ML20033F246
| ML20033F246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1990 |
| From: | Lit E, Raskin J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10051 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003190068 | |
| Download: ML20033F246 (40) | |
Text
m-+
.l j]g[0 Gl:
0 i
' DOCKETED USNRC i
% tmR 12 P4 :42 l
March 9, 1990 Ff1CE OF SECRETARY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKfi,1
[gylc[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
q ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative-Judge:
Peter B.
Bloch l
In the-Matter of
)
)
Docket 70-25 " Sd(s i
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
)
l CORPORATION'
)
Request to Renew j
Rocketdyne Division
)
For Ten Years i
~
I (Special Material' License
)
ASLBP no. 69-594-01-ML Number'SNM-21
)
i'!
)
ESTELLE LIT'S AND'JEROME RASKIN'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE l
~PORTIONSLOF INTERNEN0RS' WRITTEN PRESENTATIONS AND-BRIEF IN-SUPPORT-y i
Rockwell International Corporation's (Applicant) Motion to
-1 1
Strike should not prevail because it does not contend that any f
l substantive part of'our Direct Case is faulty.
The concerns i
j
' expressed within our Direct Case, dated February 13, 1990, and 19, 1990, t
our-Amendment,. dated; February should not be stricken because they are.in compliance with a
. Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order, dated October 5,
1989, and 10 j
CFR 2.1233. Applicant's arguments are not sufficient to strike lt our Direct Case and Amendment. Each argument will be dealt with
}
below separately.
9003190068 900309 i
PDR-ADOCK 07000025
,$[h C
PDR j
- n 1-1 b
The' regulations cited within our Amendment Specifically apply to each-concern expressed in our Direct Caso.
Applicant-does not deny that the regulations cited in our Amendment apply to our concerns.-Initially, Applicant alleges that our Direct Case and Amendment should be stricken because we allegedly do not cite specific sections of the regulations for each specific
- concern, Applicant ~ cited Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order, dated October 5, 1989.
The Amendment was especially created to abide by Judge Bloch's request that each concern be accompanied by a regulatory violation.
Within the second, third and fourth paragraphs of our Amendment-the concerns are matched with regulatory violations.
Tile five concerns within the Direct Case deal with safety and health: issues.
Safety is our major concern.
Each regulation i
cited addressed safety concerns.
For example, please refer to
'the Amendment, "[t3he regulations also require Rocketdyne to make every reasonable effort'to maintain radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluent to unrestricted areas.'
Rocketdyne has violated these safeguards mandated by the regulations.
As stated in our third and fourth concerns..."
(Amendment, p2, para.1)
Applicant's argument regarding specific applications of the regulation'is unfounded.
First, as stated above, the Amendment cnd our Direct Case meets this criteria.
The Amendment cicarly lays our the applicable regulations and the corresponding concerns which is precisely what Judge Bloch's Memorandum and i
E
-g :-
Order prescribes.-
It is important to note that 10 CFR 2.1233te) begins by emphasizing that "[sjtrict rules of evidence do not-apply to written submissions under this section."
Therefore, the Direct Case and Amendment should not be stricken.
Second, it is completely unreasonable of Applicant to imply that we must reiterate regulations when they even contend that "there is no t
benefit in answering the same. question more than once..."
(Rockwell's Motion to Strike)
Throughout Applicant's Motion-to Strike they are setting up unreasonable interpretations of the regulations-which. whey cannot meet and do not wish to. apply to themselves.
This behavior in unfair and rathec frustrating to make responses.
The focus, in our view, should be upon the substantivo part of the briefs.
For example, whether the I
substantive regulation applies.
Applicant has violated Judge Bloch's Memorandum and Order by not fully acknowledging the 1
thrust of our positions.
(Bloch's Order, p.5)
-l
-i Applicant bases, in part, their motion to strike our
{
brief on a misquoted portion of Judge Bloch's Memorandum and 1
. Order, dated October 5, 1989 (pages 3-4).
Applicant misquotes Judge Bloch's Memorandum by not quoting the entire rule that he
.f
-set forth.
Applicant writes in their brief:
s
" Failure to comply with this paragraph, a
of my order will invalidate the entire i
discussion of the concern, which may be i
treated as if it had not even been filed...
(footnote omitted)"
t1
-)
n 24; i'
s s
e 1\\"
However.-Judge Bloch actually. wrote:
" Failure to comply with-this paragraph o
of.my order will invalidate.the entire discussion of the concern, which may be treated as-if it-had not even-been filed--
~t.
ggbiect only to a discretionary ruling on av nart that the matter is too important
?
(to spfety or the envirorment) for nw to
. disrecard it."
(Emphasis added)
~We think that our concerns are too important to the safety
't and the. environment for Judge Bloch to disregard them.
~Therefore, we' respectfully request that, if we did not comply l
with Judge Bloch's rule, based upon the following nrguments Judge Bloch' exercise his discretion and find that in fact.these concerns arg too;important to t h's safety and the environment for him to disregard.
1 App!! cant also claims that our brief addresses " irrelevant 1
and' immaterial issues.which have no bearing'on the renewal h
L application", and contains " excessive redundancy and-repetition
-both within and between briefs."
This unsubstantiated conclusion without more is incorrect.
Our brief addresses concerns not addressed by other intervenors.
Applicant claims that A1 and A3 portions of our brief are " cumulative to Jon Scott's concern no.
Ill".
But l
intervenor Jon Scott addresses the health and safety of himself
'and his. family while we address the health and safety of the l'
l 4
l
i
, +
- r p -;
I f
4.
communities-surrounding the plant.
Clearly these two concerns are-not-cumulative. And, even if our brief uses evidence similar to evidence used by Scott, this evidence supports different concerns.
Applicant, moreover, does not make any. showing as to where our brief is redundant within. This conclusory accusation has absolutely no merit.
Applicant also; attacks our brief has having no bearing on the renewal application.
This conclusion is also not correct, j
s
~
10 CFR section 70.22'(a)(7) & (8) CONTENTS OF APPLICATIONS require that:
"Each application for a license shall contain the following informotion:
(7) A description of equipment and facilities which wil'l be used by the applicant to protect health and minimize danner to life or property....
(8) Proposed procedures to protect health and minimize danner to life or pronerty...."
L 10 CFR section 70.23 (a) (3) & (4) REQUlHEMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL i-F-
0F APPLICATIONS sets'forth:
L.
"An application for a license will be l
approved if the Commission determines that:
l
- n 1
5 t-s
p. i; pt s
+=
' ~*;
3' s
(3) The applicant's proposed equipment and facilitios are adequate to protect health and minimize. danger to life or property.
(4) The applicant's proposed procedures to-
'l protect health and to minimize danger to life-or property are' adequate:"
10 CFR section 70.31 (d) ISSUANCE OF LICENSES reads:
"No license will be issued by the Commission to any person within-the United States if the Commission finds that the issuance of i
such license would be inimical to the t
1 common defense and security or would con-
~!
stitute an unreasonable risk to the health i
and. safety of the public."
iO CFR section 70.32.(b)(2) CONDITIONS OF LICENSES, may subject a
.i 1
L
. grantedLlicense to the protection of-health and the minimization
~
of danger to life or property. And, 10 CFR-Part Si requires d
1 l
1 i.
~ environmental data and information'to support a renewal j
application.
These. code sections require an Applicant show that l
the health arid safety of the land and people'living around l,'
L Applicant's site will not be endangered, leaves no doubt hut that-1:
our concern is relevant to the licensing application.
l
].,-
I
CONCERN APPLIED TO RELEVANT CFR SECTION Point A i
We make three arguments supporting Concern A, that Applicant 1.
will jeopardize the health'and safety of the narrounding L
6 Y,
4
-s
?
communities and environment near the SSFL.
10 CFR section 70.22 (a)(7) & (8) require as a prerequisite to the granting of a license-a showing of Applicant's equipment, procedures and facilities to protect the health and minimize danger to life or property. Applicant attaches two reports to their application, both of which address the health and safety,of life and proper'.y of life and' property surrounding the site. (Environmental Monitoring and Radiological Effluent Report Rl/RD890139, attachment 6 and J.
D.
Moore report dated 1988 attached as Appendix B).
Our concern attacks these reports. Our concern is relevant.
Arcument (
This argument calls in to question the accuracy of the test results of these two reports.
We souw that Applicant uses inadequate and outdated testing procedures to monitor the surrounding. environment for possible radioactive contamination both on and off-site.
A.rgument_2 Applicant uses demographic statistics in the' Environmental Monitoring and Radiological Effluent Report, Attachment 6, to buttress their conclusion that no environmental problems exist which' represent an immediate threat to human life.
(page 76 of the 1988 J.
D.
Moore report)
Applicant states in their Motion that "(t)hese demographics are not inconsistent with today's actual population."
This conclusion it not correct.
According to the January 1,
1990 report prepared by the 7
s
WL I
4 planning Research section of Los Angeles City planning Department, since 1980 "(t)he. largest numerical increases (in population) were in the Metropolitan and San Fernando Valley regions."
Detween 1980 and 1989 the population in the San Fernando increased by 125,062 (page 1-3)..
It is apparent that i
the population of 1980 is not consistent'with the population of i
1989.
Moreover, Applicant projects that by 1994 71,931 people will reside within a 5 mile distance of the site.
(Page 12 Table 4 Environmental Assessment Operations Report)
Yet according to the map and the Report of Residential Building Activity in Simi Va l ley attached rus exhibits to our brief, as of January 1,
1990 the city of Simi Valley, alone, which is within a five mile distance to the plant, had a population of 108,499. Appil-cant's projection is flatly incorrect.
Applicant also shows the location of the site in relation to the surrounding. communities by attaching-an aerial map in the 1988 Moore report (page 4 and 6).
This map is inadequate and misleading. We present data and a clearer map to show a reel *-
picture et proximity of the site to the surrounding communitier.
