This is another RSA where the county expects growth in excess of SCAG-78. Since the difference between the 1979 and 1980 monitored estimates is far greater than expected on the basis of past trends, undercount and/or increased household size may explain this difference. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 32 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note: Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reas- sessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -99- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST , RSR 33 TWPRLMS SAN BERNARDINO CO. 0 0 RSA 33 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 35,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 39,990 Absolute difference 4,090 Absolute n difference from forecast - 11.3p Upper limit 1/81 - 36,420 Lower limit 1/79 = 33,799 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** s - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1980 'RSA 34 HOUSING SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 2,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 2,945 Absolute difference 145 Absolute p difference from forecast - 5.1% Upper limit 1/81 = 2,830 Lower limit 1/79 = 2,781 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** , -100- - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1900 + - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 RSA 33. TWENTY-NINE PALMS The monitored estimate for this RSA exceeds the forecast by 4,090 people, or 11.3%. Since the difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates is somewhat less than the 1975-79 annual growth rate '(in an RSA where this rate exceeds growth rates in the San Bernardino County deserts), the 1980 estimate may reflect a lower household size ratio than was previously assumed. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 33 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note: 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 34. NEEDLES The 1980 monitored population estimate was 3.1% higher than forecast in SCAG-78. The absolute difference was only 199 people. This estimate and that for 1979 seem to confirm that growth is occuring faster than antici- pated, although increased household size could also account for population in excess of the forecast. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 34 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -101- e MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 35 J-BUPK ORRNGE CO. RSA 35 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 158,600 ., Monitored estimate 1/80 = 155,639 Absolute difference 2,961 Absolute �• difference from forecast 1.8% Upper limit 1/81 = -159,808 Lower limit 1/79 = 157,337 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** i = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOM Woo + . MMMTTMP," VATNATF CAM 1974 RSA 36 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 169,400 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 167,841 Absolute difference 1,559 Absolute % difference from forecast 0.9% Upper limit 1/81 = 172,007 Lower limit 1/79 = 166,513 *** CONSISTENT *** x = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -102- + = MONITOMEO ESTIMATE FOR 1979 ORANGE COUNTY RSA 35. BUENA PARK This RSA lies in northwestern Orange County. The 1980 monitored popula- tion estimate is lower than the SCAG-78 forecast by 2,961 or 1.8%. It is also slightly lower than the 1979 monitored estimate. This difference may be due to decreased household size which will be evaluated when housing data becomes available from the 1980 Census. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in S determining the baseyear population for RSA 35 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Note: Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 36. FULLERTON THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR THE FULLERTON RSA IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. -103- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 37 H-RNRHM ORANGE CO. RSA 37"POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 329,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 336,796 Absolute difference 7,796 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.3% Upper limit 1/81 - 331,583 .Lower limit 1/79 - 327,653 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 9 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 + . MM MINED ESTIMATE FNN t979 0 a _ RSA 38 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 311,200 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 319,346 Absolute difference 8,146 Absolute % difference from forecast - 2.6% Upper limit 1/81 a 314,791 Lower limit 1/79 = 307,884 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** x . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 -104- + . MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 37. ANAHEIM The 1980 monitored population estimate for the Anaheim RSA exceeds the forecast by 7,796 people or 2.3%. Last year's report showed population consistent with SCAG-78. Undercount and/or increased household size probably explain the inconsistency between the 1980 estimate and the forecast. As documented last year, Orange County has requested that the number of dwelling units be revised downward. Since this would result in an increased household size ratio, the 1980 monitored population partially confirms the need for the proposed revision. