City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District Elections (Larger Sized File)

Agenda Item A.1

CPMS PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: February 3, 2022

TO: Mayor and Councilmembers

FROM: Kristy Schmidt, Assistant City Manager

CONTACT: Deborah Lopez, City Clerk

SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District Elections

RECOMMENDATION:

A. Pursuant to C alifornia Elections Code Section 10010(a)(2), h old a public hearing to receive public comment regarding draft maps submitted for City Council district boundaries and the proposed sequence of district elections to begin with the November 2022 General Election; and

B. Following the public hearing, select a district map and election sequencing and direct staff to return with actions necessary to implement district elections for the November 2022 General Elections.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of this report is to introduce a public hearing, as required under California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(2), prior to the establishment of a City Council district map and the sequencing of district elections for the City’s first by -district City Council elections (also referred to as “district elections”) in November 2022.

After a lengthy community engagement effort, the City’s Public Engagement Commission met on January 26, 2022 , to review maps submitted for consideration by the public and voted unanimously after its Public Hearing to recommend the following maps to the City Council: Map # 202; Map # 226 ; Map # 701; and Map # 703. No particular priority was recommended between the map options. The staff report and the video from that meeting can be reviewed through the following link:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/i-want-to/news-and-updates/government-meeting-agendas- and-videos

On February 1, 2022, the City Council conducted its third public hearing to receive input from the community regarding the creation of a District-Based Election system. The staff report for February 1, 2022 , detailed the Map Drawing Process and the criteria for 1 selection of maps and electoral sequencing. That report also included: a summary chart of maps submitted; pdf copies of each of the maps for consideration; the Communities of Interest adopted by Council in August 2021; public comments received before noon on February 1, 2022; a summary of the Public Engagement Commission recommendations; the revised District-Election-Timeline, and the PowerPoint presentation from National Demographics Corporation, the City’s demographer. The full staff report and attachments, as well as the video from the meeting, can be reviewed through the following link.
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/i-want-to/news-and-updates/government-meeting-agendas- and-videos.

DISCUSSION:

At the February 3, 2022, City Council Meeting, the City Council will conduct Public Hearing No. 4 to seek public input on the draft district map(s) and corresponding proposed sequence of elections. NDC will continue the presentation of the draft plans and be available for Council questions. Following the public hearing, Council may select a preferred map and the corresponding district election sequencing (two districts in 2022 and two districts in 2024), or Council may direct map amendments as necessary.

A full collection of the maps for consideration is included in the February 1, 2022, staff report (Attachment 1) . All maps for consideration are also available at https://DrawGoleta.org/draft-maps/. NDC has also added the ability for members of the public to comment on the various maps right on the DrawGoleta.org website. Written comments posted or received as of noon on Monday January 31, 2022, are included in this report as Attachment 2. This list will again be updated by noon on Thursday, February

3. All the maps for consideration have also been loaded by NDC into an interactive tool which, among other things, allows the viewer to zoom in to see district boundaries in greater detail. This tool is available through the following link:
https://ndcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8d7cbd5588914037 bd8e46188cb905b6

Next Steps

To ensure compliance with Election Code Section 10010, staff recommends that Council hold this public hearing (in addition to the in-lieu workshop that was held on August 2, 2021, and the public hearings that were held on August 17, 2021, and February 1, 2022) before selecting a map or drawing its own map. At the close of the February 3, 2022, public hearing, Councilmembers may propose one or more maps for consideration. By the close of the subsequent final public hearing on February 24, 2022, which may be cancelled if unnecessary, Council should plan to select a map or draw its own map.

Thereafter, staff will return for introduction and adoption of the ordinance establishing district elections according to Council’s selected map and sequencing.

2 The anticipated next steps, which are designed to meet County Elections Office deadlines and are subject to change, are as follows:

Date Agenda Item Notes
August 2, 2021 Workshop in Lieu of Hearing #1
August 17, 2021 Public Hearing #2
February 1, 2022 Public Hearing #3 Review/discuss draft maps February 3, 2022 Special Meeting - Public Hearing
#4
Review/discuss draft
maps
February 24, 2022
(if needed)
Special Meeting - Public Hearing
#5
Select or draw a map
March 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Introduce Ordinance
March 15, 2022 Regular Meeting Adopt Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS:

The City has budgeted $ 80,000 to cover the cost of the consultant demographic and mapping services, legal counsel and any and all publications and/or mailers. So far, this amount appears to be sufficient. However, because this is such an important process, should additional resources be needed staff will return to Council to request them.

Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Michelle Greene
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

1. February 1, 2022, Staff Report on City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District Elections

2. Comments Received as of noon on February 3, 2022

3. NDC Presentation
3 ATTACHMENT 1 :

February 1, 2022, Staff Report on City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District 4 CPMS
Agenda Item C.1

PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Kristy Schmidt, Assistant City Manager
CONTACT: Deborah Lopez, City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District Elections
RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND:

On February 6, 2017, the City received a demand letter from Lindsey Rojas and Hector Mendez, asserting that the City's at-large electoral system violated the California Voting Rights Act, codified at California Elections Code sections 14025 -14032 ("CVRA).

Pursuant to a conditional settlement and release agreement related to those claims, on May 16, 2017, the City adopted Resolution of Intention No. 17 -17 to transition from at - large to district-based elections of City Councilmembers in November 2022. Council also established the seven-member Public Engagement Commission to, among other things, provide input to the City Council on the process of determining the district lines for future district elections.
5 On February 20, 2019, the Public Engagement Commission received an initial report by staff on the upcoming district election transition process and the requirements under the Election Code to change from at -large to district -based elections. Then on August 21, 2019, the Commission received a preliminary overview of the District Drawing Process.

In both of these cases, it was still too early to engage a demographic consultant and formally start the process for the November 2022 Election.

On February 2, 2021, City Council received a report about district elections and approved a professional services agreement with National Demographics Corporation (NDC) to assist the City with the preparation of information and data to help the city transition from at-large to district-based elections. NDC has experience advising and supporting over 365 other public agencies in their district drawing processes.

On February 17, 2021, the Public Engagement Commission received a presentation from City staff and NDC to formally launch the 2022 Electoral Districting Process and provided feedback and input on the process and the project timeline.

On April 22, 2021, the Public Engagement Commission provided input to staff and NDC on a preliminary Stakeholder Outreach List, preliminary Media Outreach List, and a list of potential venues for in -person workshops/meetings, and also began to identify Goleta’s “Communities of Interest”, as defined by state law.

In June 2021 , NDC launched the DrawGoleta.org website. The website was actively updated throughou t the District Drawing P rocess with important information about districting and with various tools to allow the public to draw and submit their own draft maps for consideration.

Four Public Workshops were held over a period of six months. The purpose of these workshops was to educate the public on the districting process, hear public input, answer questions, and demonstrate the tools available for the public to use to draw and submit their own maps. Public Engagement Commissioners attended all of the workshops. On June 7, 2021, the City held the first virtual Public Workshop where Dr. Doug Johnson and Dr. Daniel Phillips from NDC presented information on the districting process and the tools for residents to use in developing maps. On June 2 6, 2021, a second, in -person Public Workshop was held at the Goleta Union School Board Room. A third Public Workshop was held on August 2, 2021, in-person outdoors at City Hall. This Public Workshop served as a workshop in lieu of a Public Hearing #1, as p ermitted under Election Code section 21607.1. At this third workshop, all of the various mapping tools were live and participants had the opportunity to stay afterward for assistance with using the paper and online mapping tools to draw and submit their ow n maps. While the third workshop was initially intended to be the final workshop, due to the delay in official 2020 Census data, staff added an additional fourth workshop , hosted by the Public Engagement Commission . This fourth workshop was held virtually on Thursday, November 4, 2021.

6 In addition to the workshops, the Public Engagement Commission received updates, took public comment, and provided feedback to staff on the Districting Process at its regular meetings on August 19, 2021 and December 9, 2021.

As mentioned above, the August 2, 2021 Public Workshop served in lieu of a first Public Hearing in the districting process, as permitted under Election Code section 21607.1. On August 17, 2021, the City Council held a second public hearing at its regular meeting.

The purpose of that public hearing was to receive public input and testimony regarding the composition of districts and to approve a list of “communities of interest” for consideration by the public and the Council in drawing districts.

The City’s Community Relations division supported the District Drawing Process through an extensive #DrawGoleta outreach campaign that included 16 press releases which resulted in a considerable amount of media coverage throughout the process. The press releases in English and Spanish were also sent as e -mails and text messages via the City’s news notification list and were posted on the City’s social media pages, Nextdoor and the City’s website. The #DrawGoleta campaign was also promoted monthly in the City newsletter the Monarch Press beginning in March of 2021 (9 articles in all) through the January 6, 2022 deadline. The Communications Team also put together two videos in English and Spanish, including one video made with the Public Engagement Commission encouraging the public to #Draw Goleta which aired on Goleta TV Channel 19, the website and all of the City’s outreach platforms. This video also played at Pump Flix (local gas station pumps) and was shown on local media websites including KEYT ABC Channel 3/Fox 11, Noozhawk and the Santa Barbara Independent. In the weeks leading up to the deadline to submit maps, the City completed Geo-Targeted paid advertising on KEYT and Noozhawk which includ ed having the spot play during prime time newscasts. The second video the City produced was a “How to Draw a Map” tutorial with step-by-step instructions on how to draw and submit a map. That video played on the Goleta TV Channel 19, all of the City’s outreach platforms and was prominently featured on the City’s website an d its Draw Goleta website. To go along with all of the messaging, the Communications Team also created #DrawGoleta graphics that were used on all of its platforms and were also displayed on A -Frame signs throughout the City.

DISCUSSION:

Draft Maps

The process for a general law city moving from at-large method of election to a district - based method of election is covered under California Election Code Section 10010 and favors public participation in the process of drawing district boundaries. In conjunction with NDC and in consultation with the Public Engagement Commission, staff conducted a District Drawing Process that allowed any member of the public to submit a draft map for consideration. Residents were able to submit a basic paper-and-pen map, a paper map with the assistance of a companion Excel spreadsheet, or a digital map using the online districting tool (DistrictR).

