The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2A OCRCITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: January 27, 2022 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: REDISTRICTING 2021: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REDISTRICTING OF CITY COUNCIL BOUNDARIES AS REQUIRED BY ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 21601 ET SEQ FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager BY: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk SUMMARY: Every 10 years, cities with by-district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed. This process, called redistricting, ensures all districts have a nearly equal population. The redistricting process for the City of Palm Springs must be completed by April 17, 2022. You may view the draft maps using our online mapping tool: •For maps prepared by the City’s consultant https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1ZbYIzU2eLu6cQjPz_GnXCyD 5DJfn_Gg8&ll=33.81136476826782%2C-116.55600453882683&z=12 •For maps submitted by members of the public https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1diV-026fsSoyvYwmambezLO- 5JLNcqy1&ll=33.805997128326176%2C-116.46737325577526&z=11 RECOMMENDATION: 1.Receive a report from Staff and the City’s redistricting consultant on the continued redistricting process and review draft maps. 2.Conduct a public hearing to receive public input on district boundaries. BACKGROUND: Every 10 years, cities with by-district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed. This process, called redistricting, ensures all districts have a nearly equal population. The redistricting process for the City of Palm Springs must be completed by April 17, 2022. The first of four scheduled public hearings was held on November 4, 2021 and provided an overview of the redistricting process. The second of the required hearings was held on December 9, 2021 and provided an initial review of the three proposed map options prepared by the City’s redistricting consultant. Item 2A - 1 ANALYSIS: The City adopted its current district boundaries in 2018, based on 2010 census data as required by law. The districts must now be redrawn using the 2020 census data and in compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020. One of the key requirements under the Fair Maps Act, and the federal Voting Rights Act, is that districts be population balanced. In addition, maps may not intentionally seek to dilute or minimize the minority vote and if there is an ability to create majority/minority voting districts, the agency must strive to do so. Currently, the City’s districts vary widely in population, a result of the post-recession building boom occurring since the 2010 census, the numbers from which were used to draw the City’s original district boundaries. At present, the population deviation between the least populated district to the most populated district, as compared to the ideal population (1/5 of the total City population) is 12.135%. One of the goals of redistricting is to reduce the total deviation to as close to zero as possible, however, the courts have ruled that a deviation of 10% or less is generally acceptable. The purpose of this public hearing is to share proposed map options and receive feedback on the maps presented. The initial three maps are followed by two additional consultant maps, and four publically submitted maps. Previously Reviewed Maps Map Option A Map A begins with a simple population rebalance, to reduce the total deviation to an acceptable level. Closely resembling the current Council district boundary map, Map A primarily reduces population in District 3 and adds it to District 4. The map reflects an acceptable total deviation of 5.39%. The map also creates more compact Districts 3 and 4. Due to the dispersed nature of the minority population throughout the community, the map does not create a majority/minority voting district. Complete demographic analysis of the census data for Map Option A is attached to this report. Item 2A - 2 The map is depicted here, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Map Option B Map B also focused on population rebalance, however, it more dramatically changes the district configurations. Whereas Districts 1 and 5 remain fairly consistent with their current boundaries, Districts 2, 3, and 4 change significantly in the core of the City. This map creates more compactness for the central districts as compared to the City’s existing boundary map. The map achieves a total deviation of 2.32%. As with Map Option A, this map does not create a majority/minority voting district. Complete demographic analysis of the census data for Map Option B is attached to this report. Item 2A - 3 Map Option B is depicted here, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Map