Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 10, 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. Staff recommends that the City Council focus its attention on Map Options F, G, H, and I (public submissions), and Map Option J (staff/consultant). Map Option J is the newest map drafted by the consultant, with input from staff, to develop a simplified map that moves the Lawrence Crossley neighborhood in its entirety into District 1, moves the Sunmor Neighborhood from District 3 to District 1, and moves the Amico Street area from District 1 into District 2. Map Option J maintains District 1 as a majority/minority district and exhibits a deviation of 9.6%, within the acceptable range of less than 10% for substantially equal. You may view the draft maps using our online mapping tool: • For labeled A-E https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1ZbYIzU2eLu6cQjPz_GnXCyD 5DJfn_Gg8&ll=33.81136476826782%2C-116.55600453882683&z=12 • For labeled F-J 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. Item 2A - 1 City Council Staff Report Page 2 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 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. 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 three additional consultant maps, and four publically submitted maps, in no precise order. The maps are noted whether they were prepared by the consultant or submitted by the public. Item 2A - 2 City Council Staff Report Page 3 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Previously Reviewed Maps Map Option A (Consultant) 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. The map is depicted here, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Item 2A - 3 City Council Staff Report Page 4 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option B (Consultant) 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. Map Option B is depicted here, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Item 2A - 4 City Council Staff Report Page 5 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option C (Consultant) 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%. 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 three maps (Map Options D, E, and J). In addition, four maps were submitted by members of the public (Map Options F, G, H, and I). The maps are summarized below, with a complete demographic analysis attached to this report. Item 2A - 5 City Council Staff Report Page 6 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 New Maps for Consideration Map Options D and E Map Options D and E were prepared by the consultant after 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 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 City Council Staff Report Page 7 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 The maps are depicted below, both with and without the community neighborhood overlay. Map Option D (Consultant) Map Option E (Consultant) 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 City Council Staff Report Page 8 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Publicly Submitted Maps Map Option F (Public Submission) 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 City Council Staff Report Page 9 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 • 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. It maintains District 1 as a majority/minority voting district. 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 Bonnie Bell onnie e Th Th @) @) 10· Ranch Rancho Mirage Mirage , ' '" ~ Cahuilla Hi ' ~ Cahuilla Hi , /• r ® anta Ros ® an ta Ros· San Jaci San Jaci Mounta Mountai Thomas Nation Thomas Na tiona Mountain Pinyon Crest Mountain Pinyon Crest Taylor City Council Staff Report Page 10 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option G (Public Submission) 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 the 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 City Council Staff Report Page 11 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option H (Public Submission) 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 the 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 City Council Staff Report Page 12 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option I (Public Submission) 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 the 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. 