The new U.S. Census figures tell us that California is growing, which we knew. But the Census also reveals that California is changing in ways we may not have recognized – and that may mean that we no longer have the luxury of planning our communities the way we used to. According to figures released in late March, the state's population increased by more than 4 million people during the 1990s, reaching 33.9 million. That's less than the 6-million-person increase of the 1980s, but it maintains the state's longstanding trend of rapid population growth. California has reliably added about a half-million people annually for the past 60 years. But it is not the growth per se that is altering California anymore. We as a state are fundamentally changing as well — and that's because we are becoming a more mature and much more ethnically diverse state. This is not exactly news, as the same trends turned up in the 1990 Census. But the 2000 Census figures drove home the point in ways no one could deny. The fact that we are a mature and diverse state is reinforced by two underlying forces. These two trends are: 1. We are becoming an Hispanic state far faster than anyone predicted. 2. Most of our population growth is still in coastal areas. Individually, these two trends are important enough. The first is obvious, but the depth and extent of it is just becoming clear. The second is counter-intuitive — not something that even planning experts usually realize. Together, they paint a powerful portrait of the California that is emerging today. And they call into question many traditional land use planning practices in California. Most of California's planning laws and practices — ranging from the General Plan to the California Environmental Quality Act — assume that California operates under what might be called the "suburban growth" model of urban development. Planning is necessary because new suburban communities are created to accommodate a growing population. But in most cases, this isn't true anymore. What the two Census trends suggest, more than anything else, is that the suburban era is over in California. Let's take those two trends one at a time. 1. We are becoming an Hispanic state far faster than anyone predicted. The news media did a good job of reporting the rapid Hispanic population growth. Today, more than one-third of the state's population is Hispanic. But even the news reports did not truly convey the extent of the Hispanic switch. Here's the best way to let it sink in: Almost 80% of the state's net population growth was Hispanic. Between 1990 and 2000, California grew by approximately 4.1 million people. The Hispanic population grew by 3.2 million people. Some parts of the state are bucking this trend. As the accompanying map shows, in virtually all of the foothill and High Sierra counties, the percentage increase in Hispanic population is far below the overall population growth — indeed, in most of these counties Hispanic growth as a percentage of overall growth is only half the statewide average or less. And "Hispanicization" of the population is moving more slowly than the statewide average in big chunks of the state — principally the Bay Area and adjacent Central Valley counties such as Sacramento and San Joaquin. But in Southern California, the trend is overwhelming, as it is throughout most of the San Joaquin Valley. And the shift in population is occurring fastest in a few isolated and sparsely populated counties, including Modoc, Trinity, Glenn, and Inyo counties. On the municipal level, this trend is accelerating remarkably throughout the state — especially in Southern California, but elsewhere as well. In many cases, older, mature cities that are not growing are changing dramatically. For example: o In the college town of Berkeley, the city's population remained constant at approximately 103,000 people. But the Hispanic population grew from 1,300 to 10,000 people. o In Inglewood, an historically African American community near Los Angeles International Airport, the population grew by only 3,000, to 112,000. But the Hispanic population increased by 9,500, and Hispanics now represent almost a majority in the city. o Even in cities that long ago gained Hispanic majorities, the Hispanic population growth is still remarkable. For example, in Bell Gardens, a poor suburb of Los Angeles, the population was already 90% Hispanic in 1990. But the 2000 Census revealed that Hispanics now make up 96% of the population. The Hispanic population grew by 4,000, while the non-Hispanic population dropped by 2,400. o In a number of cities, the Hispanic population rose even though the overall population went down. One case in point was Marina, a Monterey County community hard-hit by the closure of Fort Ord. Overall population dropped from 26,400 to 25,100. But the Hispanic population doubled to 5,800 and now represents more than 20% of the population. There were a few exceptions. Some Sacramento suburban communities that are rapidly becoming more middle-class shed Hispanic population and added non-Hispanic population. In most cases, however, even the exceptions to the Hispanic trend prove the rule of California's new ethnic diversity. Many cities that increased in population but lost Hispanic population — Rosemead, Walnut, San Gabriel — are actually turning over from a Hispanic/white mixture to a largely Asian population. 