HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1985 0318 CC REG ITEM 10BALBERT PRIETO
Mayor
JAMES D. WEAK
Mayor Pro Tern
THOMAS C. FERGUSON
Councilmember
DANNY A. WOOLARD
Councilmember
LETA YANCY- SUTTON
Councilmember
DORIS D. BANKUS
City Clerk
JOHN C. GEDNEY
City Treasurer
MOORPARK
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Niall Fr' , Director of Community Development
DATE: March 18, 1985
SUBJECT: POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST for 208 PLAN
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
s
6v
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
NIALL FRITZ
Director of
Community
Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
As your Council is aware, the Countywide Growth Forecasts havE!
been under review. The purpose of the review is to revise thE!se
forecasts and amend both the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMI')
and the 208 Water Quality Management Plan. Besides air quality
and water quality planning, these populations forecasts are used
for regional transportation planning.
Background Information
In the mid 1970's, the County of Ventura, in cooperation with
the cities, undertook a program of developing air, water, transportation
and jurisdictional plans using a common population forecast. This
Countywide planning process culminated with the adoption of the
208 Plan in 1978 and the adoption of AQMP the following year.
A 208 Plan is a requirement of the Federal government if a jurisdiction
is to receive Federal grant funds for sewer plant expansion. The
Federal Environmental Protection Agency requires an Air Quality
Management Plan for the achievement of healthful air quality and
Federal highway funds may be withheld from local jurisdiction:
for failure to comply with the Plan.
It was intended by the County that these plans be revised every
two years to be kept current. The revision process is staffed
by County Planning Division and is coordinated under the Countywide
Planning Program (CPP), which has a Advisory Committee and a Population
Forecast Subcommittee. The City has one regular member and one
alternate member appointed to the Advisory Committee. These are
John Newton and Cynthia Todd. City staff is also a member of
the Committee. Both City representatives and staff have participated
as members of the Population Forecast Subcommittee.
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
the Honorable City Council
page 2
SUBJECT: POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST for 208 AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Subcommittee has reviewed certain Countywide growth assumptions,
population per dwelling unit factors, general plan holding
capacities and growth restrictions such as growth management ordinances.
These considerations are briefly discussed in the attachment prepared
by County Planning staff. The Subcommittee recommendations are
reflected in Tables 1 - 5 which also attached. The full CCP Advisory
Committee will review these recommendations on April 10 and it
is anticipated the forecasts will be taken to the County Board
of Supervisors for final adoption by May. The population pojections
for Moorpark are presented for your Council's approval at this
time so that your recommendations will be available to the CCP
Advisory Committee.
Moorpark Growth Forecast
The growth projection for the Moorpark, area (both Growth and
Non - Growth Areas) for the year 2000 is shown increasing by approximately
6500 people. The Growth Area, which includes the City some surrounding
unincorporated areas such as Home Acres, is shown increasing to
35,740 from the present 29,000 as a result of several factors.
These include:
-- An under estimation previously made by the County of General
Plan holding capacity of approximately 1571 dwelling units.
This would be 4572 people. The actual City General Plan
holding capacity would be 10,674 dwelling units with an additional
640 dwelling units in the unincorporated Growth Area. This
would yield a total population of 32,924.
-- An increase of 213 dwelling units for Density Bonus requests
presently on file.
-- An increase of 115 dwelling units for minimum Density
Bonuses for remaining "Very High Density" properties within
the City.
-- An increase of 639 dwelling units for General Plan Amendments
presently on file.
It should be noted that additional General Plan Amendment requests
are expected to be filed over the next six weeks. These requests
will be reviewed in conjunction with the Land Use Element Update.
If further population increases would result from the Update
there will be an opportunity to revise the population forecast
in two years. The rate of growth projected between 1980 and the
year 2000 is a "straight line" projection, which assumes a constant
building rate of 490 dwelling units annually. The actual rate
of building will vary from this number, either higher or lower
in any given year. For the purpose growth forecasts, this number
should be viewed as an average (Table 6).
