The following section provides alternative calculations of total population generated by a 2,300 dwelling unit development (solely to be owner-occupied)

Demographic and Housing Analysis

On the Proposed Ponte Vista Development in San Pedro

For the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council

Julie Park, PhD

January 29, 2007

I. ALTERNATIVES IN CALCULATING POPULATION GENERATED BY PROPOSED PROJECT

The following section provides alternative calculations of total population generated by a 2,300 dwelling unit development (solely to be owner-occupied). Given the regional nature of housing markets (as also expressed in the DEIR in Section IV-H page 2), the analysis will mainly be performed for the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles.

Alternative 1:

Using the average household size of the project area as defined in the Ponte Vista DEIR[1] (method used in the Playa Vista DEIR)

Table 1 2000 Households Avg. Household Size

San Pedro CPA 29,031 2.56

Wilmington-Harbor City CPA 21,223 3.53

Data source: City of Los Angeles City Planning website, 2000 Census summary data for CPAs

Average household size of project area 2.97

Total population generated 6,830

Assumed average household size of project area 2.0

Total proposed population generated 4,600

*this calculation does not considering average household size used for senior housing

Alternative 2:

Using the average household size of the two regions (total and owner-occupied units)

Table 2 2005 Total

Avg. Household Size Population Generated

City of Los Angeles 2.91 6,693

County of Los Angeles 3.06 7,038

2005 Owner-Occupied

Avg. Household Size Population Generated

City of Los Angeles 3.11 7,153

County of Los Angeles 3.24 7,452

Data source: U.S Census Bureau website, 2005 American Community Survey

Alternative 3:

Since the proposed development is for multi-family owner-occupied units, this alternative uses the Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) 1% data to calculate persons per unit by structure type and owner-occupied.

*Table 3*	Owner-Occupied Units
	Single-family Detached	Single-family Attached	Multifamily
City of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	3.1	3.4	2.3
Population Generated	7,173	7,918	5,241

County of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	3.2	3.2	2.2
Population Generated	7,467	7,332	5,165

Data source: Census 2000 PUMS data (1%) using variable TENURE, BLDGSZ

Alternative 4:

New construction may have different persons per unit than older housing units. Using the Census 2000, the calculations are replicated for Alternative 3 for new construction (defined as housing built between 1990 and 2000).

*Table 4*	NEW Owner-Occupied Units
	Single-family Detached	Single-family Attached	Multifamily
City of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	3.4	3.6	2.6
Population Generated	7,906	8,349	6,071

County of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	3.5	3.3	2.5
Population Generated	8,034	7,526	5,846

Data source: Census 2000 PUMS data (1%) using variable TENURE, BLDGSZ, YRBUILT

Alternative 5:

The Ponte Vista project proposes a 75/25 split between “family housing” and “senior housing”. Alternatives 1 through 4 all challenge the 2.0 average household size for family units. The assumed average household size is 1.5 for senior housing (defined as those 55 years of age and older). Since housing consumption patterns differ by age, the average household size is calculated for householders age 55 years and older. The project proposes 575 senior units which is used to project population generated.

Table 5.1 2000 Senior Household Senior Housing

Avg. Household Size Population Generated

City of Los Angeles 2.15 1,236

County of Los Angeles 2.23 1,282

DEIR 1.50 863

Data source: Census 2000 PUMS data (1%) using variable AGE of HOUSEHOLDER, PERSONS

Table 5.2 2000 Senior Household Senior Housing

Avg. Household Size Population Generated

New Construction

City of Los Angeles 2.48 1,426

County of Los Angeles 2.27 1,305

DEIR 1.50 863

Data source: Census 2000 PUMS data (1%) using variable AGE of HOUSEHOLDER, PERSONS, YRBUILT

Alternative 6:

Multifamily units may have a smaller number of bedrooms on average which may affect the calculation for persons per unit. Using the Census 2000, the calculations are performed for newly built (from 1990 to 2000) multifamily units by the number of bedrooms in unit. Some of the proposed development has been defined as “townhomes” which would technically be single-family attached homes (which have a higher average household size as seen in Table 5). However, to make a conservative estimate, only multifamily units are used in this alternative. Table 6 only calculates the persons per unit for the 1725 family units and not the senior units.

*Table 6*	Average Persons Per Unit by Number of Bedrooms in New Constructed Multifamily Units
	0 and 1	2	3	4
City of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	2.60	2.58	3.27	4.16
% of proposed construction	20%	40%	30%	10%
Population Generated	896	1,782	1,694	718	5,089

County of Los Angeles
Persons per Unit	2.43	2.57	3.12	3.95
% of proposed construction	20%	40%	30%	10%
Population Generated	838	1,770	1,613	682	4,903

** The combination of Alternative 5 and 6 would yield the total population generated as the following:

City of Los Angeles base 6,515

County of Los Angeles base 6,208

By any alternative measurement of population generated by the proposed development, it seems that the population growth would be at least 50% higher than the 4,313 population generated number in the EIR. It seems that the average household size used in the EIR is lower than any found with all 6 alternatives.

