Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-012-468_-_Amending_Residential_Area_Boundaries_-_AdoptedORDINANCE NO. 2023-012-468 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE RESULTS OF THE 2020 UNITED STATES CENSUS; OFFICIALLY DELINEATING THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH RESIDENTIAL AREA AS SET FORTH IN OPTION #1 ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the voters in Miami Gardens voted to amend Section 2.3(C) of the City Charter to include a provision authorizing the amendment of residential area boundaries by Ordinance from time to time to ensure equitable representation in each district, and WHEREAS, the City engaged Redistricting Expert Attorney Miguel De Grandy of Holland & Knight LLP who provided a public presentation on redistricting during the July 26, 2023, City Council Meeting and City Council provided direction regarding which traditional redistricting principles it wished to employ in drafting a proposed redistricting plan for Council consideration, and WHEREAS, the City Council directed that the plan achieves the following objectives:  Achieve substantial equality of population (as opposed to mathematical equality);  Preserve the core of existing districts to the extent feasible  Factor in ongoing or planned residential developments when balancing district populations, as feasible  Develop two alternative redistricting plans for the Councils' consideration  Present alternatives that include the recently annexed area in Residential Area Two or Three, and WHEREAS, as a result, the City's consultant developed three draft plans with Option 1 being a minimum deviation plan which was designed in a manner that would maintain the core of existing districts and equalizing the population of the respective areas to the greatest extent possible, and WHEREAS, Option 2 & 3 plans are based on the directives provided by the Council, recognizing first and foremost the legal requirement to balance the official Census reported population in a manner that would result in plans with an overall deviation of less than 10%, and DocuSign Envelope ID: 9FB81008-6E24-4AFB-9265-3C18F17A656B Page 2 of 3 Ordinance NO. 2023-012-468 WHEREAS, in addition, option 2 placed the recently annexed area in residential area 2; while option 3 places the annexed area in residential area 3; developments were also redistributed in the different options, and WHEREAS, the City Council has selected the preferred plan as outlined herein, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS: The foregoing Whereas paragraphs are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true, and the same are hereby made a specific part of this Ordinance. Section 2. AMENDMENT OF RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARIES: The City Council hereby officially delineates the boundaries of each residential area as set forth in Option #1 as outlined hereto in Exhibit “A.” Section 3. CONFLICT: All ordinances or Code provisions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 4. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 5. INCLUSION IN CODE: It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Miami Gardens that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Miami Gardens and that the section of this Ordinance may be renumbered or realtered and the word “Ordinance” may be changed to “Chapter,” “Section,” “Article” or such other appropriate word or phrase, the use of which shall accomplish the intentions herein expressed. Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its final passage. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 8, 2023. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2023. ________________________________ RODNEY HARRIS, MAYOR DocuSign Envelope ID: 9FB81008-6E24-4AFB-9265-3C18F17A656B Page 3 of 3 Ordinance NO. 2023-012-468 ATTEST: ________________________________ MARIO BATAILLE, CMC, CITY CLERK PREPARED BY: SONJA KNIGHTON DICKENS, CITY ATTORNEY SPONSORED BY: MARIO BATAILLE, CITY CLERK Moved by: Councilman Leon Seconded by: Vice Mayor Wilson VOTE: 5-1 Mayor Harris Yes Vice Mayor Wilson Yes Councilwoman Campbell No Councilwoman Ighodaro Absent Councilwoman Julien Yes Councilman Leon Yes Councilman Stephens, III Yes DocuSign Envelope ID: 9FB81008-6E24-4AFB-9265-3C18F17A656B City of Miami Gardens Agenda Cover Memo Meeting: City Council - Dec 13 2023 23-269 Department Office of the City Clerk Sponsored By City Clerk Agenda Item Title AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDARIES; PROVIDING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL AREA BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE OFFICIALLY CENSUS; STATES UNITED THE OF