2. Most of our population growth is still in coastal areas. This one's counter-intuitive but true — and the truth carries important implications. We constantly hear about rapid growth in California's inland areas, especially the Central Valley and the Inland Empire. The percentage of growth in these areas is enormous — and the potential impact on the environment and agriculture is considerable. But the fact of the matter is that the state's coastal areas are still adding more people than the inland areas. Some of percentages are not as great because the population base is already large. But the raw numbers are staggering. For example, the population increase in the four Southern California coastal counties — Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego — totaled almost 1.5 million people during the 1990s, or almost 40% of the state's growth. The population increase of the nine Bay Area counties was about three-quarters of a million people, or about 15% of the growth. Together, these 13 urban counties — all touching either the coast or the bay, and most already very crowded — added 2.2 million people, or 54% of the state's population growth. Los Angeles and Orange counties alone added more people than the entire Central Valley. The Valley added only slightly more people than the Bay Area (850,000 versus 760,000). Perhaps the most dramatic way to show this is to compare the growth in the South Bay and East Bay counties with the adjacent Central Valley counties that are becoming bedroom suburbs. All of these counties were among the top 15 for population increases during the 1990s, and the Central Valley counties grew at a faster percentage rate. But the Bay Area counties added far more residents. People in Sacramento, for example, are always talking about spillover from Silicon Valley — sometimes in a good way (good jobs) and sometimes in a bad way (worse traffic). In fact, Santa Clara County and Sacramento County added almost exactly the same number of people during the 1990s — between 180,000 and 185,000. The difference, of course, was that in Santa Clara County, the new residents tended to double up and live in garages; whereas, they were much more likely to gobble up starter homes in Sacramento County. Even more remarkable is the fact that the East Bay counties added much more population than their Central Valley counterparts. Everybody knows about the commute spillover across Altamont Pass on Interstate 580. The common assumption is that this is occurring because Alameda and Contra Costa counties are either "filling up" or "shutting down," or both. There is no question that the Central Valley counties are growing fast. Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties together added about 160,000 people during the 1990s. What is remarkable, however, is that this was the same population increase as was experienced in Alameda County alone. And Contra Costa County added almost as many (145,000). In fact, the three East/South Bay counties added more people than did the three Central Valley counties — Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Sacramento — most affected by Bay Area spillover. The Bay Area counties added about 500,000 people; the three Central Valley counties added about 340,000. There is no question that a large percentage population gain appears more startling. Traffic congestion might get worse quickly, and the threat to natural lands becomes obvious. But in the end it is the other trends — the rapid increase in Hispanic population and the continued population growth in mature areas — that will shape California most dramatically. Indeed, in some cases these two trends converge to give us a glimpse of what California is really like today. It is a society that is multi-ethnic and becoming more ethnically mixed, yet at the same time it appears persistently segregated. A mapping analysis of Census trends back to 1940 by Phil Ethington of the University of Southern California reveals a surprising trend: Despite the enormous increase in Hispanic population in Los Angeles County during the last 20 years, the basic geographical distribution of Hispanic ethnicity was set by 1980. Since then, the predominantly Hispanic communities — mostly east and southeast of downtown Los Angeles — have not spread but, rather, have deepened. Hispanic areas are not much more widespread than they were in 1980, but they are much more Hispanic. If these trends continue for another decade or two, something will have to give. The rapid population growth — mostly of Hispanics — may spill over dramatically into predominantly white suburbs. Or existing urban areas will continue to "densify" until they are far more crowded than they are today. In either case, the future of California may not lie in the Central Valley after all, but in the rapidly changing older suburbs along the coast. And that requires us, more than ever before, to re-examine our planning tools and planning practices. Building on raw land or farm fields is still important, of course. But managing change in urban communities — the main focus of planning in the Northeast and Midwest for decades — must become the focus of planning in California as well.