None of the arguments that we make are irrelevant because Applicant introduces data in their application that is required by the CFR.
We are attacking this data found in-the application.
Arcument 3 This argument also addresses our concern of the health and safety of the surrounding communities required by the CFR which 8
z-i ;,;
3 Applicant. discusses in their-application.
Our~ argument is l relevant and is not cumulative with intervenor Scott's argument.
Point B Applicant contends that the conclusions of a study i
' indicating that there are substantial health effects to low level F
radiation is not relevant because "the conclusion of the study have not resulted in any changes to the existing radiation h
standards." - (Motion to Strike at p.
17)
This type of response is alarming!
To think that Applicant would mechanically respond that a new study regarding serious effects from low levels of i
radiation it not relevant simply because the government.has failed to prescribe upgraded regulations is frightening.
This attitude leaves us more convinced that Applicant needs to be and should not have their Application renewed.
Applicant c.hould be interested in keeping one step ahead of new regulations, rather than attempting to avoid'public safety and health standards.
The recent study by BEIR " Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of
-lonizing Radiation" indicates that health effects for low levels of radiation is more harmful than was previously thought.
This should concern Applicant and provoke them to take the necessary steps to avoid public health endangerment.
Applicant seems to be l
relieved that the current regulations have not incorporated this alarming new study.
l This point also addresses the health and safety requirement of the CFR.
Appliennt states that the possible radioactive and hazardous contamination at the site poses no immediate threat to l
n 9
1s.
A human Iife.
Our point cites new research that casts serious doubt on:this conclusion.
By saying possiblo contamination poses no im ediate threat to human life it is obvious Rocketdyne did not know whether or not and to what extent contamination existed at the site. So then, how could they conclude that there is no threat to human iIfe?
GSD.c. l us i o n 417 There is no reason to dismiss the concerns of Estelle and 7
Jorome Raskin based-on Applicant's Motion that they are irrelevant and cumulative.
We request that Judge Bloch take in to consideration that we did not and do.not have legal counsel representing us, and that if ho deems that we did not comply-with
- s. l s memorandum, in tho interests of justice and fairness this response bm considered as curing any deficiencies in our brief.
We respectfully request that the Nuclear Regulatory
' Commission reject Applicant's request for a on0 year extension of the special nuclear materials license for its Santa Susana Field llaboratory.
7}/b.c$,h t
Dr. Estelle Lit W
A >x Jerome E.
Raskin 10
p, +7
[ :, =.
4g y
~
3,
(
BEFORE THE DOCKETED UM A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY CmMISSION
'90 _ rfR 12 P 4 %.
- In the Matter of
-)
gi
. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CDRPORATION
)
Docket No. 70-25-ML
)
l
-(Rocketdyne' Division, Special-
)
Nuclear Materials License StE-21)
)
)
)
+
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'Nt&%
PfYv1,$nb. ~0' reby certi hat Jes he f oing j' y
/, ws.
)4
. h. L p%.)/ntsh~
- have been asfrv6d.upon the owing persons u7 U.S. mail, j
first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the 1
requirements of 10 CFR 2.71e.
j Administrative Judge
- Office of the General' Counsel *
'.l Peter B. Bloch '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Presiding' Officer Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing & Service Section(3)*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary X
U.S. K' clear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge
- Washington, DC 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Special Assistant-Atomic Safety'& Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.-20555-P.D. Rutherford *
' Administrative Judge
- Manager, Nuclear Safety &
Christine'N. Kohl, Chairman
' Reliability Engineering-Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Rocketdyne Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6633 Canoga Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Canoga Park,;CA 91304 Administrative Judge
- Jon Scott 4
Howard A. Wilber 6 Roundup Road Atomic. Safety.and Licensing Appeal Board Bell Canyon, CA 91307
~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Barbara Johnson 6~114 Clear Springs Road Administrative Judge *-
Simi Valley,-CA 93063 G. Paul.Bollwerk, III Atomic' Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Dr. Sheldon C. Plotkin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern California Federation Washington, D.C. 20555 of Scientists 3318 Colbert Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90066 myi
-.= :
f;,;
b i, I i
4
/
X-Cecelia Riddle. ~
' Senior Librarian
~Chatsworth Branch Library u,
p".
21052 Devonshire Street
-[Chatsworth,;CA91311 Daniel Hirschc Committee to Bridge the Gap 1637 Butler Avenue, Suite.203
.Los Angeles, California 90025 l,,
t, Richard Saxon, M.D..
'PhysiciansL for: Social Responsibility 1431 Ocean' Avenue, Suite B t
Santa Monica, CA 90401 s
s l-
- by express
+
1:'
2
- hCR, L
= Dated,,at Northridgpj Calpfornia
. this y_th day of 71Mc4,1990 i
J I
~
4 W'
6
'k 4
p o
vrhl[ l
~
v y
CITY 'OFs Loo JANGELED i
. CALIFORNI A ;
CITY PLANNING :
o8P""NEW O
CITY PL. ANN 4NG COMMISSION-aoom osi, crev Mau. -
1
%4.,
man g R'u-wrouAu o. LupoY;-
Los amesa ca sociami
- S E n~ E" 73', "'"*
En.
KElUYEDA SUEETTE NElv.AN '
casar ese masm FEnNANDo Togegg4;L TOM BR ADLEY
.p M PAU.ON MAYOn e
os m v masc'oa P
nAmoNANAnO nOstwr o. mNiaNs escasTaav osacTV DensCvon aoou nom.crry wau.
(313) 433.s073 (3lSi eSSno?I i
5 L
. January 1, 1990 t
'To Whom it May Concern:
1989 POPULATION ESTIMATE AND HOUSING INVENTORY i
The attached ' report presents the Population Estimate and Housing inventory for. the City of Los Angeles as of Octooer 1,1989.
The report is in three-parts,, as follows:
5 Part I:
Population and Housing by Planning Area Within-Four Major Geographic Regions Part 11:
Population. and Housing by. Planning Area by Housing Type Within Four Major Geographic Regions
+
- Part Ill
Population and Housing by Council District i
The : estimated total-population of 3,310,057 as of ~ October 1, 1989 does not Linclude any allowance for an undercount in the 1980 census upon which this estimate. is based. ~ Questions concerning the report may be directed to:
. a
~
, Planning, Research Section Los Angeles City Planning Department 200 North Spring Street Room 605B, City Hall
. L'os. Angeles, CA 90012
, Phone:
(213) 485-5386 1
KENNETH C. T ING
~
1 Director of Planning l
KCT:JMB:rmv CTY5981 AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTuNfTY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMP
j.;7: a,.
t
' ;e.
i CITY OF LOS ANGELES -
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING t
I 1
3\\n' i
POPULATION ESTIMATE AND HOUSING.1NVENTORY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES i
AS OA OCTOBER 1,1989 l
r i;
Planning Research -Seetion Department Systems Division Room 605B, Los Angeles City Hall January-1990 -
Los-Angeles, CA 90012
p+.L.--
r - ~,..:.. a--.-
!d{
4 j
- :t-;.
.f,,f I 1
(y '
b i
c CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT:OF. CITY PLANNING q
s KENNETH C. TOPPING, Director of Planning MELANIE FALLON, Chjef Deputy Director-FRANK EBERHARD, Deputy Director ROBERT Q. JENKINS, Deputy Director
]
k
- DEPARTMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION MOSTAFA DABZADEH, Division Manager
?JEFFREY M. BECKERMAN, Operations and Statistical Resesrch Analysti FARHAD ABOLFATHI,' Operations and Statistical Research Analyst F
9 l
h t
l;t j
l:
o
[h 4
k.
a s
t fe
[ 4' l
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
SUMMARY
L l
Part 1:
Population and Housing by Planning Area Y!! thin Four Major 1-1 Ceographic Regions l
Part 11:
Population and Housing by Planning Area by Housing Type Within-Four Major Geographic Regions Il-1 Part Ill:
Population and Housing by Council District lil-1 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 11 1 1.-
City Population,1930 to 1989 1-2 i
2.
Planning Areas Within Major Geographic Region
-3.
Relative Population Growth of Planning Areas, 1980-1989 l-6 4
Relative Housing Growth of Planning Areas I-7 5.
Relative Population Density of Planning Areas I-8 6.
Relative Housing Density of Planning Areas 1-9 11-4 7.
Housing Splits by Planning Area,1989-Il-5 8.
Ratio of Single-Family to' Total _ Dwelling Units,1989 9.
Council Districts, City of Los Angeles ill-2 10.
Relative Population and Housing Growth of Council Districts 1980-1989 til-6 11.
Relative Population and Housing Density of Council Districts 1980-1989 111-7 i
1 y
. CITY OF LOS ANGELES OCTOBER 1989 POPULATION ESTIMATE AND HOUSING INVENTORY On October 1,1989, the City of Los Angeles had an estimated population of 3,310,057 and a total housing stock of 1,310,013 units.
These figures were derived by adjusting the 1980 Federal Census of Population and Housing for subsequent housing completions and demolitions, for observed trends in average household size, and for current occupancy factors as deduced from data on active and inactive residential electric meters.
Separate values of average household size for single-family and fo r -
multiple-family. residences were determined for each of the four major geographic areas - of the City by correcting national regional household size E
data for economic and density factors, and for racial / ethnic population trends.
The household size assumptions are critical because they are applied to the entire ' housing stock, not just to the net increase in dwelling units.
The City's estimated population growth of 343,207 (11.6%) in the nine and one-half years since the Census represents an average annual growth rate of 1.16 percent.
The number of occupied housing units has increased by 10.2 percent during the same period (1.03% per year).
Of the total estimated increase in population between April 1,1980 and October 1,1989, more than 80 percent is attributable to the increase in the number of occupied dwellings, and the rest to - the trend toward increasing household size.
