City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 6.a
March 1, 2022
Monument-Mohr area, and swaps portions of Districts 2, 4, and 5 along Cowell Road.
- Plan 3C. Plan 3C has a total population deviation of 8.9%. This plan keeps the District 3 boundary along Concord Avenue, Galindo, and Monument Boulevard to Oak Grove. Similar to, but not exactly the same as, Plan 3A and 3B, it extends current District 3 into current District 4 in the Monument-Mohr area, and swaps portions of Districts 4 and 5 along Cowell Road.
Next Steps
Council may choose a preferred plan, or provide direction to the City’s independent demographer on further refinements that he will be able to make during the meeting.
Council may then introduce the attached ordinance (Attachment 4), which allows the Council to adopt the district maps by Resolution at the Council’s April 5th meeting.
The City Council Adoption of the final map is scheduled for the April 5, 2022 public hearing (Public Hearing #5).
All public comment received on this topic by the time of producing the agenda is included as Attachment 3. Any public comment received after this date will be benched for the Council and public at the meeting.
Financial Impact
There is a financial impact on the City’s General Fund to cover staff time and cost of an outside demographer, special legal counsel associated with the redistricting process, and translators. These costs are estimated to not exceed $150,000. These costs were included in the adopted budget.
Environmental Determination
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is an organizational structure change and does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.
Attachments
1. Draft Plans with Demographic Data
2. Public Outreach
3. Correspondence
4. Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code to Permit the Districts Boundaries for “By Districts” Elections to be Established by Resolution
^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.
Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 25,152 +0.1% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2%
3 23,995 -4.5% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4%
4 25,237 +0.4% 18,467 17.5% 14.2% 5.4% 62.9%
5 25,894 +3.0% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0%
T otal125,650 7.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Current Districts
Prepared by
Attachment 1
^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.
Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 26,220 +4.3% 18,366 24.1% 12.5% 4.2% 56.6%
3 23,995 -4.5% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4%
4 23,846 -5.1% 17,152 16.8% 14.6% 5.4% 62.9%
5 26,217 +4.3% 20,112 13.9% 14.1% 1.8% 67.9%
T otal125,650 9.4% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Plan 2A
Prepared by
^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.
Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 24,781 -1.4% 18,304 16.0% 11.5% 2.6% 67.6%
2 26,274 +4.6% 18,131 23.8% 12.5% 4.0% 56.8%
3 26,134 +4.0% 11,900 33.3% 21.2% 9.8% 32.1%
4 24,473 -2.6% 18,294 15.7% 14.1% 5.1% 65.1%
5 23,988 -4.5% 18,656 12.9% 14.9% 2.1% 67.9%
T otal125,650 9.1% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Plan 3A
Prepared by
^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.
Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 25,447 +1.3% 17,555 23.9% 12.6% 3.8% 56.6%
3 26,379 +5.0% 12,112 33.1% 20.9% 9.6% 32.8%
4 23,962 -4.6% 17,999 15.5% 14.4% 5.4% 65.0%
5 24,490 -2.5% 18,841 13.2% 14.5% 1.8% 68.3%
T otal125,650 9.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Plan 3B
Prepared by
^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.
Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 25,152 +0.1% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2%
3 26,437 +5.2% 12,250 32.1% 21.4% 9.6% 33.5%
4 24,199 -3.7% 17,988 15.7% 14.0% 5.3% 65.1%
5 24,490 -2.5% 18,841 13.2% 14.5% 1.8% 68.3%
T otal125,650 8.9% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Plan 3C
Prepared by
Name # Total Deviation % Dev Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Current 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Current 2 25,152 22 0.1% 33.8% 15.3% 4.3% 41.6% 20,343 30.8% 15.4% 4.2% 45.2% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2% Current 3 23,995 -1,135 -4.5% 55.7% 15.9% 5.8% 19.1% 17,914 51.4% 16.9% 6.3% 22.1% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4% Current 4 25,237 107 0.4% 25.8% 16.9% 3.8% 49.5% 20,405 23.1% 17.0% 3.9% 52.4% 18,467 17.5% 14.2% 5.4% 62.9% Current 5 25,894 764 3.0% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.3% 20,654 17.2% 20.4% 3.4% 54.8% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0% 2A 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% 