RESULTS 2020 DELINEATING THE BOUNDARIES OF EACH RESIDENTIAL AREA AS SET FORTH IN A; THE FOR PROVIDING EXHIBIT HERETO ATTACHED #1 OPTION AS ALL ADOPTION OF REPRESENTATIONS; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (2ND READING - PUBLIC HEARING) Staff Summary On August 23, 2022, the voters in Miami Gardens Voted to amend Section 2.3(C) of the City Charter to include a provision authorizing the amendment of residential area boundaries by Ordinance from time to time to ensure equitable representation in each district. The City Council then directed the City Clerk to engage the appropriate experts to undertake the appropriate studies and to make recommendations for an ordinance to amend the residential district boundaries. The City engaged Redistricting Expert Attorney Miguel De Grandy of Holland & Knight LLP who provided a public presentation on redistricting during the July 26, 2023, City Council Meeting. During said meeting the City Council provided direction regarding which traditional redistricting principles it wished to employ in drafting a proposed redistricting plan for Council consideration. The plan was to achieve the following:  Achieve substantial equality of population (as opposed to mathematical equality).  Preserve the core of existing districts to the extent feasible.  Factor in ongoing or planned residential developments when balancing district populations, as feasible.  Develop two alternative redistricting plans for the Councils' consideration.  Present alternatives that include the recently annexed area in Residential Area Two or Three. As a result, the City's consultant developed three draft plans. Option 1 is a minimum deviation plan which was designed in a manner that would maintain the core of existing districts and equalizing the population of the respective areas to the greatest extent possible. Option 2 & 3 plans are based on the directives provided by the Council, recognizing first and foremost the legal requirement to balance the official Census reported population in a manner that would result in plans with an overall deviation of less than 10%. In addition, option 2 placed the recently annexed area in residential area 2; while option 3 places the annexed area in residential area 3. Developments were also redistributed in the different options. The next step in this redistricting process is to have a public meeting at which the Council can choose a preferred plan by Ordinance and direct the consultant to make any additional changes, if any, it wishes to see in its preferred plan. Keep in mind that any changes to a specific district result in changes to the overall deviation and will impact other Districts in the plan that may need to shed or acquire residents in order to re-balance the population within constitutional parameters. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact for completion of drafting this plan is appropriately budgeted within the City Clerk's Office budget for the 2024 Election Cycle. Recommended Action The City Council to decide which option they would like to amend the residential area boundaries. Attachments Ordinance 2023 - approving redistricting Exhibit A - Minimum Deviation Plan (Option 1) Exhibit B - Redistricting Report 10-19-23 EXHIBIT A OPTION 1 – MINIMUM DEVIATION PLAN This illustrative plan was developed without consideration of the impacts of new developments, instead concentrating on achieving a minimal deviation among the districts based on the population figures reported in the most recent census. The plan has an overall deviation of less than one half of 1% (.39 of 1 percent). The boundaries of the districts mainly follow major roads, with some jagged edged necessary to equalize population. EXHIBIT A Seat 1 in Minimum Deviation Plan Seat 1 total population: 27,861 EXHIBIT A Seat 2 in Minimum Deviation Plan Seat 2 total population: 27,902 EXHIBIT A Seat 3 in Minimum Deviation Plan Seat 3 total population: 27,971 EXHIBIT A Seat 4 in Minimum Deviation Plan Seat 4 total population 27,906 EXHIBIT A Minimum Deviation Plan By Seat Statistics Seat No.TOTAL Population Target Population Target Deviation Target Deviation (%) Total Population Total Voting Age Population Single-Race Non-Hispanic White Voting Age Population Non- Hispanic Black Voting Age Population Hispanic Black Voting Age Population Hispanic not Black Voting Age Population Other Voting Age Population Seat 1 27861 27910 -49 0.0017 27861 21690 308 10523 950 9658 251 0.7785 0.0142 0.4852 0.0438 0.4453 0.0116 Seat 2 27902 27910 -8 0.0003 27902 21324 646 16136 687 3306 549 0.7642 0.0303 0.7567 0.0322 0.155 0.0257 Seat 3 27971 27910 61 0.0022 27971 21571 358 16808 655 3539 211 0.7712 0.0166 0.7792 