Population projections beget households, households beget units and units beget Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) and those infamous housing elements.
The current round of housing elements is based on the state Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit's County Population Projections with Age, Sex and Race/Ethnic Detail:1990-2040. Since these population projections were completed in 1998, updated information – especially Census 2000 data – will beget new population projections that are likely to show significantly lower population increases by 2020, and, thus, the need for fewer housing units than projected. There are three reasons why the next round of projections should show lower future populations.
The first is that the unadjusted Census 2000 count for California was 782,000 fewer than DOF's 2000 projection, or 2.5% less than expected. If the new set of projections uses this lower ‘benchmark,' the forecast 2020 population is reduced by 1 million (782,000 compounded at a rate of 1.33%).
The second reason is that births to Hispanic women age 15-19 are less than projected. Because Hispanic births are the largest driver of natural population growth within the state, the impact of using new, lower birth rates in new projections should be significant. Demographers now think that the sharp increase in Hispanic births during the late 1980's may have been a ‘spike' resulting from the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act. More than 95% of the California's legalized population was Mexican or Central American with a median age of 32. Demographers speculate that with legalization came family reunions and a desire to "beget."
More recent data show a decline in births of Hispanic women age 15-19 compared with the rates embedded in the 1998 projections. Should that lower rate continue, the Hispanic and the state's 2020 population is reduced by upwards of one million compared with the current DOF projections.
Together, the lower Census 2000 count and the reduced Hispanic birth rate could bring a 2020 population projection that may be 2 million people fewer than the current projection of 45,450,000. The reduction would be proportionally greater in areas with large Hispanic populations, both now and in 20 years.
The final factor behind lower future populations is more speculative and based on research and analysis that we at Solimar have completed on "ballot box zoning," urban growth boundaries, environmental restrictions (habitat protection, water availability, air quality impacts) and open space acquisition. All four trends make development difficult and more expensive and, coupled with our already high housing costs and current recession, might force a decline in migration to California — perhaps even more so than what DOF assumed in making its 1998 projections.
According to DOF, net migration accounted for more than half of last year's population growth, which DOF officials view as a temporary situation that should have already declined. If net migration does fall and is captured in the next DOF projection, the result would further contribute to lower population projections.
There is still the unresolved problem of the Census 2000 undercount, and the question of whether to add an estimated undercount figure. The initial Census 2000 undercount estimate for California was about 500,000, but the Census Bureau later rescinded the figure as unreliable. Two lower courts have decided against the Bush administration's claim that the adjusted numbers were protected by an exemption for information that is part of the decision-making process. Nevertheless, the official Census 2000 figure remains 33.8 million — well below what DOF and most other demographers anticipated.
The next round of housing elements may not be as painful if the allocations are relatively lower. That is the good news for those many planners and elected officials who love to hate the RHNA process. The bad news is these projections only buy a few years' respite. The state's population will still continue to increase into the foreseeable future.
Here is California Planning & Development Report's patent pending digest of this month's hottest news briefs about planning and development in the Golden State.
A tiered environmental impact report has been thrown out because the program EIR on which the tired document was based had been invalidated. The Second District Court of Appeal ruling came in a case involving the Castaic Lake Water Agency's proposed purchase of water from Kern County to serve Newhall Ranch and other development in Los Angeles County's Santa Clarita Valley.
Consensus may be rare in Sacramento, but nearly everyone agrees on one thing this year: proposals that cost money are doomed. Despite the lack of money — or maybe because there is no money — lawmakers could still pass a number of policy bills related to planning.
Counties do not have the authority to recover the cost of investigation and criminal prosecution of code infractions, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court held that cities do have the power to recover the costs of criminal code enforcement activities, but state law treats counties differently.
San Mateo County must approve plans for expansion of San Francisco International Airport before the project is considered by a state panel that decides on development along San Francisco Bay, according to a state Attorney General's opinion.
A Superior Court ruling that blocked the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency from condemning a 3.2-acre parcel has been overturned by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate panel rejected all arguments from the landowner and ruled that the city's eminent domain lawsuit was an appropriate action that served the public use.
In 1974, Chula Vista adopted the Bayfront Redevelopment Project for territory west of Interstate 5. In 1998, the redevelopment agency amended the project area to include land
A county can require an applicant for a development permit to indemnify the county in any attempt brought by a third party to void the permit, according to an opinion from the Attorney General's office.
A sanitation district has exclusive jurisdiction to provide sewer service to an area annexed by Corona, and the city cannot interfere with that right, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. The lawsuit was forced by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission's decision 16 years ago not to decide who would provide sewer service to the area.
A city resolution restricting parking on certain residential streets to residents with parking permits was categorically exempt from environmental review, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.