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note• 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 37 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess" household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 38. WEST COAST The 1980 monitored population estimate exceeds the forecast by 2.6%, with an absolute difference of 8,146 people. Last year's report also showed population growing at a rate faster than in SCAG-78. Since the source of the 1979 estimate was a special census which served to update the previous baseline, both estimates tend to confirm the City's request to increase the population forecast. When housing data becomes available from the 1980 Census, household size assumptions may also need to be revised. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is consistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 38 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -105- r MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPARED TO SCAG-78 FORECAST RSA'39 F-C CST ORANGE CO. RSA 39 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 180,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 170,606 Absolute difference 10,194 Absolute p difference from forecast 5.6%- Upper limit 1/81 187,413 Lower limit 1/79 = 175,265 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** X = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR WOO umuw-,.rn va"MaIe rw ,eln RSA 40 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 138,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 133,904 Absolute difference 4,996 Absolute % difference from forecast - 3.5� Upper limit 1/81 - 146,242 Lower limit 1/79 = 131,058 *** CONSISTENT *** ., I I -106- ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1950 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 w RSA 39. CENTRAL COAST '' 1 This RSA includes the City of Newport Beach. The 1980 population estimate is very close to the 1979 monitored estimate. However, the SCAG-78 forecast for 1980 is signifcantly higher than the 1980 estimate, with a difference of 10,194 persons, or 5.6%. This difference is, in part, a result of reductions in projected development in this RSA by the Irvine Company, the largest landholder in the area. The reduction in planned development is consistent with the fact that some current and near - future projects in the South Irvine area are behind schedule. The City of Newport Beach has also reduced development capacity to assure a balance between infrastructure and future development. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. ? Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 39 in the SCAG-82: 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Revise mid -year and year 2000 forecast to reflect recent trends and changes in local development policy. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 40. SOUTH COAST THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR RSA 40 IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. -107- •r r. MONITORED ESTIM TE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 11 B—CRNYN ORRNGE CO. a z X --------- ■ = MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1000 a _ rwu,t=rrn roTt"Ir rM 4e1e I "WILWAW116M:P(:l RSA 41 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 126,200 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 116,035 Absolute difference 10,165 Absolute % difference from forecast = 8.0% Upper limit 1/81 = 132,127 Lower limit 1/79 = 118,300 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED "* RSA 42 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 360,100 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 375,210 Absolute difference 15,110 Absolute n difference from forecast = 4.1% Upper limit 1/81 = 365,279 Lower limit 1/79 = 355,758 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** W ■ = MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1900 -108- + = MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 1 RSA 41. CANYON All or portions of Brea, Yorba Linda, and Placentia lie within this largely undeveloped RSA. Here again, the SCAG-78 population forecast is noticably greater than the 1980 monitored estimate. The absolute difference is 10,165, or 8.0%. This difference may be due to recent slowdowns in new housing development and/or decreased household size. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78 Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 41 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess. household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 42. SANTA ANA The 1980 monitored population estimate for the Santa Ana RSA is 3,414 people, or 2.5% less than forecast. Last year's report also showed growth below SCAG-78. Since the difference between the 1979 and 1980 estimates (approximately 28,000) is much greater than would be expected based on historical trends, the 1980 census estimate may reflect undercount in the 1970 Census and/or increased household size. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 42 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. 