Table 5.4 Population, Dwelling Units, and Services Deficiencies for Development Option IV

-126

(5) Services program.

The trends shown in Option IV create little or no effective demand for services beyond those which are already provided and planned. Only in one category of services analyzed, schools, is there any unmet need, and here only in Coalinga (by 200 dwelling units), and San Joaquin (by 87 dwelling units). All settlement sites have planned capacities adequate for the projected population in sewer and water facilities, as well as enough land within existing urban limits for the expansion of residential and service-oriented land uses. As with the other development options, Option IV necessitates the construction of housing, parks, community halls, and so on, in proportion to the population added to the various development sites.

(6) Study area economy.

Under this development option the existing pattern of farm sizes and ownership is continued as set out in Scenario C. This is not expected to lead to improvements in the study area economy, as the returns on agricultural production and processing will continue to flow out of the area. It is anticipated that local area residents will for the most part, have limited employment opportunities, low incomes, and little effective demand for community services, as at present.

Substantial development of technologies and institutions appropriate to small family farming and small rural communities cannot be expected to occur. Innovation and testing in agricultural technologies would continue to support large scale production. Consumer cooperatives and self-help housing for farm workers may be possible.

(7) Phasing of development.

This development option is associated with almost no growth in the population or local economy, necessitating no analysis of development phasing.

-127

5.8 Summary of Development Options

Figure 5.13 synthesizes and compares some of the most important information from each of the development options proposed in this chapter.

With most of the farm owners living on their land and the farm workers and service-employed population concentrated in a few selected towns of the area, Development Option I entails a clear distinction between town and country. Small and medium-sized settlements do not gain in population, but continue to serve as agriculturally oriented service centers. This option calls for a significant expansion of existing services, particularly sewer facilities and schools, aside from new housing construction.

Under Development Option 11, most of the farm owners are also expected to live on their land, while the farm worker and service population is envisioned to be dispersed more equally into the various settlements. The balanced distribution of service centers by size and location not only maximizes access to services throughout the area, but also minimizes the overall "stress" created by an aggregate population Increase of 23,500 people.

Under partial enforcement (Scenario B), Development Option III has a ratio of farm owners to farm workers considerably smaller than the previous options. Also, a smaller proportion of the total population lives in rural areas. The needs for additional services under this option are rather negligible.

Under the existing teends in Development Option IV, the majority of the population lives in towns. The population in the countryside is rather small, with virtually no resident farmers but mostly farm workers residing in labor camps.

-129

Notes

These notes apply to Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4.

a.

b.

C.

Based on existing conditions today, a dwelling unit size of 4.4 persons per household was used throughout all the calculations. See Appendix B. for generation of this figure.

Three different residential density patterns were adopted to determine the number of housing units to be added: low density or single-family cluster (2.5 units per acre); medium density or townhouse (3.3 units per acre); and high density or walk-up apartment (5 units per acre) (Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974).

The total number of dwelling units to be added were allocated in the following proportions: 60% low density, 30% medium density, and 10% high density. This, In comparison with a somewhat lower existing density pattern of 85%-8%-7%, was preferable because of the desire to preserve prime agricultural land from being impacted by urban development, and to save some land for possible expansions in the future (beyond 1990).

The estimates assume current plans for facilities construction and expansion will be realized by 1990.

Natural growth of population was found to be negligible, and thus was excluded from the calculations. Migration flows, the critical determinant in population growth patterns, cannot accurately be accounted for during a period of transition; given the context of scenario enforcement, it can be safely assumed that conditions in the Westlands area will be rather dynamic for at least the next decade. Past trends in the area seem to suggest a rather even balance between excess births over deaths and out-migration; many smaller communities exhibit a decrease in absolute population.

d. The figures, on the total population added, as summarized in Section 4.2 and detailed in Appendix B, were rounded to the nearest 500 in Tables 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.

e.

Individual facilities (deptic tanks) are used in these settlements.

f. Cantua Creek and Three Rocks share the same school (K-8).

9.

The 1974 population figure includes East-Mendota.

h.

This is a highway intersection, where facilities are currently limited to roadside businesses.

i. "Rural" population includes persons residing in agrovillages, labor camps, farms, and so on.