Option C Map Option C balances the population, maintains District 1 as a majority/minority voting district, and attempts to address concerns regarding communities of interest and existing neighborhoods, specifically as it relates to minority populations. Option C exhibits a deviation of 7.90%. Item 2A - 4 Map Option C is presented here, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. All three map options are population balanced, relatively compact, contiguous, and respect various communities of interest. After the second public hearing, the City’s consultant prepared additional map options incorporating the City Council’s and the public’s input at the hearing. The consultant has prepared an additional two maps. In addition to the consultant’s maps, four maps were submitted by members of the public. The maps are summarized below, with a complete demographic analysis attached to this report. In addition, an online tool has been developed that allows zoom and search capabilities. All maps may be reviewed online. For maps prepared by the City’s consultant, the tool may be found here: • https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1ZbYIzU2eLu6cQjPz_GnXCyD 5DJfn_Gg8&ll=33.81136476826782%2C-116.55600453882683&z=12 For maps submitted by members of the public, the tool may be found here: • https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1diV-026fsSoyvYwmambezLO- 5JLNcqy1&ll=33.805997128326176%2C-116.46737325577526&z=11 Item 2A - 5 New Maps for Consideration Map Options D and E Map Options D and E were prepared subsequent to the second public hearing, following Council input. The maps are two varied attempts at addressing the following: • Maintaining the Gene Autry neighborhood in a single district. • Araby Commons and Smoketree neighborhoods moving from District 4 to District 5, with the request the Araby Commons neighborhood remain in District 4. • Is it possible to keep Movie Colony East with the original Movie Colony neighborhood? • Minimize the number of voters moving from District 1 to District 4, District 3 to District 4, and District 5 to District 3 so as not to interrupt their current voting cycle. • Overall desire to keep existing neighborhoods together. The two map options attempt to address these issues in different ways. There are slight differences between the two that are best viewed using the Google tools mentioned above. Both maps are population balanced, with Option D exhibiting a deviation of 5.75% and Option E exhibiting a deviation of 3.81%. Both maintain District 1 as a majority/minority voting district. Item 2A - 6 The maps are depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Map Option D Map Option E Item 2A - 7 nto ' ' ~- into' rk , . ® Thomas Mountain Bonnie Be @ ; r -, ; r Thou Pal Rancho M irage Pal ® an t a Rosa a San Jacint Mountain s Na ti ona l. .. Pmyon Crest Taylor Ran Mu Cahuill Bonnie Bell __, , \- t ® Thomas Mountain Thous Palm Rancho M irage Pal ® Cahuilla Hills an t a Rosa an San Jacinto Mountains Na tiona l... Pinyan Crest Taylor Tho p Rancho M irage p 74 Cahuilla Hill ant a Rosa Publicly Submitted Maps Map Option F Map Option F was submitted by a member of the public, who provided the following insights into the methodology used in creating the maps. • Smoke Tree Ranch is moved from District 4 to District 5, which reduces the deviation between these two districts. The author lives nearby in Indian Canyons, and the large houses (and likely high-income level) bring them into the same community of interest as District 5 neighborhoods, such as my neighborhood, Andreas Hills, the Mesa, and Historic Tennis Club. Responding to the comment of Councilmember Holstege at the December 9 public hearing, the Smoke Tree shopping district, Araby Commons and Araby Cove are kept in District 4. Araby Commons and Cove are clearly a single community of interest. • The Sunmor neighborhood is moved from District 3 to District 2, instead of District 4, as proposed in Map Option C. The census block configuration leads to a few houses on the east side of Airline Drive as it curves north from Andreas Road being in District 4 with the apartment buildings on Tahquitz west of City Hall in the Gateway neighborhood, so a manual adjustment needs to be made to bring them into District 2 with the rest of the Sunmor neighborhood. • With the above changes, all neighborhoods remain on their current election cycles, instead of moving Historic Tennis Club up by two years and Sunmor back by two years. • Another manual adjustment that needs to be made, as is currently the case, is to move the area around the DAP Health campus at Sunrise and Vista Chino in the Rogers Ranch neighborhood from District 3 to District 2. • The census block configuration has the mountain area to the west of Vista Las Palmas north of Alejo Road in District 