2A 2 26,220 1,090 4.3% 33.3% 15.2% 4.3% 42.3% 21,196 30.3% 15.3% 4.2% 45.8% 18,366 24.1% 12.5% 4.2% 56.6% 2A 3 23,995 -1,135 -4.5% 55.7% 15.9% 5.8% 19.1% 17,914 51.4% 16.9% 6.3% 22.1% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4% 2A 4 23,846 -1,284 -5.1% 26.1% 17.4% 3.7% 48.7% 19,276 23.4% 17.5% 3.8% 51.7% 17,152 16.8% 14.6% 5.4% 62.9% 2A 5 26,217 1,087 4.3% 18.7% 20.5% 3.6% 52.6% 20,930 17.2% 20.2% 3.5% 55.1% 20,112 13.9% 14.1% 1.8% 67.9% 3A 1 24,781 -349 -1.4% 23.0% 17.2% 4.3% 51.5% 19,950 20.8% 17.0% 4.1% 54.4% 18,304 16.0% 11.5% 2.6% 67.6% 3A 2 26,274 1,144 4.6% 33.0% 15.7% 4.6% 41.8% 21,446 29.9% 15.8% 4.5% 45.2% 18,131 23.8% 12.5% 4.0% 56.8% 3A 3 26,134 1,004 4.0% 57.1% 15.8% 5.5% 18.3% 19,261 53.1% 16.8% 6.0% 20.9% 11,900 33.3% 21.2% 9.8% 32.1% 3A 4 24,473 -657 -2.6% 22.1% 16.9% 3.6% 53.1% 19,986 19.9% 16.8% 3.6% 55.9% 18,294 15.7% 14.1% 5.1% 65.1% 3A 5 23,988 -1,142 -4.5% 18.0% 21.1% 3.5% 52.7% 19,102 16.6% 20.8% 3.4% 55.0% 18,656 12.9% 14.9% 2.1% 67.9% 3B 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% 3B 2 25,447 317 1.3% 33.3% 15.5% 4.5% 41.7% 20,678 30.2% 15.7% 4.4% 45.1% 17,555 23.9% 12.6% 3.8% 56.6% 3B 3 26,379 1,249 5.0% 56.5% 15.9% 5.5% 18.8% 19,566 52.5% 16.8% 6.0% 21.6% 12,112 33.1% 20.9% 9.6% 32.8% 3B 4 23,962 -1,168 -4.6% 22.0% 17.1% 3.8% 52.9% 19,560 19.8% 16.9% 3.8% 55.7% 17,999 15.5% 14.4% 5.4% 65.0% 3B 5 24,490 -640 -2.5% 18.7% 20.8% 3.5% 52.5% 19,512 17.1% 20.5% 3.3% 54.9% 18,841 13.2% 14.5% 1.8% 68.3% 3C 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% 3C 2 25,152 22 0.1% 33.8% 15.3% 4.3% 41.6% 20,343 30.8% 15.4% 4.2% 45.2% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2% 3C 3 26,437 1,307 5.2% 55.6% 16.1% 5.7% 19.2% 19,749 51.4% 17.1% 6.2% 22.0% 12,250 32.1% 21.4% 9.6% 33.5% 3C 4 24,199 -931 -3.7% 22.5% 17.0% 3.9% 52.4% 19,712 20.3% 16.9% 3.9% 55.3% 17,988 15.7% 14.0% 5.3% 65.1% 3C 5 24,490 -640 -2.5% 18.7% 20.8% 3.5% 52.5% 19,512 17.1% 20.5% 3.3% 54.9% 18,841 13.2% 14.5% 1.8% 68.3% Plan Population Voting Age Population Citizen Voting Age Population Concord Redistricting: March 1, 2022
Draft Revised Plans
Attachment 2
Public Engagement
City Council Redistricting Process
October 2021 – February 2022
Email to CBOs:
Oct. 21 (introduction to process, website and sharing public hearing schedule) Dec. 2 (update on process and link to workshop video)
Jan. 3 (reminder about January 10 public hearing and information about process) Jan. 19 (notification of draft plans published, reminder of Feb. 1 hearing) Feb. 10 (notification of updated draft plans published, reminder of March 1 hearing) Facebook:
Nov. 8 (post re: upcoming workshops)
Nov. 8 (event - workshop promotion)
Nov. 8 (event - workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (post reminding community of workshops)
Nov. 29 (post about Nov. 28 e-newsletter with article about redistricting) Nov. 30 (post about winter/spring activity guide containing article about redistricting Dec. 29 (post about January 10 public hearing)
Jan. 5 (post reminding community of January 10 public hearing) Jan. 10 (public hearing reminder and January 11 office hours) Jan. 15 (post - Jan. 18 draft maps due/deadline reminder) Jan. 21 (post – draft plans now available for review online) Feb. 10 (post – updated draft plans available for review) Nextdoor:
Nov. 8 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 17 (event – workshop promotion)
Dec. 6 (re: activity guide containing article about redistricting) Jan. 6 (event – public hearing promotion)
Jan. 15 (post - Jan. 18 draft maps due/deadline reminder) Jan. 21 (post – draft plans now available for review online) Feb. 10 (post – updated draft plans now available for review) Twitter:
Nov. 8 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 29 (re: e-newsletter containing article about redistricting) Nov. 30 (re: activity guide containing article about redistricting) Jan. 5 (public hearing promotion)
Jan. 21 (draft maps available for review)
Jan. 24 (post re: 1/19 e-newsletter containing article about redistricting) Feb. 9 (post re: 2/2 e-newsletter containing article about redistricting) Feb. 10 (updated draft plans available for review, next meeting March 1) E-Newsletter:
Nov. 10 (workshops announced)
Nov. 23 (article discussing redistricting process with links to workshop video)
Public Engagement
City Council Redistricting Process
Jan. 5 (article about upcoming public hearing)
Jan. 19 (article about draft plans published, information about Feb. 1 hearing) Feb. 2 (article about Feb. 1 hearing and next steps)
Feb. 16 (article about updated draft plans published, information about March 1 hearing) Website:
Launched in October in both English and Spanish
Website E-News Alerts:
Oct. 29: (article about redistricting kickoff on Nov. 2) Dec. 29: (article about next hearing on Jan. 10)
Jan. 27: (article about draft plans published and Feb. 1 hearing) Feb. 9: (article about updated draft plans and March 1 hearing) Activity Guide:
November article about redistricting efforts published; activity guide mailed to all Concord addresses, posted to website, and shared through social media. Physical copies also placed in all City facilities and delivered to several community partners, including the Concord Library and Visit Concord. Spanish version of the City News portion was also created, posted to website, and shared at Library and through Monument Crisis Center
Press Releases, Publications and Articles:
Oct. 26 (Public Hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Oct. 29 (press release)
Dec. 29 (press release)
Jan. 1 (news article published in East Bay Times)
Jan. 5 (public hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Jan. 26 (public hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Feb. 18 (news article published in East Bay Times)
Feb. 19 (public hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Workshops:
Nov. 15 (information about redistricting process and training on mapping tools) Nov. 17 (information about redistricting process and training on mapping tools) Meetings with Community Groups:
Dec. 1 (Zoom meeting requested by members of the community) Public Hearings:
Nov. 2 (formal setting to share information and receive public testimony) Jan. 10 (formal setting to share information and receive public testimony) Feb. 1 (formal setting to review draft plans and receive public testimony) Virtual Office Hours:
Jan. 11 (opportunity for residents to ask questions directly of staff)
From: Lance Gee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:51 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Naval weapons area
Hi,
Appreciate all the work you're doing on redistricting but do not believe the naval weapons development should be part of district one.
It gives to much dynamic power to the representative city councilman. It would be better to let it be unincorporated then see what comes of it in 10 years.
Thank you,
Lance and Christine Gee
Concord
Attachment 3
From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 11:26 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Subject: Redistricting population deviations
Hello councilmembers, I brought up population deviation concerns at the February 1st redistricting hearing, but they were hardly addressed (if at all) at that meeting! Don’t get me wrong, respecting communities of interests is an important democratic function of the redistricting process. But as the demographer even said, population deviation is supposed to be the *top* priority! Yet somehow, this important criterion has slipped to the wayside of consideration. Public Plan 2 as well as the hybrid draft maps (2A, 3A, 3B, and 3C) would be a huge disservice to ensuring that there is equal representation throughout Concord! These maps pack way too many people into only a few districts, violating the “one person, one vote” principle. For example, public plans 2 & 2A dilute the voice of people in District 5.
Public plans 2A & 3A dilute the voice of people in District 2. And public plans 3A-C dilute the voice of people in District 3. It’s time for this Council to press the reset button on this redistricting process, because you guys are currently headed in the wrong direction! The redistricted map is supposed to be an improvement from the current map, but these hybrid maps and public plan 2 would make the map drastically more undemocratic and unfair!
Is having Cowell Road serve as a practical boundary between Districts 2, 4, and 5 worth creating disproportionate districts? No! If you are rejecting my Cowell Road plan (public plan #1) because it fails the community of interest criterion, why would you guys accept one of the other Cowell Road plans that fails the population deviation criterion? Public plan #2 is barely even legal (is it even legal?), it’s just under the arbitrary 10% threshold!
If you guys want to expand District 3 east of Monument BLVD, I’m afraid public plan #3 (or something very similar) is your only viable option. The whole premise of expanding District 3 beyond the Monument line was to *help* the people in that district. But these hybrid proposals (3A-3C) would *hurt* the very same people in that district; packing a whole bunch of people into District 3 would decrease their voting power! I know this Council already expressed opposition for public plan 3 because you want the Park & Shop area to remain in District 3, but I think you all should either keep park & shop or add the eastern Monument area. Please do not try to do both!