The Honorable City Council
page 3
SUBJECT: POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST for 208 PLAN
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Between April 1980 and January 1985, an averam!� of 391 dwelling
units were completed per year. This ranged From 137 units in
1982 to 677 units in 1984. During January and February of this
year, 87 homes were completed and presently 370 additional units under
construction. There are 115 units in the process of obtaining Building
Permits. An additional 1065 units are approved for which Building
Permits have not yet been requested. We are presently processing
subdivision and /or planned development applications for an additional
1935 dwelling units. The completion of all approved units, as
well as those in the planning process (3000) units) would result
in the projected 1990 population. There are another 1749 dwelling
units within PC -3 for which subdivision applications have not yet
been filed.
Based upon Tables 1, 2 and 3 as recommended by the Subcommittee, there
would be an unallocated "bank" of 14,000 people Countywide for year
2000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt the proposed population forecast as depicted on Tables 1,
2 and 3.
POPULATION AND DWELLING UNIT FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The population and dwelling unit forecasts are presented in three tables: the
Population forecast (Table 1); the dwelling unit forecast
Population-per-dwelling unit ratio forecast (Table 2); and the
Table
five -year increments from 1980 to the year 2010. 3). The forecasts are in
Previous County forecasts only extended to the year 2000. However, because the
State Department of Finance and the Southern California Association of
Governments have both begun to use forecasts which extend to the' year 2010 or
beyond, County staff has recommended moving the target year forward 10 years.
When the County forecasts were being developed, both currently- adopted forecasts
and current city and County general plans were used as reference points to
analyze the "reasonableness" of the proposed forecasts. Unfortunately, because
neither the currently- adopted forecasts nor the city or County general plans used
a target year later than the year 2000, there are no reference points after the
year 2000. Accordingly, the CPP Population Forecast Subcommittee voted to
request that a statement be included in the forecast which indicates that the
forecast after the year 2000 is to be used for guidelines purposes only.
As in previous forecasts, the geographic areas for which the forecast has been
prepared are County Growth and Nongrowth Areas. Growth Area boundaries do not
follow city limit lines, which shift as annexations /detachments occur; instead,
the GA boundaries follow Analysis Zone boundaries, which remain fixed. The
County has been divided into 385 Analysis Zones with fixed boundaries; each
Growth Area is a reaggregation of the AZ's for a particular community in which
urbanized development has occurred or is expected to occur under current city
and /or County general plans. In general, any AZ which lies within a city's
Sphere of Influence lies within a Growth Area.
Nongrowth Areas, on the other hand, are a composite of all the AZ's which lie
entirely or almost entirely outside a city's Sphere of Influence and are
therefore not expected to receive significant urban development. The Nongrowth
Area for one city is separated from another city's Nongrowth Area by the Area of
Interest boundary established by LAFCO.
Several changes were made to the previously- adopted Growth /Nongrowth Area map b.
the CPP Population Forecast Subcommittee. First, to recognize the Area of
Interest boundaries established by the Local Agency Formation Commission (L CO),
three new GA's /NGA's were created: the Las Posas Valley NGA; the Ventura River
Valley GA; and the Ventura River Valley NGA. Secondly, there were several
scattered Analysis Zones in the County which were previously designated as parts
of Growth Areas which lie entirely or almost entirely outside any Sphere of
Influence and would therefore receive very little if any urban growth. These
AZ's were shifted from Growth Areas to Nongrowth Areas. Thirdly, one AZ
(AZ 530206) was shifted from the Thousand Oaks NGA to the Camarillo NGA to
recognize that the AZ is in the Camarillo Area of Interest. The attached map
(Figure 1) shows the final recommended Growth /Nongrowth Area boundaries.