7 Maps were due to the City by January 6, 2022. 68 maps or partial maps were submitted using the District R online tool, one pen and paper map was submitted, and one map was submitted using Maptitude Online Redistricting (a tool that was removed from the public website at the request of the Public Engagement Commission early in the process due to the vendor’s inability to update the data in a timely way). A total of 51 draft maps submitted by the public are presented by NDC for consideration; 47 maps depict all four districts while 4 maps depict a partial set of districts or one or more single communities of interest. 17 maps were not included for consideration as they were duplicates of other maps (all population were included in identical districts) or because NDC determined that they were obvious drafts (e.g., from the same presenter who submitted a nearly identical map without any significant population shift shortly thereafter). For transparency, identification of these 17 maps is included in a separate list in Attachment 1, and NDC will explain this further as part of its presentation.

It should be noted that a delay in the Federal 2020 Census data led to a corresponding delay in the release of the State of California’s prison adjusted population numbers, which resulted in the City’s district drawing tools not being updated with final data until October 20, 2021. Before that date, the City’s mapping tools included a warning that they used population estimates. After this date, anyone who had submitted a map already (19 maps) was encouraged to redraw their map using the final population data to ensure their map was population balanced, as required under the law. Though staff expect that many of the earlier maps were resubmitted using the final population data, the maps presented for consideration in Attachment 2 still include those submitted prior to October 20, 2021 even if they are not population balanced.

Four additional maps (map numbers 701, 702, 703 and 704) that are presented for consideration were created by NDC and are clearly marked as such. NDC offers these maps for the Public Engagement Commission and City Council c onsideration in the interest of a full consideration of options because they illustrate ideas that the public maps did not, and not because they recommend them for adoption.

Attachment 1 includes a summary list of the maps that were submitted and a corresponding sequencing of district elections for each map. For each map, this list shows the following:

 Plan Identification Number
 Source (online tool, paper, etc.)
 Data used (either estimated before 10/20/21 or Official)  Name or ID number of the submi tter (DistrictR and MOR tool submissions are anonymous)
 Whether the map meets the requirement to be Contiguous (or was able to be fixed by NDC to be contiguous)
 Whether the population meets the requirement to be population Balanced within 10%
 Group assignment based on the submitter and whether the map represents all districts or a discreet community(ies) of interest
8  Theme based on whether the map is legally compliant and how many freeway crossings the map makes (to assist with conceptual groupings)  The proposed sequencing of the district elections (3 options).

NDC will explain all of these categories further in their presentation.

A full collection of the maps for consideration is included in Attachment 2. All maps submitted as well as a demographic analysis of each map and a proposed sequencing, were made available for public review on the City’s website at https://DrawGoleta.org/draft-maps/ as of January 19, 2022.

All the maps for consideration have also been loaded by NDC into an interactive tool which, among other things, allows the viewer to zoom in to see district boundaries in greater detail. This tool is available through the following link:
https://ndcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8d7cbd5588914037 bd8e46188cb905b6

On January 20, 2022, NDC added the ability for members of the public to comment on the various maps right on the DrawGoleta.org website. Members of the public were also invited to submit public comment on the maps via email to the City Clerk, and to the Public Engagement Commission in advance of its January 26, 2022, meeting. Written comments posted or received as of noon on January 26, 2022 , are included in this report as Attachment 4.

Evaluation of Maps

The total population of the City of Goleta according to the California Statewide Database is 32,754 as of April 1, 2020 . As such, each of the four new City Council districts for November 2022 must have a population close to 8,189, with no more than a difference of 819 between the most populated district and the least populated one.

The districts must be evaluated against districting rules and goals. Federal laws establish the following requirements: equal population; federal Voting Rights Act compliance (not diluting the voting power of minority communities) ; no racial gerrymandering. State laws establish the following evaluative criteria in priority order: geographically contiguous; undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest”; easily identifiable boundaries; and compact (map does not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people). State law also states the map drawing “Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.” Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents , and future population growth. NDC will assist with an analysis of each map applying these criteria.

Council established a list of “communities of interest”, a record of important geographic areas and neighborhoods that should be kept undivided in the map -drawing process, to the extent practicable (Attachment 3). It is not necessarily an exhaustive list, and it is unlikely that every community of interest can practically kept together, but it is intended as a starting point for map evaluation. At its December 9, 2021 , meeting, th e Public 9 Engagement Commission asked that NDC make its best effort to create a map of City neighborhoods that Council included as Communities of Interest for its reference. NDC agreed to do so with the caveat that neighborhoods are fluid and different peop le may have different ideas about where a neighborhood begins and where it ends. This map is available on theDrawGoleta.org website (Map 401) and as an overlay in the interactive mapping tool, and NDC will be prepared to share this map for reference during its presentations to the Public Engagement Commission and City Council.

While all maps submitted are included for Council review and consideration, only maps which meet the legal criteria requirements can be adopted by the City Council. After discussion with the Public Engagement Commission , it was determined that even maps that don’t meet the legal criteria should be presented for reference, though they can’t be adopted as drafted, because all maps may illustrate concepts or ideas that the City Council m ay wish to consider. Attachment 1 reflects which maps are not able to be adopted as draft ed, either because they are not population balanced, or because they are not contiguous (and could not be fixed to be contiguous by NDC).

You will note that maps as signed numbers in the 100 series, 500 series 600 , and some of the 200 series are full district maps submitted by the public using the various tools that do not meet minimum legal requirements. Most of the Full district maps in the 200 series do meet legal requirements. Maps in the 300 and 400 series are neighborhood and/or community of interest maps, not district maps, one of which (Map 401) is the neighborhood map that the Public Engagement Commission asked NDC to create. The 700 series are those full dist rict maps, described above, that were created by NDC for reference.

The maps submitted were evaluated by NDC. In its presentation to the City Council, NDC will walk through the maps and present their observations about how well each map meets districting rules and goals . While NDC will point out features and attributes of various maps, NDC’s role is not to recommend adoption of one map over another.

Council should develop its own map preference in consultation wi th the community.

NDC’s PowerPoint presentation is included as Attachment 7.

Public Engagement Commission Recommendation

By the time this hearing is held, the Public Engagement Commission will have met to consider the draft maps and provide its recomm endations to the City Council. This meeting will be open to the public and can be viewed through the City website the following day. The Public Engagement Commission recommendations are included in Attachment 5. The goal of the Public Engagement Commission meeting on January 26, 2022 was for the Public Engagement Commission to make recommendations to Council, including but not limited to:
 General principles for map selection. (e.g., “We recommend you keep X area with Y area”)
 Specific recommended map(s) with context for recommendation “We recommend you choose map A, B, or C and here is why…”
 Maps that should not be considered, and why
10 Proposed Sequencing

Elections Code Section 10010 (a)(2) requires the City to “…publish and m ake available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the governing body of the political subdivision will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections.” (Emphasis added) Since Council terms in Goleta are staggered, the potential sequence of elections must be posted.

Therefore, each of the draft maps has been assigned a proposed and alternate sequencing by NDC for consideration as reflected in Attachment 1, as follows:

Proposed Sequencing Alternative Sequencing
Option 1 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2 2022: D2 & D4, 2024: D1 & D3 Option 2 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2 2022: D1 & D3, 2024: D2 & D4 Option 3 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2 2022: D2 & D3, 2024: D1 & D4 D= District

Council should feel free to change that sequencing. California Elections Code Section 10010(b) states, “In determining the final sequence of the district elections conducted in a political subdivision in which members of the governing body will be elected at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the governing body shall give special consideration to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, and it shall take into account the preferences expressed by members of the districts.”

It should be noted that, where two incumbent Councilmembers live in the same district on a draft map, and one or more incumbents’ term expires in 2022, the sequencing has been proposed for that district to be initially up for election in 2022, which would allow both incumbent Councilmembers to run for the district seat as incumbents. This is consistent with the concept of respecting the voters’ prior election choice of the incumbents.

However, that initial proposed sequencing can be changed by the Council.

Next Steps

To ensure compliance with Election Code Section 10010, staff recommends that Council hold this public hearing and one more public hearing (in addition to the in-lieu workshop that was held on August 2, 2021 , and the public hearing that was held on August 17, 2021) before selecting a map or drawing its own map. These additional hearings include the February 1, 2022 , hearing and the February 3, 2022 , hearing. At the close of the February 3, 2022, public hearing , Councilmembers may propose one or more maps for consideration. By the close of the subsequent final public hearing on February 24, 2022, Council should plan to select a map or draw its own map. Thereafter, staff will return for introduction and adoption of the ordinance establishing district elections according to Council’s selected map and sequencing.

11 The anticipated next steps, which are designed to meet County Elections Office deadlines and are subject to change, are as follows:

Date Agenda Item Notes
August 2, 2021 Workshop in Lieu of Hearing #1
August 17, 2021 Public Hearing #2
February 1, 2022 Public Hearing #3 Review/discuss draft maps February 3, 2022 Special Meeting - Public Hearing
#4
Review/discuss draft maps
February 24, 2022 Special Meeting - Public Hearing
#5
Select or draw a map
March 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Introduce Ordinance
March 15, 2022 Regular Meeting Adopt Ordinance
FISCAL IMPACTS:

The City has budgeted $ 80,000 to cover the cost of the consultant demographic and mapping services, outside legal counsel and any and all publications and/or mailers. So far, this amount appears to be sufficient. However, because this is such an important process, should additional resources be needed staff will return to Council to request them.