5 instead of District 3 and for the districts to be contiguous the areas west of that block moved from District 3 to District 2, but I did not intend to make a change from the current map. • Resembles Map Option C in moving City Hall and the civic complex area together with the Sunmor neighborhood into District 2 instead of District 1, as is currently the case. The district boundaries are more even, but since no one lives there, this is a policy decision for Council. • The apartment complexes south of Vista Chino and north of Chuckwalla Road are moved from District 3 to District 2. Dieter Crawford made this change in his published map, and I agree entirely with him. The residents of the El Mirador neighborhood made it abundantly clear with their gates that they do not think they are in the same community of interest as the apartment residents. Item 2A - 8 • Movie Colony and Movie Colony East are kept together in District 3, as per the comment of Councilmember Kors at the public hearing. These neighborhoods also share a community of interest. The total deviation for Map Option F is 4.95%. There is a slight difference in the population totals between the online mapping tool and official census records, however it is not significant enough to affect the overall deviation of drawn maps. Should the Council show a preference for Map Option F, the City’s redistricting consultant will complete the full analysis of the demographics and confirm the deviation. Map Option F is depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Item 2A - 9 Bo nnie Bell onrne e Th Th @) @) 10· Ranch Ra ncho M irage Mirage ~ ; <.,, Cahuilla Hi <.,, Ca huilla Hi • ; r ; r ® an ta Ros ® an ta Ros San Jaci San Jaci Mounta Mounta i Thomas Na ti on Thomas Na ti ona Mountain Pinyon Crest Mountain Pinyon Crest T aylor Map Option G Map Option G was submitted by a member of the public. The author did not provide any note as to the methodology, however preliminary analysis indicates the map exhibits a deviation of 7.41%. It does not create or maintain a majority/minority voting district. Should the City Council wish additional demographic analysis of this map, that information can be provided at the next public hearing. Map Option G is depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Item 2A - 10 Bonnie Bell ® Thomas Mountain " Desert Hot Springs ijii Tho, Pal Rancho Mirage Pal ® Cahuilla Hills anta Rosa a San Jacint Mountains National ... Pmyon Crest Talor o· Bonnie Bell ® Thomas Mountain @ Desert Hot Spnngs Desert Edge iiii Thousa Palm Rancho Mirage Pal ® CahulllaHllls anta Rosa an San Ja ci nto Mountains National. .. Pmyon Crest Taylor Map Option H Map Option H was submitted by a member of the public. The author did not provide any note as to the methodology, however preliminary analysis indicates the map exhibits a deviation of 9.84%. It does not create or maintain a majority/minority voting district. Should the Council wish additional demographic analysis of this map, that information can be provided at the next public hearing. Map Option H is depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Item 2A - 11 Springs Bonnie Bell T @) into· Ranch rk Mirag ' Cahuilla . r ant a Ro @ SanJa Mount Thomas Na ti on Mountain Pinyan Crest Taylor Bonnie Bell , @ Thomas Mount ain ® I Desert Hot Spnngs @] Thou Pal Rancho Mirage Pa ® Cahuilla Hills an ta Rosa a San Jacint Mountain Na ti onal... Pmyon Cres t Taylor Map Option I Map Option I was submitted by a member of the public. The author did not provide any note as to the methodology, however preliminary analysis indicates the map exhibits a deviation of 6.98%. It does not create or maintain a majority/minority voting district. Should the City Council wish additional demographic analysis of this map, that information can be provided at the next public hearing. Map Option I is depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. At this hearing, the City Council and community are invited to comment on the proposed maps and/or suggest revisions. Revised maps will be brought back at a fourth public hearing, scheduled for February 10, 2022. At that hearing, it is anticipated the Council will adopt a final map. Item 2A - 12 Springs Bonnie Bell T @) @) Rane Ranch Mirag Mirag ,. _, ,. ,... -~ I ~ Cahuilla ~.,, 1; ~ Cahuilla H ; r r ® an ta Ro ® anta Ros SanJa San Jae Mount Mount Thoma s Na ti o Thomas Na ti on Mountain Pinyan Crest Mountain Pinyon Crest Ta lor FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. REVIEWED BY: City Clerk: Anthony J. Mejia City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger City Manager: Justin Clifton ATTACHMENTS: A. Demographic Analysis (to be provided prior to the January 27 public hearing). B. Comparison of Significant Changes (to be provided prior to the January 27 public hearing). Item 2A - 13