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 City Council Staff Report Page 13 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 Map Option J (Staff/Consultant) Map Option J was prepared by the City’s consultant with input from City staff and attempts a simpler approach to balancing the deviation while addressing some of the City Council’s previous concerns. Specifically, the Lawrence Crossley neighborhood is moved in its entirety to District 1, the Sunmor neighborhood was moved from District 3 into District 1, and the Amico Street area was moved into District 2 with the Gene Autry Neighborhood residences. Map J exhibits a deviation of 9.6%, within the acceptable range of less than 10% for substantially equal. District 1 is maintained as a majority/minority district in that the total non-white population is 64.31% and the total non-white voting age population (VAP) is 58.20%. Map J 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 24, 2022. At that hearing, it is anticipated the Council will adopt a final map. Item 2A - 13 Jaoolo ~f n n- -n City Council Staff Report Page 14 2021 Redistricting Process: Public Hearing No. 3, February 10, 2022 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. Item 2A - 14 Map Option A Item 2A - 15 ,~,..,) lOn/OC'IIIO rmurrtss WC,.Jttl Sa., /cc n(a lill~P"11Jc, 2 • • San "' "' ft 'S M, I "" ·• I • R,;ncto.J.lira}(" , Map Option A with Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 16 :,on /O<'nt> v111cerrts! \f.)Jn( S0,1}G(lf'lt) !1.t.1r11>Pmk I • • • • !a,, .,,, Y> 5 Mo,. N, • • Rinc.t.oNlray Map Option A District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP NL White Alone VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non White CVAP 19 1 9,109 153 1.70% 41.10% 58.94% 29.03% 38.83% 27.98% 45.23% 2 9,059 103 1.15% 22.12% 34.03% 17.77% 63.57% 15.79% 25.85% 3 9,056 100 1.11% 24.58% 37.26% 19.13% 61.21% 15.98% 25.22% 4 8,626 -330 -3.69%25.82% 40.11% 19.95% 58.37% 16.95% 30.83% 5 8,932 -24 -0.27%10.37% 19.21% 8.80% 79.47% 9.07% 14.25% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Total Deviation 5.39% Item 2A - 17 ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. Map Option B Item 2A - 18 ':,(Jrfocnto w,~rress \~OJn( So,Jcc,n(o 'HW!POlf/. • • • Son R~a Cit '.,"' y, ~rn Mot ff " N, , ,1!5 ,,me~ • Ranct o UiraJ" • 1 Map Option B with Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 19 'JOn/OC'ntO V//IC:e rres1 'Aoinr SaljC(lfl(O "lrattr-Pt1fk • • • San Al'c.-;-a en jl'I .. ,, Mo ,. " N!l ' 'a!5 ~ utntll; • • • Map Option B District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP Non- White VAP CVAP Hispanic CVAP Non- White 1 9,004 48 0.53% 44.69% 64.34% 31.12% 46.83% 26.83% 51.13% 2 8,914 -42 -0.47%23.74% 35.91% 18.93% 29.21% 16.04% 25.76% 3 9,059 103 1.15% 23.46% 36.49% 18.31% 29.58% 14.80% 25.01% 4 8,770 -186 -2.08%19.83% 31.06% 15.90% 25.88% 16.65% 24.29% 5 9,035 79 0.88% 12.43% 21.84% 10.53% 18.88% 11.80% 17.31% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Total Deviation 3.23% Item 2A - 20 ,. .. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. + 1'" Map Option C Item 2A - 21 - sonJo<lmo 1v11<1ernes-; Mou,u Smjarir co St >l~Pork ~ 3 • • Sen ' rm ' Jo ,, re Mo a,, /,a "'s u • • PalrnOt • Map Option C with Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 22 ' 1,1 sonJounro w,t~ernes; Moun, ~onja(lrto Sn1ePrrr1'- ·.J, - • • • • Sen ~ a fJII r. Jo , ,, Mi> 1•a,:1• M no(5 • u • ' .. p • • n1, • 7 Map Option C District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP Non- White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non- White CVAP19 1 9,042 86 0.96%44.86%64.88%38.84%58.85%26.92%51.40% 2 9,023 67 0.74%23.62%35.76%20.79%32.12%15.98%25.87% 3 9,059 103 1.15%23.46%36.49%19.98%32.27%14.80%25.01% 4 8,623 -333 -3.72%19.62%30.44%16.85%27.09%16.60%23.64% 5 9,035 79 0.88%12.43%21.89%11.01%19.76%11.80%17.31% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Deviation 4.87% Item 2A - 23 ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. Map Option D Item 2A - 24 ' . YJn Jocnto VIIICl!rress -------~-,!. .,._ ____ _, wo,nr So1 /oc,1110 t,HtPmJ,. • • • District 4 • • Soni RC< en ~a, JI> '0 Mo,,._.," N0istrict 5 • Map Option D With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 25 Bonnie Bell now, rl-"""' :Into rk • ate< @) ® Thomas Mountain I Oesen Edge @) Thousa Palm! Rancho Mirage Palrr ® Cahullla Hills ~.J>anta Rosa an , San Jacinto Mountains National ... P1nyon Crest Taylor -~--0 , ... 