0.0304 0.1641 0.0098 Seat 4 27906 27910 4 0.0001 27906 21516 463 10307 819 9730 197 0.771 0.0215 0.479 0.0381 0.4522 0.0092 EXHIBIT A Metes And Bounds Report Plan Name: minimum deviation plan approved by City Council Residential Areas Residential Area Seat 1 Beginning at the most northerly point of Seat 1, thence southerly 1.64 miles along NW 27th Ave , thence westerly 0.81 miles along NW 191st St , thence southerly 0.25 miles along 34th Court , thence westerly 0.02 miles along NW 187th St , thence southerly 0.25 miles along NW 34th Court , thence westerly 1.17 miles along NW 183rd St , thence northerly 0.85 miles along NW 47th Ave , thence northerly 0.14 miles along NW 47th Ave , thence northerly 1.17 miles along NW 47th Ave , thence easterly 0.99 miles along 215th St , thence northwesterly 0.00 miles along SW 89th Ave , thence easterly 0.97 miles along Unnamed Boundary to the aforementioned point of beginning. Residential Area Seat 2 Beginning at the most northerly point of Seat 2, thence southerly 1.09 miles along NE 2nd Ave , thence westerly 0.24 miles along NW 199th St , thence southerly 0.71 miles along N Miami Ave , thence westerly 0.13 miles along NW 188th St , thence southerly 0.05 miles along NW 1st Ave , thence westerly 0.44 miles along NW 187th St , thence southerly 0.10 miles along NW 5th Court , thence westerly 0.12 miles along NW 185th St , thence southerly 0.15 miles along NW 6th Court , thence westerly 0.56 miles along NW 183rd St , thence northerly 1.01 miles along NW 12th Ave , thence westerly 1.54 miles along NW 199th St , thence northerly 1.14 miles along NW 27th Ave , thence easterly 0.01 miles along Unnamed Boundary, thence southerly 0.01 miles along NW 27th Ave , thence easterly 0.95 miles along NW 215th St , thence easterly 2.08 miles along SW 41st St to the aforementioned point of beginning. Residential Area Seat 3 Beginning at the most northerly point of Seat 3, thence southerly 1.01 miles along NW 12th Ave , thence easterly 0.56 miles along NW 183rd St , thence northerly 0.15 miles along NW 6th Court , thence easterly 0.12 miles along NW 185th St , thence northerly 0.10 miles along NW 5th Court , thence easterly 0.44 miles along NW 187th St , thence northerly 0.05 miles along NW 1st Ave , thence easterly 0.13 miles along NW 188th St , thence southerly 0.30 miles along N Miami Ave , thence easterly 0.53 miles along NE 183rd St , thence southwesterly 1.01 miles along Unnamed Line, thence southerly 0.00 miles along Unnamed Ramp, thence westerly 0.00 miles along Unnamed Boundary, thence southwesterly 0.02 miles along Unnamed Line, thence northerly 0.02 miles along US Hwy 441 , thence westerly 0.06 miles along Unnamed Boundary, thence westerly 0.02 miles along NW 171st Terrace , thence westerly 0.15 miles along NW 171st St , thence southerly 0.14 miles along NW 4th Ave , thence southerly 0.04 miles along Seaboard Road , thence southwesterly 0.02 miles along Unnamed Boundary, thence southwesterly 0.03 miles along Unnamed Private Road, thence southwesterly 1.66 miles along Unnamed Boundary, thence westerly 0.22 miles along NW 151st St , thence northerly 0.22 miles along NW 19th Ave , thence westerly 0.25 miles along NW 155th St , thence northerly 0.03 miles along NW 22nd Ave , thence westerly 0.50 miles along Unnamed Line, thence northerly 2.77 miles along NW 27th Ave , thence easterly 1.54 miles along NW 199th St to the aforementioned point of beginning. EXHIBIT A Residential Area Seat 4 Beginning at the most northerly point of Seat 4, thence southerly 2.27 miles along NW 27th Ave , thence easterly 0.50 miles along Unnamed Line, thence southerly 0.03 miles along NW 22nd Ave , thence easterly 0.25 miles along NW 155th St , thence southerly 0.22 miles along NW 19th Ave , thence westerly 1.63 miles along NW 151st St , thence northerly 0.26 miles along NW 37th Ave , thence westerly 2.08 miles along Unnamed Shoreline, thence westerly 0.02 miles along Unnamed Line, thence northerly 0.81 miles along N Red Road , thence easterly 1.02 miles along Palmetto Expy , thence northerly 1.01 miles along NW 47th Ave , thence easterly 1.17 miles along NW 183rd St , thence northerly 0.25 miles along NW 34th Court , thence easterly 0.02 miles along NW 187th St , thence northerly 0.25 miles along 34th Court , thence easterly 0.81 miles along NW 191st St to the aforementioned point of beginning Holland & Knight LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami Florida 33131 REDISTRICTING THE CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS’ FOUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AFTER THE 2020 CENSUS REPORT ON DRAFT PLANS FOR THE FOUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Miguel De