I had a very productive phone call with my District 5 councilmember. If you want to know more about my concerns and views on this redistricting process, he could definitely sum up the gist of our discussion. He floated the idea of keeping the map the same, but just making minor cosmetic changes to the current map (e.g. give Kaski, and maybe even the skate park, to District 4). Many people in Concord are used to the current map and like it (evident but some of the public comments made). And the population deviation of the current map/a slightly tweaked map would be reasonable. A win-win! I want to be clear though, at this stage, I’m not necessarily advocating for *any* of the proposals. But I will continue to fight for equal representation for all of Concord, with vehement opposition to maps with atrocious population deviations! Consequently, regardless of which proposal you guys choose, I hope and urge this Council to please reject plans 2, 2A, and 3A-C!
Thank you for your consideration,
D'Marco J. Anthony
From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 11:30 PM
To: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Cc: Concord City Council <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow up proposals
Hello redistricting staff. I know the public plan map proposal deadline already passed, but would it be possible to ask the demographer to make additional draft maps..? I had a productive phone call conversation with Councilmember McGallian in which he floated the idea that the Council could adopt the same map that we currently have, but with minor cosmetic tweaks. Here are the scenario maps I think should be considered at the next redistricting hearing:
Scenario #1 - keep the map exactly the same, but add the Kaski area to District 4.
Scenario #2 - keep the map exactly the same, but add the Kaski area and skate park area to District 4.
If the demographer is allowed to add these additional maps, as far as naming conventions/giving due credit goes, I think Councilmember McGallian suggested scenario #1 as a plausible map (he could correct me if I’m wrong). And I followed up with scenario #2 as a plausible map. Or maybe they would just be named Blue B and Blue A respectfully..?
A map showing these minor alterations might not be all that important, so if these scenarios are not able to be made into maps, I guess I understand. But regardless, I would ask the Council to at least discuss these scenarios in private and/or at the next redistricting hearing.
-D'Marco J. Anthony
From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Cc: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Redistricting population deviations
Thank you Madam Clerk. I have some follow up comments, could you please enter them into the record as well?
“Dear Councilmembers, I would like to follow up with my previous email titled ‘Redistricting population deviations’. One of your colleagues (Edi Birsan) responded to this email, and seemed to think that I was referring to actual vote totals and/or voting eligible population when my email addressed concepts like ‘voting power’, ‘equal representation’, and ‘the one person, one vote principle’. Let me clarify, just in case other councilmembers also misinterpreted my argument. ‘Voting power’ in the context of the ‘one person, one vote principle’ refers to *total population*, not the actual electorate or voting behavior. The argument I was trying to make in my last email, was that packing a bunch of people into one district, dilutes the voice of the people in that district.
This argument applies, even if a district technically has a smaller voting electorate & turnout (i.e. District 3). I stand by my argument that Public Plan 2 and the hybrid proposals would dilute the voice of the people in the respective districts these maps negatively impact.”
-D'Marco J. Anthony
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 3:59 PM
To: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Subject: Redistricting proposals
I am a resident of Concord & I just reviewed the various plans for redistricting our City.
I like plan 3A the best because it reduces our District #4 the least.
How can I let me choice be known?
Thank you,
Sheila Janssen
1 ORDINANCE NO. 22-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CONCORD AMENDING
CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.35 (ELECTIONS) TO PERMIT THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR “BY DISTRICTS” ELECTIONS TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Concord (“City”) currently elects its Councilmembers using a “by districts” election system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601(a), following each federal decennial census for a city whose council is already elected using district-based elections, the City Council is required to adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the City so that the council districts are substantially equal in population; and
WHEREAS, a federal decennial census occurred in 2020, and the City intends to adjust the boundaries for such council districts using the new census data; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code Sections 21607.1 and 21608, the City Council has held public workshops on November 15, 2021 and November 17, 2021 (one of which legally qualifies as a public hearing pursuant to Elections Code Section 21607.1(e)), public hearings on January 10, 2022, February 1, 2022, and March 1, 2022, and intends to hold a further public hearing on April 5, 2022 in order to consider and potentially adopt new district boundaries in advance of the April 17, 2022 deadline; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code Section 21608, the City took steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and non- English speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing on March 1, 2022, the City Council introduced this Ordinance in order to allow district boundaries to be adopted by resolution pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601, with the intent that such resolution be considered by the City Council at the April 5, 2022 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing on March 1, 2022, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process, including Attachment 4
Ord. No. 22-XX 2
information received at the public hearings, oral and written reports from City staff and consultants, and all other pertinent information prior to acting on this Ordinance, and declared its intent to adopt this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals, Exhibits. The recitals above and any exhibits attached hereto are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter, and serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth herein.
