Agenda Item C.1
PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: March 1, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Kristy Schmidt, Assistant City Manager
CONTACT: Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
SUBJECT: First Reading of Proposed Ordinance to Change to By-District Elections for the City Council and Adopting a Map Describing the Boundaries and Identifying Election Sequencing for Each Electoral District RECOMMENDATION:
A. Pursuant to California Elect ions Code Section 10010(a)(2), hold 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. Conduct first reading by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance entitled , “An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Adding a New Chapter 2.090 to the Goleta Municipal Code to Change the System of Elections for Members of the City Council from an At -Large System to a By -District System and Adopting a Map Describing the Boundaries and Identifying Election Sequencing for Each Electoral District.”
BACKGROUND:
On February 6, 2017, the City received a demand letter from Linds ey 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). On May 16, 2017, pursuant to a conditional settlement and release agreement related to those claims, 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 Public Engagement Commission, among other things, to provide input to the City Council on the process of determining the district lines for future district elections.
On February 2, 2021 , Council approved an agreement with National Demographics Corporation (NDC) to assist staff with demographic analysis of census data, drawing draft maps of proposed boundaries of districts, public outreach, and interactive web tools related to the City’s 2022 Electoral Districting Process. Since then, staff have worked with NDC and the Public Engagement Commission to conduct a District Drawing Process that would fully engage the public and comply with CA Election Code Section 10010. 1 The Public Engagement Commission provided input to staff and NDC on a Stakeholder Outreach List, Media Outreach List, and a list of potential venues for in -person workshops/meetings. They also identified a list of Goleta’s “Communities of Interest”, as defined by state law, that was later adopted by the City Council at its meeting of August 17, 2021.
In June 2021, NDC launched the DrawGoleta.org website. The website was actively updated throughout the District Drawing Process 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 on: June 7, 2021; June 26, 2021; August 2, 2021 (Held as workshop in lieu of a Public Hearing, as permitted under Election Code); and November 4, 2021. The purpose of these workshops was to educate the pub lic 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.
The City’s Community Relations division supported the District Drawing Process through an extensive #DrawGoleta outreach campaign that included 16 press releases in English and Spanish, e-mails and text messages via the City’s news notification list, social media and website posts, ni ne Monarch Press articles, two videos in English and Spanish playing on multiple platforms, Pump Flix (local gas station pumps) and Geo-Targeted paid advertising on KEYT and Noozhawk, and A-Frame signs throughout the City.
Maps were due to the City by January 6, 2022. A total of 51 draft maps submitted by the public were presented for consideration and four additional district maps were submitted by NDC. The Public Engagement Commission met to review all of the draft maps at a Public Hear ing on January 26, 2022 and recommended four draft plans to the City Council.
The City Council has conducted multiple hearings during the District Drawing Process.
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.
Then, after maps were submitted and the Public Engagement Commission submitted its recommendations, a third and fourth Public Hearing to consider draft maps were held on February 1, 2022, and February 3, 2022.
A fifth public Hearing was held on February 24, 2022 so that Council and the public could consider a revision that the Council requested on F ebruary 3 rd to draft Plan 701 (Attachment 1), changing the numbering of the districts so that Districts 1 and 2 are in the east and Districts 3 and 4 are in the west. This is similar to the way County Board of Supervisors districts are numbered in the Sout h Coast area. Plan 701 was drafted by National Demographics Corporation (NDC) but was derived from two plans submitted by members of the public: 210B and 403. The proposed sequencing of elections under the 2 new map starts with the two eastern districts (1 and 2) up for election in November 2022, and then the two western districts (3 and 4) in November 2024.
At the time of publishing of this agenda, the February 24, 2022 , meeting had not yet occurred. However, staff anticipates that the City Council will select a preferred map and sequencing and direct staff to return with actions necessary to implement district elections for the November 2022 General Elections.
All the maps consider ed are available for review at https://drawgoleta.org/draft-maps/ and 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
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 Wednesday, February 23, are included in this report as Attachment 3. This list will again be updated by noon on Monday, February 28, 2022.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this report is to introduce a sixth and final public hearing, pursuant to 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 in November 2022.
After this public hearing, it is r ecommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance changing the system of elections for members of the City Council from an at-large system to a by-district system and adopting Council’s preferred map describing the boundaries and identifying election se quencing for each electoral district . At the time of printing of this agenda, based on prior discussions, staff anticipate that this will be Plan 701, as revised, with the sequencing of Districts 1 and 2 in November 2022 and Districts 3 and 4 in November 2024. However, Council could select a different map and sequencing at its February 24, 2022, meeting , as long has it has been publicly posted for at least seven days prior to adoption. In this case, staff will revise this report before the March 1, 2022 meeting to reflect that decision.