Grandy, Esq. Redistricting Consultant Introduction and Recap: At the beginning of May, 2023 your consultant delivered to the City Council a preliminary report on redistricting issues in the City of Miami Gardens. This initial report analyzed the current composition and population of the existing residential districts and the need to redistrict based on the fact that the overall deviation of the current districts --- at 21.13% -- exceeded the “safe Harbor” parameters set forth in the case law. The initial report also included a brief legal primer to inform the Council regarding the legal issues relevant to a re-districting process. Figure 1 below is a map of the current residential districts in the city. The recently annexed area, which is not assigned to any district, is labeled “District 5” : Figure 1 The Table below sets forth the current population of each of the four residential districts as reported by the U.S. Census: Population of Current Districts District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 24,775 30,654 26,834 29,397 (Ideal district population is 27,910) The City of Miami Gardens then advertised a pubic presentation on redistricting to be heard on its July 26, 2023 meeting of the Council. At said meeting, your redistricting consultant made a public presentation, summarizing the contents of the Initial Report. Your consultant also solicited policy guidance from the Council regarding which traditional redistricting principles it wished your consultant to employ in drafting a proposed redistricting plan. The Council resolved to direct your consultant to: • Achieve substantial equality of population (as opposed to mathematical equality) • Preserve the core of existing districts to the extent feasible. • Factor in ongoing or planned residential developments when balancing district population, as feasible. • Develop two alternative redistricting plans for the Council’s consideration. • Present alternatives that include the recently annexed area in District two or District three Units Being Developed in the Current Districts per City Clerk. Clerk Mario Bataille provided your consultant with a list of residential projects that were in the planning, permitting or development stage prior to the results of the 2020 Census and were therefore not factored in the Census population of the City. Below is a listing of the planned or proposed development information that was provided by the Clerk: Developments in District 1: No developments were provided Developments in District 2: 282 units DR Horton: 20800 NW 14th Place – $70 million project valuation (Completed) DR Horton has three (3) new communities wrapping up construction within the City made up of the Walden Place I and Walden Place II townhome developments with a combined total of 161 units, in addition to the fifty-one (51) single family homes known as Majorca Estates. This is in addition to the Princeton Park starter townhomes adjacent to the Gardens Promenade Shopping Center with seventy (70) residential units that were completed last year. 341 units Gateway Apartments: 20775 NW 17th Avenue – $36.5 million (Under Construction) Site plan review is currently underway for the Gateway Apartments project. This market- rate, multi-family complex will consist of 341 units spanning ten (10) residential buildings. This state-of-the-art development will feature world class architecture and original artwork. Amenities will include a gym, yoga area, and other common areas and gathering rooms for residents to enjoy. 113 units Lennar Townhomes: 627 NW 203rd Street - $25 million project valuation (Under Construction) – This site will house one-hundred thirteen (113) townhome units with a Clubhouse building. Building permits are currently under review by the Building Department with construction start expected in early 2022. 288 units Vista Lago: 468 NW 207 Street - $120 million project valuation (Completed) – SEAT 2 This property was used for decades to house a television antenna complex. The site is now under development to transform it into a multi-family residential community with two-hundred eighty-eight (288) garden style apartments, of which one-hundred twenty (120) will be condominiums. Recreational facilities include a clubhouse, pool, gym and tot lot. A five (5) acre public park has been deeded to the City by the developer to benefit current residents within the surrounding neighborhood, where no common areas for recreation currently exist. A TCO has been issued for two of the apartment buildings, while the condominium side is still under construction. Developments in District 3: 420 units Oak Enclave - $60 million project valuation (Completed) This four-hundred twenty (420) unit rental community is currently under construction and is located near the intersection of NW 167th Street and NW 24th Ave. This is an appealing location for young professionals and working families providing quick local and regional access via the Palmetto Expressway. The project consists of five (5) residential buildings offering amenities such as a clubhouse. Construction is now approaching completion with the first TCO expected to be issued in early 2022. 