5ME MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST r RSR 43 C-TRRBU ORRNGE CO. RSA 43 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 94,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 92052 Absolute difference - 2,448 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.5% Upper limit 1/81 = 101•;110 Lower limit 1/79 - 86,695 *** CONSISTENT *** 7R MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1080 a - uwusrm-rn r-rruayr rw .e,= RSA 44 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 69,700 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 53,069 Absolute difference 16,631 Absolute n difference from forecast - 23.8% Upper limit 1/81 - 75,985 Lower limit 1/79 = 60,784 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ - VINITOREO ESTIMATE FOR 1960 -110- + - MONITOMED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 d RSA 43 TRABUCO THE 1980 MONITORED POPULATION ESTIMATE IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78 RSA 44 EL TORO Irvine and E1 Toro are located within this RSA. The SCAG-78 population forecast for 1980 exceeds the 1980 monitored estimate by 16,631, or 23.8%. Also, the monitored estimate is much larger than the 1979 mon- itored estimate. The discrepancy between the 1979/80 estimates and SCAG-78 forecast numbers is likely due to some current and near future projects in Irvine which are behind in their phasing schedules. Given the magnitude of the difference between the monitored estimates, increased household size and distributional adjustments between RSAs should be assessed in the SCAG-82 development process. Local development plans and anticipated phasing should also be taken into account. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: A 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 44 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size asssumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Evaluate the need to redistribute forecasted growth among Orange County RSAs in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -111- 21 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 45 JURUPR RIVERSIDE CO. V RSA 45 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 44,500 •• Monitored estimate 1/80 - 49,283 Absolute difference 4,783 Absolute % difference from forecast - 10.7"V' Upper limit 1/81 - '45,830 Lower limit 1/79 = 42,948 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1900 F - WAMTTASM CqkTiMOTR PAN t0T0 RSA 46 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 297,000 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 284,961 Absolute difference = 12,039 Absolute % difference from forecast - 4.0% Upper limit 1/81 = 312,729 Lower limit 1/79 - 275,266 *** CONSISTENT *** A ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -112- + - MONITORED ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 RSA 45. JURUPA The 1980 monitored population exceeds the forecast by 4,783 people, or 10.7%. This difference, in part, may be due to increased household size and/or increased residential development activity in this RSA. This will be determined when housing data becomes available from the 1980 Census. The 1979 monitored population estimate was consistent with SCAG-78. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 45 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 46. RIVERSIDE THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. -113- MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCRG-78 FQRECRST RSR 47 PERRIS RIVERSIDE'CO. RSA 47 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 380100 .. Monitored estimate 1/80 - 43,360 Absolute difference 5,260 Absolute difference from forecast = 13.8% Upper limit 1/81 = -39,224 Lower limit 1/79 = 36,753 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** 1[ = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR ISIC RSA 48 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 60,800 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 62,547 Absolute difference = 1,747 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.8% Upper limit 1/81 - 62,811 Lower limit 1/79 = 58,322 *** CONSISTENT *** n ■ = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR IND -114- + = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1879 d RSA 47. PERRIS For the Perris RSA, the 1980 monitored population estimate is notably higher than the forecast with an absolute difference -0f 5,260 people, or 13.8%. As with RSA 45 (Jurupa), this inconsistency may result from an increased household size and/or increased residential development ac- tivity. Both of these trends can be assessed more clearly when 1980 housing data becomes available from the Census. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 47 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available- at the RSA level. RSA 48. HEMET THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE IS CONSISTENT WITH SCAG-78. -115- MONITORED ESTIMRTE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECAST RSR 49 ELSINORE RIVERSIDE CO. X - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSR SO BANNING RSA 49 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - Monitored estimate 1/80 - Absolute difference = Absolute % difference from forecast - Upper limit 1/81 - Lower limit 1/79 = 24,100 27,100 3,000 12.4% 24;797 23,092 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 50 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 33,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 34,307 Absolute difference 407 Absolute % difference from forecast - 1.2° Upper limit 1/81 = 34,406 Loner limit 1/79 - 32,953 *** CONSISTENT *** y 9 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -116- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1970 14 RSA 49. ELSINORE The 1980 monitored population estimate for this RSA exceeds the forecast by 3,000 people, or 12.4%. This inconsistency may, _in part, be due to increased household size. In addition, Riverside County has indicated that a considerable amount of housing construction is expected in this RSA and that SCAG-78 is too low. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note• 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 49 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Assess the need to increase forecast based on new baseyear population, recent trends, and local policies. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 50. BANNING THE 1980 POPULATION ESTIMATE IS CONSISTENI -117- MONITORED ESTI'MRTE COMPARED TO SCRG-78 FORECRST RSR 51 IDYWILD RIVERSIDE*CO. 31 - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1900 + . NAWTAArn CRTtNOTR RANI f0T0 RSA 51 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 - 6,600 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 5,880 Absolute difference 720 Absolute % difference from forecast = 10.9% Upper limit 1/81 = 6.,924 Lower limit 1/79 - 6,212 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** RSA 52 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 90,900 Monitored estimate 1/80 - 84061 Absolute difference 6,539 Absolute % difference from forecast - 7.1% Upper limit 1/81 - 95,300 Lower limit 1/79 - 84,844 a *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED ■ - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1980 -118- + - MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 r e RSA 51. IDYLLWILD The 1980 monitored population estimate for this RSA is 720 people or 10.9% lower than the forecast. As reported last year, this may be due to the fact that housing growth is not occurring as fast -as anticipated. It also could reflect decreased household size, due to the increasing use of primary residences as "second homes." Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 51 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Reassess the phasing and amount of growth expected in this RSA. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 52. PALM SPRINGS The 1980 monitored population estimate for this RSA is 6,539 people, or 7.1% less than the SCAG-78 forecast. This difference may be due to decreased household size which occurs as a result of the use of permanent residences as "second homes". If so, this would be consistent with recent trends where the number of people per dwelling unit dropped from 1.61 in 1975 to 1.46 in 1979. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 52 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 3. Reassess the phasing and amount of growth expected in this RSA. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -119- 1 MONITORED ESTIMATE COMPRRED TO SCAG-78 FORECRST RSR 53 CORCHEL RIVERSIDE' CO. RSA 53 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 45,700 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 47,043 Absolute difference 1,343 Absolute % difference from forecast = 2.9% Upper limit 1/81 = 146,809 Lower limit 1/79 - 44,500 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOM 1950 + = MONITORED ESTIMATE FOR 1979 RSA 54 POPULATION SCAG-78 Forecast for 1/80 = 18,300 Monitored estimate 1/80 = 16,972 Absolute difference 1,328 Absolute % difference from forecast - 7.2% Upper limit 1/81 - 18,400 Lower limit 1/79 - 18,199 *** FURTHER STUDY REQUIRED *** ■ - MOMITOMED ESTIMATE FOR t900 -120- + = M68I70MED ESTIMRTE FOR 1979 A RSA 53. COACHELLA The 1980 monitored population estimate for the Coachella RSA exceeds the forecast by 1,343 people or 2.9%. This inconsistency may be due to increased household size and/or increased local development activity. This can be determined when sub -county housing data is available from the 1980 Census. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 53 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. RSA 54. CHUCKWALLA This largely undeveloped RSA lies at the easternmost end of the County. The monitored population estimate for 1980 is lower than the SCAG-78 forecast by 1,328 or 7.2%. This difference may be the result of in- creased household size. This will be examined when 1980 housing data is available. Finding The 1980 monitored population estimate is inconsistent with SCAG-78. Recommendations Note: 1. The 1980 monitored population estimate should be considered in determining the baseyear population for RSA 54 in the SCAG-82 forecasts. 2. When 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level, reassess household size and assumptions in the SCAG-82 forecasts. Both the finding and recommendations are tentative and will be reassessed when 1980 housing data is available at the RSA level. -121- CHAPTER THREE POLICY MONITORING The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate the implementation of selected regional development policies. The first is the job/housing policy which reads as follows: Improve the balance of commercial and industrial development and overall employment growth with the population levels and growth of each subregion. This policy is intended to provide the opportunity for people to live and work in the same community in order to reduce the overall number and length, of trips and to promote social and economic vitality within each subregion, while also retaining the economic basis of the older urban areas and forestalling the deteri- oration of the inner cities. (SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy; p.4). As stated, this policy is very generalized and therefore amenable to various monitoring methodologies. Lacking direct data which show how many people live and work in the same area, the analysis must be geared to show only "potential" balance, i.e. the relative strength of subregi.ons- as employment centers, residential areas, or locations which offer both jobs and housing. Because of this limitation only a general indication of balance/imbalance