1,"" o, ... ..,, .. Map Option D Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Population % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP Non- White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non- White CVAP19 1 9,042 86 0.96% 44.86% 64.88% 38.84% 58.85% 26.92% 51.40% 2 8,702 -254 -2.84%23.53% 36.23% 20.71% 32.56% 16.36% 26.96% 3 9,013 57 0.63% 24.32% 37.05% 20.75% 32.79% 14.86% 24.64% 4 9,217 261 2.91% 18.88% 30.12% 16.23% 26.82% 16.51% 23.96% 5 8,808 -148 -1.66%12.39% 21.21% 10.99% 19.18% 11.23% 16.02% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Deviation 5.75% Item 2A - 26 ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. Map Option E Item 2A - 27 Bonnie Bell Palm Springs Ae r ial Tramway , , ,"l: ' __ _,,. ' ' ..... ;"' Th omas Mountain ' ., ,, r' : • • ' 1 . ', ' • Desert Ed ge @) Ran Min Cahuill, ~~antaR San J Mou, Nalic Pinyan Crest Taylc n : .. .,,.. .. n : .. ,..,.. Map Option E With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 28 lW ·' . , ,( ' Bonnie Bell ' -\,). ... @) ' ' , ~. .. , ® ' Th omas Mou nta in . . , ·, r, ( I < • ' , ... t''"'l';I- '• . Desert Ed ge @) Th o Pc Ra ncho M ira g e P. @ Cah uilla Hill: anta Rosa --SanJacin Mounta in Nat iona l. Pinyan Crest Taylo r Map Option E Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Population % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP Non- White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non- White CVAP19 1 9,144 188 2.09% 44.50% 64.32% 38.50% 58.27% 26.70% 51.12% 2 8,803 -153 -1.71%23.37% 36.00% 20.56% 32.35% 16.21% 26.41% 3 9,013 57 0.63% 24.32% 37.05% 20.75% 32.79% 14.86% 24.64% 4 9,014 58 0.64% 19.06% 30.45% 16.35% 27.09% 16.70% 24.34% 5 8,808 -148 -1.66%12.39% 21.21% 10.99% 19.18% 11.23% 16.02% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Deviation 3.81% Item 2A - 29 ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. Map Option F Item 2A - 30 Bon nie Bell @) Palm Springs Ae rial Tramway o,9 ' ' ,to' ' ~J - ® ' ' _,. -· ., ' ~ ~-" -,. " ' Th omes Mountain 11 .. ,, / 1 -~------' D esert Ed ge @) Th F Ra ncho M ira g e Q Cah uilla Hi ~-an ta Ros, San Jaci Mountai Nationa Pinyon Crest T-••·-- Map Option F With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 31 HOhmel::iell @) Palm Spri ngs Ae rial Tr amway to f 110 . ' ® ' Th omas Mountain , Desert Edge @) Th, F Rancho Mirage € Cahutll a HII _..,anta Ros2 San Jaci 1 Mountai Nationa Pinyon Crest Taylor Map Option F Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non White Hispanic VAP Non White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non White CVAP 19 1 8984 69 0.77% 45.00% 64.80% 38.96% 58.68% 24.87% 45.90% 2 8658 -257 -2.88%20.70% 32.40% 20.66% 32.43% 18.84% 30.72% 3 8980 65 0.73% 20.70% 32.50% 20.67% 32.51% 15.27% 24.61% 4 9099 184 2.06% 16.20% 26.50% 16.18% 26.51% 16.46% 25.11% 5 8854 -61 -0.68%12.20% 21.30% 10.81% 19.14% 11.53% 16.47% Total 44575 Ideal Pop 8915 Deviation 4.94% Item 2A - 32 Map Option G Item 2A - 33 Bonnie Bell Palm Sp rings Ae rial T rarnway o,, ' ' • ) . • ;-,,.t .. • to" r ' . ' , . ' ' ' • - ' .., -~ I u ® • ,-, ,'t·, ... -· . r •. Thomas Mountain -. '' ', r' ' ' ' ' / 1 Desert Hol Springs 5 , , , Desert Edge @) Thous Pair, Rancho Mirage Pall ® Cahullla Hills ,__,,'anta Rosa ar San Jacinto M ountains National. .. Pinyan Crest Taylo r Map Option G With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 34 Bonnie Bell @) Palm Springs Aerial Tramway ' lo ® Thomas Mountain ® ' I Oesen Ho l Springs Desen Edge @) Thousa, Pa lms Rancho Mirage Palm I ® Cahullla HIiis an ta Rosa anc San Jacinto Mounta ins Na ti onal... Pinyon Crest Taylor Pmvnn P1r'IA1t Map Option G Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non