1. Master List of Draft Maps and Sequencing

2. Draft Maps

3. Communities of Interest adopted by Council on August 17, 2021

4. Comments Received as of noon on January 26, 2022

5. Public Engagement Commission Recommendations

6. Revised-District-Election-Timeline

7. Revised NDC Presentation
12 ATTACHMENT 1:

Master List of Draft Maps and Sequencing

13 1/19/2022
Label Source Data Name/ID Contiguous Balanced Group Theme Sequencing Plan 101 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 32180 NDC Fixed 20.1% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 102 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 32247 Yes 27.8% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 103 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 32250 Yes 22.3% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 104 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 32261 Yes 31.8% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 105 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 33782 Yes 20.6% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 106 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 33872 NDC Fixed 20.6% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 107 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 34114 Yes 20.1% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 108 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 34742 NDC Fixed 24.7% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 109 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 37396 Yes 18.1% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 110 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 37890 NDC Fixed 11.4% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 111 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 37897 NDC Fixed 22.4% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 112 DistrictR Full Plan Estimated 37964 NDC Fixed 25.9% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 201 DistrictR Full Plan Official 67502 Not Fixable 3.7% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 202 DistrictR Full Plan Official 74226 NDC Fixed 4.0% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 1 Plan 203 DistrictR Full Plan Official 75901 Yes 5.2% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 204 DistrictR Full Plan Official 76182 Yes 2.3% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 1 Plan 205 DistrictR Full Plan Official 76245 Yes 3.5% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 206 DistrictR Full Plan Official 94257 Yes 9.4% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 207 DistrictR Full Plan Official 79269 Yes 7.6% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 208 DistrictR Full Plan Official 80243 Yes 7.1% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 1 Plan 209 DistrictR Full Plan Official 89299 Yes 9.4% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 210A DistrictR Full Plan Official 92501 NDC Fixed 10.1% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 210B DistrictR Full Plan Official 92794 NDC Fixed 9.2% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 210C DistrictR Full Plan Official 92795 NDC Fixed 6.9% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 210D DistrictR Full Plan Official 93127 NDC Fixed 9.8% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 210E DistrictR Full Plan Official 95532 NDC Fixed 10.2% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 210F DistrictR Full Plan Official 95538 NDC Fixed 9.4% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 211 DistrictR Full Plan Official 90101 NDC Fixed 7.5% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 212 DistrictR Full Plan Official 91612 NDC Fixed 4.4% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 1 Goleta Plan List
14 1/19/2022
Plan 213 DistrictR Full Plan Official 92530 Yes 6.0% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 214 DistrictR Full Plan Official 93387 NDC Fixed 1.7% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 2 Plan 215 DistrictR Full Plan Official 94284 NDC Fixed 2.9% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 216 DistrictR Full Plan Official 94859 Yes 1.1% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 217 DistrictR Full Plan Official 95516 NDC Fixed 5.1% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 218 DistrictR Full Plan Official 97817 NDC Fixed 3.8% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 1 Plan 219A DistrictR Full Plan Official 98010 Yes 118.3% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 219B DistrictR Full Plan Official 98984 Yes 6.5% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 220A DistrictR Full Plan Official 98727 Yes 62.9% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 220B DistrictR Full Plan Official 98975 NDC Fixed 9.2% Public Districts 2 Crossings Option 2 Plan 221 DistrictR Full Plan Official 98787 NDC Fixed 1.2% Public Districts 3 Crossings Option 1 Plan 222A DistrictR Full Plan Official 98888 NDC Fixed 2.1% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 222B DistrictR Full Plan Official 98890 NDC Fixed 1.9% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 223 DistrictR Full Plan Official 98949 Yes 5.7% Public Districts 4 Crossings Option 1 Plan 224 DistrictR Full Plan Official 98978 Yes 5.4% Public Districts 3 Crossings Option 1 Plan 225 DistrictR Full Plan Official 98992 Not Fixable 2.3% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 226 DistrictR Full Plan Official 99056 Yes 4.6% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 301 DistrictR Partial Plan Estimated 33832 Yes 19.9% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 401 DistrictR Communities of Interest Official 94535 NDC COI Plan 402 DistrictR Communities of Interest Official 97684 Public COI Plan 403 DistrictR Communities of Interest Official 98639 Yes 9.2% Public Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 501 MOR Full Plan Estimated 2021 08 10 16 54 Yes 13.2% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 601 Paper Kit Full Plan Estimated Bill Woodbridge Yes 11.4% Public Districts Noncompliant Irrelevant Plan 701 Maptitude Full Plan Official NDC Yes 9.2% NDC Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 702 Maptitude Full Plan Official NDC Yes 9.5% NDC Districts 1 Crossing Option 2 Plan 703 Maptitude Full Plan Official NDC Yes 9.9% NDC Districts 1 Crossing Option 1 Plan 704 Maptitude Full Plan Official NDC Yes 5.7% NDC Districts 4 Crossings Option 3 Proposed Sequencing
Option 1 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2
Option 2 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2
Option 3 2022: D3 & D4, 2024: D1 & D2
Alternative Sequencing
2022: D2 & D4, 2024: D1 & D3
2022: D1 & D3, 2024: D2 & D4
2022: D2 & D3, 2024: D1 & D4
15 DistrictR ID
28731
33777
34775
37351
37508
52096
77433
89770
90328
94221
95520
95522
95537
96638
98853
98910
98912
98980
Test map by staff
Near duplicate of 98984 by the same person; 98984 appears to be the final draft Near duplicate of 98984 by the same person; 98984 appears to be the final draft Near duplicate of 98984 by the same person; 98984 appears to be the final draft Duplicate of 98888 by the same person
Near duplicate of 95538 by the same person; 95538 appears to be the final draft Near duplicate of 95538 by the same person; 95538 appears to be the final draft Reason for exclusion
Near duplicate of 95538 by the same person; 95538 appears to be the final draft Near duplicate of 95538 by the same person; 95538 appears to be the final draft Near duplicate of 95538 by the same person; 95538 appears to be the final draft Test map by staff
Obvious first draft; same person submitted several more maps that were more balanced and titled Obvious first draft; same person submitted 94257 (minor revisions and titled 2.0) No districts drawn
Demo map by staff
Obvious first draft; same person submitted full plan 37897 Duplicate of 34742 by the same person
Obvious first draft; same person submitted "balanced" (by est. data) 33782 just 10 minutes later 16 ATTACHMENT 2:

Draft Maps

17 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 101
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 20.1%
©2021 CALIPER
18 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 102
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 27.8%
©2021 CALIPER
19 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 103
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 22.3%
©2021 CALIPER
20 2
3 1 4
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 104
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 31.8%
©2021 CALIPER
21 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 105
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 20.6%
©2021 CALIPER
22 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 106
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 20.6%
©2021 CALIPER
23 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 107
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 20.1%
©2021 CALIPER
24 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 108
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 24.7%
©2021 CALIPER
25 3
2 1
4 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 109
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 18.1%
©2021 CALIPER
26 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 110
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 11.4%
©2021 CALIPER
27 2
1 3
4 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 111
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 22.4%
©2021 CALIPER
28 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 112
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 25.9%
©2021 CALIPER
29 21
4 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 201
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Not Contiguous
©2021 CALIPER
30 2
3 4
1 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 4.0%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 202
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
31 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 5.2%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 203
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
32 1
4 3
2 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 2.3%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 204
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
33 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 3.5%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 205
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
34 4
1 3
2 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 9.4%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 206
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
35 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 207
Total Population Deviation: 7.6%
©2021 CALIPER
36 2
3 1 4
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 208
Total Population Deviation: 7.1%
©2021 CALIPER
37 4
1 2
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 9.4%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 209
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
38 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 210A
Total Population Deviation: 10.1%
©2021 CALIPER
39 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 9.2%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 210B
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
40 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 210C
Total Population Deviation: 6.9%
©2021 CALIPER
41 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 9.8%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 210D
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
42 1 4
2 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 210E
Total Population Deviation: 10.2%
©2021 CALIPER
43 1
4 2
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 9.4%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
Plan 210F
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
44 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 7.5%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 211
©2021 CALIPER
45 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 4.4%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 212
©2021 CALIPER
46 4
21 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 6.0%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 213
©2021 CALIPER
47 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 1.7%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
Plan 214
©2021 CALIPER
48 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 2.9%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
Plan 215
©2021 CALIPER
49 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 1.1%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 216
©2021 CALIPER
50 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 5.1%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 217
©2021 CALIPER
51 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 3.8%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 218
©2021 CALIPER
52 4
3 2
1 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
eTotal Population Deviation: 118.3%
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 219A
©2021 CALIPER
53 4
21 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 6.5%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 219B
©2021 CALIPER
54 41
3 2
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 220A
Total Population Deviation: 62.9%
©2021 CALIPER
55 1
3 2
4 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 220B
Total Population Deviation: 9.2%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
56 1 4
2 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 1.2%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 221
©2021 CALIPER
57 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 2.1%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 222A
©2021 CALIPER
58 4
2 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 1.9%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Plan 222B
©2021 CALIPER
59 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 223
Total Population Deviation: 5.7%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
60 4
3 1 2
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 224
Total Population Deviation: 5.4%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
61 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 225
Not Contiguous
©2021 CALIPER
62 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Total Population Deviation: 4.6%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
Plan 226
©2021 CALIPER
63 1
2 3
4 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 301
Total Population Deviation: 19.9%
©2021 CALIPER
64 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 401
Drafted by NDC
Goleta Neighborhoods
©2021 CALIPER
65 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 402
Goleta Neighborhoods
©2021 CALIPER
66 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 403
Total Population Deviation: 9.2%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
©2021 CALIPER
67 2
1 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 501
Total Population Deviation: 13.2%
©2021 CALIPER
68 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 601
Total Population Deviation: 11.4%
©2021 CALIPER
69 1
2 4
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 701
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
Total Population Deviation: 9.2%
Drafted by NDC
©2021 CALIPER
70 2
4 3
1 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 702
Total Population Deviation: 9.5%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 1 & 3
2024: Districts 2 & 4
Drafted by NDC
©2021 CALIPER
71 2
41 3
Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 703
Total Population Deviation: 9.9%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 3
2024: Districts 1 & 4
Drafted by NDC
©2021 CALIPER
72 2
4 1
3 Ward Memorial Blvd
Hollister Ave
Glen Annie Rd
Storke Rd
S Los Carneros Rd
Phelps Rd
Pacific Oak
s Rd
Cll Real
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pebble Beach Dr
Winchester Canyon Rd
Cannon Green Dr
Mathilda Dr
S Patterson Ave
Fairview Ave
Arundel Rd
Encina Rd
Berkeley Rd
Covington Way
N La Patera Ln
S Kellogg Ave
N Los Carneros Rd
Alameda Ave
Sylvan Dr
N Fairview
Av
e
City of Goleta
2021/22 Transition to
District Elections
National Demographics Corporation, January 19, 2022
Plan 704
Total Population Deviation: 5.7%
Proposed Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 3 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 2
Alternative Election Sequence:
2022: Districts 2 & 4
2024: Districts 1 & 3
Drafted by NDC
©2021 CALIPER
73 ATTACHMENT 3:

Communities of Interest adopted by Council on August 17, 2021

74 City of Goleta Potential Communities of Interest and Neighborhoods Prepared by Daniel Phillips, National Demographics Corporation, January 20, 2022 Communities of Interest:

General Plan Subareas:
 Central Area
 Central Resource Area
 Coastal Resource Area
 Northeast Community Center
 Northeast Residential Area
 Northwest Residential Area
 Old Town
 Southwest Residential Area
Elementary School Attendance Areas:
 Brandon
 El Camino
 Ellwood
 Hollister
 Isla Vista
 Kellogg
 La Patera
 Mountain View
Airport Noise Corridor:

Hollister to Phelps, Los Carneros to Cannon Green
Demographic Outliers:
 Ellwood Beach/Mathilda (low income, high multi-family housing, high renter housing)  Encina Royale (low families with children)
 Old Town (high Spanish speakers, high families with children, low income, low college education, high multi-family housing, high renter housing) Neighborhoods (unofficial, not necessarily exhaustive):
 Armstrong/Scripps Crescent
 Berkeley/Cambridge/Kellogg
 The Bluffs
 Brandon/Evergreen
 Cannon Green
75  Carlo/Vega
 Dearborn Green/La Goleta
 Dos Pueblos/El Encanto Heights
 Ellwood Beach/Mathilda
 Ellwood Mesa/Coronado
 Ellwood Station
 Encina Royale
 Eucalyptus Grove
 Evergreen Terrace
 Fairview/Cathedral Oaks
 The Hideaway/Sanderling
 Hollister Village
 La Calera/Pacific Glen
 La Goleta
 Lake Los Carneros East
 Lake Los Carneros North
 Maravilla
 Mariposa at Ellwood Shores
 Meadow Tree/Santa Barbara Fairways
 Mobile Home Parks
o Rancho Estates
o Rancho Goleta
o Santa Barbara West
o Wayside Village
 Mountain View Ranch
 Old Town
 Pacific Oaks
 Patterson Place/Overpass Road
 Sanderling
 Santa Barbara Shores
 Sesame Tree/Whittier
 Storke Ranch
 Suellen
 Sumida Gardens
 The Village at Los Carneros/Elacora/Arrive
 Village Terrace
 Willow Springs
 Winchester Canyon/San Miguel
 Winchester Commons
 Winslowe
76 ATTACHMENT 4:

Comments Received as of noon on January 26, 2022
77 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/21/2022 Paula Johnson Where is the outline of each of the 4 Districts? Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/21/2022 Mark Preston So I can see that most maps are out of balance. I understand. But, maps 401 and 402 are utterly and completely incomprehensible. What are the districts proposed ??? My goodness, 4 districts with 2 north and 2 south makes sense.

Just tweak East/West. It should not be a Sudoku puzzle.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/23/2022 Niccola Camacho Gerrymandering at the local level, very cool. Why not one-person one-vote upon the law, like a shareholder meeting, but with constituents.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Niccola Camacho http://www.ncid.us/amendment Something like this could help solve the problem of monetary corruption in politics. The politicians are mostly bought, let the people vote on the law.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Ted Anagnnoson I think these are just neighborhoods. comparing this map with the ones below shows that this one doesn't have any district boundaries. it's a background map.

In this case the neighborhoods are pretty detailed. The other map has bigger groupings Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Anonymous You are correct, this is a Neighborhood Map meant to show those communties of interest. It was not submitted as a district map.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 Claudia Dato The Old Town Neighborhood should include everything west of Ward Memorial Blvd/Hwy 217 over to Fairview.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 CDG Question: Where’s the legend to this map? Since this is a component of the evaluation criteria (i.e., undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest”), where’s the legend to this map listing each of the color coded Communities of Interest and Neighborhoods as prepared by NDC and adopted by the City Council on August 17, 2021 (see Pages 5 & 7 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022, Attachment 3 on Pages 69 - 71). As such, it would be helpful for reviewers, including myself, if either a link to this legend or a pdf was attached – thank you.

Plan 402 1/24/2022 Anonymous You are correct, this is a Neighborhood Map meant to show those communties of interest. It was not submitted as a district map.

Plan 402 1/24/2022 Anonymous What is the purpose of all these divisions? You have already allowed the splitting of our individual very residential lots which will reduce the value of our homes. Why divide our areas also? Plan 402 1/21/2022 R Mc I prefer this map. It is more logically divided. Map 401 explicitly excludes my neighborhood from the same district as all the other surrounding neighborhoods.

Plan 402 1/21/2022 Paula Johnson Where is the outline of each of the 4 Districts? Plan 402 1/24/2022 Ted Anagnnoson this again is a neighborhood background map, with the smaller neighborhoods of the other map grouped together here Plan 402 1/25/2022 Claudia Dato This map makes much more sense than Map 401. Old Town boundaries are correct in my view as a 7 year resident of Old Town.

Plan 402 1/26/2022 Anonymous I think the City did not label this very well based on some of the comments. why call it PLAN 402 when it is not a plan at all? need to be clear.

Neighborhood Maps (for Reference)
78 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 202 1/24/2022 Bruce Wilson Of the plans that meet the minimum My #1 preference is #202 first, and #702 second. So many of the other plans divide cohesive residential communities. While there are some small differences in these 2 plans, they both have a good distribution of various people and are in geographic areas that are mostly the same. They have schools that serve most of the residents of that district.

Plan 202 1/24/2022 Kalia I think this is a good plan for reasons mentioned above. It keeps neighborhoods cohesive. We need this to be able to have a sense of community and to work with our council member on any issues and improvements.

Plan 203 1/24/2022 Anonymous This plan keeps neighborhoods cohesive, which is good.

Plan 204 1/24/2022 Kalia This map does not make sense because it divides the Berkeley neighborhood ! Please don’t choose a map that divides on Berkeley Road. It’s right in the middle of a neighborhood.

Plan 204 1/23/2022 Alejandra S. I am supportive of this map. It has one of the lowest population deviations of any of the maps. Probably is no perfect map, but this one makes sense.

Plan 205
Plan 206 1/26/2022 Anonymous I like the concept to divide at 101 (except move the small pink #1 to #2 district) , like what I see to divide at Los Carneros and Storke along hollister to border district #3 and #4. >From a Parks an Open Space Perspective I strongly feel each distract >should include large parks Goleta is know for,
for example this plan:

A. This places Ellwood Mesa & Girsh Park in district #1.

B. Bishop Ranch in district #2, (will give incentive to make a big chunk of Bishop Ranch into a park in future) C. Lake Los Carneros & Stow Park in district #3.

D Old Town is completely in district #4 and includes Jonny Wallace Park & GV Community Center Plan 207 1/24/2022 Kalia Please don’t divide in Berkeley Road. This is right in the middle of a neighborhood.

Plan 207 1/24/2022 Kalia Again, please do not choose a map that divides districts along Berkeley Road. This is right in the middle of a neighborhood. Maybe Calle Real or even Encina Road.

Plan 207 1/26/2022 Anonymous US 101 is a natural divider, don't chop hoods up like this.

Plan 208 1/24/2022 Marsha I like being included with DPHS area Plan 208 1/26/2022 Anonymous Dont like this Old Town being part of Lake Los Carneros. Not a not wise or natural choice. Better for the residents who live and play adjacent to these large open space areas to be in the same district district as the park or open space.

Plan 209 1/24/2022 Anonymous This is very logical division of Goleta as folks will have common interests in their areas, NW, SW, NE, SE parts of Goleta Plan 209 1/25/2022 Anonymous This map includes communities of interest such as senior citizen complexes.

Plan 209 1/26/2022 Anonymous agree with comments above regarding natural boundaries for Goleta. Note this plan is same as 206.

Plan 209 1/25/2022 Anonymous Agree that this map looks like a natural division that is easy to understand and recognizes natural boundaries and demographic distribution. Not sure I understand what is happening near the 101 freeway between districts 3 ad 4. Maps 210F and 403 a closely related maps to this one.

District Maps that Meet Minimum Legal Requirements
79 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan 210B
Plan 210C
Plan 210D
Plan 210F 1/25/2022 Anonymous This is my favorite map, though the lines along highway 101 are difficult to understand. This one looks very much like 403. A simple and straightforward set of boundaries that are easy to see.

Plan 211 1/24/2022 Anonymous This plan splits a neighborhood along Kellogg Road, and splits a neighborhood arbitrarily— not good! Please don’t choose this plan.

Plan 211 1/26/2022 Anonymous Please stick with the first divide line as US101 , natural districts are NOT displayed in this plan, please resist to divide this way. plan no good reject this style.

Plan 212
Plan 213 1/24/2022 Kalia Dividing districts along Berkeley Road is not a good idea. This line would be right in the middle of a neighborhood and put me in a different district than my neighbors. We have good dialogue here about elections and it would be sad not to be able to continue that!
Plan 214
Plan 215
Plan 216
Plan 217
Plan 218 1/24/2022 Kalia This map puts just part of Somerset Lane in a different district! That will lead to all sorts of confusion and the people in those few houses will feel left out!
Plan 219B 1/24/2022 Anonymous please don’t divide along Berkeley Road, which is in the middle of a neighborhood Plan 220B
Plan 221 1/21/2022 Deborah Williams This is my favorite map/plan. It has the second least population deviation of any of the plans, and the best, most compact boundaries.

Plan 221 1/21/2022 Ken Tatro What I was lookg for turns out to be in full agreement with Deborah Williams above. the least populationn deviation and the most together boundaries. thus keep it straight forward and simple, right? Thanks for all the hard work putting this together.

Plan 221 1/25/2022 Anonymous Deborah, this plan spilts my neighborhood. I think this is not a good idea. Berkeley Road goes right through the middle and it just feels weird that my neighbors would have a different council member. We go to the same parks, have the same issues. We need to be in the same district. Please don’t split a district along Berkeley Road! Plan 221 1/24/2022 Kalia Above comment from me. (Forgot to leave my name).

Plan 221 I would suggest not letting the population deviation value overshadow the discussion. In order to get that low value, a small "island" was created in district 4. I would be in favor of slightly higher population deviation to avoid strange boundaries and possibly disenfranchised segments. Plan 226 looks good, but suffers from the same issue.

Plan 222A 1/24/2022 Anonymous Same comment as other plans that split a neighborhood in two: please don’t divide along Berkeley Road.

Plan 222B 1/24/2022 Anonymous Please don’t split districts along Berkeley Road! Plan 223 1/24/2022 Anonymous For reasons mentioned earlier, please don’t split districts along Berkeley Road (shown top of district 4).

