Census Puts State Near 30 Million

With mushrooming growth in the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Central Valley and major cities, California gained 5.6 million residents in the last decade and reinforced its standing as the country’s most populous, ethnically diverse and politically powerful state, according to preliminary U.S. Census figures released Monday.

California grew by 24%, bringing its total population to just under 30 million, the census figures showed. Officials said the figures are subject to adjustment and will not become final until early 1991,

but California’s population gain is expected to be the largest among the states.

As a result of the growth, California stands to gain seven congressional seats, which would make it the first to have more than 50 elected representatives.

In the 1992 congressional elections, California will probably choose 12% of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. That would be the largest percentage chosen by any state since 1860, when New York elected 13% of the House. California’s increased influence in Congress would also be felt in the presidential elections. The state would cast 54 electoral votes, more than one-fifth of the 270 needed to win the White House.

Although the population explosion could benefit the state through increased federal funding and political power, experts said it also will aggravate a number of the state’s problems, including crowded schools, an inadequate transportation network and deteriorating air and water quality.

“California is changing more than any society in this nation,” said Alan Heslop, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College and an authority on population trends.

About one in nine U.S. residents now live in California, giving the state more people than Canada or Australia and all but 28 of the world’s countries. In the last decade alone, one-fourth of the U.S. population growth has occurred in California, according to a study released earlier this year by the Palo Alto-based Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

About half of the state’s growth in the 1980s was the result of immigration from foreign countries and other states, and about half was because births in the state exceeded deaths, the study said. The state’s combined population of Latinos, Asians and African-Americans is expected to make up 40% of its population in the final 1990 census and nearly 50% by the year 2000.

Though San Diego County’s population growth over the past decade--an increase of 604,000 residents, or 32%--was the second highest in the state in sheer numbers, that growth is unlikely to have a major economic impact on local governments, city and county administrators said Monday.

Noting that most state and federal funds received by the city of San Diego are not based on population, City Manager John Lockwood said the census figures “probably won’t make a significant difference at all,” either in city’s revenues or services.

“Economically, it means about $25 a head per year,” Lockwood said. “But most of our expense and revenue numbers are fixed. Regardless of the growth, we’re still going to have the same number of parks and libraries, the same number of police officers. It’s not a big thing for us.”

Although more county funds stem from population-based programs, the growth’s effect on those finances will also be minimal, county officials said. Because existing allocations are based on the state’s annual population estimates, the only additional money that might be forthcoming to the county would stem from the incremental difference between the estimated and actual population.

“We’ll get a small adjustment, but it won’t be like getting 32% more all at once--unfortunately,” said June Komar, a deputy chief administrative officer.

County Supervisor Leon Williams also stressed that, if anything, the growth could worsen the county’s already serious fiscal constraints, with additional service demands outpacing whatever extra funds become available.

“The reality is that the additional money never meets the rising expectations,” Williams said.

Even with the region’s dramatic growth, it is unclear whether San Diego County will gain any of the state’s new congressional seats.

Two of the county’s existing four districts--Rep. Ron Packard’s 43rd District and Rep. Duncan Hunter’s 45th District--cross county lines, into Orange and Imperial counties, respectively. In addition, Rep. Jim Bates’ 44th District has grown beyond the national average and will need to be reduced in population, creating a surplus that might be shifted into other existing local districts--complicating the potential addition of a seat.

“It’s a possibility, but it’s far from guaranteed,” said Bates (D-San Diego). “A lot depends on who’s elected governor.” Although the Legislature will redesign the congressional districts to reflect the population growth, the governor can play a key role in helping to decide where those new seats are located.

The preliminary census does not break down the population by ethnic groups.

Among the state’s growth leaders is Riverside County, which grew 72% in the decade, with its population jumping from 663,000 to 1.1 million. Riverside County and San Bernardino County, which grew by 56%, made the Inland Empire the fastest-growing major metropolitan area in the nation, according to census reports.