Section 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Concord Municipal Code are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. Concord Municipal Code Amended. Concord Municipal Code Chapter 2.35 (Elections) shall be amended to add the following language shown in underlined red font below:
(c) The districts specified in subdivision (b) or in any resolution adopted pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601 shall continue in effect until they are amended or repealed in accordance with law. Following each decennial census, new or adjusted district boundaries shall be adopted by resolution pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601.
Section 4. Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(a), this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord.
Ord. No. 22-XX 3
Dominic Aliano
Mayor
ATTEST:
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
Ordinance No. 22-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on March 1, 2022, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on April 5, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California.
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
1 ORDINANCE NO. 22-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CONCORD AMENDING
CONCORD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.35 (ELECTIONS) TO PERMIT THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR “BY DISTRICTS” ELECTIONS TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Concord (“City”) currently elects its Councilmembers using a “by districts” election system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601(a), following each federal decennial census for a city whose council is already elected using district-based elections, the City Council is required to adopt boundaries for all of the council districts of the City so that the council districts are substantially equal in population; and
WHEREAS, a federal decennial census occurred in 2020, and the City intends to adjust the boundaries for such council districts using the new census data; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Elections Code Sections 21607.1 and 21608, the City Council has held public workshops on November 15, 2021 and November 17, 2021 (one of which legally qualifies as a public hearing pursuant to Elections Code Section 21607.1(e)), public hearings on January 10, 2022, February 1, 2022, and March 1, 2022, and intends to hold a further public hearing on April 5, 2022 in order to consider and potentially adopt new district boundaries in advance of the April 17, 2022 deadline; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code Section 21608, the City took steps to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented communities and non- English speaking communities, to participate in the redistricting public review process; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing on March 1, 2022, the City Council introduced this Ordinance in order to allow district boundaries to be adopted by resolution pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601, with the intent that such resolution be considered by the City Council at the April 5, 2022 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing on March 1, 2022, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments received during the public review process, including Benched Agenda Item No. 6.a
Attachment 4
March 1, 2022
Ord. No. 22-XX 2
information received at the public hearings, oral and written reports from City staff and consultants, and all other pertinent information prior to acting on this Ordinance, and declared its intent to adopt this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals, Exhibits. The recitals above and any exhibits attached hereto are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter, and serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth herein.
Section 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the Concord Municipal Code are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 3. Concord Municipal Code Amended. Concord Municipal Code Chapter 2.35 (Elections) Subsection 2.35.130 shall be amended to add the following language shown in underlined red font below:
(c) The districts specified in subsection (b) of this section or in any resolution adopted pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601 shall continue in effect until they are amended or repealed in accordance with law. Following each decennial census, new or adjusted district boundaries shall be adopted by resolution pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601.
Section 4. Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937(a), this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation
Ord. No. 22-XX 3
in the City of Concord.
Dominic Aliano
Mayor
ATTEST:
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
Ordinance No. 22-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on March 1, 2022, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on April 5, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California.
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
From: Kristi Laughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 3:05 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Monument Community Letter re: Redistricting
HI
Mayor and Council Members,
I
am submitting a letter on behalf of non-profit organizations that serve the Monument Community and residents and low-income renters that live in this neighborhood. We are urging support of Public Map 3 (our preference), and support for Map 3A as a second choice.
We
believe these maps serve to keep low-wage renters and immigrant families united and whole, and will help serve the unique needs and interests of this community.
We
hope that you will take this into consideration in your final deliberations in tomorrow's public hearing on Redistricting.
Si
ncerely,
Kr
isti
--
Kristi Laughlin
Senior Campaign Director
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Concord office: 2140 Minert Rd, 94518
510-847-2399
Preferred pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
March 1, 2022
February 28, 2022
Via Email
Concord City Council
c/o Joelle Fockler
Concord City Clerk
1950 Parkside Dr.
MS/01
Concord, CA 94519
citycouncil@cityofc oncord.org
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment in Support of Public Plan 3 or Plan 3A Dear Members of the Concord City Council:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, Concord Communities Alliance, Monument Impact, and East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, as well as residents of the Monument Corridor, we write to express our strong preference for Public Plan 3, but can support Plan 3A, specifically as they relate to proposed District 3. Under the current district map, the immigrant community that resides in the Monument neighborhood is divided between Districts 3 and 4. Both Public Plan 3 and Plan 3A fully maintain the Monument community in proposed District 3 and unite that community with the immigrant, low-wage, and renter communities in current District 3. We work closely with these communities and strongly believe that they share socioeconomic similarities that warrant them being in the same district.