259 units The Pomelo: 19333 NW 27th Avenue - $39 million project valuation (Completed) – SEAT 3 This is a new, resort-inspired mid-rise complex with two-hundred fifty-nine (259) modern rental units available at market rate. This community features a 5,000 square feet clubhouse, fitness center, and outdoor recreation center all within a secured gated entry. A TCO has been issued with the CO package being wrapped up by the building department. 504 units Miami Gardens City Center (19199 NW 27th Avenue) Under site plan review for 504 units Developments in District 4: 22 units Hiram Village: 19205 NW 37th Avenue - $2.4 million project valuation (Under Construction) – Hiram Village is a multifamily two (2) story development with twenty-twenty (22) units consisting of 2-bedrooms and 2.5 baths. Building permits are still under review with groundbreaking expected at the beginning of 2022. 60 units Oak Villages: 3311 & 3341 NW 189th Street - $11.6 million project valuation (Site Plan) This project is currently under review by the Planning and Zoning staff. As proposed, there are sixty (60) units planned for the five (5) acre site. The design will be similar to that of the Villages at Miami Gardens development to the west of the site. 51 units Villages at Miami Gardens Apartments: 3400 NW 191st Street - $9 million project valuation (Completed) – estimated 50 units 60 units Vista View Apartments – 2.56 ACRE/FOLIO 34-2118-005-0010 The project consists of 60 two-bedroom dwelling units, associated parking and landscape improvements. In order to estimate the population impact of those developments, your consultant reviewed the official Census for the City. According to the Census website, the average persons per household in the City from 2017 to 2021 was 3.38 persons per household. (see: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Miami Gardens city, Florida) Based on the developments and unit numbers provided by the Clerk to your consultant, and using the 3.38 person per household figure set forth in the Census, your consultant estimated the following population increase for the existing districts resulting from these developments as follows: Estimated Population Impact in Current Districts From New Developments District 1: District 2: District 3: District 4: no impact 1024 units x 3.38 = 3461 persons 1183 units x 3.38 = 3999 persons 193 units x 3.38 = 652 persons Total new units citywide: 2400 Total estimated citywide population impact from new developments: 81121 Development of Draft Plans Although not directed to do so by the Council, your consultant first developed a Minimum Deviation Plan for illustrative purposes. The plan was designed in a manner that would maintain the core of existing districts to the extent feasible, and with the goal of equalizing the population of the respective districts to the greatest extent possible. This plan was developed without consideration of the placement of new developments and has an overall deviation of less than one half of one percent. Your consultant then proceeded to develop alternative plans based on the directives provided by the Council, recognizing first and foremost the legal requirement to balance the official Census reported population in a manner that would result in plans with an overall deviation of less than 10%. We developed two alternative plans; one alternative places the recently annexed areas into District 2, the second alternative places the recently annexed area into District 3. Developments were also redistributed in the different alternatives. Below we present the three plans, noting the population of each district. With regard to the two alternative plans, we present two population charts. The first shows the population of the districts in the new plan as drafted. The second shows the population of the districts after factoring in the population impact of the new developments. 