1
Major Forecast Alternatives
The Population Forecast Subcommittee reviewed three major population forecast
alternatives: a high -range forecast, a mid -range forecast, and a low -range
forecast. The high -range forecast was prepared by the State Department of
Finance in October 1983. DOF forecast a population of 838,522 for the year 2000.
By comparison, the currently- adopted County forecast is 811,305. The major
reason for the difference in forecasts is that DOF assumed a higher annual
in- migration rate (10,000 persons per year) than the current County forecast
(9,000 persons per year). The actual 1970 -83 average is 9,300 persons per year.
The mid -range forecast, which was the forecast selected by the subcommittee, is
essentially a continuation of the currently- adopted forecast.
The low -range forecast was originally prepared in 1982 to determine the
population control measures which would be needed to enable the County to attain
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in both the Oxnard Plain and the Ojai
Valley for reactive organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen. The year 2000
Population under the low -range forecast is 685,332, or approximately 126,000
persons lower than the current forecast. Under this forecast, the annual
in- migration rate would be 2,600 persons per year, less than one -third the
1970 -83 average (9,300 persons per year).
The high -range alternative poses several problems which could impede EPA approval
of an updated AQMP based on this forecast alternative:
1. Attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards would not be
reached in either the Oxnard Plain Airshed or the Ojai Valley Airshed using
current air pollution control technology; and
2. The available emission allocations for new commercial and industrial
projects would be more restricted under the updated AQMP, if the high -range
forecast alternative were used, under the APCD New Source Review Rule.
The high -range alternative would also increase the need to update the
infrastructure (roads, sewer treatment facilities) sanitary landfill capacity,
schools), increase energy and water consumption, and accelerate the conversion of
agricultural and hillside lands for residential use.
The mid -range alternative enables attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards in the Ojai Valley Airshed, but not the Oxnard Plain. However, if the
AQMP demonstrates that Reasonable Further Progress is being made toward
attainment in the Oxnard Plain, actual attainment is not required by EPA.
Under the low -range alternative, attainment of the air quality standards would
occur in both the Oxnard Plain and the Ojai Valley. In fact, population control
is the only means available to enable attainment to occur in the Oxnard Plain.
However, the low -range alternative was not adopted in 1982 because it was
determined that the controls necessary to implement it would not be "reasonably
available." One of the EPA criteria for approval of local air quality plans is
that the control measures must be feasible to implement, and this method was
determined not to be feasible.
2
The low -range alternative has other advantages: less need to upgrade the
infrastructure, less need for public services less energy
less demand for conversion of agricultural and hillside lands dtoa residential ,
use.
However, these advantages are offset by possibly acute housing problems, higher
housing prices, a lack of balance between jobs and housing, and the need for
stricter growth control measures.
The Population Forecast Subcommittee selected the mid -range alternative because
it is a continuation of the current forecast, it would not impede EPA approval of
the updated AQMP, and it would not bring about acute housing shortages.
Population - per - Dwelling Unit Ratio Methodology
In order to prepare a dwelling unit forecast to accompany the population
forecast, it was necessary to prepare a table projecting the population -per-
dwelling -unit ratios.
The County's ratio table (Table 3) is based on a persons - per - household forecast
prepared by the State Department of Finance. DOF projects that the household
population will increase through 1985, followed by a moderate long -term decline.
The DOF ratio is not directly comparable to the County ratio. DOF uses household
population per occupied housing unit, while the County uses total population per
total dwelling units. To make the County ratio directly comparable, it was
necessary to factor in group quarters population and vacant housing units. When
these factors were included, it became possible to develop a Countywide
Population-per-dwelling-unit ratio forecast.
The next step involves assigning a population - per - dwelling -unit ratio to each
Growth and Nongrowth Area. To carry this out, the actual 1980 ratio was obtained
for each GA /NGA based on the 1980 census, which was then projected out over each
five -year interval to the year 2010, using the Countywide trend in ratios. At
the request of the City of Ventura, the trend for each GA /NGA was merged with the
Countywide trend over a 100 -year period to reduce the likelihood of error.