is shown in the following work. In subsequent reports considerable effort will be made to refine this methodology. This chapter also evaluates the extent to which key recommendations from the Conservation and Open Space Plan (COSP) are being implemented. The COSP includes relatively specific land use recommendations for areas of regional significance. The analysis describes whether the recom- mendations have been implemented, whether implementation is programmed in the future, or whether competing land uses could prevail. Because of limited staff resources and the extensive nature of the recommendations in the COSP, only a few areas were selected for evaluation: 1) The Santa Monica Mountains 2) Chino Hills 3) Bolsa Chica Wetlands Since only three areas are evaluated, the COSP analysis should not be viewed as representative of whether other COSP recommendations are being implemented. To some extent, however, the amount of controversy as- sociated with these three areas reveals the value of these lands tc competing interests. Therefore this analysis may be instructive it explaining difficulties implementing the recommendations of this plan. -125- Implementation of these strategies (in a concerted manner) by all levels of government could improve existing balance and promote future growth in p a balanced manner. A summary view of strategies for improving job/housing balance does not Indicate any single technique or set of techniques which will achieve the desired results. The strategies could provide a focal point for directing a variety of existing policies toward achieving new growth in a balanced manner and reducing existing imbalances. It is recommended that the strategies be viewed and applied in light of existing subregional conditions regarding job/housing balance. -126- A. JOBROUSING BALANCE POLICY MONITORING Job/housing balance refers to the configuration of job opportunities and housing availabilities within the region's labor markets. A develop- ment pattern which balances employment and residential opportunities at a subregional level can contribute to a realization of a number of regional and local planning objectives. These objectives include shortening the journey to work, reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, facilitating transit use, increasing individual opportunities and lending a diverse character to communities. Local governments, working in con- junction with private developers and industry, can implement policies to guide patterns of development toward attainment of a reasonable job/ housing balance at subregional levels. Two important factors in analyzing job/housing balance are the appro- priate geographic level of analysis and the indicators used to measure job/housing balance. The geographic level used in this analysis is the "Iaborshed." A laborshed is defined as one or more employment centers combined with the surrounding areas which can or should house a large majority of workers in the employment centers. Travel data indicate that nearly 90% of work trips are 20 miles or less. This distance - coincides with the size of subregions used in the SCAG Development Guide Program. In this analysis, job/housing balance will be assessed for the highly urbanized and urbanized subregions as defined by the Development Guide and shown on the map of subregional areas. This analysis uses two indicators to assess job/housing balance in each subregion. The ratio of total employment to housing units is compared to the regional average in 1970, 1975, and 1979. This provides a rough indication of balance in showing which subregions are strong employment centers, residential areas, and areas with some modicum of balance. Since this ratio does not account for variable vacancy rates or give an indi- cator of the number of workers per household; the employment to housing ratio is limited in actually defining the balance between jobs and the number of participants in the labor force who reside in a subregion. The second indicator is the ratio of employed residents per household. This measure is useful in that it accounts for situations where households have multiple wage earners. Unfortunately this data is only available for the year 1970, and given the inflationary trends of the past few years, this ratio has probably increased in all subregions. Table 1 shows job/housing balance indicators for subregions classified according to degree of urbanization. Potential balance or imbalance can be inferred by comparing these indicators to the regional average and to each other. A ratio of 1.0 indicates an equal number of housing and jobs. A higher ratio indicates more jobs than housing opportunities. Ratios below 1.0 indicate more housing than jobs. Lacking data which directly show how many people live and work in the same subregion, this analysis is geared to show "potential" job/housing balance or imbalance. A qualitative presentation of job/housing balance in each subregion is presented below, where a subregion's ratio of jobs per housing units and employed residents per household are both higher, lower, or roughly -127- Figure 1 SUBREGIONAL AREAS glop Its rugs SIM mIMMIINd MAIV NIZ glum,$ MIA QMITA gd11M US w ttt WWII sASET (See •nstrt A) ..