The City adopted its current district map in 2018 when it transitioned from at-large to by- district elections. As noted above, the current map treats Monument Blvd. as a district boundary, artificially dividing the Monument community between Districts 3 and 4. As councilmembers acknowledged during the February 1, 2022, public meeting, the City did not keep that community whole in 2018 in part because of timing and precinct-boundary challenges. Those barriers are not present in this redistricting cycle and we were gratified to hear Councilmembers
Birsan, McGallian, Obringer and Vice Mayor Hoffmeister recognize the entire Monument community and express support for unifying that community into one district.
The Monument neighborhood represents a cohesive community of interest of low- income immigrant and refugee residents who are renters. Critically, and as depicted in the map below, the Monument neighborhood spans both sides of Monument Blvd., beyond Mohr Ln. to Walnut Creek in the south and up to Detroit Ave. in the north. These residents, including those who live south of Monument Blvd., which stretches from Mohr Lane, Nursery Lane, Carey Lane, Victory Lane, Eureka Lane, Reganti Drive and Place, Lacey lane, Virginia Lane, Mi Casa Court, Robin Lane, Meadow Lane, Sunshine Drive, and Walters Way, live and shop at 1500 Monument Plaza, patronizing shops such as Los Rancheros, Las Montañas, Mercado del Valle, Food Maxx, as well as numerous restaurants, laundromats, and auto body shops. These restaurants include El Molino, Himalayan Curry House, and Hello Pho.
The residents along Clayton Road and the neighborhoods on Ellis Street, Laguna Street, Adelaide Street, Detroit Avenue, and Pine Street frequent the Park N Shop, which is conveniently located for easy access to grocery shops and restaurants for local residents. These restaurants include La Tapatia, Alpine Pastries and Bakery, China Wall Buffet, Brasas do Brasil Churrascaria, and The Mediterranean.
These residents, again including those who live south of Monument Blvd. and Mohr Ln., use the three Monument parks above Monument Blvd.—Ellis Lake Park, Meadow Homes Park, and Cambridge Park—for play, exercise, and family gatherings, and volunteer for clean-up days at these parks. Their children attend Meadow Homes Elementary, located on the corner of Meadow Ln and Detroit Ave, and Cambridge Elementary Schools located on Lacey Ln.
*See the Map proposed by the community (Labeled Public Map 3 by the city).
Our second choice is Map 3A
Residents from the Monument neighborhood share much in common with the immigrant and low-income residents in the Monument Corridor neighborhoods in District 3, including rent such as mostly being renters, members of the community that had been disproportionate ly affected by covid- many of whom were not qualified to receive unemployment benefits, experiencing housing instability, lacking health care resulting in relying on mobile health clinics located at Ellis Park and at La Clinica on Monument Blvd.
Keeping these neighborhoods and communities of interest whole in a single district will advance the fundamental purpose of redistricting: “achieving fair and effective representation” for all constituents. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565–66 (1964). Courts across the country have long recognized that fair and effective representation comes not just from balancing the population but also from keeping communities of interest whole so that they can work
together to obtain the attention and support of representatives who understand the issues facing residents and work to address them. See, e.g. , Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Symington , 828 F. Supp. 684, 690 (D. Ariz. 1992) (“Preserving communities of interest is important because the sense of community derived from established governmental units tends to foster effective representation.”) (quotations omitted).
In conclusion, we urge the City Council to take our comments about our communities of interest seriously, comply with the requirements of the Fair Maps Act, and adopt Public Map 3 or Plan 3A in order to keep the communities of the Monument neighborhood, who are disproportionately low-income renters and impoverished immigrant and Latinx families who are still struggling to recover from the Pandemic. It is sensible, fair, and serves the interests of effective representation to keep this community of interest together within one district so that they can best advocate for their shared interests. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to the undersigned organizations.
Sincerely,
Debra Ballinger, Monument Impact
Kristi Laughlin, EBASE
Ady Olvera, CCA /Resident in D2
And the undersigned residents of the Monument Neighborhood Alex Navarro, 1720 Fisher Drive, Concord, 94520
Lupe Tolento, 1090 Mi Casa Ct # 17, Concord, 94520
Felicitas Valverde, 2751 Monument Blvd # 280 Concord, 94520 Kenia Vazquez, 2751 Monument Blvd # 168 Concord, 94520
Arturo Navarrete 1265 Monument Blvd. Concord, 94520
Nora Grey 1115 Virginia Ln. # 39, Concord, 94520
Juan Hernandez 1751 Diane Ct. Concord, 94520
Mara Berton and June Higginbotham, 1238 Redwood Dr, Concord, 94520 Andrea Rios, Navidad Madrigal de Rios, & Marcos Rios, 2090 Leland Way, Concord, 94520 Elba Velazquez, 1255H Pine Creek Way, Concord, 94520
Elva Lorena Cruz, 1140 Virginia Lane, apt. 21, Concord, 94520 Samira Saboor, 3838 Clayton Road, apt. 104, Concord, 94521
February 28, 2022
Sent via Email
Concord City Council
c/o Joelle Fockler
Concord City Clerk
1950 Parkside Dr.
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment on the City Council Redistricting Process
Dear Members of the Concord City Council:
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California (“ACLU”) writes regarding the City of Concord’s redistricting process. We appreciate your efforts to execute a redistricting process that is fair and transparent, and we highlight below certain legal requirements to ensure that you adopt a map that represents all communities and complies with federal and state law.