. The overall vacancy rate in housing has increased from 4.5 percent in 1980 to 5.5 percent in 1989. On estimate date, 71,424 dwelling units were unoccupied.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
SUMMARY
1980 Census and 1989 Estimates 1980 to 1989 4-1-80 10-1-89 Federal City Annual Census-Estimate Increase Change Rate (%)
Total Population:
Metropolitan Region 1,450,135 1,612,618 162,483 11.2 1.1 San Fernando Valley
,1,017,365
-1,142,447 125,082 / 4 2.2' 1.2 Westside Region 346,338 374,989 28,651
'8.2 0.8 Southbay-Harbor Region 153,012 180,003 26,991 17.6 1.7 City Total 2,966,850*
3,310,057 343,207 11.5 1.2
~. _. _ _ _ _
Total Housing Units Metropolitan Region 572,406 605,115 32,709 5.7 0.6
/
San Fernando Valley 398,274 457,169-58,915 14.7 1.5 Westside Region 163,220 131,298 18,078 11.8 1.1 Southbay-Harbor Region 55,022 66,411 11,389 20.6 2.0 City. Total 1,188,922 1,310,013 121,091 M
1.0
% Vacant 4.5 5.5
- NOTE: Minor adjustments in census tract boundary definition would add 2,008 persons to the census count within the City limits.
Adjusted total City population would then be 2,968,858 on April 1,
1980.
The
" official" count does not reflect this adjustment.
I.
11 Each of the' four major geographic red ons has grown in population since 1980.
i The targest ~ numerical increases were in the Metropolitan and San Fernando-Valley regions.
.The largest increase in housing u nits was in the San Fernando Va.lley, with 58,915 units added since the 1980 Census; an increase of 14.8 percent.
The estimated vacancy rate was highest in the Westside region (5.9%), and lowest in the San Fernando Valley (4.9%).
Apparent anomolles between population and housing units, as in the Metropolitan Los Angeles region result from shifts in the number of persons per household and in occupied dwelling units.
This estimate' ignores persons not, counted in the 1980 Census.
It is
. reasonable to assume that in any census, some of the population will be missed
~
or will evade census enumerators.
Since there is no comparable likelihood of being = counted more than once, any imperfection in the census tends toward an undercount.
There has been local concern over the number of undocumented residents living within the City.
The Census Bureau makes no distinction between documented and undocumented persons, but tries to count all residents impartially, it appears Ilkely that large numbers of those residing in the City lilegally at the time of the census, were counted along with the rest of the population.-
No allowance for elther - a census undercount or an undocumented (and uncounted) element of the population is included in the figures presented here because (a) their inclusion would make it impossible to compare the current estimate with previous estimates, and (b) the figures in the current estimate attempt to reflect the total population that would have been counted had another enumeration been conducted on October 1,1989.
The estimates of population, total housing units and occupied housing units are tabulated on -the following pages.
They are aggregated to the level of the City's 35 planning areas -and four major geographic regions (Parts I and ll);
and the 15 Council Districts (Part 111).
A plot of the City's total population from 1930 to the present appears on Page Ill, preceding Part I.
\\
iii
- l GROWTH HISTORY: CITY OF LOS ANGELES
.c
- g POPULATION IN MILLIONS 3.4 34 -
-YEAR POPULATION SQUARE MILE 8 3-s 2.4 -
1850 1810 24.1 gg.
1800
'4388 30.3 1870 8728 30.3 24 -
1880 11183 30.3 1800 80308 30.3 2-1000 102479 44.38 1.s -
1910 319104 80.28 1000 876873 383.88 1930 1238048 441.74 1.2 -
480.43 19d0 1804277 1980 1970388 483.81 1-1000 2479016 487.92 c.s -
1970 2811001 483.9 o,g,
1980 2008480 448.8 I
80' tbo 1920 1940 teco 1940 1970 isso toes YEAR
- 8 b
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH 12 11 -
10 -
AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH e-
- ~
1980-1930 11.8%
{7*
-1930-1940 2.2%
1946 1000.-
3.1%
W e-1900-1980' 2.0%
1 1 70 1
.1970-1900 0.9%
3,,
1900-1980-1.2%
3*
O 1930 1940 1960 1940 1970 198) 1990-YEAR 4
N
4
.m
'.'g G
'.-g L
e t
CITY OF LOS ANGELES I'
o POPULATION ESTIMATE AND HOUSING INVENTORY AS' OF OCTOBER 1,1989 PARTI
- 35 COMMllNITY PLANNING AREAS WITHIN FOUR MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS l
Census Date: April 1,1980 -
Estimate Date: October 1,1989 t
e e>
2
/
$ Qb l
0
[M'#,
((j A%#
IMAGE EVALUATION 4+4
\\ k///% T $ /?
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
- ,4
} }777 77 1.0
'd m EA lllEl I.I [* M l.8
$5 I l.4 1.6 4
150mm 6"
- /,,if h 8[;;fkb
>n a
m
......,.,......,.,M U
a f
i 1"
)
i.%-.
6 j
r~.. (
=
/.
1-r,-.c r,..
_~
7)
,e__a r
t--
f _,,,,,,
s r
8""
88 m*
ed j
...)
- r 9
)
5"N=.. i
-M K>
4
/..m..
/b
'-r,. N
'\\rj s.
?
,/
D'
['
i
... m,.. ~ x..
,'N w.
$)
.)
==
, 3-1
,/
(..
^
1
..W.. 2- =-
i.~
.~
> b../
%_-q,
-(-
,J
-u-
/>
-i"*'7.r s
L j
j)e-n
=
4
__,.J 7..
r$)
s.,
t,
-s d
.n-ma
,i"""J"*' )
% Hi+% 5 ftD l
q'.s_
)
~
2-2 l
j
-CITY 0F L0S AMGELES
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION AND HOUSING SY PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/88) AND ESTIMATE DATE (10/1/89)
<<<------ P O P U L A T I O N -
- - H 0 U S I N G --------->>>
ANNUAL) <
ANNUAL >
4/1/89 10/1/89 INCREASE GROWTH 18/1/80 19/1/89 INCREASE GRDWTH HORTHEAST LOS ANGELES 198229
^230348 32119 1.59 66624-72416
'5792 9.88 BOYLE HEIGHTS 81279 89324 8845 1.88-22134 22868 726 s.34 SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES 185521 285823 19502 1.86 61089 62396
-1226 c.21 WEST ADAMS-BALDWIN HILLS-LEIMERT PARK 151528 164048 12528 s.84 63985 65897 1112 0.18 SOUTH CENTRAL 228971 238117
.17146 8.79 77415 78661 1246 0.17 l
WILSHIRE 225408 254096 28696 1.27 199769 117385 7617 0.71 HOLLYWOOD 181002
'205567 24565 1.35 92412 191991 8678 9.95 SILVERLAKE-ECHO PARK 76054 86693 19549 1.38 29845 31216 2171 S.76 WESTLAKE 89224 96189 6956 9.79 36012 37275 1263 8.36 CENTRAL CITY 27488 27936 456 0.17 11887 19168 2273 1.86 HIE CENTRAL CITY