Table 3 is the final table which was prepared under this methodology.
Methodology for Preparing Forecasts for Individual Growth / Nongrowth Areas
To break down the forecast by GA /NGA, considerable weight was given to the
currently- adopted forecast. County staff asked each city to indicate its
"preferred" population forecast for the year 2000. In most cases, this
it forecast was quite similar to the currently- adopted year 2000
population forecast.
From this figure, and from the population - per - dwelling -unit ratio table, a year
2000 dwelling unit forecast was obtained. A staight -line projection of dwelling
units from 1980 through the year 2000 and on to the year 2010 was then prepared
for each five -year interval. The corresponding population forecasts were
obtained by use of the ratio table (Table 3), and were then rounded off to the
nearest ten.
,k]
As more recent building completion data became available (through January 1,
1985) the subcommittee decided to substitute the actual -count dwelling units for
the 1985 dwelling unit forecast. The 1985 population forecast was also amended,
based on this actual dwelling unit count times the population - per - dwelling unit
table (Table 3). However, the subcommittee did not amend the forecast for any of
the other forecast years based on this new data.
During review of the forecast by the subcommittee, the forecasts for several
individual GAs /NGAs were amended. These amendments were based in some cases on a
comparison of the forecast with the general plan holding capacity (the maximum
number of dwelling units which could be accommodated within a GA /NGA based on
currently- adopted land use plans); in other cases it was based on a review of
local growth control measures. In virtually every case, the amendment was
initiated by the affected jurisdiction. For comparison purposes, the holding
capacity data are presented in Tables 4 and 5 along with the currently- adopted
forecasts and the building completion trends projection. The building
completion trends projection is based on annual average building completions from
1980 -85, projected to the Year 2000.
The subcommittee used Tables 4 and 5 primarily for comparison purposes to
determine whether proposed increases or decreases for individual Growth /Nongrowth
Areas were reasonable; they were not used to establish absolute maximum or
minimum parameters in developing the forecasts. Overall, the proposed forecast
is fairly consistent with adopted city and County land use plans.
One final note: it is the intent of County staff to update the population and
dwelling unit forecasts every two years. Therefore, as general plans are updated
or revised, and as new building completion data and other demographic data become
available, there will be opportunities in the near future to re- examine the
forecasts which are adopted this year.
SW:ms /C58
4
TABLE 1
1980 - 2010 Population Forecast
1980
Census 1985 %� 1990 1995 2000 2005-- 2010%
Camarillo GA
459711
52,690
61,560
68,150
742300
792340
84,280
Camarillo NGA
3,668
32680
52050
52610
6,140
61640
72100
Fillmore GA
92604
102300
12,230
132310
14,260
15,220
16,170
Fillmore NGA
22182
22240
2,240
21230
22230
2,230
2,240
Las Posas NGA
12312
2,030
2,130
21240
2,340
21440
2,520
Moorpark GA
8,054
142260
232020
29,590
35,740
41,690
47,080
Moorpark NGA
670
690
750
780
810
.830 _.__.___.-
_�._860 ,
North Half NGA
487
540
570
620
650
690
730
Oak Park GA
31617
4,880
10,720
13,850
16,740
19,510
22,080
Oak Park NGA
228
300
320
340
350
370
390
Ojai GA
81411
91070
9,460
9,550
9,630
91700
91760
Ojai NGA
2,298
22540
22510
2,560
2,640
21690
21770
Oxnard GA
121,055
129,030
160,270
175,690
191,020
2052180
2192850
Oxnard NGA
41997
5,000
52120
51100
52100
51090
51070
Piru GA
11368
19400
11810
12980
2,150
22300
2,440
Piru NGA
196
200
240
260
280
300
310
Port Hueneme GA
18,507
20,000
219670
22,810
24,050
252230
26,330
Santa Paula GA
20,889
22,320
24,130
252630
27,130
28,630
30,130
Santa Paula NGA
22958
32030
3,050
3,050
32050
32050
3,050
Simi Valley GA
802294
90,640
103,220
112,650
121,170
129,220
136,930
Simi Valley NGA
1,087
12400
11600
11830
2,040
21260
2,470
Thousand Oaks GA
912962
101,910
1099900
118,300
1262500
132,600
135,800
Thousand Oaks NGA
1,070
11210
1,280
11360
1,450
11540
19630
Ventura GA
83,209
90,100
94,200
102,000
111,000
116,940
123,150
Ventura NGA
982
1,120
11150
11200
11250
1,300
11360
Vta. Riv. GA
12,849
13,500
13,270
13,300
13,300
13,410
139500
Vta. Riv. NGA
1,509
1,610
1,820
11940
2,050
2,170
21280
TOTAL COUNTY
529,174
5852690
673,290
7355930
797,370
850,570
900,280
Estimated from 1985 actual dwelling unit count, obtained from building completion
records.