�.....r" `. ttMmttm cwlr �. mutts MttAl • *1m W D1IAptll[s/SM sEMAWIMt r1 Om (=$I . ^ ' ��'^': '•••• Ilnnit 7W/IIIIYtili� $SI R1WMm SIgIQ —4►ASaa[iA $III /[IMNI_ _SWIA IfM14 E. AM somm t YIt1fY IartAlAs VA " �pIM fllllgmt W III AMIm[s $MIA 0.6" m mIH[ A AF} MICA MT CI OAWSC C MII IT AIY161gE [Oa I sa,musr _ovra CpAli [Omar IN IIIMI Imunu MKCIMX WAS a/t sisal /IHUU Subregions with job/housing ratio above the regional average in 1979. Subregions with job/housing ratio below the regional average in 1979. NOTE: Job/housing analysis not conducted in undeveloped subregions. M . equivalent to the regional averages, .and a balanced situation exists. Where the indicators show divergent positions relative to the averages, the subregion is considered imbalanced. It is recognized that these measures provide only a rough indication of job/housing balance. In subsequent reports, SCAG hopes to refine and improve this methodology. TABLE 1 Subregional Indicators of Job/Housing Balance (median) Employed Residents (mean) Heavily Urbanized per Jobs per Housing Unit Subregions Household, 1970* 1970 1975 1979** San Fernando Valley 1.22 1.06 1.06 1.24 Santa Monica Bay 1.24 1.21 1.21 1.43 Central Los Angeles 1.01 1.69 1.71 1.87 Glendale/Pasadena 1.15 0.97 1.01 1.17 East San Gabriel Valley 1.31 1.11 0.94 1.24 Long Beach/Downey 1.40 1.00 1.01 1.20 Northwest Orange County 1.31 1.18 1.02 1.31 Urbanizing Subregions Oxnard/Ventura 1.22 1.15 1.16 1.18 Simi/Thousand Oaks 1.37 0.73 0.57 0.69 Santa Clarita Valley 1.30 0.29 0.75 1.00 Southeast Orange County 1.05 0.97 1.20 1.19 Chino Basin 1.21 0.49 0.96 1.02 East San Bernardino Valley 1.10 0.94 0.82 0.93 Riverside/Corona 1.18 1.21 0.97 1.09 Central Riverside County 0.65 0.61 0.54 0.89 Santa Monica Mountains 1.30 0.99 0.68 0.86 Region 1.09 1.17 1.18 1.21 * Source: 1970 Census ** Source: SCAG-78 Data Base -129- Heavily Urbanized Subregions The Central Los Angeles area generated significantly fewer workers per household than the regional average in 1970, but had an extremely high ratio of jobs per housing unit. This data reflects a job/housing im- balance because the area was stronger as an employment center than as an area which houses a significant amount of the labor force. The high ratio of jobs per housing unit compared to the regional average continued in 1975 and 1979. The Santa Monica Ba subregion was potentially balanced in 1970 with jobs per ouseho d we -matched with its regional position for workers per household. Both of these ratios exceed the regional average. A signif- icant increase in jobs per housing unit occurred by 1975 exceeding the regional average, potentially an imbalance unless the number of employed residents per household increased proportionally. Northwest Orange C�ountz showed both ratios to be roughly equivalent to the regional averages n 1970, indicating potential balance. In 1975 the ratio of jobs per housing unit was well below the average which reflects an influx of residential growth. By 1979, this ratio was significantly greater than the average reflecting the relative strength of jobs over. housing. Unless the ratio of employed residents increased commensurately this area is potentially imbalanced. The San Fernando Valley subregion was primarily a residential community in 1970. The ratio oemployed residents per household was high and the ratio of jobs per dwellings was low. Since 1970, employment growth is very evident showing the move toward a more balanced subregion. The Glendale/Pasadena Area shows the same trend as the San Fernando Valley. in 1910, it was primarily a residential subregion. By 1979, job growth was significant reflecting the trend towards job/housing balance. In 1970, the East San Gabriel Valle was stronger as a residential area with a high ratio of employed residents per household and a low ratio of jobs per dwellings. Between 1975 and 1979, employment growth was sub- stantial following the trend towards balance. Central Riverside Count , having a sizeable retired population, showed potential a ance n 97U with both indicators appreciably less than average. Although job growth was apparent by 1979, the ratio of jobs per housing units was still much less than the regional average. If the ratio of employed residents per household also grew significantly, the area would be potentially balanced. Oxnard/Ventura was imbalanced in 1970 with a relatively high ratio of employed residents per household and a job/housing ratio on a par with the regional average. In 1979, the job/housing ratio was still almost equivalent to the average. If the ratio of employed residents to house- holds remained high, the trend is towards imbalance. The Riverside/Corona subregion generated jobs per housing units and employed residents per household ratios above the regional averages, reflecting job/housing balance for 1970. The jobs per housing unit decreased relative to the regional average by 1979, reflecting a trend towards imbalance. -130- East San Bernardino Valley showed a ratio of employed workers per house- hold consistent with the regional average in 1970. The ratio of jobs per housing was significantly less than the regional average in the same year, which trend has continued through 1979. This area has remained relatively stable as a residential subregion. The Chino Basin showed a 1970 ratio of employed residents per house- hold significantly greater than the regional average. The ratio of jobs per housing units was less than the regional rate. However, the generation of jobs per housing unit has been increasing but still less than the regional average by 1979. This data reflects an imbalance favoring housing over jobs. Simi/Thousand Oaks subregion showed the highest ratio of employed resi- dents per household in the region. On the other hand, the 1970 jobs per housing unit ratio was much less than the regional average. This trend has'continued through 1979 reflecting