__1}$37 1Z6 1929 1.42 2944 2648 if4 2.76__ METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES-1458135 1612618 162483 1.12 572406 685115 32789 9.59 SHERMAN OAKS-STUDIO CITY 64392 71649 7257. 1.13 33988 38910 4961 1.45 NORTH HOLLYWOOD 95763 197177 11414 1.19 44169 50954 6785 1.52 ARLETA-PAC 0IMA 68345 81157 12812 1.83 17665 28891 3226 1.78 VAN NUYS-NORTH SHERMAN DAKS 198333 120481 12968 1.12 58115 57495 7388 1.46 MISSION HILLS-PAHORAMA CITY-SEPULVEDA-78800 88791 9991 1.26 30414 35641 5228 1.68 SUN VALLEY 68349 65811 5462 0.92 20505 22644 2149 1.05 SYLMAR 41922 54779 12858 2.86' 13129 17284 4164 2.94 GRAHADA HILLS-KHOLLWOOD 53488 56694 3287 8.61 18393 19375 982 0.55 CANOGA PARK-WINHETKA-WOODLAND HILLS 134844 159952 16197 1.19 58485 58442 7957 1.55 + -i*CHATSWORTH-PORTER RANCH 67899 78885 .19986.. 1.59 24499 29916 5417 '2.13 NORTHRIDGE 53873 69469 6596 1.22 19221 21893 2672 1.38 RESEDA 77035 81877 4842 0.64 31199 34968 3959 1.98 ENCIND-TARZAHA 66583 ^79941 3539 8.55 27981 29664 1683 9.62 SUHLAND-TUJUNGA __45$19 5}762 7943 1.79 1( [19 29911 }Z$1 1.89 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY 1917365 1142447 125982 1.23 398274 457189 58915 1.46 WESTWOOD 34534 49022 5483 1.56 16689 28918 4309 2.46 WEST LOS ANGELES 62747 67937 5198 9.84 32866 36680 3814-1.16 PALMS-MAR VISTA-DEL REY 94964-181329 6365 0.69 43729 -47615 3886 9.99 VENICE 36553 39275 2722 8.76' 18379 19639 1260 0.78 WESTCHESTER-PLAYA DEL REY 43743 48568 4817 1.11 19225 21712 2487 .1.29 BRENTWOOD-PACIFIC PALISADES 53794 56365 2578 8.49 24171 25857 1686 8.71 BEL AIR-BEVERLY CREST __Z1193 21591 1419 9.76 8til 8877 636 9.79 . WESTSIDE - -- -- 346338 374989 28651 0.84 163220 181298 18078 1.11 WILMINGTOH-HARBOR CITY 68438 68589 8151 1.34 19876 22738 2862 1.43 SAN PEDRD 62336 75834 - 13498 2.98 25953 31858 6805 2.56 HARBOR GATEWAY 31238 35589-5142 1.73 19323 111] 222 1.6L__ 153912 186003 26991 1.72 55822 6641 1389 2.88 + S OU T H B AY-H A R BOR--- -- g s CITYWIDE GRAND TOTAL 2966858 3318857 343207 1.16 1188922 1318013 121091 1.83 os
oj u l- , L0$ AHGELES CITY 0F
SUMMARY
OF 10PULATIDH AND HOUSING UNITS 8Y PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/88)~AND ESTIMATE DATE (10/1/89) <<<------ D WE L L I H G U H I T S =-- <<-- POPULATIDH -->> <<---- ESTIMATE DATE ---->><<-- OCCUPIED -->> 4/1/88 10/1/89 4/1/89 TOTAL SINGLES MULTIPLES 4/1/80 10/1/89 HORTHEAST LOS ANGELES 198229 239348 66624 72416 49799 31618 64998 69694 BOYLE HEIGHTS 81279 89324 .22134 22860 9024 13836 -21598 22269-SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES 185521 205823 61988 62386 31794 38518 57617 58851 WEST ADAMS-BALDWIN HILLS-LEIMERT PARK 151528 164048 63985 65997 26083 39014 61497 62253 i l SOUTH CENTRAL 220971 238117 77415 78661 35635 43026 73837 74498 I WILSHIRE 225480. 254096 189769 117385 18554 98826 105912 119913 HOLLYWOOD 181992 205567 92412 191991 26659 80431 87724 93704 j. SILVERLAKE-ECHO PARK 76954 86683 29045 31216 12947 19169 27663 29517 WESTLAKE 89224 96189 36912 37275 2341 34931 34983 34521 CENTRAL CITY 27489 27936 11887 14160 314 13846 19309 12418 H8E CENTRAL CITY J 3117_ 13116 2344 2k48 194 24}4 19?5 2461. , METROPOLITAH LOS ANGELES-- -=>>> 1950135 1612618 572486 605115 197444 487669 545433 570096 SHERMAN OAKS-STUDIO CITY 64392-71649 33948 38910 15611 23299 32459 36776 NORTH HOLLYWOOD 95763 197177 44169 56954 16111 34843 42327 48226 ARLETA-PACOIMA 68345-81157 17665 29891 15382 5589 17191 20285 VAH HUYS-NORTH SHERMAN OAKS 198333 120401 50115 57495 18879 38625 48997 54218 MISSIGH HILLS-PAHORAMA CITY-SEPULVEDA 78899 88791 30414 35641 16327 19314 29342 33708 SUN VALLEY 60349 65811' 28505 22644 19716 7928 19762 21654 SYLMAR 41922 54779 13128 17284 12894 5198 12612 16974 GRAHADA HILLS-KHOLLWOOD 53488 56694 18393 19375 15322 4853 17899 18829 CAHOGA PARK-WINHEIKA-WOODLAND HILLS 134844 159952 59485 58442 36146 22296 48296 54965 - 3CHATSWG"Mi-PORTER RANCH 67899' 78885 24499 29916 18986 19939 23434 28356 'HORTHRIDdE 53873 60469 19221 21893 12848 9945 18528 20917 RESEDA 77835 81877 31999 34968 20581 13487 29969 32539 ENCINO-TARZAHA 66503 78941 27981 29664 15445 14219 26456 28221 SUNLAND-TUJUHGA 45419 5}{i2 16159 29911 11098 4913 Ik127 1921k__ SAN FERNAHD0 VALLEY-----==--->>> 1917365 1142447 398274 457189 243457 213732 382481 434876 HESTWOOD 34534 49022 16699 20918 3582 17336 15127 18778 WESY LDS ANGELES 62747 67937 32866 36688 19213 26466 31994 34344 PALMS-M4R VISTA-DEL REY 94964 191329 43729 47615 14531 33982 42143 45337 VrHICE 36553 39275 18379 19639 6534 13166 17154 18453 WESTCHESTER-PLAYA DEL REY 43743 48568 19225 21712 19968 11644 18366 29736 BRENTWOOD-PACIFIC PALISADES 53794 56365 24171 25857 13691 12164 23999 24515 BEL AIR-BEVERLY CREST __21993 21191 8111 6877 7816 It!! 78!5 8386 WESTSIDE---------------- 346338 374989 163228 181298 66495 114799 154788 179549 WILMINGTON-HARBOR CITY 60438 68589 19876 22738 11968 19779 19238 21889 SAN PEDRO 62336 75834-25853 31858 12057 19801 23854 29942 HARBOR GATEWAY J t238 31119 19323 11115 5611 6]i3 9785 IIZi6 'SOUTHBAY-HARBOR- --==>>> 153012 180003 55922 66411 29676 36734 52869 63068 CITYWIDE GRAND TOTAL 2966859 3318957 1188922 1319013 537872 772934 1135491 1238589 g r~ nW 9 r* = k M
6 C I'T Y 0F L0S ANGELES
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION AND HOUSING BY PLANNING DISTRICT-CENSUS DATE (4/1/80) AND ESTIMATE DATE (10/1/89) <<<- P O P U L A T I O N ->>> <- H 0 U S I N O ->l <<-- PERCENTAGE -->> IN HSG DENSITY DENSITY (GROHTH 80/EST DATE> 10/1/89 UNITS PER ACRE 10/1/89 PER ACRE POP HOUSING NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES -230348 226119 14.8 72416-4.7 16.2 8.7 BOYLE HEIGHTS 89324 88277 22.9 22860 5.9 9.9 3.3 SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES 205023 204093 21.1 62306 6.4 10.5 2.9 HEST ADAMS-BALDHIN HILLS-LEIMERT PARK 164048 162735 20.8 65097 8.9 l 8.3 1.7 SOUTH CENTRAL 238117 228680 23.1 78661 7.9 I 7.8 1.6 l HILSHIRE 254096 250451 28.3 117385 13.2 12.7 6.9 'HOLLYH00D 205567 201594 12.7 191091 6.4 l 13.6 9.4 SILVERLAKE-ECHO PARK 86693 85789-18.6 31216 6.8 13.9 7.5 HESTLAKE 96180 92878-47.6 37275 19.1 7.8 3.5 CENTRAL CITY 27936 18998 9.9 14169 6.7 1.7 19.1 HSE CENTRAL CITY J 33Z6 8ZZ7 4,6 Z618_ 1.4 J 4. 3 29.5 METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES-1612618 1568323 19.1 605115 7.4 11.2 5.7 i SHERMAN DAKS-STUDIO CITY 71649 71256 8.1 38910 4.4 ll 11.3 14.6 NORTH H0!LYH00D 197177 196155 15.8 59954 7.6 11.9 15.4 ARLETA-PACOIMA 81157 80866 11.8 20891 3.8 18.7 18.3 VAN NUYS-NORTH SHERMAN OAKS 120401 118679 14.8 57495 7.1 11.1 14.7 MISSIDH HILLS-PANORAMA CITY-SEPULVEDA 88791 87652 12.2 35641 5.9 12.7 17.2 SUN VALLEY 65811 65448 5.5 22644 1.9 9.1 19.4 SYLMAR 54779 53756 6.7 17284 2.1 30.7 31.7 GRANADA HILLS-KNOLLHOOD 56694 56364 5.5 19375 1.9 6.0 5.3 CANOGA PARK-HINNETKA-HOODLAND HILLS 150952 149595 8.5 58442 3.3 11.9 15.8 CHATSHORTH-PORTER RANCH 78885 - 78535 5.5 29916 2.1 16.2 22.1 'NORTHRIDGE 60469 59722 9.1 ~ 21893 3.3 12.2 13.9 RESEDA 81871 89488 10.6 34068 4.5 6.3 9.9 ENCINO-TARZANA 79941 69533 5.4 29664 2.3 5.3 6.9 SUNLAND-TUJUNOA __3.1Z4 2 52[99 3.6 20911 1.4 J7.3 19.5 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY 1142447 1130558 8.0 457189 3.2 12.3 14.8 NESTHOOD 40022 33738 13.4 20918 8.3 15.9 25.9 'i HEST LOS ANGELES 67937 67039 14.8 36689 8.1 8.3 11.6 PALMS-MAR VISTA-DEL REY 181329 190822 19.8 47615 9.3 6.7 8.9 VENICE 39275 39194 19.3 19639 9.7 7.4 6.9 HESTCHESTER-PLAYA DEL REY 48569 47547 5.7 21712 2.6 11.9 12.9 BRENTH00D-PACIFIC PALISADES 56365 55899 2.5 25857 1.1 4.8 7.9 BEL AIR-BEVEHLY CREST _21191 21494 2.2 $877 9.9 7.5 7.7 HEST SI DE--- ._174989 365643 6.5 181298 3.2 8.3 11.1 r HILMINGTON-HARBOR CITY ~68589 68399 8.1 22738 2.7 13.5 14.4 SAN PEDRO 75834 74029. 11.4 31858 4.9 21.7 27.2 HARBOR GATEWAY J5580 35516 11.0 11615 3.6 17.7 17.1 i SOUTHBAY-HARBOR 188993 177985 9.8 66411 3.6 17.6 29.7 CITYNIDE GRAND TOTAL 3319057 3242509 19.9 1319913 4.4 11.6 18.2 a 1.n ,y, w-e.,,, -v e. au.