- -To be used for guideline purposes only
L76/1
TABLE 2
1980 -2010 Dwelling Unit Forecast
1980
Census 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Camarillo GA
16,804
19,089
23,144
26,314
29,484
31,484
33 484
Camarillo NGA
1,043
1,045
1,508
11741
11973
2,206
'
2,438
Fillmore GA
32055
31129
4,048
41544
5 040
5 536
,
61032
Fillmore NGA
729
740
775
797
82d
843
866
Las Posas NGA
356
551
608
666
723
781
838
Moorpark GA
21476
41361
7,379
9;830
12 281
14,732
172184
Moorpark NGA
267
304
322
340
358
�...37
North Half NGA
323
340
360
380
399
418
Oak Park GA
11078
12447
31338
41468
51598
61728
437
7 858
Oak Park NGA
76
95
110
120
130
140
150
Ojai GA
3,316
31502
3,797
3,912
4,027
4,127
4 227
Ojai NGA
855
929
953
1,000
1,050
11099
19148
Oxnard GA
39,815
42,029
54,514
61,863
69,212
76,561
83 911
Oxnard NGA
1,287
1,293
12398
11454
1,509
11565
'
17620
Piru GA
380
388
528
603
677
751
825
Piru NGA
64
64
82
91
100
110
118
Port Hueneme GA
6,942
71351
81301
82980
91659
10,338
11,018
Santa Paula GA
71233
7,645
81617
99422
10,237
11,053
11 956
Santa Paula NGA
865
882
934
968
12002
15036
'
1,071
Simi Valley GA
23,534
26,425
31 � 761
35,875
39,988
44,102
48 21 S
Simi Valley NGA
447
561
665
774
883
'
Thousand Oaks GA
31,902
35,019
39,400
43,650
472900
992
51,400
11101
Thousand Oaks NGA
607
655
702
53,900
Ventura GA
33,811
36,184
38 � 926
749
42,857
796
47,436
843
50 842
891
Ventura NGA
627
674
698
'
54 '249
Vta. Riv. GA
41916
5,074
5,184
721
5,318
744
767
791
Vta. Riv. NGA
576
601
707
51452
52586
55720
772
837
902
968
TOTAL COUNTY
183,384
200,342
238,741
268,191
298,297
325,300
351,394
'Actual count, obtained from building copletion records
,-To be used for guideline purposes only
L76/2
TABLE 3
POPULATION PER DWELLING UNIT
RATIO PROJECTIONS
(Growth Area Ratios Merge with County Ratio in 2080)
Area Census 4/1/80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 % - 2010,
Camarillo GA
2.72
2.76
2.66
2.59
2.52
2.47
2.42
Camarillo NGA
3.52
3.52
3.35
3.22
3.11
3.01
2.91
Fillmore GA
3.14
3.29
3.02
2.93
2.83
2.75
2.68
Fillmore NGA
2.99
3.02
2.89
2.80
2.72
2.65
2.59
Las Posas NGA
3.69
3.68
3.50
3.36
3.24
3.12
3.01
Moorpark GA
3.25
3.27
3.12
3.01
2.91
2.83
2.74
Moorpark NGA
2.51
2.57
2.47
2.42
2.38
2.32
g �.�._...._
North Half NGA
1.51
1.59
1.58
1.63
1.63
1.65
1.67
Oak Park GA
3.36
3.37
3.21
3.10
2.99
2.90
2.81
Oak Park NGA
3.00
3.16
2.90
2.83
2.69
2.64
2.60
Ojai GA
2.54
2.59
2.49
2.44
2.39
2.35
2.31
Ojai NGA
2.69
2.73
2.63
2.56
2.51
2.45
2.41
Oxnard GA
3.04
3.07
2.94
2.84
2.76
2.68
2.62
Oxnard NGA
3.88
3.87
3.66
3.51
3.38
3.25
3.13
Piru GA
3.60
3.61
3.42
3.28
3.18
