Administrative
Report
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON 2020 CENSUS AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND CITY
COUNCIL REDISTRICTING REQUIREMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 7.1 of the City Charter requires the City Council to modify its Council District boundaries (if necessary) within nine months of receiving the decennial census data. The City received the data used for redistricting purposes on August 16, 2021, and therefore is required to adopt any necessary new district boundaries by May 16, 2022.
The Charter requires each district to be as nearly equal in population as practicable, in compliance with State and Federal Law. However, the 2020 Census population distribution includes a new mathematical algorithm called “differential privacy” that is intended to protect data and presumably preserve accuracy. In Redondo Beach this is manifesting as a major population shift in one block of town, yet clearly does not accurately reflect the location of those “counted.” At the November 9, 2021 City Council meeting, Council agreed to remove the anomaly-an algorithmgenerated group quarters facility with a population of 1,547 that had been added to a single-family residential block. By removing the count from that block, the population of each of the districts is within 5% of the target population per district (total population without anomaly ÷ number of districts) and, as a result, the City’s district boundaries do not technically need to be revised. However, the City Council did acknowledge that on some of the streets dividing the districts there are concerns that the residents on one side of the street are in one district and on the other side of the street are in another, causing some confusion. Council directed staff to explore possible alternative district boundaries that could address those areas of confusion.
This item provides an opportunity for the City Council to consider whether to maintain the current district boundaries or to amend the boundaries and address the areas where the dividing line is along a minor residential street.
BACKGROUND
The US Census Bureau released the data from the 2020 Census on August 16, 2021. Section 7.1 of the City Charter requires the City Council to modify its Council District boundaries (if necessary) within nine months of receiving the decennial census data. Therefore, the City is required to adopt any necessary new district boundaries by May 16, 2022. The Charter requires each district to be as
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
nearly equal in population as practicable, in compliance with State and Federal Law.
Based on the 2010 Census, the City’s population was 66,748. Per the 2020 Census, the City population is now 71,576. In order to find a target number that equally represents the five council districts, the new population figure is divided by the five Council Districts resulting in a goal of 14,315 people per district (the target number when evaluating the 2010 Census was 13,350).
New to this year’s census is a process called “disclosure avoidance procedures” that were put in place to protect the confidentiality of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data. Per the US Census Bureau’s explanation (see attached Protecting the Confidentiality of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data document), historically, the Bureau has enhanced and strengthened how they protect the confidentiality of the information they collect from individuals who respond to surveys and censuses.
They note that by law they must ensure that they do not release information that could identify a person’s information in the statistics that they publish. The Census Bureau has recognized that with today’s technology, it is easier to take the information they release and reconstruct it or pair it with information gathered from other sources (i.e. commercial data brokers) to match datasets and identify people and their information within a set of data. Thus, they have implemented a “disclosure avoidance mechanism” to protect against these attacks.
Although the intent of these new procedures is to both protect data and preserve accuracy, in Redondo Beach there is one census block where the data increased from 162 in population in 2010 to 1,716 in population in 2020 (see red area on Census Blocks 2020 map). The census includes a group quarters facility with a population of 1,547 that was added to a single block. Yet, as the City Council is aware, this particular block is in a single-family residential zone and does not have a group quarters facility. In fact, there was only one dwelling unit added in that census block (from 62 housing units in 2010 to 63 housing units in 2020) during the ten-year period. As there is no group quarters of that size, along that block or anywhere else in the City, the algorithm that calibrates the redistricting data, while protecting the privacy of data, has skewed the City’s additional population by adding a significant amount of the City’s total population increase in one census block, rather than more appropriately distributing it throughout the City as a whole.
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
At the November 9, 2021 meeting, City Council agreed to remove the anomaly-this algorithmgenerated group quarters facility with a population of 1,547 that had been added to a single-family residential block, and assume the residents are distributed throughout the community. Additionally,
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
residential block, and assume the residents are distributed throughout the community. Additionally, City Staff plan to submit an official request to the US Census Bureau to correct this error in the 2020 Census.
By removing the erroneous group quarters anomaly, the population of each of the City’s five districts is within 5% of the target population per district (total population without anomaly ÷ number of districts). While there is no specific legal requirement indicating how much deviation is acceptable, a five percent deviation from the target population number per district has historically been considered within acceptable limits in Redondo Beach. Utilizing that approach, technically the City’s district boundaries would not need to be revised. However, City Council did acknowledge at the November 9, 2021 meeting that on some of the streets dividing the districts there are concerns that the residents on one side of the street are in one district and on the other side of the street are in another, causing some confusion. Council directed staff to provide alternative boundaries that may address those areas of concern on minor residential streets.