y -,. J i i I s. l'.. h e R a ~ 6 i m o. L j f.$ + . 2 i s hE d Os - _Y $ g ~ ] f bg k g-Z6g Si - a s ese ,i [ ;':s 2 2 8 3 e ,s
- e
& seeegg 4;.a ^ ,v y f ; ,2 naggg g e e ~ ; :;=p g e y g g s A y ; x O A g= - w a : . a a ---. r 3'.#-$rIli, .g e
- m s
2 j ff y g,- 1 $-$z:.a)! % s,s $.4if s f k s p Q {efi y[i gi%.$ ' g $. $. I. E. g g { $ 4 j3 )' ~' $wq% Y 4
- r. su e a g
m a. g a r a a t s s x y w v3 s d e v st; *$ @ud -: g r F eesN N g% s t> y n 17 & $ wp 3 e y e s g q s I d h. h e[ f, fi k } e y eagg e u/3n 4 m m n$; s $ *M g .,s a s( 5 x j g % g if ;f g '~ p&$L .i J g M $f R fa $ f y .i. k 4 p # Q$jIf ik h $ g M [
- k $l f q;:
$gy a \\ y; ap i (4 g l $ k. h (p p jij $ ll y -f. ? f [ [ T y: Q [3 % 4-h a e b .a d g m w 9 k n$q g m JJ h;p N p!)$ g y ,4 m .. e q w J % p il $ $ $ 1 ( h *. Ng3 f j! g g.< ~ e . w,% k u$ w+: O. n, m m M y5 l@ g. f ~ d a kgIk^.g ~ y y h{ O h k f.h ) Ni h l'p f$ T? $f k 6 N a i N l, } M $ $ #! M $ L. ;$g 1 X $; $ [5 g N L T h T!!%gjp 0j g f; gi g#4 . $g$g i ~ , h y g g g ?! y g w r y 9 - p ~ g a c y g: s s. stegh3h h, lg <l 5 5E ig g a sE $E dI< zi a: as ne l ag %yigla j L n s to = s s =e _E = c )~. .g
'~.l + '_:-,0,~ C, 0; . I-7 i ] N-g D . O i e ~- . b,h _iD ~ c, .b, h 4 e w e. R g' ( n g; .g 0 a: .! Y*, w _N. 'i N d N ,,, $., 8 p e E r M ,*,s, j a y O Z g: ~ gr t y r ; o i t,ag. f g. ( > r ~v s a [' 7 h[ ? L,g ,N m l h p g. g l~ f_ ff ?!;: (d d ,x 3 e J e e g. yi 4 ; O,; ~ n n s n,422 w $ $i j ' Z : <: lii ; R $ 5 f x $ / w t s r : g l;p
- t. s 5-y~t,r~hs, 2
p e-e _eq-s- m g 3, n. :
- #m,+
- bw) o.s:~j 1
$g e A 1 m w a e s ~s y p w c u y m sg
- a. & w m
-- {.,., i y g A g. R ~ g g_y g 'jp g g 9 s s_v:'~. e., p .gM M h k) h k' k $ [f g. eq s. ,x n 3 p jd s $ (,.k p h h If I 6 T k + G 4 i t t s i g ; ma g ; w%a a,.r s.flh_. r s s e , g 3.:w
- a. -26 4
_g ge f;.. -_aj m c m s p. O- ^x
- if M m
i t g o s 3 + p 'E u, Ik (h l un*[i D ! a n g a $ g ',S g e t a p$,-gd-l u s g e s ,> s ik ki 8 '^ a ^h b @*s g ps % 2s M l-s; z4 s $ 2 & a n gg e s a e. u p o e p e y C' 1 y"i-p w; s,. o $ w A C.: - 4g . r? gN vit r sc + w w %e 1 % 4 3 W' 4: g's F F 5 +s e ,e y as
- n W g
.g: ' %.'4 -.A.%g p .:V 2 J-P m. a.: w 4 'y f;
- <9 s
J .$M'[ s $si si 64 3 h V, Ns: -[k. 43 :# W E4 ). (-s k:s :' ' ifT.'.j . t.x..;j 4e
- e;
. ;ii : g~,. E ~ u.- y m ep. w w c s. >g x w w I!!!n!!il!!n!!"ililliliiPIlIll.llill' il l Ili-lii o r$g i 5 o o 4 z e o 3 o9 -m o a m l-
- \\
l 1
RELATIVE POPULATION DENSITY AS OF OCTOBER 1,1989 ~- 47.6 l WESTLAKE <M "ec4 ~ wN P d"-- ~' ~ WILSittRE stw% 6ft W* M AG2'N ~ " y w wg , l28.3 .u ~ 23.1 SO CENTRAL LA > ** * '*?? T*"" *V " Ef*M N W;~* W s ^ DOYLE HEIGifTS w e m: !W " -iN#4
- N '
M ' +m 22.9 ~ SOUTilEAST LA & ip%t'#@dFI@*4n ^ ' WM EffM VRME ** ^'!l21.1 R & W M W/?NY!i W W E W N *
- N P' #
^ 20 WEST ADAMS 1 e-PALMS - /.egidMasse *%#@ W+WMM#iq3pWW meMeq 19.8 VENICE Ms >#.aMMNsT26@WMN9W5ssue w as2agtl19.3 W NM&%BRV.NGWW@HSWM**ffM f'@. j18.6 SILVERLAKE NO flOLLYWOOD 4tMM9tEGMsWF&ygggsgesmswiaa l15.8 14.8 NORTitEAST LA *WATG M a$$gygegegenspaesti?i WEST LA WMsmVDnEDERfd+dgsgggggMg@ 14.8 VAN NUYS rynjawMMeg?yWSEW49PWMMMenggs 14.8 WESTWOOD SB%kNWMWggmesmewussl13.4 HOLLYWOOD M452*s#T4WMHggggwegswl12.7 MISSION HItLS Mt&D?MW1720e&dK!#!MW 12 2 ARLETA 15MSW3Mfh74&SW42Mftgem; 11.8 SAN PEDRO 5%MK*B3CnGM&MMWi*MW* hI'14 HBR GATEWAY EgyN#$s@ePFJMNMcWAMf4111 RESEDA sagggggrpe%gg&WX@gl10.6 NORTifRfDGE syPJiM W@B59$$s"M482n 9.1 CENTRAL CUY :gwgmgygggyggen g.o CANOGA PARK grsiMtWWr@@@0 Mpg]8.5 SHERMAN OAKS f$$t&#@gggggt?@ 8.1 WILMINGTON m i s 5s M $iE 6 # 2 8.1 SYLMAR stspf2W&WaEl6.7 WESTCHESTER WBwagrg43 5.7 y CHATSWORTH 9Eg$M#g@J 5.54-SUN VALLEY gngWpfw* 5.5 GRANADA HILLS W F W MI N O M' 5.5 ENCINO cysg2W@Wgen 5.4 N&E CENTRAL dig.p$fM3%l4.6 SUNLAND c@renss&l3.6 BRENTWOOD 559^Ml2.3 DEL AIR " ^E l 2.2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 y a PERSONS PER ACRE f I
m- ~ + RELATIVE HOUSING DENSITY 1 AS OF OCTOBER I,1989 1 />
- - +M N
119.1 '*4 1 WESTLAKE e.WW r;WYpMPe!M brMir' /.er 4 l13 2 WILSHIRE neg49Mwe@&W ' e2WhW?2 WnW'"^ M . 19.7 VENICE vo'vxem?:sf FP =096 ' "te#ee PALMS m: W81% Mt:Er%% aurAr wrW. > 3 % *e- ~ r-l9.3 c G rs: fig y w w es x g m e;^ m e W rarw a sl8.3 WESTWOOD m&- s " J 42'2'+N94 ~ 8.1 VEST LA - M?ra MEAcak gre WEST ADAMS ge w Itip5ypscem Mar <- '+ % 8 ~ SO CENTRAL LA iMErmMW4WC M#t$mi MtWJ:W h W E?N 7.9 NOHOLLYWOOD w M8WRu@:ye4WMiBEM!MEs:~rgastl7.6 VAN NUYS w m ;F e Kan o t # W e g !ar?E 9 W ! M el7.1 SILVERLAKE rwWir#GMr$wegr;;xe:wgemen9 6.8 CENTRAL CRY wwpswwwggwgejterc@c;ecur: ^ 6.7 SOUTHEAST LA numPen@ieWWn9ts%n/ 6.4 HOLLYWOOD qugaimagg;gw me m m 6.4 BOYLE HEIGHTS wmgmsgssMM* wee l5.9 - MISSION HILLS h?MwpWAMW@Nisst:sm 5 SAN PEDRO MW 5&?c?4EQWd!SbMMifu 4 9 - NORTHEAST LA UR$mIc@@MdRWEi el4.7 ' RESEDA wr#Td@glE &iQhEC 4.5 SHERMAN OAKS ?MW%'B$1*irrfirEyiSJ 4.4 HOR GATEWAY m e s g rg g /R p n g & l3.6 NORTHRIDGE w&M ayeger&& 3.3 CANOGA PARK syngds475"spf 3.3 ARLETA ssWrWMegiml3.0 WILMINGTON ggTAggghyy 2.7 WESTCHESTER ys4?JeM5Nc 2.6 ENCINO cle:etsrcWef 2.3 SYLMAR w;;M:6@n 2.1 --7 CHATSWORTH Es ?Dusmi 2.16 SUN VALLEY CMGEM 1.9 GRANADA HILLS -Emsg 1.9 N&E CENTRAL M@N 1.4 SUNLANO ere?+ 1.4 BRENTWOOD Sers : 1.1 BEL AIR w 0.9 H e. 5 10 15 20 - e DWELLINGUNITSPER ACRE b
g3: 'y L t f:_ - E l-CITY. OF LOS ANGELES POPULATION ESTIMATE AND MOUSING INVENTORY 1 AS OF OCTOBER 1,1989 r PART 11 35 COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS WITHIN FOUR MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS BY-HOUSING TYPE s b Census Date: April 1,1980 Estimate Date: October 1,1989
sz-CITY 0 F' L0S AN3ELES