Plan 224 1/23/2022 Joseph Guron Looking at the demographics of this map, it makes sense. Other than District 3, it has close demographics between White vs Non-white (Hispanic) voters. It’s almost impossible to divide each group and population equally while as the same time having neighborhoods stay continuous
Plan 224 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you. 80 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan 224 1/25/2022 CDG NDC’s review of Map 224 identifies this map as having “Three Districts Cross Substantially” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood; technically contiguous but “iffy” (see Page 137 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, NDC states on Page 70 of Agenda Item A.1 under the heading of Demographic Outliers: “Ellwood Beach/Mathilda (low income, high multi-family housing, high renter housing).” However, the percent Household Income difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to be negligible and is presented as follows (as extracted from the Demographics button at https://drawgoleta.org/plan-224/): A) 1 % difference for household income 0 – 25K, B) 1 % difference for household income 25K – 50K, C) 3 % difference for household income 50K – 75K, D) 8 % difference for household income 75K – 200K, and E) 3 % difference for household income 200K plus. Furthermore, the percent Housing Stats difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to be minor and is presented as follows (extracted from the same Demographics button as above): A) 8 % difference for single family, B) 8 % difference for multi-family, C) 12 % difference for rented, and D) 12 % difference for owned. Nonetheless, if the minor concerns identified above by NDC appear to be significant when evaluated by the PEC (Public Engagement Commission), then NDC’s Map Plan 704 (four districts cross; same splits of the Mathilda neighborhood) is my preferred option to Map Plan 224 followed by NDC’s Map Plan 702 as my third choice.

Plan 226 1/24/2022 Steve Nelson After doing my best to review these proposals I like this one the best. It respects neighborhoods and geographical and other physical boundaries (major roads, freeways, etc) pretty well with a pretty good population deviation number. I think this is the least forced, most natural, and best balanced of the plans.

Plan 226 1/25/2022 Anonymous On the whole, I would agree with this comment (above), but then if you look very carefully at District 4, there's a strange little island in the lower left part of District 4 which must be how the population deviation was reduced. Doesn't look good.

For the same reasons as stated above (respecting neighborhoods and natural boundaries), I'd go with 403 or 209 or 210F instead.

Plan 226 1/26/2022 Anonymous this could be a good plan if the district 1 and 3 Glen Anne Rd divider was moved to N Lake Los Carneros Rd. This way Bishop Ranch is in district 1 and Lake Los Careros in district 3.

Plan 403 1/25/2022 Anonymous Second favorite map, though the lines along highway 101 are difficult to understand. This one looks very much like 210F (which also has the apparent 101 crossover?). Otherwise is a simple and straightforward set of boundaries that are easy to see.

Plan 403 1/26/2022 Anonymous Seems many of these plans put those Smart and Final or Hollister Village apts in DPHS district #1. like it or not we should NOT make districts cross US 101. So move these apartments to #2 or 4 and district #1 border with #3 to N Los Carneros.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Leslie Very good plan. Uses the natural divisions of Hwy 101 and Glen Annie the best, with the exception of the district 1 crossover to balance population, which still feels natural to that neighborhood.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Kalia This seems like a fair plan.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 1/26/2022 Anonymous put Bishop Ranch in district #1 and this is a workable plan. in other words divide #1 and #3 at N Los Carneros.

Plan 702 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Anne Rae My friends south of 101 are concerned about flooding and airplane noise. North of 101 areas do not have those concerns. Group areas so the city council member can focus on the specifics of the area they represent. 81 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan 702 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Bruce Wilson Of the plans that meet the minimum My #1 preference is #202 first, and #702 second. So many of the other plans divide cohesive residential communities. While there are some small differences in these 2 plans, they both have a good distribution of various people and are in geographic areas that are mostly the same. They have schools that serve most of the residents of that district.

Plan 702 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you.

Plan 702 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 CDG NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 702 identifies this map as having “One District Crosses Minimally” and further appears, of noteworthy importance, to have drawn districts without splitting any communities of interest or neighborhoods (see Page 114 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally,

Page 147 ends

“District 3 crosses over minimally, all other districts stay on one side of the freeway; Population deviation: 9.5%; District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 17%, 31%; All four districts are contiguous; Does not split any neighborhoods; Closely adheres to general plan subareas as communities of interest and, to a lesser extent, elementary school attendance areas; Does not split the airport noise corridor or “demographic outliers;” District boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 3 may not be compact.”
On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents, and future population growth.”
Plan 703 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Amante A Mangaser I glanced mostly at the NDC-generated maps along with the demographics data. I think this redistricting map is the most logical of all three.

Plan 703 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 Leslie I like plan 701 and I like this plan also, because they best use the natural division lines of Hwy 101 and Glen Annie Rd.

However, this plan might have more appeal to those in area 1.

I’d like to add that I think it’s important for area 3 residents to be grouped with the Fairview and Calle Real shopping areas, and also with the Cathedral Oaks corridor along La Patera Ranch. That encompasses “Goleta North” which is already akin to a district or small town.

Plan 703 Drafted by NDC 1/26/2022 Anonymous no we should not make a district straddle US 101 so much like #1 in this plan. Goleta west and south of 101 should definitely include Ellwood Mesa. why would Ellwood as we know it be divided? Plan 704 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you. 82 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan 704 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 CDG NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 704 identifies this map as having “Four Districts Cross, District 3 Minimally” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood” (see Page 142 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, Page 148 of Agenda Item A.1 reads in relevant part as, “All four districts cross over the freeway; Population deviation: 5.7%, District Latino CVAP: 30%, 24%, 31%, 16%; All four districts are contiguous; Splits the Ellwood Beach / Mathilda neighborhood; Does not adhere as closely to general plan subareas as communities of interest, but splits them fairly significantly; Does not split the airport noise corridor, but does split one “demographic outlier” (Ellwood Beach / Mathilda); Only some district boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 4 may not be compact.”
On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents, and future population growth.”
Plan 704 Drafted by NDC 1/26/2022 CDG Dear PEC: Please spend considerable time analyzing the demographics between each of the draft maps with public comments received including analyzing data such as percent minorities, percent renters, percent multi-family housing, percent with BA or higher education, etc., from the Interactive Review Map @ https://ndcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8d7cbd5588914037bd8e46188cb905b6 in order to select a suitable theme in line with the public comments.

Thank you!
Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 101 Not Population Balanced
Plan 102 Not Population Balanced
Plan 103 Not Population Balanced 1/21/2022 Madlyn Monchamp I prefer plan 103 On this plan the land area in Number 4 remains continuous. It makes no sense to have an area divided in two by Santa Barbara airport/Santa Barbara City.

Plan 104 Not Population Balanced
Plan 105 Not Population Balanced
Plan 106 Not Population Balanced
Plan 107 Not Population Balanced
Plan 108 Not Population Balanced
Plan 109 Not Population Balanced
Plan 110 Not Population Balanced
Plan 111 Not Population Balanced
Plan 112 Not Population Balanced
Plan 201 Not Contiguous
Plan 210A Not Population Balanced
Plan 210E Not Population Balanced
Plan 219A Not Population Balanced
District Maps that Do Not Meet Minimum Legal Requirements 83 Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
1/26/2022 12:32 PM
Plan 220A Not Population Balanced
Plan 225 Not Contiguous
Plan 301 Not Population Balanced 1/24/2022 Anne Rae Breck I think it is good to have 101 as a divide. South Goleta with more shopping and apartments may have a different set of concerns than mostly single family homes in the north. Also south more in the 80-100 year flood zone \ those residence will have different issues than residence north of 101. Anne Breck Plan 501 Not Population Balanced
Plan 601 Not Population Balanced
84 1
Jaime Shaw
Subject: FW: Election district maps comment
Begin forwarded message:

From: BILL WOODBRIDGE <[email protected]>
Date: January 21, 2022 at 5:46:59 PM PST
To: Kelly Hoover <[email protected]>
Subject: Election district maps comment
The “Pick your favorite Goleta Elections district map” email does not offer a clear way to respond to or select/group together several maps that seem to be nearly identical. I am in favor of keeping 2 districts north of the 101 (as much as possible) one being Northeast and the other being Northw est ,and 2 districts south of the 101, one being Southeast and the other being Southwest. As much as I can tell, 5 of the maps seem to achieve that with the least amount of crossing over the 101. I like any of these: #206, #210F, #226, $403, #701.

Please forward this email to the appropriate person(
s) or advise to whom I should send it.

Thanks,

Bill Woodbridge
85 From: Clint
To: Jaime Shaw
Subject: District maps
Date: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:42:20 PM
Hi:

Map 226 appears to provide clear and fair districts for all.

Respectfully,
Clinton and Allena Donati
5550 Pembroke Ave.
86 From: Lisa Kus
To: Jaime Shaw
Subject: District Map Comment
Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:56:00 PM
Hello.

We are in favor of any option where there are 2 districts on one side of the 101 and 2 on the other, especially the 2 on the north side should not be bisected by the 101. As one who lives on the northside we want to protect the rural aspects.

Lisa and Steve Kus
87 1
Jaime Shaw
From: C. Dave G <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 7:22 PM
To: Jaime Shaw
Cc: City Clerk Group; Dave G
Subject: Agenda Item A.1 22-037, Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022.

Dear Jamie Shaw – I respectfully request the distribution of my written email response regarding Agenda Item A.1 to the members of the PEC (Public Engagement Commission), and for this response to be entered into the appropriate public record.

My name is C. Dave Gaughen, email address of [email protected], and phone number of (805) 275-6457.

REVIEW OF DRAFT MAP PLANS @ https://drawgoleta.org/draft-maps/

First Choice: Map Plan 224. Second Choice: NDC’s Map Plan 704. Third Choice: NDC’s Map Plan 702*

*the following comments have also been posted to the respective three maps at https://drawgoleta.org/draft-maps/

Map Plan 224
NDC’s review of Map 224 identifies this map as having “Three Districts Cross Substantially” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood; technically contiguous but “iffy” (see Page 137 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, NDC states on Page 70 of Agenda Item A.1 under the heading of Demographic Outliers: “Ellwood Beach/Mathilda (low income, high multi-family housing, high renter housing).” However, the percent Household Income difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to be negligible and is presented as follows (as extracted from the Demographics button at https://drawgoleta.org/plan-224/): A) 1 % difference for household income 0 – 25K, B) 1 % difference for household income 25K – 50K, C) 3 % difference for household income 50K – 75K, D) 8 % difference for household income 75K – 200K, and E) 3 % difference for household income 200K plus. Furthermore, the percent Housing Stats difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to 88 2
be minor and is presented as follows (extracted from the same Demographics button as above): A) 8 % difference for single family, B) 8 % difference for multi-family, C) 12 % difference for rented, and D) 12 % difference for owned. Nonetheless, if the minor concerns identified above by NDC appear to be significant when evaluated by the PEC (Public Engagement Commission), then NDC’s Map Plan 704 (four districts cross; same splits of the Mathilda neighborhood) is my preferred option to Map Plan 224 followed by NDC’s Map Plan 702 as my third choice.