Staff have prepared alternative maps to bring the numbers as close to the target population per district and to address some of the areas of confusion. Bear in mind, when one district is adjusted, it does trigger adjustments to each of the other district boundaries in order to keep the numbers within 5% of the target population per district. It should be noted that each of the maps provided include removal of the anomaly.
Existing Districts Alternative
The first map (attached as Council District Redistricting - Census Blocks Existing Districts) distributes the population utilizing the existing district boundaries. The population distribution and deviation from the 14,006 target population per district (70,029 ÷ 5) are as follows:
As noted at the November 9, 2021 City Council meeting, the smallest census denomination is the census block, and those are separated typically down the center of the roadway. To avoid the confusion experienced on N. Maria Avenue (example noted at City Council meeting) and similar locations, the boundary could be moved to a more major roadway and/or where there are different uses across the street. At the November 9, 2021 meeting, staff noted that they would request that City Council members provide areas of concern to be reviewed. The concerns that individual City Council members noted were as follows:
· The boundary between District 2 and District 3 on N. Maria Avenue has neighbors across the
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
· The boundary between District 2 and District 3 on N. Maria Avenue has neighbors across the same street from each other in different districts.
· The boundary between District 1 and District 2, south of Torrance Blvd, on S Juanita and S Lucia was noted for similar reasons.
· The boundary between District 4 and District 5 on Mathews and between District 3 and District 4 on Harriman also presents a similar issue.
Staff has provided two alternatives below for addressing these issues, while bringing the population by district as nearly equal as possible. Certainly, other adjustments could be considered, yet these were initial concepts for considering the concerns raised. This was an exercise in numbers while addressing the concerns, and any of these boundaries can be revisited for other consideration.
Again, there is also the alternative where the existing district boundaries could be maintained.
Alternative 1
The first alternative would move the District 1 and District 2 boundary to Ruby Street, while shifting the multi-family from District 1 to District 2. This eliminates some of the S. Lucia issue, moving the “split” to S. Prospect Avenue. This may end up inadvertently creating some other issues or confusion, since making adjustments while minimizing the deviation requires some shifting of the larger sized blocks that are currently in District 2. This alternative would also move the District 2 and District 3 boundary to N. Prospect Avenue to eliminate the confusion on N. Maria Avenue and to maintain the District 2 population close to the target population per district. The adjustments would then require changes to the District 3 and District 4 boundary. Shifting the boundary to Harriman Lane managed to keep consistency of a boundary line along that roadway. Finally, the shift would then have a continued domino effect along the District 4 and District 5 boundary. The adjustments would align the District 5 population exactly with the target population per district.
Alternative 2
The second alternative would move the District 1 and District 2 boundary to Pearl Street to eliminate the S. Juanita and S. Lucia issues. There is still a larger block east of S. Prospect that would remain in District 2 in order to maintain District 1 close to the target population per district. This alternative would also move the District 2 and District 3 boundary to N. Prospect Avenue to eliminate the confusion on N. Maria Avenue, while maintaining District 2 as close to the target population per
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
confusion on N. Maria Avenue, while maintaining District 2 as close to the target population per district as possible. The domino effect would occur again, requiring changes to the District 3 and District 4 boundary and again to the District 4 and District 5 boundary similar to the first alternative.
The adjustments would align the District 5 population exactly with the target population per district and bring the other districts closer to the target population per district than the current district boundaries.
As noted previously, the City Charter requires the City Council to modify its Council District boundaries (if necessary) within nine months of receiving the decennial census data. The City received the data used for redistricting on August 16, 2021, and therefore is required to adopt any necessary new district boundaries by May 16, 2022. Again, the Charter requires each district to be as nearly equal in population as practicable, in compliance with State and Federal Law. While there is no specific legal requirement indicating how much deviation in population is acceptable, a five percent deviation from the target number has historically been considered within acceptable limits in Redondo Beach. Utilizing that policy, technically the district boundaries would not need to be revised. City staff are seeking direction from the City Council on any modifications to Council District boundaries or if City Council wants to continue with the current boundaries.
COORDINATION
The Community Development Department Planning Division and the Public Works Department Engineering Division have helped prepare this administrative report. Staff have also communicated with the Census Bureau.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs for developing recommendations on redistricting and reporting on census data are included in the Community Development and Public Works Departments’ budgeted work programs.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
N.1., File # 21-3508 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
ATTACHMENTS
· Council District Redistricting Map - Existing Districts · Council District Redistricting Map - Alternative/Proposal 1 · Council District Redistricting Map - Alternative/Proposal 2 · Protecting the Confidentiality of the 2020 Census Redistricting Data provided by the US Census Bureau dated August 2021
· US Census Bureau Disclosure Avoidance Modernization Information website link:
·
<https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planning- · City Council Administrative Report November 9, 2021
· City Council Presentation Slides November 9, 2021
· Email Response from Census Bureau Regarding Anomaly