This redistricting cycle, line drawers in California must comply with both federal law and the Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act (hereinafter, the “Fair Maps Act” or “Act”).
1 The Fair Maps Act provides detailed
procedural requirements—including a minimum number of public hearings and mandatory community outreaching and noticing—aimed at encouraging public participation that the City Council must follow before adopting a final district map by April 17, 2022. 2 This is because the
Act recognizes that to draw equitable and lawful maps, line drawers must collect detailed testimony about communities of interest from as many residents as possible.
The Act also sets forth the following substantive requirements for a final district map:
1. The final map must have districts that are substantially equal in population. 3 1 The general law city provisions of the Fair Maps Act are codified in sections 21600 to 21609 of the California Elections Code.
2 Elec. Code § 21601(a)(3).
3 Id. § 21601(a).
Letter to Concord City Council
2 2. The final map must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”).
This may require including districts where Latinx voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.4
3. The City must follow the required redistricting criteria laid out in the Fair Maps Act in this order of priority: contiguity; maintain neighborhoods and communities of interest; follow natural and artificial boundaries; and compactness. 5 4. The City may not adopt a map that favors or discriminates against a political party6 and cannot consider relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates when assessing communities of interest.
7 These substantive requirements further the purpose of redistricting: to redraw district boundaries to provide residents with “fair and effective representation.” 8 Equality of population
is not important for its own sake; rather, it serves this larger goal of fair representation. So does redistricting on a regular cycle because periodic redistricting helps “maintain[ ] a reasonably current scheme of legislative representation” that reflects not just “population shifts and growths,” but also any changes over time in other demographic trends. 9 Thus, line drawers use a
series of tools in addition to equality of population to draft maps that “observe and advance neutral democratic values.”
10 The Fair Maps Act reflects the California Legislature’s determination of which additional tools and criteria best advance these values. In 2018—when the City transitioned from at-large to by-district elections and adopted the current district map—the City was required only to ensure equality of population and avoid vote dilution under the VRA; it could place as much weight as it wanted on other redistricting principles, such as maintaining communities of interest.
Now, in addition to maintaining substantially equal population and avoiding vote dilution, the City must also follow the Fair Maps Act’s mandatory ranked criteria in order of priority before turning to any other redistricting principles, such as preserving the core of existing districts. 11 Prioritizing other redistricting criteria over the ranked criteria could risk violating the Fair Maps Act.
12 And complying with this new legal scheme by, for example, keeping communities of interest whole very likely requires the City to adjust lines more than merely rebalancing population would.
4 Id. § 21601(b); 52 U.S.C. § 10301.
5 Elec. Code § 21601(c).
6 Id. § 21601(d).
7 Id. § 21601(c)(2).
8 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 565–66 (1964).
9 See id. at 583–84.
10 See Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elec., 141 F. Supp. 3d 505, 534–35 (E.D. Va. 2015), affirmed in part, vacated in part, 137 S. Ct. 788 (2017).
11 See generally Elec. Code § 21601.
12 Moreover, the Act explicitly prohibits many of the practices that animate goals like preserving the core of existing districts or continuity in office. For example, the Act precludes the City from adopting a map “for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party. Id. § 21601(d). The Act is also clear that “[c]ommunities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.” Id. § 21601(c)(2) (emphasis added).
Letter to Concord City Council
3 With this background in mind, we are concerned that certain comments by the City Council and its consultant reflect an intent to preserve existing boundaries as much as possible.
For example, the City’s consultant has represented that the current district map’s boundaries “do meet your legal criteria” such that “if you said ‘we don’t want to change a single thing,’ that is something that is acceptable.”
13 We appreciate that the City recently drew its existing district map in 2018. But with the intervening passage of the Fair Maps Act, the City must redraw its lines in compliance with new requirements. The consultant’s comments appear to overlook that the City must go through the Act’s processes, and in particular those aimed at encouraging public participation, before it will be in a position to evaluate legal compliance. Thus, an effort to simply readopt the same map with only minor changes at the margins to balance population, without engaging with the Fair Maps Act’s mandatory criteria or confirming they are satisfied, risks both defeating the fundamental purpose of redistricting and violating state law.