The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to which the Council-selected district map must be attached (Attachment 2). If Council introduces and takes first reading of the ordinance, the ordinance will be brought back to Council for second reading and adoption at the March 15, 2022, City Council meeting. Notices of the public hearings were published in an adjudicated newspaper ten days prior to the public hearings. In addition, notices were also translated in Spanish, and were posted on the City’s drawgoleta.org website.
3 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. Council’s Preferred Map, Revised Plan 701
2. Ordinance No. 22-__, entitled” An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Establishing a By-District Election Process in Four Council Districts.”
3. Comments Received as of noon on February 28, 2022 (to be added) 4 ATTACHMENT 1
Council’s Preferred Map, Revised Plan 701
5 1
March 1, 2022
Focus Plan
6 ATTACHMENT 2
Ordinance No. 22-__, entitled” An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Establishing a By-District Election Process in Four Council Districts.” 7 ORDINANCE NO. 22-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 2.090 TO THE GOLETA
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM AN AT-LARGE SYSTEM
TO A BY- DISTRICT SYSTEM AND ADOPTING A MAP DESCRIBING
THE BOUNDARIES AND IDENTIFYING ELECTION SEQUENCING
FOR EACH ELECTORAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Goleta (“City’’) currently elects the members of the City Council using an at-large system of elections; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2017, the City was served a Notice asserting the City's at-large electoral system violated the California Voting Rights Act, and threatening litigation if the City declined to adopt by-district elections; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17 -17 that initiated the process of establishing a district -based election system and adopting a proposed schedule; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 34886, the City Council has the authority to adopt an ordinance changing the system of elections in the City from an at-large elections system to a by-district elections system; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City now desires to adopt an ordinance changing the system of elections in the City from an at-large system of elections to a by- district elections system; and
WHEREAS, the change in method for electing members of the City Council is made in furtherance of the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elections Code section 14025, et seq.); and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large City Council method of election to a district-based City Council method of election requires a total of four public hearings, which includes at least two public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and two public hearings following the release of draft voting district map(s); and
WHEREAS, four Public Workshops were held over a period of six months, on June 7, 2021, June 26, 2021, August 2, 2021 and November 4, 2021 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; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Public Workshops, the Public Engageme nt Commission received updates, took public comment, and provided feedback to staff on the Districting Process at its regular meetings on February 17, 2021, April 22, 2021, August 17, 2021, and December 9, 2021, and at a noticed public hearing on January 26, 2022; and
8 WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code section 10010, the City published and made available for release, 55 draft maps for consideration by the Council, 4 of which were prepared by the City's demographic consultant and 51 of which were prepared and submitted to the City by members of the public, together with the potential sequence of the elections; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2022, consistent with the provisions of California Elections Code section 10010, the City published and made available for release, a revision of the map titled “Plan 701” that was prepared by the City’s demographic consultant for consideration by the Council, together with the potential sequence of the elections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code section 10010, the Public Workshop on August 2, 2021 was noticed as a workshop in lieu of a first public hearing, as permitted under Election Code section 21607.1; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code section 10010, in addition to the August 2, 2021 workshop in lieu of a public hearing, the City Council held noticed public hearings on August 17, 2021, February 1, 2022, February 3, 2022, and February 24, 2022, in order to receive testimony regarding the potential composition of City Council districts; and
WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement as required by California Elections Code Section 10010; and
WHEREAS, after the Public Hearing on February 24, 2022, the City Council selected the revised Plan 701 as its preferred map and sequencing and directed staff to return with actions necessary to implement district election s for the November 2022 General Elections; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, following a final public hearing, the City Council will consider adoption of Ordinance 22- __ to establish by -district elections in four single - member districts in the City, and to adopt the map describing the boundaries and identifying the four City Council districts in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. A new Chapter 2.090 “City Council Elections By -District” is hereby added to the Goleta Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:
“CHAPTER 2.090 CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS BY-DISTRICT
2.090.1 Declaration of Purpose
2.090.2 By-District Elections for City Council
2.090.3 City Council Districts Established
2.090.4 Commencement of By-District Elections
9 2.090.1 Declaration of Purpose
The City Council of the city hereby declares the purpose of this Chapter is to further the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elections Code section 14025, et seq.), as amended.
