Show All Answers
Option 1 most closely matches the current layout, and Option 4 shows the biggest change. The Senior GIS Specialist made a table of statistics that is helpful to compare the different options with the current layout. In general, though, each option retains a strong resemblance to the current boundaries with a few specific dramatic changes. Each option has 2-3 districts boundaries that are very similar to the current boundaries.
Unfortunately, we cannot give an apples-to-apples comparison on the districts from the 2010 data because there have been changes in the way the underlying data has been formatted by the Census Bureau. The most noteworthy of those changes is that we now have an additional three Census Designated Places (CDPs) (Mt. Bullion, Yosemite West, and Crane Creek [Foresta]). Unfortunately, the boundaries of many of the existing Census Designated Places also changed, with some getting smaller while others got larger. In addition, a lot of the CDPs and census blocks also changed in size or shape. Since the population numbers are attached to a census block, it is necessary for the entire census block to be within a district in order for the count to be accurate (because we are legally charged with using only the data from the census, and it does not break the data to a smaller level.) In short, the new census block shapes and CDP boundaries are not an exact match for those previously used which prevents exact comparisons.
However, while we cannot look to the overall district totals, what we are using as a measure of the change are the CDP numbers, which are the population clusters within the County. Please see the spreadsheet of CDP data sorted by district, which shows that District 1 CDPs have lost the most population, followed by District 4 and, to a lesser degree, District 5; while Districts 3 and 2 show increases in their population clusters. This data also shows that the Census Bureau has also downsized District 1 CDPs pretty significantly, as well, with Midpines being the most notable.
No. In fact, no one has. The four visualizations that have been offered were entirely data driven, prepared by the GIS Specialist, using the 2020 census blocks, and taking into account the legally mandated criteria which puts a high weight on community of interest input (which is why we’ve been pushing so hard for the input since May.) The Planning Director and Clerk of the Board had some nominal formatting requests (things like labels, the YNP boundary, highways and roads, and drainage names, etc., so that people could identify the areas better.) Board and public suggestions will be solicited during the two public hearings scheduled for 6 PM on November 1st, 2021, and 2 PM on November 2nd, 2021..
The options will go to the Board on Monday, November 1st at 6 PM in the first of two public hearings. The second public hearing will be held Tuesday, November 2nd at 2 PM (and the GIS Specialist will be available at both hearings.) It is during those two hearings when the Board’s and additional public input will be invited. The Board will be expected to select a final map version at the conclusion of the Tuesday, November 2nd hearing, and that map will come back to be approved by resolution the following Tuesday (November 9th.) The approved map will also return to be adopted through the two-step ordinance process, with introduction scheduled to occur on November 23rd, and adoption scheduled for December 7th – just 8 days before the legally mandated deadline of December 15th.
By law, the County's redistricting maps must use census data including Census Designated Places (CDPs.) Since the U.S. Census Bureau established Crane Creek, Yosemite West, and Mt. Bullion as new CDPs in the county this census cycle, the County is obligated to recognize them on the maps.
Unfortunately, the County has no authority to correct any census data. However, U.S. Census Bureau Complaint procedures can be found online at: https://www.census.gov/about/policies/quality/corrections.html