II. POPULATION GROWTH SMALLER THAN STATE PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED?

Along with use of the lowest average household size, it seems that the largest population growth projections were used. Population projections for California have been lowered in recent years due to declining birth rates of Latina women. This had a significant impact on Los Angeles County due to the large population of Latinos. Therefore, the projected population growth for the County from 2000 to 2020 went from 2 million (when the Raising the Roof report for the State and when the 2004 SCAG RTP was written) to 1.5 million. And the most recent Census data on Los Angeles County (the American Community Survey) shows that the county grew even less than expected by the new lower growth projection standard. This has tremendous impact on how the City of Los Angeles is expected to grow and some indications of a slowdown in population growth is also seen in the 2005 American Community Survey.

According to the latest population projections by county from the State of California Department of Finance (May 2004), Los Angeles County is expected to grow from 9,559,635[2] people in 2000 to 10,885,092 by 2020. This would be a population growth of approximately 1.33 million people. This is 35% lower than was originally anticipated by the State (largely due to declining fertility rates) and what was cited in the DEIR (see below).

See California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit’s website for exact citation and details:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/P3/P3.asp

“According to the State’s 2000 forecast, Los Angeles County alone was projected to add more than two million people and one million households between 1997 and 2020.¹³” (Section IV-4).

¹³ Raising the Roof, op. cit., Chapter 2: California Productions Needs, 1997-2020.\

The American Community Survey actually shows that Los Angeles County only grew to 9,758,886 by 2005 (from 9,519,338 in the 2000 Census). According to the projections, the population should grow approximately .33 million to reach the 2020 number. However, the population only grew by .24 million.

According to SCAG’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, the Los Angeles County population grows from 9,580,0228 in 2000 to 11,501,884 in 2020 which is a growth of approximately 1.92 million people. The difference from the Department of Finance is .59 million.

SCAG’s projection for Los Angeles County in turn affects the City of Los Angeles projections in the same time period. The City is said to grow from 3,711,969 in 2000 to 4,203,702 in 2020. That is a population growth of .49 million people in 20 years which would translate to 123,000 additional people every five years. However, the Census data shows that Los Angeles City grew from 3,694,820 in 2000 to 3,731,437 in 2005[3] (growth of 36,617 people).

SCAG has acknowledged on their website that the State of California has come out with the May 2004 population projections and they will be used for the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan.

III. STUDENT GENERATION

The student generation rates are developed using the Census 2000 PUMS data. The rates are only for Multifamily Owned Homes (in order to make it more comparable to the proposed units). The rates are derived by dividing the number of children in each grade range by the number of households for each type of unit (distinguished by the number of bedrooms). These rates are fairly similar to those found in the Playa Vista EIR (Section IV.L-3 page 1011) with the exception of the rates below taking into consideration the Multifamily structure type into consideration. The number of students generated by the proposed project with the rates below is more than three times the number in the DEIR (199 students in Appendix IV.I-2 page 25).

Table 7: Student Generation for Multifamily Owned Homes

by Number of Bedrooms in Los Angeles County

Student Generation Rates
	K-4th grade	5th-8th grade	9th-12th grade
0-1 bedrooms	0.13	0.12	0.13
2 bedrooms	0.09	0.07	0.11
3 bedrooms	0.14	0.12	0.16
4 bedrooms	0.22	0.25	0.18


	% of units	# of units
0-1 bedrooms	20%	345
2 bedrooms	40%	690
3 bedrooms	30%	517.5
4 bedrooms	10%	172.5
Total Non-Senior Units	1725

Student Generation
	K-4th grade	5th-8th grade	9th-12th grade
0-1 bedrooms	44	42	45
2 bedrooms	59	49	77
3 bedrooms	72	60	82
4 bedrooms	37	43	31
Students Generated by Level	213	193	236
Total Students Generated			642

Data Source: Student generation rates were determined with the Census 2000 PUMS data

(1%) for Los Angeles County. Variables include GRADE, BDRMS, BLDGSZ, TENURE.

IV. CHANGING SENIOR LIFESTYLES

Established research on the older population (defined as those aged 55 years and older) showed that people are less likely to work at they become older. More recent research on this population shows that their labor participation rates are in fact increasing (see links below):

Press Note released by the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics

http://www.agingstats.gov/update2006/press-note-OA2006.pdf

Older Americans 2004: Key Indicators of Well-Being

http://www.agingstats.gov/chartbook2004/default.htm

Older Americans Update 2006: Key Indicators of Well-Being

http://www.agingstats.gov/update2006/default.htm

The larger proportion of the older population who continues to stay in the labor force has significant implications for the trip generation calculations for seniors. The following is a great research paper that gets at exactly that.

http://www.travelbehavior.us/projects_files/Working%20Retirement.pdf

[1] The larger average household size for the project area is acknowledged in the DEIR in Appendix IV.H-1 pages 7 and 8.

[2] The 2000 base population numbers are all slightly different between the Census Bureau, State of California, and SCAG because they measure the population in different months of the year. However, they measure the population consistently in the same month so the growth measured is exactly 20 years regardless of which projection.

[3] Because the 2005 data come from the American Community Survey, there is a margin of error for the population estimate of +/-52,529. This would make the 2005 Los Angeles City population between 3,678,908 and 3,783,966. Using the top range, the City would have grown by 89,146 people.