3.06
2.96
Piru NGA
3.06
3.13
2.93
2.86
2.80
2.73
2.63
Port Hueneme GA
2.67
2.72
2.61
2.54
2.49
2.44
2.39
Santa Paula GA
2.89
2.92
2.80
2.72
2.65
2.59
2.52
Santa Paula NGA
3.42
3.44
3.27
3.15
3.04
2.94
2.85
Simi Valley GA
3.41
3.43
3.25
3.14
3.03
2.93
2.84
Simi Valley NGA
2.43
2.50
2.41
2.36
2.31
2.28
2.24
Thousand Oaks GA
2.88
2.91
2.79
2.71
2.64
2.58
2.52
Thousand Oaks NGA 1.76
1.85
1.82
1.82
1.82
1.83
1.83
Ventura GA
2.46
2.49
2.42
2.38
2.34
2.30
2.27
Ventura NGA
1.57
1.66
1.65
1.66
1.68
1.69
1.72
Ventura Riv. GA
2.61
2.66
2.56
2.50
2.44
2.40
2.36
Ventura Riv. NGA
2.62
2.68
2.57
2.51
2.45
2.41
2.36
Total County'"
2.89
2.92
2.80
2.72
2.65
2.58
2.52
'To be used for
guideline purposes only
,,,,Countywide projections may not agree with
population and dwelling unit totals
the ratio
between
the
countywide
ratio will be
amended to agree when
g iven
final
in
recommended atotals
countywide
are
presented.
L76/3
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 POPULATION FORECASTS
Bldg. Gen.
1980 Completion 208 AQMPt%t% Plan
Area Census Trend'- Plan" (Unofficial) Capacity*,-'-
Camarillo GA
45,711
66,591
782050
782050
67,431
Camarillo NGA
3,668
31269
11,901
99851
71881
Fillmore GA
9,604
99529
12,950
14,264
14,472
Fillmore NGA
22182
21108
21250
21442
2,855
Las Posas NGA
11312
31802
11444
1,444
31944
Moorpark GA
8,054
302302
29,177
21,677
-5- 3Z,gz'p
Moorpark NGA
670
652
�_.._
933
�. �.. �. ,. �. �,.., ��. �,
11363
w. �..• .. ..u...�.,�.�,.....- ..n..,....._
961
North Half NGA
487
644
650
725
1,464
Oak Park GA
31617
71870
179000
14,121
221435
Oak Park NGA
228
426
250
201
330
Ojai GA
89411
91797
81375
11,389
91490
Ojai NGA
2,298
21929
31651
21497
59488
Oxnard GA
121,055
135,618
184,590
1917024
157,431
Oxnard NGA
41997
4,435
4,650
5,102
52607
Piru GA
11368
1,312
760
1,435
2,627
Piru NGA
196
178
340
279
21065
Port Hueneme GA
18,507
21,573
26,900
24,900
22,954
Santa Paula GA
20,889
23,765
24,758
26,131
292680
Santa Paula NGA
21958
21848
2,952
31159
22883
Simi Valley GA
802294
108,192
121,165
121,165
134,881
Simi Valley NGA
1,087
21141
29165
21365
41148
Thousand Oaks GA
91,962
118,869
144,892
144,592
143,368
Thousand Oaks NGA
1,070
11472
2,313
2,374
21869
Ventura GA
83,209
102,499
110,969
112,781
107,083
Ventura NGA
982
12386
2,611
22365
2,362
Vta. Riv. GA
12,849
139618
13,303
13,303
17,574
Vta. Riv. NGA
1,509
1,668
2 306
2 306
3,398
TOTAL COUNTY 5292174 677,493 811,305 811,305 809,796
%Based on 1980 -85 building completions and year 2000 population- per- dwelling-
unit ratio for each GA /NGA
Adjusted for revisions to Growth /Nongrowth Area Boundaries.
