Home East County California Grew by 358k Residents in 2014, Brentwood Grows by 3%

California Grew by 358k Residents in 2014, Brentwood Grows by 3%

by ECT

According to the California Department of Finance, California grew by 358k residents in 2014 while Brentwood and Oakley were the two fastest growing cities in Contra Costa County.

For the second year in a row, Brentwood led all of Contra Costa County in growth as the grew to 56,393 residents–up 3% from last year. In 2014, Brentwood grew 2.6 for a total of 5.6% over the last two years. Oakley was third in the county with 1.7% growth with a population of 38,789.

According to the report, San Joaquin County was the fastest growing county in the state (1.5 percent), closely followed by Imperial County and three San Francisco Bay area counties (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) each at 1.3 percent.

Of 482 California cities, 421 had gains in population, 50 had reductions, and 11experienced no change.

State/County/City       Total PopulationPercent
1/1/20141/1/2015Change
California38,357,12138,714,7250.9
Contra Costa1,089,2191,102,8711.3
Antioch106,691108,2981.5
Brentwood54,82456,4933.0
Clayton11,20911,2880.7
Concord124,977126,0690.9
Danville43,20643,6911.1
El Cerrito24,11524,2880.7
Hercules24,60124,7750.7
Lafayette24,69025,1541.9
Martinez36,89137,3841.3
Moraga16,36316,4660.6
Oakley38,12438,7891.7
Orinda18,10918,6122.8
Pinole18,81318,9460.7
Pittsburg66,47967,6281.7
Pleasant Hill33,91734,1620.7
Richmond106,388107,3460.9
San Pablo29,49929,7300.8
San Ramon77,41078,5611.5
Walnut Creek66,31966,8680.8
Balance of County166,594168,3231.0

Here is a look at the States Press Release:

NEW STATE POPULATION REPORT:CALIFORNIA GREW BY 358,000 RESIDENTS IN 2014

 SACRAMENTO —California’s population grew by 0.9 percent in 2014, adding 358,000 residents to total 38,715,000 as of January 1, 2015, according to an annual population report released today by the Department of Finance.

The report shows preliminary January 2015 and revised January 2014 population data for California cities, counties, and the state. Highlights include:

  • Growth was more widely distributed among the state’s geographical regions, with most cities and counties throughout the state experiencing increases in population.
  • San Joaquin County was the fastest growing county in the state (1.5 percent), closely followed by Imperial County and three San Francisco Bay area counties (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) each at 1.3 percent.
  • The City of Los Angeles, California’s largest city, has a population of 3,957,022 growing by almost 43,000 persons during 2014. San Diego, California’s second largest city with a population of 1,368,061,added over 20,000 persons during the year. San Jose, California’s third largest city, with a population of 1,016,479 added over 14,000 persons.
  • The City of Taft in Kern County was the fastest growing city in California, increasing by 6.3 percent. All of the growth in Taft can be attributed to the reopening of a community correctional facility.
  • The next four fastest growing cities were Sand City in Monterey County (5.8 percent), Dublin in Alameda County (4.5 percent), Imperial in Imperial County (4.1percent), and Nevada City in Nevada County (4.1 percent). Sand City, Dublin, and Imperial all added a proportionally large number of residents from recent housing increases. The population growth in Nevada City was mostly due to an increase in county jail population.
  • The biggest numeric increases, consistent with their larger population base, occurred in the state’s largest cities: Los Angeles (42,663), San Diego (20,107), San Jose (14,205), and San Francisco (10,699).
  • Of 482 California cities, 421 had gains in population, 50 had reductions, and 11experienced no change.
  • The city with the largest population decline was Weed in Siskiyou County (-8.8percent), which was a direct result of housing loss from the Boles fire-2-

Other highlights include:

California’s statewide housing growth, as measured by net unit growth in 2014, was up 17percent over last year, adding 69,434 housing units compared to 59,426 units in 2013. Ranked by net housing gains, Los Angeles (8,226), San Diego (5,252), San Jose (4,449), San Francisco (3,514), and Irvine (2,399) added the most housing units in 2014.

Continuing recent trends, the state gained more multiple-family housing units (38,462) than single-family homes (30,565) in 2014. In addition, 407 mobile homes were added. Group quarters, such as college dorms, prisons, and military barracks, comprise only 2 percent of California’s population. Last year, group quarters increased by 0.3 percent statewide led by an increase in college dorm populations. Prison declines caused some smaller cities, such as Norco in Riverside County and Tehachapi in Kern County to experience significant proportional population losses in 2014. Other cities, such as Taft, Shafter, and McFarland, all in Kern County, experienced some of the largest proportional population gains in 2014 due to increases in local correctional facilities

Background Information:

These population estimates are produced annually by the Department of Finance for use by local areas to calculate their annual appropriations limit. The State Controller’s Office uses Finance’s estimates to update their population figures for distribution of state subventions to cities and counties, and to comply with various state codes. Additionally, estimates are used for research and planning purposes by federal, state, and local agencies, the academic community, and the private sector.

Changes to the housing stock are used in the preparation of the annual city population estimates. Estimated occupancy of housing units and the number of persons per household further determine population levels.

Changes in city housing stock result from new construction, demolitions, housing unit conversions, and annexations. The sub-county population estimates are then adjusted to be consistent with independently produced county estimates.

Related population reports are available on the Department’s website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic

You may also like

2 comments

Get over it May 5, 2015 - 7:16 pm

This is another fine example of allowing development without emergency services. Keep building without increasing emergency services. That’s a smart move.

Anon May 6, 2015 - 1:48 am

The city doesn’t have a choice or much say in the matter. Get over it!

Comments are closed.