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS BY PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/80) AND ESTIMATE DATE (10/1/89) <<-- S I N G L E F A M I L Y D H E L L I N G U N 1 ' ' POP %SHI - T S -- << ;~~B~A'S E' Y E~A~ R(1989) -->> <i2-E $ T'I'M A'T E' DATE -->> POP % OF POP OCCUPIED VACANCY POP % OF POP. OCCUPIED VACANCY BASE->l RATE-RATE NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES 121037 61.1 38886 3.91 132148 57.4 ~39533 3.19 -3.7 BOYLE HEIGHTS 33815 41.6 8777 2.79 36692 41.1 8842 2.92 -0.5 SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES 97258 52.4 29704 5.64 107199 52.5 30499 4.07 -0.1 HEST ADAMS-BALDHIN HILLS-LEIMERT PARK '71803 47.4 25409 2.64 75859 46.2 25585 1.91 -1.1 SOUTH CENTRAL 107312 48.6 34167 4.25-113842 47.8 34487 3.22 -0.8 i HILSHIRE 53199 23.6 18352 3.76 53565 21.1 17936 3.33 -2,5 HOLLYH00D 48474 26.8 20994 4.91 59929 24.8 19956 3.49 -2.0 SILVERLAKE-ECHO PARK 32412 42.6 11419 4.83 35127 49.6 11561 4.04 -2.1 NESTLAKE 8640 9.7 2541 4.29 ' 7973 8.3 2256 3.63 -1.4 CENTRAL CITY 1272 4.6 327 1.81 1969 3.8 312 8.55 -8.8' H&E CENTRAL CITY 715 5.3 123 1.57 748 i.9 191 1.40 -0.5 METROPOLITAN LDS ANGELES-- 575937 39.7 189851 4.08 615133 38.1 191158 3.18 -1.6 SHERMAN DAKS-STUDIO CITY 35923 55.8 15194 3.29 35930 50.1 15134 3.06 -5.6 NORTH HOLLYH00D 42409 44.5 16163 3.25 49907 38.2 15656 2.82 .-6.1 ARLETA-PACDIMA 55344 81.9 14995 2.44 58433 72.0 14969 2.18 -9.9 VAN NUYS-NORTH SHERMAN DAKS 49408 45.6 18668 3.08 48497 40.3 18343 2.79 -5.3 MISSION HILLS-PANORAMA CITY-SEPULVEDA 48815 61.9 15899 1.82 49326 55.6 16900 2.00 -6.4 SUN VALLEY 44389 73.6 14178 2.06 44858 68.2 19458 1.75 -5.4 ~ SYLMAR 35231 84.0 19584 2.82 38752 70.7 11788 2.53- -13.3 GRANADA HILLS-KNOLLHOOD 46011 86.0 14414 2.25 48379 85.3 14947 2.44 -0.7 CANOGA PARK-HINNETKA-HOODLAND HILLS 195011 77.9 33342 2.43 111273 75.7 35251 2.48 -4.2 CHATSHORTH-PORTER-RANCH 51524 -75.9 .15852 _3.19. .57329 _.. 72.7 18157 4.37 -3.2 NORTHRIDGE 39199 72.4 12957 1.78 49817 67.5 ~~~' 126 94 -~ - 1.99 ' -5.1 RESEDA 55498 71.9 19433 1.94 56929 69.5 20299 1.85 -2.4 ENCING-TARZANA 43953 66.1 14773 2.87 4426; 63.2 14924 3.37 -2.9 6 85.5 1}}}7 3.10 42}{3 71.2 14705 2.60 -6.3 JU(92 SUNLAND-TUJUNGA 6916 68.0 228970 2.58 718249 62.9 237136 2.60 -5.1 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY HESTHOOD 9725 28.2 3524 3.99 9428 23.6 3484 2.74 -4.6-HEST LOS ANGELES 26706 42.6 19372 2.53 25699 37.8 19034 1.75 -4.7 PALMS-MAR VISTA-DEL REY 41358 43.6 14591 2.14 39769 39.2 14255 1.89 -4.3 VENICE 15936 41.1 5949 6.03 15352 39.1 6198 5.14 -2.0 NESTCHESTER-PLAYA DEL REY 26566 60.7 9753 1.25 27133 55.9 9975 9.92 -4.9 BRENTH00D-PACIFIC PALISADES 35691 66.3 12764 2.61 36389 64.5 13298 2.87 -1.8 BEL AIR-BEVERLY CREST J g}{9 92.8 7371 5.19 19114 91.7 7451 5.39 -1.1 HESTSIDE 173651 59.1 64024 2.92 173457 46.3 64696 2.71 -3.9 HILMINGTON-HARBOR CITY 36969 59.7 19916 2.61 37723 55.0 11717 2.19 -4.7 SAN PEDRO 32339 51.9 11637 3.28 33149 43.7 11714 2.84 -8.2 5. 9 555( 1.68 -7.3 HARBOR GATEHAY 17359 57.3 5456 1.84 1Z05 0 SOUTHBAY-HARBOR 85729 56.9 28999 2.74 88665 49.3 28981 2.32 -6.8 CITYHIDE GRAND TOTAL 1527999 51.5 599954 3.20 1595504 48.2 521977 2.81 -3.3 ww I WJ l m-
- ='
.0-CITY 0 F' L0S ANGELES
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS SY PLANNING DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/80) AND ESTIMATE.DATE (18/1/89) L T 1 P L ~ E~ F A M I L Y pH E't L I ~.M G V N I T 'S ~ M(<U;;~'B'A S E' Y E A R(1989)' --i>_~~<<- ~ ESTIMATE D4 i t -->>" POP %SH PDP % OF PDP DCCUPIED VACANCY POP % OF PDP DCCUPI:1 VACANCY 8ASE->t-RATE RAT E 72960 36.8 25212 3.61 93962 49.8 39079 4.99 4.8 46419 57.1 12821 2.17 51585 57.8 13427 2.96 0.6 NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES 87333 47.1 27913 5.78 96903 47.3 28343 7.13 e.2 BOYLE HEIGHTS NEST ADAMS-BALDHIN HILLS-LEIMERT PARK 78414 51.7 36097 4.75 86876 53.8 36672 6.00 1.2 SOUTHEAST LOS ANGELES 194221 47.2 39679 4.94 114836 48.2 49903 7.93 1.1 168558 74.8 86668 4.45 196889 77.5 92879 6.83 2.7 SOUTH CENTRAL 128557 71.9 67639 5.38 159672 73.3 73747 8.31 2.3 HILSHIRE 42828 56.3 16253 4.71 50652 58.5 17955 6.34 2.2 HOLLYH00D 77282 86.6 31542 5.44 84907 88.3 32266 7.63 I.7 SILVERLAKE-ECHO PARK 17258 62.8 9982 13.60 17929 64.2 12997 12.63 I.4 HESTLAKE N&E CENTRAL CITY 6932 42,2 1892 2.46 1979 51.9 2271 7.36 67 CENTRAL CITY 2 METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES _ 829904 57.2 355582 5.85 953190 59.1 378931 7.05 1.9 28875 43.6 17346 5.45 35326 49.3 21642 7.11 5.7 52333 54.6 26163 4.73 65246 60.9 32574 6.51 6.2 SHERMAN DAKS-STUDIO CITY 12710 18.6 3096 3.76 22429 27.6 5315 4.91 9.e NORTH HOLLYHOOD VAN NUYS-NORTH SHERMAN DAKS 57204 52.8 29429 4.62 79179 58.3 35864 7.15 5.5 ARLETA-PACOIMA MISSION HILLS-PANDRAMA CITY-SEPULVEDA 28845 36.6 13452 5.46 38327 43.2 17712 8.30 6.6 15597 25.8 5584 7.37 20591 31.3 7197 9.22 5.4 5667 13.5 2028 9.02 95004 27.4 5185 0.89 13.9 SUN VALLEY 7145 13.4 3485 4.44 7992 14.1 3882 4.22 9.7 SYLMAR 28454 21.1 14864 8.88 38321 25.4 19718 11.56 4.3 GRANADA HILLS-KHOLLHOOD CANOGA PARK-HINNETKA-HOODLAND HILLS .15818.__. 23.3.__ _ 7582. 6.67 _ 21997. _ 26, 6 _.. 19198 _ _6.75 _ 3. 3 14926 26.9 6471 6.83 18995 31.3 8317 8.85 5.2 CHATSHORTH-PORTER RANCH._ 20236 26.3 19536 5.85 23557 28.8 12336 8.53 2.5 NORTHRIDGE 22042 33.1 11683 8.52 25268 36.1 '13297 6.48 2.9 RESEDA SUNLAND-TUJUNGA J 605 12.2 2111 6.79 10198 18.9 4519 8 Z1 6.6 ENCINO-TARZANA 1 SAN FERNANDO VALLEY sas756 30.8 154331 5.99 412398 36.1 197747 7.48 5.2 18525 53.6 11683 18.58 24309 69.7 15294 11.78 7.1 35143 56.9 29722 6.76 41345 69.9 24312 8.14 4.9 HESTHOOD 53100 55.9 27552 4.49 61065 69.3 31983 6.04 4.3 HEST LOS ANGELES 21436 58.6 11285 7.09 23845 69.7 12254 6.58 2.1 PALMS-MAR VISTA-DEL REY VENICE 16161 36.9 8613 7.89 29415 42.8 19759 7.68 5.1 17548 32.6 18356 6.60 19424 34.5 11215 7.89 1.8 NESTCHESTER-PLAYA DEL REY BEL AIR-BEVERLY CREST 26 7.1 733 6.26 1781 8.3 935 6.62
- 1. 2.