'0"General Plan holding capacity for dwelling units times Year 2000
population-per-dwelling-unit ratio.
L76/4
TABLE 5
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 DWELLING UNIT FORECASTS
L76/5
1980
BLDG.
COMP.
GEN.
CENSUS
TREND$%
208 PLAN.- '
AQMPt
(UNOFFICIAL)
PLAN
CAPACITY
Camarillo GA
16,804
26,425
29,478
312135
275081
Camarillo NGA
12043
1,051
31182
21997
22440
Fillmore GA
3,055
32367
42530
41771 �
5,025
Fillmore NGA
729
775
750
814
11042
Las Posas NGA
356
1,177
560
560
1,167
Moorpark GA
22476
10,413
92743
7 613
1 " ^
Moorpark NGA
267
275
289
440 �-
418��
North Half NGA
323
395
490
483
1,061
Oak Park GA
1,078
22632
62660
4,755
71284
Oak Park NGA
76
156
70
67
Ojai GA
39316
4,099
3,093
4,910
120
4,073
Ojai NGA
855
1,167
11352
1 ) 067
2 222
'
Oxnard GA
39,815
49,137
662199
67,064
562427
Oxnard NGA
1,287
11312
1,656
1,845
1,575
Piru GA
380
414
235
475
796
Piru NGA
64
64
120
93
735
Port Hueneme GA
61942
8,664
8,907
101000
9,369
Santa Paula GA
71233
82968
82746
91787
11,200
Santa Paula NGA
865
937
934
970
Simi Valley GA
23,534
35,707
38,711
42,473
918
43,093
Simi Valley NGA
447
927
724
897
1,860
Thousand Oaks GA
31,902
45,026
48,566
51 639
54,306
Thousand Oaks NGA
607
809
12054
908
Ventura GA
33,811
432803
43,907
472997
1,782
47,382
Ventura NGA
627
825
998
902
1,640
Vta. Riv. GA
41916
51581
49967
4,967
7,353
Vta. Riv. NGA
T 576
681
854
854
1,416
TOTAL COUNTY
1837384
2549787
283,322
300,483
3032233
Based on 1980 -85
building
completions
,- Adjusted for revisions to
Growth /Nongrowth Area boundaries.
L76/5
TABLE 6
BUILDING ACTIVITY
MOORPARK
April, 1980 (U.S. Census)
April to December, 1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
DWELLING UNITS
2483
313
382
137
350
677
4342
1859 DU completed 4/80 to 1/85; average = 391 DU /yr
COUNTY -WIDE - Average number of dwelling units completed
annually (4/80 to 1/85)
Thousand Oaks
667
Simi Valley
583
Camarillo
512
Ventura
500
Oxnard
472
Moorpark
391
Port Hueneme
91
Oak Park
79
Santa Paula
78
Ojai Valley
37
Fillmore
16
Piru
2