Map Plan 704
NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 704 identifies this map as having “Four Districts Cross, District 3 Minimally” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood” (see Page 142 of Agenda Item A.1). Additionally, Page 148 of Agenda Item A.1 reads in relevant part as,

“All four districts cross over the freeway; Population deviation: 5.7%, District Latino CVAP: 30%, 24%, 31%, 16%; All four districts are contiguous; Splits the Ellwood Beach / Mathilda neighborhood; Does not adhere as closely to general plan subareas as communities of interest, but splits them fairly significantly; Does not split the airport noise corridor, but does split one “demographic outlier” (Ellwood Beach / Mathilda); Only some district boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 4 may not be compact.”

Map Plan 702
NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 702 identifies this map as having “One District Crosses Minimally” and further appears, of noteworthy importance, to have drawn districts without splitting any communities of interest or neighborhoods (see Page 114 of Agenda Item A.1). Additionally, Page 147 of Agenda Item A.1 reads in relevant part as,

On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents, and future population growth.”
89 3

**presently, I do not plan on speaking on Agenda Item A.1.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully, C. Dave Gaughen
90 1
Jaime Shaw
From: kitnjon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Jaime Shaw
Subject: Letter to Public Engagement Commission re District Boundaries Categories: 1_PEC
Chair Paz and Commissioners,

I hope after studying the many draft maps submitted via DrawGoleta that you will recommend at least one map that does not divide the city at the 101, with two districts north of the freeway and two south of it.

I don't think that reflects the reality of life in Goleta. Many of us cross that freeway several times a week, and Goleta is still a small enough city that what happens in neighborhoods north and south of the freeway affects all of us.

Your task is a challenging one, and I thank you for the time and thought that you have devoted to that effort.

Sincerely,
Kitty Bednar

91 From: Lorna
To: Jaime Shaw
Subject: Input for Public Engagement Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:57:40 AM
Dear Members of the Goleta Public Engagement Commission,

We recommend that the City of Goleta adopt the proposed Districting Plan Number 703 (NDC Proposal). After a thorough review of all of the proposed plans, we feel that Plan 703 is logical, well thought out, and would be beneficial to our city. Each of the districts in Plan 703 appear to have unique aspects and qualities that tie them together as the separate districts that are proposed under this plan. Adopting this plan would keep the characteristics of each of these communities in place.

In addition, people residing in each of these areas appear to share common perspectives about their neighborhoods which will help to plan appropriately for the future of each area.

As Goleta residents
for over 22 years, we have seen much change impact the character of our city. Goleta is a very special place and we hope that its qualities will be preserved.

Thank you for considering our input and thank you for your time on this important project.

Sincerely,

Lorna and Mike Owens
Winchester Commons, Goleta

92 ATTACHMENT 5:

Public Engagement Commission Recommendations

93 Attachment 5

Public Engagement Commission Recommendation
The Public Engagement Commission voted unanimously after its Public Hearing on January 26, 2022, to recommend the following maps to the City Council:
• Map # 202,
• Map # 226,
• Map # 701,
• Map # 703
No particular priority was recommended between the map options.

The full Public Engagement Commission meeting from January 26, 2022 , can be viewed through the following link:
https://goleta.granicus.com/player/clip/1643?view_id=2&redirect=true (Meeting opens at 9 minutes)
The agenda and a link to the staff report and attachments can be viewed through the following link.
https://goleta.legistar1.com/goleta/meetings/2022/1/2681_A__Public_Enga gement_Commission__22-01-26_Agenda.pdf

94 ATTACHMENT 6:

Revised-District-Election-Timeline

95 Meeting Date Task Code
February 6, 2017

Demand letter from asserting that the City's at-large electoral system violated the California Voting Rights Act, codified at California Elections Code sections 14025-14032 ("CVRA)

May 16, 2017

City Council Resolution 17-17 Adopted Declaring its Intention to Transition to District-Based Election

Public Engagement
Commission Meeting
February 17, 2021
6:00 p.m.

The Commission received an introduction to the 2022 electoral districting process and provided input.

Public Engagement
Commission Meeting
Thursday, April 22, 2021
6:00 p.m.

The Commission continued to learn and provide input on the 2022 electoral districting process. The meeting included a discussion and input on the stakeholder list, media list, venue list, and communities of interest, as well as a presentation on how to use the online mapping tools.

1st Public Workshop
Virtual
Monday, June 7, 2021
6:00 p.m.

Districting process and the tools for residents to use in developing maps
.

2nd Public Workshop
In-person

Saturday, June 26, 2021
11:00 a.m.

Held at the Goleta Union School
Board Room
Districting process and to Encourage Public Participation . 3rd Public Workshop/In Lieu
of 1st Public Hearing
In Person
**(In lieu of holding one of the
Public Hearings)
Monday, August 2, 2021
6:00 P.M. Time Certain
Held outdoors at City Hall

Mapping tools were live, and participants had the opportunity to stay afterward for assistance with using the paper and online mapping tools to draw and submit their own maps
Before Map(s) Drawn E.C.
10010(a)(1)
2nd Public Hearing
City Council meeting - Regular
Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Consider Public Input on Composition of Districts and approve a list of communities of interest
Before Map(s) Drawn –
E.C. 10010(a)(1), within 30
days of Public Hearing #1
Public Engagement
Commission Meeting
Thursday, August 19, 2021 Update on districting process to date, remaining process and timeline feedback
.

4th Public Workshop
Public Engagement
Commission
Thursday, November 4, 2021, Districting process, Mapping tools are live and following the presentation the consultant and staff assisted people to use the tools to draw and submit their own paper and/or online maps.

Public Engagement
Commission Meeting
Thursday, December 9, 2021 Next steps in the district map drawing process in advance of the January 26, 2022

Deadline for Public Submission
of Maps
Thursday, January 6, 2022,

96 Publish Draft Map(s) and
Sequencing
By January 19, 2021

E.C. 10010(a)(2),
Published Once at Least 7
Days Prior to Public
Hearing #3
Public Engagement
Commission Meeting
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Public Hearing
The Commission will consider the maps submitted and to provide input and recommendations to the City Council.

3rd Public Hearing
City Council Meeting (Regular)

Tuesday, February 1, 2022
6:00 P.M. (time certain)

NDC Presentation, Council Questions, Open the Public Hearing and take public comment, continue to Thursday 2/3 (no
deliberations)
After Map(s) and
Sequencing Published
E.C. 10010(a)(2), More
than 7 Days After Draft
Map(s) and Sequencing
Publication
4th Public Hearing
City Council Meeting (Special)

Thursday, February 3, 2022
4:30 - 6:00 P.M. (time certain)

Recap the first NDC Presentation, Council Questions, Public Comment, Deliberations

5th Public Hearing
City Council Meeting (Special)

Monday, February 24, 2022
4:30- 6:30 P.M. (time certain)

NDC Presentation, Council Questions, Open Public Hearing, take public comment, Deliberations
After Map(s) and
Sequencing Published
E.C. 10010(a)(2), within 45
days of Public Hearing #3
6th Public Hearing
City Council Meeting (Regular)

Tuesday, March 1, 2022
5:45 P.M. (time certain)

First Reading Publish Entire Adopted
Ordinance - 10010(a)(2),
must be published 7
days before adoption.
7th Public Hearing
City Council Meeting (Regular)

Tuesday, March 15, 2022
6:00 P.M. (time certain)

Second Reading
– Must be on Regular City Council meeting date.

Ordinance Effective Effective 30 days after adoption
Council Members Transition to
Respective Districts via
Ordinance
November 2022
November 2024

97 ATTACHMENT 7:

Revised NDC Presentation
98 1
City of Goleta
Transition to District Elections
99 2
Districting Process
Dates Step and Description
May 16, 2017 Resolution of Intent:

The City adopted a Resolution of Intent to transition from an at-large system to a by-district system in time for the 2022 election.

April 1, 2020 2020 Census:

The Census collected information on the population living in Goleta on this date.

Feb. 17,
Apr. 22, 2021
Public Engagement Commission Meetings:

The Commission was educated on the process and provided input.
100
3 Districting Process, cont.

Dates Step and Description
June 7, 26,
August 2,
2021
Public Workshops:

The public was educated on the process and provided input.

First workshop virtual, second and third in person.

Third workshop also serves as Pre-Draft Hearing #1.

August 2 &
17, 2021
Two Pre-Draft Map Hearings:

Two meetings held prior to release of draft maps.

The public and council were asked to identify “neighborhoods” and “communities of interest.” Second hearing took place during a regular City Council meeting.

Aug. 19,
Nov. 4,
Dec. 9, 2021
Public Engagement Commission Meetings:

The Commission received an update on the process, and hosted an additional workshop to inform and educate the public on contributing to the process, including drawing their own maps. 101
4 Districting Process, cont.

Dates Step and Description
Sep. 20,
2021
Statewide Database Data Release:

The prisoner-adjusted California Statewide Database released its official redistricting data.

January 6,
2022
Deadline for Public Map Submissions:

Deadline for the public to submit draft maps for inclusion in the next hearing packet and presentation.

January 19,
2022
Release of Draft Maps:

Initial draft maps were posted to the project website.
102
5 Districting Process, cont.

Dates Step and Description
January 26,
2022
Public Engagement Commission Meeting:

The Commission considered the maps submitted and provided input and recommendations to the City Council.

Feb. 1, 3 &
24, 2022
Three Post-Draft Map Hearings:

Three meetings to discuss and revise the draft maps and to discuss the election sequence.

Will take place during regular and special City Council meetings.

March 1 &
15, 2022
First and Second Readings of Map Adoption Ordinance:

Map adopted via ordinance at a regular City Council meeting.

Final map must be posted at least 7 days prior to adoption. 103
6 Rules and Goals for Drawing Districts
 Equal Population
 Federal Voting
Rights Act
 No Racial
Gerrymandering

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas that
should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of people
to get to a more distant group of
people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against a political
party.”

3. Other Traditional Districting
Principles
 Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
 Future population growth
104
7 Category Field Count Pct
2010 Census Tot. Pop. 29,888
2020 Est. Tot. Pop. 31,112
2020 Census Tot. Pop. 32,690
2020 Adj. Tot. Pop. 32,754
Total 21,151
Hisp 5,081 24%
NH White 13,434 64%
NH Black 808 4%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 1,705 8%
Citizen Voting
Age Pop
City of Goleta
Demographic Summary
Each of the 4
districts must
contain about
8,190 people.