imbalance. Santa Clarita Valley showed the lowest ratio of jobs per housing unit-iri the region. In t e urbanizing subregions, this area fell behind only Simi/Thousand Oaks in the ratio of employed residents per household, which was significantly greater than the average for the region. These ratios resulted in the most extreme •example of job/housing imbalance in the region. However, the generation of jobs per housing unit significantly increased from 1970 to 1979, reflecting movement towards a balanced situation. The Santa Monica Mountains subregion showed a relatively high ratio of employed residents per household and a low ratio of jobs per housing units. This is characteristic of a primarily residential area. In 1979, the ratio of jobs per housing was still low relative to the regional average which reflects the continuing strength of housing relative to jobs in this subregion. The analysis above shows that four of the six heavily urbanized subregions are moving towards potential job/housing balance. The areas which show this trend originally developed as residential suburbs which have matured and are now adding more jobs than housing units. The urbanizing subre- gions are still experiencing their first cycle of urban development. For the most part, these subregions are residential, as they were in 1970. Even where jobs have increased relative to housing, major employers are still locatng in the heavily urbanized areas. Recommendations The data reflect limited implementation of the job/housing balance policy. The following strategies should be examined to determine their effectiveness in improving job/housing balance: Increasing housing opportunities and densities in job -rich areas. 2. Encouraging employment growth in job -poor areas with suitable popula- tion and infrastructure. -131- B. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN POLICY MONITORING (Selected Examples) 1. Santa Monica Mountains The Santa Monica Mountains is the central portion of a 60-mile long east -west coastal mountain range, stretching from within Ventura County to the core of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The 150,000 acre National Recreation Area is included in the larger 225,000 acre Santa Monica Mountains zone. The National Recreation Area was established to ensure preservation and proper management of the outstanding natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources in the area. The recreation/scenic potential of the Santa Monica Mountains area is highlighted in the COSP. With proximity to a highly developed and urbanized region of 10 million residents, very heavy recreational use and development pressures require development standards, intensities and uses appropriate to the area's natural values and recreation potential. Los Angeles County population forecasts call for a growth in total population from 44,000 in the base year of 1975, to a total of 79,000' persons in the year 2000. Development supporting this population was judged by the county to be consistent with environmental and service constraints and would maintain the character of local communities and of the area as a whole. The plan recommends a regional approach to land use planning. Actions recommended in the COSP include: 1. Continue local and state park acquisition and development. 2. Implement urban national park proposal. 3. Regulate development to maximize open space, fire and flood protection. 4. Designate and develop Mulholland Corridor as a scenic parkway with trails. Since the COSP was adopted in 1977, a number of efforts have been made to implement the plan. Los Angeles County has prepared a preliminary plan based on the county's current population forecasts which are consistent with SCAG-78. The preliminary plan is now being modified and may include more population and housing than previously anticipated. Both the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County have made initial efforts to draft scenic corridor ordinances for the proposed Mullholland Drive Scenic Parkway. None have been adopted, but there is some prospect for imple- mentation in the future. Ventura County is implementing the Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Plan with a development review process. A Local Coastal Plan is being prepared, including policies to regulate development and water resources, protect environmentally sensitive habitats, development of trail corri- dors, and scenic and visual policies. The plan will be sent to the County Board of Supervisors in November 1981, and subsequently has to be ap- proved by the Coastal Commission. -132- The Department of the Interior's (DOI) recent decision not to 'implement the national park proposal reduces the chance to implement the second COSP recommendation. While this action does not preclude eventual implementa- tion, deferred action will increase the cost of acquisition. Further, given state and local fiscal circumstances, it seems unlikely that either level of government is likely to assume the financial burden of acquiring such a large area of land. While the DOI action limits chances to imple- ment a key COSP recommendation, opportunities remain to implement the other COSP recommendations for the Santa Monica Mountains. 