San Bernardino County officials have long anticipated that about 1.4 million residents would be counted in the 1990 census, Assistant County Administrator Lynn Kirkhofer said. “There are a whole slug of state and federal programs that are census-based, from job-training to special welfare programs to economic development money to road money. That’s why this validation is so very important to us.”

Riverside County Supervisor Norton Younglove said: “Quite frankly, it’s an honor I’d just as soon have done without. (Growth) has come too fast.”

Some of the state’s most spectacular growth also occurred in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Placer County grew fastest, with an increase of about 54,000 people or 46%. To the south, Tuolumne County grew by just over 14,000 people, or 42%. In Central California, Stanislaus County grew by about 101,000 people, or 38%.

This growth is causing changes that are not always welcome, as evident in Tuolumne County, where a boom in new construction is accompanied by traffic jams. “We have a lot of people coming in from urban areas,” said Bev Shane, the county’s assistant director of planning. “They love open spaces but they also want shopping centers and other types of growth.”

By sheer numbers of people, Los Angeles County experienced the greatest influx, with an increase of 1,242,000, followed by San Diego County’s growth by 604,000 people. Among the slowest-growing areas in the state are San Francisco, with a 5% growth rate, and Marin County, with 2%. One Marin city, Sausalito, actually lost 7% of its 1980 population, declining from 7,338 to 6,857, although Mayor Annette Rose said the drop was probably due to miscounting the several hundred residents living on houseboats or in obscure rural areas. She said census takers made a similar error in 1980 and the city’s population had to be revised later.

Kern County grew by 33%, Sacramento County by 31%, Fresno County by 28%, Orange County by 24%, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties by 23% and Contra Costa County by 21%.

Among the fastest-growing cities in the state was Palmdale, where a 330% growth rate took the city from a paltry 15,197 to 65,357, making it one of many desert communities north and east of Los Angeles that are attracting former city dwellers in search of affordable housing. Fresno was second among larger cities, with a population increase of 61%, followed by Stockton with 36%, Sacramento 32%, San Jose with 22%, Los Angeles with 15% and Oakland with 6%.

The census count in 41 of the 46 states that received their preliminary figures has been about 1.6% below the Census Bureau’s own projections, with California a notable exception, said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, a political consulting firm that specializes in the census. California’s figure is estimated to be one-tenth of 1% below the census projections, Brace said.

However, Los Angeles Deputy City Atty. Jessica Heinz said she believes that minorities and the homeless are still being undercounted in Los Angeles. For example, she said, 70,000 census mailings initially went undelivered in South-Central Los Angeles alone, while 31% of the area’s census data was gathered second-hand from neighbors rather than directly from residents. “That’s darn bad,” she said.

Times staff writers Jill Stewart and Jenifer Warren and researcher Cecilia Rasmussen contributed to this story.

PRELIMINARY CENSUS TOTALS

Following are preliminary 1990 U.S. Census totals for selected California counties and for the state, as compared to final figures from 1980:

COUNTY 1980 CENSUS 1990 CENSUS % INCREASE Alameda 1,105,379 1,254,808 14% Contra Costa 656,380 797,281 21% Fresno 514,621 658,529 28% Kern 403,089 537,697 33% Los Angeles 7,477,503 8,719,699 17% Marin 222,568 228,014 2% Monterey 290,444 326,214 12% Orange 1,932,709 2,391,968 24% Riverside 663,166 1,143,840 72% Sacramento 783,381 1,029,914 31% San Bernardino 895,016 1,395,067 56% San Diego 1,861,846 2,465,961 32% San Francisco 678,974 711,407 5% San Mateo 587,329 640,576 9% Santa Barbara 298,694 366,350 23% Santa Clara 1,295,071 1,467,657 13% Ventura 529,174 650,880 23% CALIFORNIA (All Counties) 23,667,902 29,279,015 24%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

Compiled by Times researcher Cecilia Rasmussen