1 Population estimates are rounded off to the nearest whole number throughout this report. Minimum Deviation Plan This illustrative plan was developed without consideration of the impacts of new developments, instead concentrating on achieving a minimal deviation among the districts based on the population figures reported in the most recent census. The plan has an overall deviation of less than one half of 1% (.39 of 1 percent). The boundaries of the districts mainly follow major roads, with some jagged edged necessary to equalize population. Figure 2 below is a graphic depiction of the plan. Figure 2 The districts in this Minimum Deviation Plan would have the following population based on the most recent census: Total Population in Minimum deviation plan District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 27,861 27,902 27,971 27,906 (Ideal Population 27,910) Below are enlarged images of each district in this plan: District 1 in Minimum Deviation Plan District 1 total population: 27,861 District 2 in Minimum Deviation Plan District 2 total population: 27,902 District 3 in Minimum Deviation Plan District 3 total population: 27,971 District 4 in Minimum Deviation Plan District 4: 27,906 Alternatives 1 and 2 Factoring Development Considerations. Your consultant also developed two alternatives taking into consideration several factors as directed by the Council. Both alternatives factor in the potential population impact of the above-referenced developments. The challenge was to create districts that would be within the 10% deviation threshold when drafted and also would be within acceptable parameters after factoring in the population impacts resulting from the new developments. In both alternatives there was emphasis on maintaining the core of existing Districts to the extent feasible. One of the challenges in crafting plans with these development considerations was the location of the different planned developments. For example, two of the major developments comprising a total of 763 units and a potential population impact of 2,579 people ( The Pomelo 19333 NW 27th avenue with 259 units and Miami Gardens City Center 19199 NW 27th Avenue with a possible 504 units) are being developed on 27th avenue on the District 3 side of the border between Districts 3 and 4. Both are within the same census block – the smallest unit of measure. Therefore it is not possible to separate these two planned developments and assign them to different districts. In Alternative 1 we left those developments in District 3, whereas in Alternative 2 we moved those developments into District 4. District 1 had no developments reported by the Clerk. Thus, in both alternatives we shifted the northeast boundary of District 1 into District 2 in order to capture a development with 341 units (Gateway Apartments at 20775 NW 17th avenue). In both alternatives, the development impacts are shifted, resulting in all districts having some development impact. 1) Alternative 1 Plan Factoring Development Considerations with Annexation Area in District 2 This plan was developed with an attempt to factor in planned developments as provided by the Clerk, while also including the annexation area (which has no population) in District 2. As referenced above, we did not move any of the developments in District 3 to another district, thereby maintaining the boundary line between District 3 and District 4 at 27th avenue. We also intentionally underpopulated District 3, anticipating greater growth in that district based on the number of developments. This alternative also shifts the boundary between District 1 and District 2 further east to includes a development that is currently in District 2 into District 1. In this alternative, we tried to use major roads to the extent feasible to delineate the boundaries of the districts. The plan has an overall deviation of approximately 6.2 %. The graphic depiction of the plan is shown below in Figure 3 below: Figure 3 Without factoring in the new developments, the new districts would have the following population based on the most recent census: District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 28,669 28,012 26,887 28,072 ( Ideal Population is 27,910) Factoring in the population impacts of the new developments the hypothetical district population estimates after full development and occupancy of the expected units would be: District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 28,669 + 1152 = 29,821 28,012 + 2308 = 30,320 26,887 + 3999 = 30,886 28,072 + 652 = 28,724 Below are enlarged images of each district in this plan: Alternative 1 - District 1 District 1: 28,669 +1152 = 29,821 Alternative 1 - District 2 District 2: 28,012 +2308 = 30,320 Alternative 1 - District 3 District 3: 26,887 + 3999 = 30,886 Alternative 1 - District 4 District 4: 28,072 + 652 = 28724 The estimated total population of the city factoring in the population impact of the new developments would be 119,751 and the ideal population number per district would rise to 29,938. The overall deviation of the hypothetical districts including the impact of the new developments would be slightly under 7% Of course without knowing what additional developments may be approved and built throughout the decade and in which districts those developments may occur there is no way to estimate whether the plan would still be within acceptable overall deviation parameters at the end of the decade. All that can be said with confidence is that the proposed deviation of the plan at approximately 6.2% (not factoring in new developments) is within the safe harbor provisions set forth in the case law and is therefore constitutionally acceptable. 