BRENTH00D-PACIFIC PALISADES ,HESTSIDE-63 39 47.2 99764 6.69 192184 51.3 185852 7.79 4.1 24158 48.8 8314 4.97 39665 44.7 18163 5.64 4.7 28289 45.2 12217 6.17 49881 -53.9 18228 7.94 8.7 HILMINGTON-HARBOR CTTY HARBOR GATEMAY Ju94 42 6 4329 4.54 17773 59.9 5691 7.66 7.] SAN PEDRO 65252 42.6 24860 5.20 Sf319 49.6 34082 7.22 7.0 SOUTHBAY-HARBOR CITYNIDE GRAND TOTAL 1372251 46.3 625537 5.53 1646993 49.8 716612 7.29 3.5 II W
- 'ag._x e
HOUSING SPLITS by POPULATION as of October 1,1989 - (Does not include group quarters) l8.3% BEL AIR 91.7 % 7 s Mt >^ l14.1% GRANADA HILLS - l85.3% myrw ' mfr-v;c ' + ~ SUNLAND 79.2% l: % m ~- e h e;: = " s c.: l18.9% CANOGA PARK 73.7% l Vg:n ser a.- s wa :; 25.4 % ' CIIATSWORTH 72.7 % - TM:e ' P rm - " - ~ C
- we 26.6 %
ARLETA' 72.0 % A e < :< Era e s * ~ + 27.6 % w w;# 4 SYLMAR 72.0 % tr:;, 4 cm n 27.4 % . ar+ N ^ > JRr3 a m~ c + 28.8% RESEDA 69.5 % SUN VALLEY 68.2 % - :M < e /-9 ~.-w on 31.3% 31.3 % NORTilRIDGE 67.5 % - mw& e-BRENTWOOD 64.5 % a 89:wmRWdem ~ r WP - l34.5%~ - W w<:d-:Wm w emu ' l36.1% ENCINO 63.2 % l40.8% NORTHEAST LA 57.4% le Two-WO- .L: l42% WESTCilESTER 55.9 % uu mv2 L:6 w-
- 43.2%
MISSION HILLS 55.6 % w. 4 ~ WILMINGTON 55.0% lnMhoww eo ,o- <4 em 44.7 % SOUTHEAST LA 52.3% l <: ;:e% m <"w&m:' FWa - l47.3% + SHERMAN OAKS 50.1 % ' s ext:9PWM-9 w;s N w*r 49.3 % HBR GATEWAY 50.0 % mNspe ';m . M d.: m # r4 a 50 % SO CENTRAL LA 47.8% ing%rm >"t *Nir:s?mr + l48.2% > "-wwze:w l53% WEST ADAMS 46.2% [75820@ l53.9% SAN PEDRO 43.7% lmut 'hf' ~ @m-BOYLE HEIGHTS 41.1% lo gM9 m m3 57.8 % SILVERLAKE 40.6 % 6taa~ 9:tmt;@ sc?w -" 58.5% VAN NUYS 40.3 % n-<vw mwp spmW 56.3% - PALMS 39.2 % mmwrm ' ten 60.3 % VENICE 39.1 % Jep smM9: rr:masv 60.7 % NO HOLLYWOOD 38.2% wer pwww'w;Ws w 60.9 % WEST LA 37.8 % % ^wgM4M:DEMrw ~ 60.9 % HOLLYWOOD 24.8 % sm 9:vmW l73.3% WES1 WOOD 23.6 % AMNnn a ' l60.7% WILSHIRE 21.1% lmsu s *f 95 l77.5% WESTLAKE 8.3% lm s 98.3% l N&E CENTRAL 4.9% l51.9% CENTRAL CITY 3.8% l64.2% H H I 80 % 60 % 40% 20 % 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % - 80% ^: PERCENT SINGLE FAMILY PERCENT MULTIPLE FAMILY -+~ - = -. =- - - ~ - - = = -
1 Q. y x4 .g q II-5 b 1 i i z ? g e le c -f-s a ~ mem-z v> e ~ I T z se kh F Q J s o i 7mm z. y . gag s y
- A E J
K.. ( ".J 18,8,., l .h "p:pisemi g ' as c .l s ff h k i f,h hh b h: ( y N g) s,e s =,) m c ex . Fj p^ ( c. t ~ y s ( g h 'Q ,\\; l & "a= "."". E ~* g m ^, s s g' 4 m k rp g x k h (cls4 b g e s N' Y -A 1 T 4 A .~ +- 9 3 4 s A ct s p y o. ~ . c c ny n e y 9 m % ~ 4 4 w e ^ y c v o Dm gg ?& s. s qla. n w a cs,.y-N. k 7.3 j$i +- ~ wt - v d. ./ yh s
- g. w w
a + ' f 5, ( g a a 7 U p/ j j; B 2 +: ^ d n k:., h $ $$
- l m
I L - ($- 3 ~ 2 $d, k . d 8 1 .4 - b
- s. N a
1 tr + s s g. w a w . J-5 0 -u y @-s g $ s y R s g m a m.. u, w .h d' . n k)w{i p ~*
- ra n
u tj $ie j j if. l# j( t g h v/ d R ff @yh p 99 b,. y r ~ 1 l 70 Yi,i #, b l,' w c' e we. m _. 6 d; Q fd q' Q 4.' j+.?/. -Q n% $j y
- ik E
f 4 [R Ft ; $ @% j' 3 u e a.. gg ? E; 'h fg M. .1 ph 3 ? 5 0 j% y I k s 5 t ^< M s Q D &] Il Dli F# A {':{6 % % ?nt kR f g~ ^e! "T.k 3 ? + s n M w 1 o y ,' o c s n. u ~ .s w n -a. m-m u x ys .e,nnt s s x w u n n n = a.cf f 4 4 j:d a"Re di N. M .. p R s:g; I' ss d. f W p i s m h a s g; g
- a. g v
e-s m # ~ u w.s.: z q .w 3 q y g w g g s h Y L jf $ h .h; h h k kh I h Y ~;' ~ +m W a...n A. r,, 1.m m ~ v s a : t e. u : s
- p
- g. a g;t > 4n4 m r x
s ,g ' s '-c m g b 9 y re g a g e b E S $;. y$Q #j % Q 2, d h s i s, h E is 'E B d 4 4 ljy i s a i E9@*ElDi5il!s*5 5 5kgS5 t l!e$55lPd$EmII!!"gaash .gd g5' I m s a- $ i g
- n. s-l pEia u m g a=s c5 *$"
sa, g g o m
k fi :; l'.. l' li; CITY OF LOS ANGELES . POPULATION ESTIMATE AND HOUSING INVENTORY-- AS OF OCTOBER 1,1989 [; PART 111 15 COUNCIL DISTRICTS i Census Date: April 1,1980 Estimate Date: October 1,1989 CTYS98
/ e n1-2 y [- p' j.~. D :: ~ q ~ V'm n i ( ~y '( I ~/ ~~ l z - 112.-. ',.... c. /7 ~ ' = = , A,v,4 L r 8 _j y p 3 s (=_ } \\ T g n/ _Mc r gm 1 \\ s.. 4 p N,Q - = L m N., j 34 s / 13 L e-11 T"" ,C [. 7 m 1 Y4I
- 14. _j m,/
-C ---s -J .=4 i= " Y :" "." a [w g"Es 9 ~ r f .~ i s 6, J \\__.S_. [-, J,.3 3 L I4 .b i n .s d PLANNING AREAS v') AND 'y 3 COUNCIL DISTRICTS 3 y .J .'C C CITY OF LOS ANGELES Ng?, d ..o........ ......... ~
Mm CITY 0F L 0 S-ANOELES SUfe9ARY OF POPULATION AND NOUSING UNITS SY COUNCIL DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/89) AND ESTIMATE BATE (10/1/89). nummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm' TOTAL-TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 'OTAL OCCUPIED OCCUPIED' POP POP . UNITS UNITS SINGLES MULTS UNITS UNITS 4/1/89 10/1/89 4/1/89 10/1/89 10/1/89 16/1/89 4/1/89 19/1/89 CD1 - COUNCILHOMAN MOLINA 201936 223294 67294 71031 16934 54995 64421 67981 CD2 - COUNCILMAN MACHS 199448-221259 85838 97082 43383 53699. 81688 91946 CD3 - COUNCILHOMAN PICUS 198919 217448 78771 89939 48660 49380 75314 84068 CD4 - COUNCILMAN FERRARO 197488 225096 98651 198880 24831 84959 94348 192419 - COUNCIt' AN YAROSLAVSKY 293337 222729 99113 119073 36594 73482 94025 192863-A CDS CD6 - COUNCILHOMAN GALANTER 196259 212559 86496 92394-36693 55791 82458 87817 CD7 - COUNCILMAN BERNARDI 197288 235679 61491 74955 46735 27329 59296 71417 CD8 - COUNCILMAN FARRELL 195077 211856 68037 69452 34907 35445 64835 65858 CD9 - COUilCILMAN LINDSAY 192852 298688 69768 73081 26689 46395 64869 67749 CD10 - COUNCILMAN HOLDEN 194358 212838 86889 91257 22255 68998 82968 85939 CD11 - COUNCILMAN BRAUDE 195192 211137 86335 96971 44259 51898 82584 91218 CD12 - COUNCILMAN BERNSON 199141 229104 69993 79471 54268 25203 675U 76191 CD13 - COUNCILMAN N00 201939 228414 199595 119619 28832 81785 95365 192847 CD14 - COUNCILMAN ALATORRE 198614 228164 62181 67139 35952 31187 69123 64864 CD15 - COUNCILHOMAN FLORES 197899 '239318 68469 80368 37972 43297 65621 76321 CITYNIDE TOTALS: 2966859 3319957-1188922 1319913 537972 772934 11354si 1238589 T . - ~.