Check out the
Story Map for
maps of some of
this demographic
data.
105
8 Communities of Interest & Neighborhoods
Identified by the City Council
 The City Council has recognized a list of communities of interest and neighborhoods to respect
 This establishes a record of important areas that
should be kept undivided in the map-drawing process,
to the extent practicable
 Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but intended as a starting point
 What follows are maps showing each of the
communities of interest that have been identified
 A map of neighborhoods is available as Plan 401
106
9 Communities of Interest
 General Plan Subareas
 Central Area
 Central Resource Area
 Coastal Resource Area
 Northeast Community Center
 Northeast Residential Area
 Northwest Residential Area
 Old Town
 Southwest Residential Area
 General Plan Subareas (more helpful as organizing frameworks) 107
10 Communities of Interest
 Elementary School Attendance Areas
 Brandon (pink)
 El Camino (brown)
 Ellwood (green)
 Hollister (purple)
 Isla Vista (yellow)
 Kellogg (blue)
 La Patera (gray)
 Mountain View (orange)
108
11 Communities of Interest
 Airport Noise Corridor
 From Hollister Ave in the north to Phelps Rd in the south  From Los Carneros Rd in the east to Cannon Green Dr in the west
109
12 Communities of Interest
 Demographic Outliers
 Ellwood Beach/Mathilda: Lower income, more multi-family housing, more renter housing
 Encina Royale: Older, fewer with children at home
 Old Town: More Spanish speakers, more with children at home, lower income, fewer college educated, more multi- family housing, more renters
110
13 District Numbering
 An attempt was made to keep the numbering of the
districts consistent across all draft plans, with consistent coloring as well
 The numbering scheme is just a proposal and it is
ultimately up to the Council to determine how the four
districts should be numbered
 In general, the numbers go from north to south and west to east, with District 1 in the north/west and District 4 in the south/east
 Here are the colors by which each district is symbolized:
 District 1 is pink
 District 2 is blue
 District 3 is green
 District 4 is purple
111
14 Plan Numbering
 100s: DistrictR four district plan using estimated data (12)  200s: DistrictR four district plan using official data (34)  300s: DistrictR three district plan using estimated data (1)  400s: DistrictR communities of interest (3, including 1 drafted by NDC)
 500s: MOR four district plan using estimated data (1)  600s: Paper tool four district plan using estimated data (1)  700s: NDC drafted four district plan using official data (4)  56 plans total
112
15 Plan Groupings
 Neighborhood maps (2)
 District maps that do not meet minimum legal requirements (21)  Not contiguous (2)
 Not population balanced (19)
 District maps that meet minimum legal requirements (33)  One district crosses Highway 101 (16)
◼ Minimal crossing (8)
◼ Substantial crossing (8)
 Two districts cross Highway 101 (6)
◼ Minimal crossing (3)
◼ Substantial crossing (3)
 Three districts cross Highway 101 (2)
 Four districts cross Highway 101 (9)
◼ Minimal crossing of District 3 (5)
◼ Substantial crossing of District 3 (4)
113
16 Neighborhood Maps
114
17 Noncontiguous Districts
115
18 Unbalanced Districts
116
19 Unbalanced Districts
117
20 One District Crosses Minimally
Recommended Recommended
118
21 One District Crosses Substantially
Recommended
119
22 Two Districts Cross, Minimally or Substantially
Recommended
120
23 Three Districts Cross, Minimally or Substantially
121
24 Four Districts Cross, District 3 Minimally
122
25 Four Districts Cross, District 3 Substantially
123
26 Draft Plans Recommended by the PEC
Splits the Lake Los Carneros North neighborhood
124
27 Draft Plans Recommended by the PEC
Splits the Storke Ranch neighborhood
125
28 Draft Plans Recommended by the PEC
126
29 Draft Plans Recommended by the PEC
127
30 Analysis of Recommended Draft Plans
Plan 202
 Districts 1 & 3 cross over minimally; the two
other districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 4.0% (District 4 +2.2%)
 District Latino CVAP: 28%, 26%, 16%, 32%
 All four districts are contiguous
 Splits the Lake Los Carneros North neighb.
 Mostly adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest, but there are a
couple areas that deviate
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the railroad and
major streets, with one exception
 All four districts are compact
Plan 226
 District 1 crosses over minimally; all other
districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 4.6% (District 4 +2.2%)
 District Latino CVAP: 29%, 24%, 15%, 32%
 All districts are contiguous, but 4 is just barely
 Splits the Storke Ranch neighborhood
 Mostly adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest, but there is one area
that deviates
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the railroad and
major streets, with one exception
 All four districts are compact, with one
exception
128
31 Analysis of Recommended Draft Plans
Plan 701
 District 1 crosses over minimally; all other
districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 9.2% (District 4 –2.8%)
 District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 15%, 32%
 All four districts are contiguous
 Does not split any neighborhoods
 Closely adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest and, to a lesser
extent, elementary school attendance areas
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the railroad and
major streets
 All four districts are compact
Plan 703
 District 1 crosses over substantially; all other
districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 9.9% (District 4 –2.8%)
 District Latino CVAP: 28%, 26%, 15%, 32%
 All four districts are contiguous
 Does not split any neighborhoods
 Closely adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest and, to a lesser
extent, elementary school attendance areas
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the railroad and
major streets
 All four districts are compact
129
32 Election Sequence Options for
Recommended Draft Plans
District Plan 202 Plan 226 Plan 701 Plan 703
1 2024 2022 or 2024
(vacant)
2022 or 2024
(vacant) 2024
2 2022 or 2024
(vacant) 2024 2024 2022 or 2024
(vacant)
3 2022 2022 2022 2022
4 2022 or 2024?
(pairing)
2022 or 2024?
(pairing)
2022 or 2024?
(pairing)
2022 or 2024?
(pairing)
(There must be two districts up in 2022 and two in 2024) 130
33 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Questions about the proposed districting plans?
 Which plan(s) do you prefer?
 What, if anything, would you like to see revised in your preferred plan(s)?
 Please refer to the Interactive Review Map for a
detailed look at each plan
131
ATTACHMENT 2:

Comments Received as of noon on February 3, 2022
132
Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 401 Drafted b y NDC 1/21/2022 Paula Johnson Where is the outline of each of the 4 Districts? Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/21/2022 Mark Preston So I can see that most maps are out of balance. I understand. But, maps 401 and 402 are utterly and completely incomprehensible. What are the districts proposed ??? My goodness, 4 districts with 2 north and 2 south makes sense.

Just tweak East/West. It should not be a Sudoku puzzle.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 1/23/2022 Niccola Camacho Gerrymandering at the local level, very cool. Why not one-person one-vote upon the law, like a shareholder meeting, but with constituents.

Plan 401 Drafted b y NDC 1/25/2022 Claudia Dato The Old Town Neighborhood should include everything west of Ward Memorial Blvd/Hwy 217 over to Fairview.

Plan 401 Drafted by NDC 2/2/2022 Aaron B Neither 401 or 402 appear legible in that you cannot see (clearly) any outline of the four districts.

Please revise the labeling or color scheme.

Plan 402 1/24/2022 Anonymous You are correct, this is a Neighborhood Map meant to show those communties of interest. It was not submitted as a district ma
p.

Plan 402 1/21/2022 Paula Johnson Where is the outline of each of the 4 Districts? Neighborhood Maps (for Reference)
Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
133
Plan 402 1/24/2022 Ted Anagnnoson this again is a neighborhood background map, with the smaller neighborhoods of the other map grouped together here Plan 402 1/25/2022 Claudia Dato This map makes much more sense than Map 401. Old Town boundaries are correct in my view as a 7 year resident of Old Town.

Plan 402 1/26/2022 Anonymous I think the City did not label this very well based on some of the comments. why call it PLAN 402 when it is not a plan at all? need to be clear.

Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 202 1/24/2022 Bruce Wilson Of the plans that meet the minimum My #1 preference is #202 first, and #702 second. So many of the other plans divide cohesive residential communities. While there are some small differences in these 2 plans, they both have a good distribution of various people and are in geographic areas that are mostly the same. They have schools that serve most of the residents of that district.

Plan 202 2/1/2022 Aaron B This one makes the most sense, -and though there are no perfect solutions the borders are at least mostly contiguous.

Plan 202 2/1/2022 Kelly Hildner I don't like that this one separates my neighborhood from our adjacent neighborhoods to the west and instead groups Storke Ranch with a bunch of commercial areas and Old Town.

Plan 203 1/24/2022 Anonymous This plan keeps neighborhoods cohesive, which is good.

Plan 203 1/27/2022 Anonymous This plan divides our neighborhood in a really odd way, it would be weird to have one block represented by a different council member.

Plan 204 1/23/2022 Alejandra S. I am supportive of this map. It has one of the lowest population deviations of any of the maps. Probably is no perfect ma
p, but this one makes sense.

A. This places Ellwood Mesa & Girsh Park in district #1.

B. Bishop Ranch in district #2, (will give incentive to make a big chunk of Bishop Ranch into a park in future) C. Lake Los Carneros & Stow Park in district #3.

District Maps that Meet Minimum Legal Requirements
Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
134
Plan 207 1/24/2022 Kalia Again, please do not choose a map that divides districts along Berkeley Road. This is right in the middle of a neighborhood. Maybe Calle Real or even Encina Road.

Plan 207 1/26/2022 Anonymous US 101 is a natural divider, don't chop hoods up like this.

Plan 208 1/24/2022 Marsha I like bein g included with DPHS area Plan 208 1/26/2022 Anonymous Dont like this Old Town being part of Lake Los Carneros. Not a not wise or natural choice. Better for the residents who live and play adjacent to these large open space areas to be in the same district district as the park or open space.

Plan 208 1/27/2022 Anonymous Odd neighborhood division in Ellwood, half the neighborhood is represented by one council member and half would be represented by another.

Plan 209 1/26/2022 Anonymous agree with comments above regarding natural boundaries for Goleta. Note this plan is same as 206.

Plan 210B
Plan 210C
Plan 210D
Plan 210F 1/25/2022 Anonymous This is my favorite map, though the lines along highway 101 are difficult to understand. This one looks very much like 403. A sim
ple and straightforward set of boundaries that are easy to see.