2) Alternative 2 Plan Factoring Development Considerations with Annexation Area in District 3 This plan was also developed with an attempt to factor in planned developments as provided by the Clerk, but including the annex area (which has no population) in District 3. In this alternative, we moved the census block with two developments in the northern area of District 3 into District 4. This movement and the additional boundary shifts in the southern portions between these two districts to re-balance population, created a more jagged boundary between Districts 3 and 4. We also shifted the boundary between District 1 and District 2 further east to move a development into District 1. The graphic depiction of the plan is shown below in Figure 4 below: Figure 4 Without accounting for the population impacts of the new developments, the plan has an overall deviation of slightly less than 1.2% The districts would have the following population based on the most recent census: District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 27,835 28,055 27,725 28,025 (Ideal population: 27,910) Factoring in the population impacts of the new developments, after full development and occupancy of the expected units, the hypothetical districts would result in the following estimated population: District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 27,835 + 1152 = 28,987 28,055 + 2308 = 30,363 27,725 + 1420 = 29,145 28,025+ 3231 = 31,256 The estimated total population of the city, factoring in the population impact of the new developments would also be approximately 119,751 and the ideal population number per district would rise to approximately 29,938. After factoring in development impacts, the plan would have an overall deviation of approximately 7.2%. The following pages depict the enlarged images of each district in this plan: Alternative 2 - District 1 27,835 + 1152 = 28,987 Alternative 2 - District 2 28,055 + 2308 = 30,363 Alternative 2 - District 3 27,725 + 1420 = 29,145 Alternative 2 - District 4 28,025 + 3231 = 31,256 Again, without knowing what additional developments may be approved and built throughout the decade and in which districts those developments may occur, there is no way to estimate whether the plan would still be within acceptable overall deviation parameters at the end of the decade. However, while Alternative 2 is somewhat less compact, it creates districts with a much lower overall deviation and the development impacts still maintain the overall deviation of the districts below the 10% threshold at approximately 7.2%, which is nearly equal to Alternative 1’s performance after factoring development impacts. In summary, we have provided a plan with minimal deviation for the Council’s consideration. Because the goal of that plan is to create districts which are even in population as reported by the Census, we did not factor the impact of new developments in that plan. However, consistent with the directives of the Council, we have also provided two plans which do factor in the impact of known developments with somewhat different configurations to respectively include the recently annexed area in District 2 or District 3. For the two alternatives, we tried to make the least changes necessary to re-balance the population while at the same time factoring in the impact of new developments that the City is aware of at this time. After the Council has had an opportunity to review this report and the several plans, the next step in the process is to have a public meeting at which the Council can chose a preferred plan and direct your consultant to make any additional changes, if any, it wishes to see in its preferred plan. Keep in mind that any changes to a specific district results in changes to the overall deviation, and will impact other Districts in the plan that may need to shed or acquire residents in order to re-balance the population within constitutional parameters. I look forward to your thoughtful deliberation and discussion at the upcoming public meeting.