HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - City Council Districting Map (PA2021-035) - CorrespondenceMarch 22, 2022
Item No. 4
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Correspondence - March 22, 2022 - Redistricting Ord 2nd Reading - Consent Item.
From: Jim Mosher <iimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: March 11, 2022 3:25 PM
To: Campagnolo, Daniel<DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Redistricting questions - follow-up
Thanks!
Yes. That seems to account for the difference, for as you likely noticed, the numbers in the
DistrictBuilder screenshoot total 85,239.
-- Jim
On Friday, March 11, 2022, 03:10:21 PM PST, Campagnolo, Daniel<dcampagnolo(c)newportbeachca.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Mosher,
I am glad you got the file to work. I just recheck it in our Geographic Information Systems and it
loaded fine.
I think the population difference may be related to the prison population count after the 2020
population estimates were released, in which the number was 85,239 (still the official number)
However per Assembly Bill No. 2172 , the incarcerated residents of Newport Beach are counted
in the city for redistricting purposes, which gives us the total population of 85,338. The issue is the
Federal Government does not recognize this statue and most likely will not revise the original
estimate.
Let me take a look at your other comments and I will address as well.
Dan
From: Jim Mosher <iimmosher(@_yahoo.com>
Sent: March 11, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Campagnolo, Daniel <DCampagnolo .newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Re: Redistricting questions - follow-up
FYI, I found I was able to import the .csv file (after removing the split) into a different district mapping
tool called DistrictBuilder.
As shown here, their population totals differ slightly from those shown on the map proposed for
adoption:
F C G app.districtbuilderorg/projects/bf33512c-b34d-480c-b806-cf9c10ae0bba
,. M T -e Node O'-!,-`—.. C N—..it Beac'- M,... new rtbeach.le is... l!Il Ad—te for New Opinions - courto... Daily Pilot - Los An... TV Scher
Districts /
Number Population Deviation Race PVI Comp
0 39,452,984 +39,452,984 0 E D+15
QQ Saved iI 7 Q Counties Blockgroups Blacks
11 YIIIG
mtington
Beach WOODBRIDGE
• 1
12,008
-5,636,309 0
R+11
A
2
12,238
-5,636,079 0
R+5
A
0 3
12,453
-5,535,864 Q
R+8
20%
0 4
11,902
-5,636,415 0
F—
R+8
29%
0 5
12,486
-5,635,831 0
I—
R+14
32%
0 6
11,837
-5,636,480 0
F—
R+8
45%
• 7
12,315
-5,636,002 0
F–
R+5
21%
Reference layers
I have not investigated why.
-- Jim
Costa Mesa
On Friday, March 11, 2022, 10:49:16 AM PST, Jim Mosher <iimmosher(a Vahoo.com> wrote:
Dan,
Sorry to bother you again, but I have two questions:
1. Has the proposed map been "published" on the interactive mapping tool ("DRA2020") so the public
can verify the block assignments?
I was unable to find it in the list of published maps for Newport Beach.
And my efforts to import into DRA2020 the posted .csv block assignment file have so far been
unsuccessful. Even after removing the split block and correcting the column titles to match those of
an exported DRA2020 map (which imports successfully), I get this message when importing the
posted block assignments:
"Import failed. The CSV file contains some valid and some invalid block assignments."
and it would be very tedious to isolate which block assignments DRA2020 is complaining about as
invalid.
2. Do you know why the boundary of offshore census block 060599901000011, assigned to District 1
in the proposed map (as shown below in the DRA2020 "current map"), differs from the CNB boundary
shown on the City's own mapping, both in location and bearing? Namely, the census block boundary
2
starts more up -coast in Crystal Cove and bears more southerly from there than, for example, the city
limit shown in the City's Geographical Statistical Areas map, which seems to be based on sheet 4 of
the Newport Coast annexation).
Or more generally, why there don't seem to be any census blocks that match the correct CNB
offshore boundary?
t
-- Jim
Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Correspondence - March 22, 2022 - Redistricting Ord 2nd Reading - Consent Item. PART 2
From: Campagnolo, Daniel
Sent: March 14, 2022 1:25 PM
To:'Jim Mosher' <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Redistricting questions
From: Jim Mosher <iimmosher@vahoo.com>
Sent: March 11, 2022 10:49 AM
To: Campagnolo, Daniel<DCampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Redistricting questions
Dan,
Sorry to bother you again, but I have two questions:
1. Has the proposed map been "published" on the interactive mapping tool ("DRA2020") so the public
can verify the block assignments?
I was unable to find it in the list of published maps for Newport Beach.
And my efforts to import into DRA2020 the posted .csv block assignment file have so far been
unsuccessful. Even after removing the split block and correcting the column titles to match those of
an exported DRA2020 map (which imports successfully), I get this message when importing the
posted block assignments:
"Import failed. The CSV file contains some valid and some invalid block assignments."
and it would be very tedious to isolate which block assignments DRA2020 is complaining about as
invalid.
DC 3/14/2022 — Sounds like in your subsequent email you were able to import the CSV file. The DRA mapping tool was
only a utility used for the public to participate in the mapping process. We are not publishing the final map here.
2. Do you know why the boundary of offshore census block 060599901000011, assigned to District 1
in the proposed map (as shown below in the DRA2020 "current map"), differs from the CNB boundary
shown on the City's own mapping, both in location and bearing? Namely, the census block boundary
starts more up -coast in Crystal Cove and bears more southerly from there than, for example, the city
limit shown in the City's Geographical Statistical Areas map, which seems to be based on sheet 4 of
the Newport Coast annexation).
Or more generally, why there don't seem to be any census blocks that match the correct CNB
offshore boundary?
DC 3/14/2022 — Good question on the boundary offset. This is something that has been brought to the attention of the
Census through the Boundary Annexation Survey (BAS). Each year the Census reaches out to local jurisdictions to
acquire information on any boundary changes that may have occurred through annexations, or other adjustments
know this one has been discussed over the past decade, but doesn't look like it has been updated for Census 2020.
There is a submerged block that is somewhat parallel to the shoreline. On the DRA app, the blocks may be scale
dependent based upon level of view. In the screenshot you provided, you may have been looking at Block Groups(next
geography level up). There is no demographics associated with these blocks.
-- Jim
0