White Hispanic VAP Non White VAP Hispanic CVAP 19 Non White CVAP 19 1 9307 392 4.40% 43.80% 63.10% 37.79% 56.87% 24.51% 45.19% 2 8697 -218 -2.45%23.90% 36.80% 20.99% 33.04% 18.42% 30.58% 3 8646 -269 -3.02%24.00% 36.30% 20.47% 32.08% 18.26% 24.32% 4 9135 220 2.47% 19.10% 30.60% 16.36% 27.11% 16.90% 25.48% 5 8790 -125 -1.40%12.20% 21.00% 10.81% 18.92% 11.42% 16.32% Total 44575 Ideal 8915 Deviation 7.42% Item 2A - 35 Map Option H Item 2A - 36 Bon nie Bell ow·~= Palm Springs Ae rial Tramway _, l ' , ' • ".,,\. .... ,.,. ' ' nto,.,- <, I ~::: ---J ;. , ' .,, ..,_ , .. ® '! Th omas Mountain @) 1 -. ,, . ' r' ' ' ' ! Springs , ' Desert Ed ge Tl Ranch, Miragf I Cah uilla H ~_,,anta Ros San Jae Mount~ Nation: Pinyon Crest T aylo r Map Option H With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 37 Bon nie Bell w · vater Pal m Spri ngs Ae rial T rarnway nto "" L .'J'.' , , ,,-., :into"' rk , ' ' ,, . -' .... -.. ," ® Th omas Mountain @ ' . ---------~ Desert Hot Sp ring s Desert Ed ge Thou! Pair Rancho M i ra g e Pa l ® Cah ullla Hills anta Rosa a San Jacintc Mountains National. .. Pinyan Crest T ayl o r Pinvon Pines Map Option H Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Deviation % Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non White Hispanic VAP Non White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non White CVAP19 1 9586 671 7.53% 45.60% 65.30% 39.82% 59.51% 25.84% 45.71% 2 8758 -157 -1.76%22.30% 35.00% 19.55% 31.36% 17.64% 29.48% 3 8709 -206 -2.31%22.80% 34.90% 19.57% 30.90% 16.32% 25.68% 4 8794 -121 -1.36%18.90% 29.40% 16.02% 25.97% 14.20% 22.92% 5 8728 -187 -2.10%12.30% 21.60% 10.81% 19.38% 12.65% 17.76% Total Ideal 8915 Deviation 9.84% Item 2A - 38 Map Option I Item 2A - 39 Bon nie Bell ,w Palm Springs Ae rial T ramway 0, ' ,--;~, , _..,, ' ' ., ,_,. :·' • J ,:--- 1to"' f ' I ' , ., -' --, ,· ' " , .. . ... , ....... . ' ® Th omas Mou nta in Sp rings (m) 1 ·• ). ' ' ,' , Desert Edge T Ranc h M i rag Cah ullla f ~~antaRo: San Jae Mount: Nation Pinyan Crest T ayl o r Map Option I With Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 40 Bonnie Bell Palm Springs Ae rial Tramway ·-, ,, I ' ·, I ...... / ... .,. ' ,., . ,. '" ~- ® Th omas Mountain ·, Ca~ •, '; r ' ' ' , i ' Desert Ed ge @) Tt I Ra nchc M irage Cahuilla H -~anta Ros San Jaci Mounta Natiom Pinyan Crest T ouf,..r Map Option I Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Deviation %Deviation Total Hispanic Total Non White Hispanic VAP Non White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non White CVAP19 1 9212 297 3.33% 46.40% 66.20% 40.49% 60.31% 25.50% 46.02% 2 9232 317 3.56% 23.30% 35.80% 20.46% 32.21% 18.18% 29.80% 3 8793 -122 -1.37%15.50% 24.80% 18.68% 30.17% 15.47% 24.78% 4 8610 -305 -3.42%15.00% 23.70% 16.17% 26.23% 14.96% 23.69% 5 8728 -187 -2.10%12.60% 17.80% 10.81% 19.38% 12.65% 17.76% Total 44575 Ideal 8915 Deviation 6.98% Item 2A - 41 Map Option J Item 2A - 42 ' ., ! ,., ' , , ... ,• Bonnie Bell @) .. i~• --~, .. '\ , \ ' _, ,.f .. :·' --- -· ' ac into,..- 'a rk ,' ,, ' , , w ' .... -\ ,-- " ® , .. ;: . ,, ,., . .,. ' '-~ : ' ' Th omas Mountain ', ., -' r, ' ' ' ., ' ' , .- ' ' , : , ------~----·, 1 , '· ' ' Desert Ed ge @) T Ranch M ira g1 ~ Cah uilla ~ an ta Rm San Jae Moun t, Na ti on Pinyan :rest Tayl o r Pinyan Pines Map Option J with Neighborhood Overlay Item 2A - 43 Bon nie Bell Snow·p;,"'"' I,') , , I '\ J Jacinto,..- Pa rk,' ' iu @) ' ' ® ' I ' :~ ' ,-' .,._ '. , .. ? .. T h omas Mou ntain J. T J ' • DesenEdge dra l City @) Rane M ira! Cah ullla ~...<>antaRc San Ja Moun· Nati o1 Pinyon Crest T ayl o r n ; .. .,,.. .. n : ... ,..,.. Map Option J Demographic Analysis District Total Population Raw Population % Population Total Hispanic Total Non- White Hispanic VAP Non- White VAP Hispanic CVAP19 Non- White CVAP19 1 8,854 -102 -1.14%44.10% 64.31% 38.06% 58.20% 26.58% 51.46% 2 8,623 -333 -3.72%23.31% 36.02% 20.62% 32.53% 15.71% 26.05% 3 9,483 527 5.88% 25.34% 37.85% 21.59% 33.43% 15.82% 25.50% 4 9,014 58 0.64% 19.06% 30.45% 16.35% 27.09% 16.70% 24.34% 5 8,808 -148 -1.66%12.39% 21.21% 10.99% 19.18% 11.23% 16.02% Total 44,782 Ideal 8,956 Deviation 9.60% Item 2A - 44 ,. I ,. I ,. I ,. I ,.