2.090.2 By-District Elections for City Council
A. Pursuant to Government Code section 34886, members of the City Council shall be elected by-district in four single -member districts. Members of the City Council shall be elected by-district, as that term is defined in Government Code section 34871(a), as amended, meaning one member of the City Council shall be elected from each district by the voters of that district alone. Each member of the City Council shall serve a four - year term until his or her successor is qualified.
B. Pursuant to Government Code section 34882, the City Council member elected to represent a district must reside in that district and be a registered voter in that district, and any candidate for City Council must reside in, and be a registered voter in, the district in which he or she seeks election at the time nomination papers are issued, pursuant to Elections Code section 10227.
2.090.3 City Council Districts Established
A. The boundaries and identifying number of each of the four City Council districts shall be as described in NDC Plan 701 to establish the City Council electoral districts in the City (attached as Exhibit A); and incorporated by this reference.
B. The City Council districts described in subsection A, above, shall continue in effect until they are amended or repealed in accordance with law. The boundaries of the City Council districts shall be reapportioned from time to time as required by the Elections Code, or any other applicable law.
2.090.4 Implementation of By-District Elections
A. The by-district system of elections shall be implemented, beginning at the general municipal election to be held November 8, 2022, as follows:
1. Members of the City Council shall be elected in districts and beginning at the general municipal election of November 2022, and every four years thereafter; and
2. Members of the City Council shall be elected in districts and beginning at the general municipal election of November 2024, and every four years thereafter.
B. No term of any member of the City Council that commenced prior to the effective date of this Chapter shall be affected by the adoption of this Chapter.”
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrase, or portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact of the fact 10 that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in a manner prescribed by law.
INTRODUCED ON the 1st day of March, 2021.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______, 2022.
_________________________
PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 22-__ was introduced on March 1, 2022 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, held on the __ day of ______ 2022, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
(SEAL)
__________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
12 ATTACHMENT 3
Comments Received as of noon on February 28, 2022
13 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 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 ma
p.
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 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 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 1/24/2022 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? Neighborhood Maps (for Reference)
14 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 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 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 203 2/4/2022 North Fairview Avenue
area resident
Supporting this plan currently however I believe the city of Goleta should move forward with incorporating areas north of La Goleta Road into District 3. I have concerns that this area will be developed to the detriment of the semi-rural character many Goleta residents cherish. Current residents will be negatively impacted by development in the wild-fire prone areas in the foothills. Organic farms and horse facilities are already at risk to development. Lot splits threaten this area. Goleta should be making zoning and land use policy in this area -- not the County. The Goleta foothills need protection as do the farms and orchards and natural open space that currently exists in the Goleta area.
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 ma
p, but this one makes sense.
Plan 205
District Maps that Meet Minimum Legal Requirements
15 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 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 1/24/2022 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.
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
16 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.
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 havin
g neighborhoods stay continuous
Plan 224 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you. 17 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 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! 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 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 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. 18 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 701 Renumbered 2/4/2022 Ted Anagnnoson This is a good map in terms of following natural boundaries between neighborhoods. It's one of the ones I thought was best when I looked through all 50+ 2 weeks ago. I particularly like that the freeway is the boundary between district 1 and 2, and that the boundaries between 3 and 4 following well-known streets. you could do a lot worse than to use this map. I guess you can't avoid pairing two of the districts with the Mayor's election without giving the Mayor either a 2 year term (that the voters voted not to have recently) or giving the Mayor a six year term. I guess two of the districts will be paired with the Mayor and 2 will never be.....
Plan 701 Renumbered 2/5/2022
Anonymous It is better to have Hollister village in district 4 rather than be the odd ball on this map Plan 701 Renumbered 2/6/2022 AB N Los Carneros could be the boundary b/w 1&3 vs Glenn Annie, and the Hollister Village could be in 4 with some of 4’s south-East area moved into 2.
Plan 701 Renumbered 2/25/2022
Alberto
Interesting. Don't have enough demographic information to figure anything out but from a geography standpoint seems close enou
gh.
Plan 701 Renumbered 2/26/2022 Phebe Mansur It seems most logical to divide up the city based on natural boundaries as opposed to demographics. The natural boundaries are fixed, but demographics fluctuate. I also believe that it is more important to make the boundary decision based on a long-term vision rather than satisfying short-term short-sighted accommodations for current council members reelection desires. While I like all the council members, their reelection goals should not be a consideration in selecting the boundaries.
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. Grou
p areas so the city council member can focus on the specifics of the area they represent.
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. 19 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,
“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 alread
y 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 b y NDC 1/24/2022 Steve Maas Please consider maps 224, 702, & 704. Thank you.
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.”
20 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
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
District Maps that Do Not Meet Minimum Legal Requirements 21