2. Bolsa Chica Wetlands The Bolsa Chica study area contains about 1600 acres, including Bolsa Bay and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, a 600 acre estuary isolated from the ocean. This restorable wetland, which sustains a large water fowl population, accounts for approximately one-third of the remaining wet- lands in Southern California. Wetlands restoration in Bolsa Chica is a high priority in the COSP as well as in SCAG's (208) Water Quality Plan. Orange County has adopted a development alternative which proposes mixed land uses for Bolsa Chica. It is a compromise plan between total open - space and extensive development. It provides a greater area for marsh restoration than at present; provides major public spaces, either as open space or public marina with commercial facilities; and more urban uses. The County recently issued a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report which should be certified in November, 1981. The Local Coastal Plan will be submitted to the Coastal Commission in early '82, with the Specific Plan following later in the year. As noted, the COSP recommends action to restore the wetlands. The plan 'also calls for the evaluation of a proposed marina development to deter- mine whether it will interfere with the ecological value of wetlands and the Ecological Reserve. Since the development proposal adopted by the County is consistent with the COSP actions above, development of Bolsa Chica can be viewed as implementation of the plan. At this time, it is not clear whether the adopted alternative will be approved by the Coastal Commission. The State Coastal Preservation Act policies and guidelines seem to mandate more extensive wetland restoration and preservation than is presently being proposed. Consistency with Coastal Act policies are far more extensive than COSP policies and recom- mendations for Bolsa Chica. The proposed alternative may undergo ad- ditional modifications before urban development is approved. 3. Chino Hills The Chino Hills is a prominent grassy hill area at the juncture of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The area includes both grasslands and oak woodland habitats. It is also subject to significant fire hazards. The Chino Hills is currently underdeveloped, but recently has come under intense development pressure. San Bernardino County released a proposed specific plan and DEIR for development in the Chino Hills earlier this year. The plan, which was recently being re- vised, would provide for a maximum of 39,039 dwellings at variable densities, a regional shopping center, an area set aside for industrial use, and a variety of commercial and public uses. -133- The COSP designates the Chino Hills as an area of regional significance' recommending that the area be preserved and protected. Consistent wi'tp the plan, the state has made initial efforts to. acquire and develop a regional park in the hills. As currently proposed, the Chino Hills Specific Plan and State Park are compatible uses. The park is located' -in - the southern part of the hills; the specific plan is for an area in the north half of the hills. As originally proposed, the specific plan pro- posed population well in excess of SCAG's adopted forecasts (SCAG-82). San Bernardino County feels that SCAG-78 under -forecasts population growth in this area. Irrespective of the forecast consistency issue,the develop- ment proposal attempted to maximize open space and limit development in areas subject to environmental hazards (steep slopes, fire hazards). If the revised specific plan is consistent with the new forecasts (SCAG- 82) and includes significant provisions which would imp-lement the COSP, it could be judged consistent with SCAG policies. This will be determined when the revised specific plan is submitted for review. Summary The three examples discussed above show that while little has occurred to implement the COSP recommendations, implementation is still possible. Whether it is feasible is another question. All three areas are located in proximity to urban development and are under intense pressure to urbanize. Accordingly, these recommendations are probably more difficult to implement than others in areas where competing uses are less apparent. This difficulty will increase over time in accordance with land values. The cost of developing competing uses will also increase. Recommendation It is recommended that SCAG reassess the feasibility of implementing these recommendations and continue to monitor recommendations in the COSP. Since competing land uses could also be consistent with regional policies, SCAG should clarify its priorities in implementing the COSP and other relevant regional policies. -134- /O 1"MCIATI_.. 600 Louth Commonwealth Avenue •Juice 1000 • Lor Angeler• California • 90005.213/385-1000 MEMORANDUM TO: City and County Planning Directors FROM: Mark A. Pisano, Executive Director, SCAG RE: Development Monitoring Report I am pleased to forward a copy of our most recent Development Monitoring Report, approved by SCAG's Executive Committee on April 1, 1982. The report includes a set of recommendations to be considered in the approval_ of the SCA6782 Growth -Forecasts . and evaluates the implementation of selected regional development policies, including jobs/housing balance and key recommendations in the Conservation and Open Space Plan (COV). The purpose of the Development Monitoring Program at SCAG is to monitor and evaluate the adopted growth forecasts and related regional policies. This report is especially timely in guiding the transition to SCAG-82, to be adopted by Executive Committee later this year. If you have comments or questions, please direct them to Mark Alpers, Program Manager, Management Coordination Section at (213) 739-6778. MA:wp7 Enclosure Regional Development Monitoring Report 109THfR5CR",,,oRn,,a0/lOOInTIOn OF GOV I. I yl