~ s .S' CITY 0F L 0 S. ANGELES $UMMARY OF POPULATION AND NOUSING UNITS BY COUNCIL. DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/89) AND ESTIMATE DATE (18/1/89) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww P O P U L A T I O N ------>>> <<< N0.0S1NG -- ANNUAL > < ANMUAL> 10/1/89 INCREASE GRDWTH 4/1/89 19/1/89-INCREASE GROWTH 4/1/85 CD1 - COUNCILWOMAN MOLINA 281036 223284 22169 1.11 67294 71831 3737 9.57 CD2 - COUNCILMAN WACNS 199448 221250 21882 1.10 85838 97082 1294f. 1.49 l CD3 - COUNCILWOMAN PICUS 198019 217448 19428 0.99 78771 89839 19268 1.30 CD4 - COUNCILMAN FERRARO 197488 225096 27608 1.39 98651 188889 19230 1.04 CDS - COUNCILMAN YAROSLAVSKY 203337 222729 19383 8.96 99113 110973 19969 1.11 CD6 - COUNCILWOMAN GALANTER 196259 212558 16301 8.84 86496 92394 5897 9.78 CD7 - COUNCILMAN SERNARDI 197288 235670 38382 1.89 61401 74055 12654 1.99 CDS - COUNCILMAN FARRELL 195077 211856 16779 0.87 68037 69452 1915 8.22 CD9 - COUNCILMAN LINDSAY 192852 298688 15836 9.83 69768 73981 3313 9.49. CDit - COUNCILMAN NOLDEN 194350 212838 18488 8.96 86880 91257 4377 0.52 CD11 - COUNCILMAN BRAUDE 195102 211137 16935 0.83 86335 96871 9736 1.13 CD12 - COUNCILMAN BERNSON 199141 220704 21563 1.09 69993 79471 9478 1.35 CD13 - COUNCILMAN WOO 201039 228414 27376 1.35 199505 119619 19114 1.01 CD14 - COUNCILMAN ALATORRE 198614 228164 29558 1.47 62181 67139 4958 e.81 s. I CD15 - COUNCILWOMAN FLORES 197899 238318 32508 1.61 68460 89368 11999 1.78 U i CITYWIDE TOTALS: 2966859 3310957 343207 1.16 1188922 1319813 121091 1.83 2* G ~ - ~ . - -.= :
l - r( 1 CITY 0F L0$ ANGELES l
SUMMARY
OF POPULATION AND NOUSING UNITS 8Y COUNCIL DISTRICT CENSUS DATE (4/1/80) AND ESTIMATE DATE (18/1/89) j mmwwunuwunununuwwwunnununununuummunuwwmuumuunnun <<<- P O P U L A T I O N ->>> <- N O U S 1 N G -> <<-- PERCENTAGE -->> IN HSG DENSITY DENSITY <GRDWTH 80/EST DATE) 19/1/89 UNITS PER ACRE 18/1/89 - FER ACRE POP . HOUSING CD1 - COUNCILWOMAN MOLINA 223204 213861 24.2-71031 8.1 11.8 5.6 l CD2 - COUNCILMAN WACNS 221250 218543 7.9 97082 3.1 10.9 14.2 CD3 - COUNCILWOMAN PICUS 217448 215193 19.3 89039 4.3 9.8 i3.9 CD4 - COUNCILMAN FERRARO 225096 223381 13.2 188889 6.5 14.0 19.9 CDS - COUNCILMAN YAROSLAV5KY 222720 212888 9.7 118973 5.9 9.5 it.1 CD6 - COUNCILWOMAN GALANTER 212558 210782 12.5 92394 5.5 8.3 6.8 CD7 - COUNCILMAN BERNARDI 235670 233581 9.4 74055 3.0 19.5 28.6 CD8 - COUNCILMAN FARRELL 211856 204140 22.5 69452 7.6 8.6 2.1 CD9 - COUNCILMAN LINDSAY 298688 198118 17.9 73081 6.6-8.2 4.7-CDIS - COUNCILMAN HOLDEN 212838 209249 24.7 91257 18.8 9.5 5.9 CD11 - COUNCILMAN BRAUDE 211137 289095 4.7 96871 2.2 8.2 11.3 CD12 - COUNCILMAN BERNSON 229784 218318' 6.5 79471 2.4 19.8 13.5 CD13 - COUNCILMAN WOO 228414 225048 14.8 110619 7.3 13.6 14.1 t CD14 - COUNCILMAN ALATORRE 228164 223211 16.2 67139 4.9 14.9 8.0 H-H CD15 - COUNCILWOMAN FLORES 238318 227991 11.8 89368 3.9 16.4 17.4 H en CITYWIDE TOTALS: 3310057 3242509 10.9 1310913 4.4 11.6 18.2 4 -v-n' s -a m 2. -
c, 'hi !)~ III > g 8g ,e# >' g* N 3. s 4. s t:' q n ,8 R
- w m.
g , ng g-i a. a ,,,a m u ,e 3-9 1 4 o J o e i l i 2 si o Q s W, M$ $.8. i o 6 Q s g . g k ?; ?! zQ
- - s c==Og mu@=e
. w, e o e
- t g e o
o. g-y s!
- s c a e :s g-3
- e e w p I-B g
S ut ni t s t 8,, a E ::: am,, e +
- s s w 2 e a n x zdw.1 a.
~ , yg, a==J y; 3 y y sen c @g, ^ Qj[ y %- w s ~
- s. :. ema -
A x d t a %s' x
- p.
k, x % R e p+g ~ > ' g. aspe ,y 9 4,
- q., 0 go s
t w b d o -< . F.: 4 M &,aH5.222
- y # U; & F M $;j
+ x. sh m s.a. s, dr., t;<, + = p e e m) e ews s.; w ~ .ig w e + m Qn g + n u
- y.
, p .p* ? e $y]. %g ' g. y dgl'd #4 e,f9 h e ih, d N a 14 ^?e s b I':l4 k lzb ky d $ %\\ $? 8 b Qh,, $ wn'T m p t xl W .g-c m a g ~ d 1 J s t, ww 2 h p e m 4 - n E a n M
- e e
g s-e y a g m e \\p <s w w n n m ? t g w a a n a rh e
- w a a u g e w A s.n u u a n a
s 5 4 Y 1,3 Y 4 2 % N, q y .w h Wj M :., ( o w n - #wsj ly 7 a
- p 3 3 3,
v e n e'M V* - h l IEf M $I 's' F M rp pg d 6 6 d N h dj "e$l l p$.d: th p; y y d in 4) ng g 9 + 4 4 e k s s p u g y ;i 1 @ t? R ip 3 0. ; w m p$/~ u p h ~ e il $i,3.h M.$. h, ;! g n gfr a e d. s,h,s g n p e h g$ Eil o n a ( 2.. M.cIb & d iej' .f
- l y p
4 J n g+$bgg ]wN R M; j fyf s t 9 - W,.S # s v u 9 n M.; a c @e a g p g j %en! ' g g g g m v a r i e r s p@ m l % g h ?t 'd $0,q1 f 8 6 % !$ %ei g n % y d ej gb. g (m$ W % g l, i y-g g E n O q% q W 4.; g n .s c %i w as.. 9 A :y c-,w j w g p w< m :. su.,
- w g
m a a g o 4g a r9 ta - - ?. c., y n - p e N I 2 % 'A 4. $'s 'n - l D J'b >>..y d. '8 f.^ ) y r Th ~',T ?sW .I -fk f fC y ,.- M
- I
.'!'"'h S 6 1 'N;$ i I-i s' E! !, E"y ]N E $ $ $'s i f b -0, $ O d k,d. ME [",& s b_ *4 r m, e n' a t t e. $m, s m a e W* p % g, R e n R @ b ".0 g'..g 4* ad 6 4.. #:. 4 f 7 9 -t @E t ^ -% e$ 1% 6 a p+ r y b N lx y M f, i
- l;* a
.g e s,x y% p. .a f. 'tV .i,s th Q s@ v_.6 m ? ?. y ~; ,v EMWE8~EE O NmNN ~3M-NNMECEE8 $ 2 NmW 8~8~8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~88 8 8 ~ ~ 8~8o8 88 8 8 8 i 8 2 w a 0 1 O U O V
r- " ' v I WlQ s.; ' ~, III-7 b(. Ey. 4 ey a. i e a l 'r W_ k i t 3%. [ D s1 i: "'s .'y[ r Y j.' (' L v aC O! O gs N aC U l [; m r-
- s. -
s g (d ry - .'l'. W r b 1 4 Z .t s b a m + b j a, VJ .. Q - w Z L t t a j = W h Z,.g E W i 5 o n. o
- n e
. i ? O [ '9 i t ? l m e -' y 4T ^ + w
- 4.. L.
Z = m o E m s. D 4' {[ N [ a. n- ' x S w ~ e u e s- ~ r g &,;,; O u. 5 f .p, mia O s-P'. +s un S *,=u pass f4 g "j tj c W 17 m f Q l4,ty k' W g K. 4 s+., 2 4:r< Nh b ru 4/m u # ka 9 M gy $p$$ h Y$ 1 7* M
- h.: ;d :3.--
s p y 43 ha ;a % g(d 4 d s 1:.;: d
- g-g
( D o g+ 3e y 4 h h h k
- 7 t
- s., Q 4) =~=e A
s,x.x w n M A. % f
- k s
a E $ fi fy y 'M M W 191 3l 9
- f,i s &
N.$ j w
- n q
y ((i ^[ Y. g' - 3 s. .+ r .+I y$ $p kf ? {^ g. $3 h S $e.@ d: $ i $s P 4 ie,s ~ 8 9 ~ s ye p+ g u 3 gl gu g ,s.- y f +1 .c g g g, g y 3;; g 3 o> j w v*. c g s. .g ; g mw y e n% m m e x [k - w g a s> ?
- a eq 6
j "2 }.$ y$ 9 f @ R [46 C# W Q{4a; R w nt.ih.] 1}$h.9
- ']4 s
85 g n 9 L &: - p#' g 4 + "I ' y 7 2. R $ T M gg M &g ^ [} ~ $ w% n* w a ft s e us s ~' y, 4' p . s. '^ y ( j$ p 4 e g g P; m a g g w{$h ~ i k g$#l l ] f u ,,$n n j i p / p w av i a g u 3 $ f; p? 75 v. i f 8 N of 9 5-g>[ Fa G W b 13 1 A g g y a. ^ e g-w g y1 '3 m c 4.s N >- m k v e n y gvig
- $ g
.;..g :y:a k q y m l p J n m y f e. w #* m g v e m ,s. h f k i h k h i in n; i -9. um, %~. m r e e,.m, a n n o. a a n ~ n n ,g o e o-e em*emNN N-o. m,n m sma-O J g 8 088 8 88 i 8 8
- 8. 8 8"8" Qw e
w w e w t = e O O y Q 4 P YW ,.}}