This leads us to the role that communities of interest now must play in the redistricting process. As noted above, the Act requires line drawers like the City Council to maintain, to the extent practicable, neighborhoods and communities of interest. 14 A community of interest is “a
population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” 15 As reflected in this
definition and the Act’s detailed procedural requirements aimed at encouraging diverse public participation, identifying communities of interest requires an intensely local appraisal that comes from community members themselves. Accordingly, to ensure that the final district map actually respects the integrity of communities of interest, it is imperative that the City Council listen to and implement public comments from community members about their shared interests and why they must be kept together.
We look forward to working with you to make this a fair, open, and transparent process.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] and
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Hannah Kieschnick
Staff Attorney
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
Tanisha M. Humphrey
Grassroots Advocacy Manager
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
13 Redistricting Public Hearing at 1:20:25–1:20:40, Regular Meeting on the Concord City Council (Feb. 1, 2022), available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9y4swd.
14 Elec. Code § 21601(c)(2).
15 Ibid.
From: william goodwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:36 PM
To: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 6a. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING: Redistricting Council Election Districts
Hello Mayor and Council Members.
I am writing to express my strong support for Public Plan 3. I can also support Map 3A, given the integrity of the community-process and its representation.
I believe we should only support planned Maps that adequately keep the Monument Community whole, and ensures effective representation of low-income residents, renters, and immigrants in the Monument community.
While it may seem cleaner to have Monument Blvd. be a district line, the 2018 Map actually divides the Monument Community; leading many residents to feel disenfranchised. Public Map 3 acknowledges and uplifts the interests of low-income residents, and immigrant communities, and makes the Monument Community whole.
It is for these reasons that I strongly support Public Map 3, and the community-participation that produced it. I am also willing to support Map 3a as well.
Thanks.
William Goodwin
Correspondence Received on
the Redistricting Email on
Meeting Day – 3/1/2022
From: Alex Werth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:55 PM
To: Redistricting <[email protected]>
Subject: EBHO Supports Public Map 3 or 3A for Community Integrity
Good afternoon,
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) is in strong support of redistricting Concord according to Public Map 3, as this would restore the integrity of the Monument Community, unite low- income renters as a community of interest, and begin to repair the legacy of racial disenfranchisement. We would also support Public Map 3a as a secondary option.
Currently, Monument Boulevard is treated as the boundary between Districts 3 and 4. However, the Monument Community--home to many immigrants, low-income residents, and renters-- extends to both sides of this artificial dividing line. It's critical that the redistricting process make an especial effort to promote spatial integrity among communities of interest, such as immigrants and low-income renters. However, the current arrangement breaks up the heart of the Monument Community and perpetuates patterns of racial disenfranchisement. Indeed, according to data provided by the Bay Area Equity Atlas, Concord is by far the largest city in the Bay Area with no people of color among its city-level elected officials. This is especially problematic because it's also one of the most diverse. With 50% of residents identifying as people of color, Concord has the third largest gap of any city in the region between the proportion of people of color in the community and that among its elected representatives.
Other than Maps 3 and 3a, the alternatives all run the risk of maintaining this unacceptable status quo by diluting the voice of the Monument Community. Concord's immigrants, low-income residents, and renters deserve the chance to have a unified voice and representation at the local level. Please vote to approve Public Map 3 or 3a.
Sincerely,
Alex Werth
Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
--
Alex Werth | Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations
413-222-8880 (cell) | [email protected]
538 9th St. Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
Pronouns: He/Him/His
1 1
2 Actions Requested
Conduct public hearing to review plans, including revised options Make additional updates if necessary
Select final plan
Introduce ordinance allowing final plan to be established by resolution 2
3 Timeline
Hearing Purpose Date
1 • Education
• Public input
November 2
2 • Public input
• Initial direction
January 10
3 • Review plans (public & draft)
• Provide additional direction
February 1
4 • Review or further revise plans
• Select final plan
March 1
5 • Adoption of ordinance
• Establish maps by resolution
April 5
3
4 Criteria
In order of priority:
• Equal Population
• Federal Law
• Contiguous
• Neighborhoods & communities of interest
• Understandable boundaries
• Compactness
4
5 Plans
Current Districts
Draft Plans
• Blue
• Purple
• Red
• Green
Revi
sed Plans
• 2A
• 3A
• 3B
• 3C
5 Public Plans
• 1
• 2
• 3
6 Resources
Webpage
• www.cityofconcord.org/redistricting
• Will be maintained for ten years
E
mail
• [email protected]
P
hone
• Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
(
925) 671-3155
6