Plan 211 1/24/2022 Anonymous This plan splits a neighborhood along Kellogg Road, and splits a neighborhood arbitrarily— not good! Please don’t choose this plan.

Plan 211 1/26/2022 Anonymous Please stick with the first divide line as US101 , natural districts are NOT displayed in this plan, please resist to divide this way. plan no good reject this style.

Plan 212
Plan 213 1/24/2022 Kalia Dividing districts along Berkeley Road is not a good idea. This line would be right in the middle of a neighborhood and put me in a different district than my neighbors. We have good dialogue here about elections and it would be sad not to be able to continue that!
Plan 214
Plan 215
Plan 216
Plan 217
Plan 218 1/24/2022 Kalia This map puts just part of Somerset Lane in a different district! That will lead to all sorts of confusion and the people in those few houses will feel left out!
Plan 219B 1/24/2022
Anonymous please don’t divide along Berkeley Road, which is in the middle of a neighborhood Plan 220B
Plan 221 1/21/2022 Deborah Williams This is my favorite map/plan. It has the second least population deviation of any of the plans, and the best, most com
pact boundaries.

Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
135
Plan 221 1/25/2022 Anonymous Deborah, this plan spilts my neighborhood. I think this is not a good idea. Berkeley Road goes right through the middle and it just feels weird that my neighbors would have a different council member. We go to the same parks, have the same issues. We need to be in the same district. Please don’t split a district along Berkeley Road! Plan 221 1/24/2022 Kalia Above comment from me. (Forgot to leave my name).

Plan 222A 1/24/2022
Anonymous Same comment as other plans that split a neighborhood in two: please don’t divide along Berkeley Road.

Plan 224 1/25/2022 CDG NDC’s review of Map 224 identifies this map as having “Three Districts Cross Substantially” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood; technically contiguous but “iffy” (see Page 137 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, NDC states on Page 70 of Agenda Item A.1 under the heading of Demographic Outliers: “Ellwood Beach/Mathilda (low income, high multi-family housing, high renter housing).” However, the percent Household Income difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to be negligible and is presented as follows (as extracted from the Demographics button at https://drawgoleta.org/plan-224/): A) 1 % difference for household income 0 – 25K, B) 1 % difference for household income 25K – 50K, C) 3 % difference for household income 50K – 75K, D) 8 % difference for household income 75K – 200K, and E) 3 % difference for household income 200K plus. Furthermore, the percent Housing Stats difference between District 1 and District 2 appears to be minor and is presented as follows (extracted from the same Demographics button as above): A) 8 % difference for single family, B) 8 % difference for multi-family, C) 12 % difference for rented, and D) 12 % difference for owned. Nonetheless, if the minor concerns identified above by NDC appear to be significant when evaluated by the PEC (Public Engagement Commission), then NDC’s Map Plan 704 (four districts cross; same splits of the Mathilda neighborhood) is my preferred option to Map Plan 224 followed by NDC’s Map Plan 702 as my third choice.

For the same reasons as stated above (respecting neighborhoods and natural boundaries), I'd go with 403 or 209 or 210F instead.

Plan 226 1/26/2022 Anonymous this could be a good plan if the district 1 and 3 Glen Anne Rd divider was moved to N Lake Los Carneros Rd. This way Bisho
p Ranch is in district 1 and Lake Los Careros in district 3.

Plan 226 1/28/2022 Steve Nelson This process is way too complicated for most civilians. There needs to be a better, more streamlined way of presenting this information to the public to elicit participation! Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
136
Plan 226 2/1/2022 Anonymous This plan breaks up my neighborhood (Storke Ranch) in a weird way, so it doesn't make sense to me.

Plan 226 2/1/2022 Kell y Hildner This plan breaks up my neighborhood (Storke Ranch) in a weird way, so it doesn't make sense to me.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Leslie Very good plan. Uses the natural divisions of Hwy 101 and Glen Annie the best, with the exception of the district 1 crossover to balance
population, which still feels natural to that neighborhood.

Plan 701 Drafted b y NDC 1/24/2022 Kalia This seems like a fair plan.

Plan 701 Drafted b y NDC 1/26/2022 Anonymous put Bishop Ranch in district #1 and this is a workable plan. in other words divide #1 and #3 at N Los Carneros.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 2/1/2022 Kelly Hildner Of the four maps recommended after the last meeting, this seems the most coherent. It uses natural breaks well (101, Hollister, Glen Annie) and keeps many common interests/needs within the same district. Regarding the note above (and on many other draft maps), putting Bishop Ranch in District 1 vs. 3 seems to be a specific interest which may need to be ex
plored.

Plan 701 Drafted by NDC 2/1/2022 Kelly Hildner Of the 4 recommended maps, I think this one or 703 make the most sense, with continuous borders and keeping neighborhoods cohesive.

Plan 702 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Bruce Wilson Of the plans that meet the minimum My #1 preference is #202 first, and #702 second. So many of the other plans divide cohesive residential communities. While there are some small differences in these 2 plans, they both have a good distribution of various people and are in geographic areas that are mostly the same. They have schools that serve most of the residents of that district.

Plan 702 Drafted b
y NDC 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you.

Page 147 ends

“District 3 crosses over minimally, all other districts stay on one side of the freeway; Population deviation: 9.5%; District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 17%, 31%; All four districts are contiguous; Does not split any neighborhoods; Closely adheres to general plan subareas as communities of interest and, to a lesser extent, elementary school attendance areas; Does not split the airport noise corridor or “demographic outliers;” District boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 3 may not be compact.”
On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents and future population growth”Plan 703 Drafted by NDC 1/24/2022 Amante A Mangaser I glanced mostly at the NDC-generated maps along with the demographics data. I think this redistricting map is the most logical of all three.

Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
137
Plan 703 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 Leslie I like plan 701 and I like this plan also, because they best use the natural division lines of Hwy 101 and Glen Annie Rd.

However, this plan might have more appeal to those in area 1.

Plan 704 Drafted by NDC 1/25/2022 CDG NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 704 identifies this map as having “Four Districts Cross, District 3 Minimally” and further states, “Splits the Mathilda neighborhood” (see Page 142 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, Page 148 of Agenda Item A.1 reads in relevant part as, “All four districts cross over the freeway; Population deviation: 5.7%, District Latino CVAP: 30%, 24%, 31%, 16%; All four districts are contiguous; Splits the Ellwood Beach / Mathilda neighborhood; Does not adhere as closely to general plan subareas as communities of interest, but splits them fairly significantly; Does not split the airport noise corridor, but does split one “demographic outlier” (Ellwood Beach / Mathilda); Only some district boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 4 may not be compact.”
On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents, and future population growth.”
Plan 704 Drafted by NDC 1/26/2022 CDG Dear PEC: Please spend considerable time analyzing the demographics between each of the draft maps with public comments received including analyzing data such as percent minorities, percent renters, percent multi-family housing, percent with BA or higher education, etc., from the Interactive Review Map @ https://ndcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8d7cbd5588914037bd8e46188cb905b6 in order to select a suitable theme in line with the public comments.

Thank you!
Plan Number Date Name Comment
Plan 101 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 102 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 103 Not Population Balanced 1/21/2022 Madlyn Monchamp I prefer plan 103 On this plan the land area in Number 4 remains continuous. It makes no sense to have an area divided in two by Santa Barbara airport/Santa Barbara City.

Plan 104 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 105 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 106 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 107 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 108 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 109 Not Po pulation Balanced
District Maps that Do Not Meet Minimum Legal Requirements Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
138
Plan 110 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 111 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 112 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 201 Not Conti guous
Plan 210A Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 210E Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 219A Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 220A Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 225 Not Conti guous
Plan 301 Not Population Balanced 1/24/2022 Anne Rae Breck I think it is good to have 101 as a divide. South Goleta with more shopping and apartments may have a different set of concerns than mostly single family homes in the north. Also south more in the 80-100 year flood zone \ those residence will have different issues than residence north of 101. Anne Breck Plan 501 Not Po pulation Balanced
Plan 601 Not Po pulation Balanced
Drawgoleta.org Plan Comments
2/3/2022 12:00 PM
139
Attachment 3
NDC Presentation
140
1 City of Goleta
Transition to District Elections
February 3, 2022
141
2 Rules and Goals for Drawing Districts
February 3, 2022
 Equal Population
 Federal Voting
Rights Act
 No Racial
Gerrymandering

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas that
should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of people
to get to a more distant group of
people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against a political
party.”

3. Other Traditional Districting
Principles
 Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
 Future population growth
142
3 Neighborhood Maps
February 3, 2022
143
4 February 3, 2022
Noncontiguous Districts
144
5 Unbalanced Districts
February 3, 2022
145
6 Unbalanced Districts
February 3, 2022
146
7 One District Crosses Minimally
Recommended Recommended
February 3, 2022
147
8 One District Crosses Substantially
Recommended
February 3, 2022
148
9 Two Districts Cross, Minimally or Substantially
Recommended
February 3, 2022
149
10 Three Districts Cross, Minimally or Substantially
February 3, 2022
150
11 Four Districts Cross, District 3 Minimally
February 3, 2022
151
12 Four Districts Cross, District 3 Substantially
February 3, 2022
152
13February 3, 2022
Focus Plans
153
14 February 3, 2022
Focus Plans
154
15February 3, 2022
Analysis of Focus Plans
Plan 701
 District 1 crosses over minimally; all other
districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 9.2% (District 4 –2.8%)
 District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 15%, 32%
 All four districts are contiguous
 Does not split any neighborhoods
 Closely adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest and, to a lesser
extent, elementary school attendance areas
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the railroad and
major streets
 All four districts are compact
Plan 206
 District 1 crosses over minimally; all other
districts stay on one side of the freeway
 Population deviation: 9.4% (District 4 –2.9%)
 District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 15%, 32%
 All four districts are contiguous
 Does not split any neighborhoods
 Closely adheres to general plan subareas as
communities of interest and, to a lesser
extent, elementary school attendance areas
 Does not split the airport noise corridor or
“demographic outliers”
 District boundaries follow the freeway and
major streets
 All four districts are compact
155
16 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Questions about the proposed districting plans?
 Which plan(s) do you prefer?
 What, if anything, would you like to see revised in your preferred plan(s)?
 Please refer to the Interactive Review Map for a
detailed look at each plan
February 3, 2022
156

Goleta City CouncilFebruary 3, 2022

Goleta City Council
February 3, 2022