Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, October 21, 2024

CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Monday, October 21, 2024
In-Person

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA during the meeting.

Public comment is accepted in person at the physical meeting location, or via email to [email protected].

RULES FOR CONDUCT: Pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comment will be taken in-person, and members of the public may provide written public comment by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/85287149079?pwd=n9gqowLOviV4ljto4ERArkqkkP1six.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 852 8714 9079 / Passcode: 434245 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Emails sent directly to the City Council as a whole or individually, and not sent to [email protected] will not be included as a public comment in the Council packet.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.
1 10/21/2024 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Comments provided in hard copy/paper format after 2:00 p.m. will be distributed the following day and included with public comment in the Council packet.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

CONFIRM QUORUM

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
This section is for written public comments received for the agenda item scheduled for this meeting. 10-21-2024 Written Public Comments

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Hold Public Hearing No. 6 to receive a presentation from the City of Los Altos' ("City") consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding draft district maps for the City and to discuss and provide further directions as to the further development of additional draft maps; solicit public input on draft district maps and the order of elections of the five new districts, including whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run; reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; and to consider an urgency ordinance adopting district-based elections and approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610. 2 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Carol Peters <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Highlands
I was informed too late of the meeting to discuss the five council districts.

I strongly support that the Highlands remains one district and Grant one district.

Each are individual communities who need representation for their individual issues.

I have lived in the Highlands for 40+ years and it deserves it’s own representation.

So much of what happens at City Council is focused on North Los Altos down town and residential living areas.

Hoping to see a change.
carol peters
3 1
Melissa Thurman
From: R Kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:31 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A Hello Council,
As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Richard Kane
1709 Newcastle Drive
Los Altos, CA
4 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Steve Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Districting Map--please vote for either Draft C2 of F2A As a Grant Park resident, I am delighted that Council has taken the time to listen to and incorporate this neighborhood's inputs with respect to the Districting maps. I was even more impressed that the demographer came up with two maps that keep Grant Park (and the Highlands) whole.

I encourage council to approve either Draft Map C2 or F2A.

Thank you,
Steve Smith
5 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Farhad Parivar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A Dear Sirs,Madams,
As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Farhad Parivar
1919 Alford Ave
Los Altos
6 1
Melissa Thurman
From: John Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Subject: Please vote for either the Districting Map Draft C2 or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2 or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
John Park
1935 Annette Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
7 1
Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 3:05 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Roya Parivar
1919 Alford Ave
Los Altos
8 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ariel Faigon <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 3:44 PM
To: City Council; Districts; Public Comment
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A - keep Grant Park whole As a Grant Park resident, I encourage the council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you
Signed, Grant Park neighborhood residents:
- Ariel Faigon
- Anat Faigon
- Ori Faigon
- Ben Faigon
9 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Emil Herzog <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 5:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: new maps
Maps C2 and F2A are much better than the previous one that split grant park. It isn't great for highlands area.

Doug Keeley
1801 Alford. Ave.
10 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Rick Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 5:54 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council; Districts
Subject: Re: voting districts. Please vote for either C2 or F2A Greetings,
As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A.

Both of the plans keep Grant Park intact.

Best regards,
Rick Evans
1856 Alford Ave.
11 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Lauren K <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 6:52 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve district Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Lauren Kane
12 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ori Faigon <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 11:27 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A Dear Council,
As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Ori Faigon
13 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anurag Wadehra <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 10:19 AM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either the Districting Map Draft C2 or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2 or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Anurag
--
Anurag Wadehra
Contact: [email protected] LinkedIn
Newsletter: Growth Matters
Courses: Product Market Fit, Go-to-Market Cohort Based, Mini-Videos Creative Works: Play Documentary Podcast Poetry Translation (audio), Personal Blog 14 1
Melissa Thurman
From: ingrid kane <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A Dear Council,
As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands whole and intact.

Thank you,
Ingrid Kane
15 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anthony Iantosca <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 12:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Districts
Please consider voting for Draft Map C2 or F2A which would keep Grant Park and the Highlands separate voting districts.Thank you.

Anthony and Theresa Iantosca
1610 Ben Roe Drive,Los Altos.
16 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Roberta Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:44 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Districting New Maps C,C2.F2,F2A
New Districting maps C, C2,F2,F2A
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Roberta Phillips <[email protected]> 10
to City, districts
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Dear Council Members
I reviewed the new maps posted on the City Web Page over the weekend.

I still object to San Antonio Rd being split down the middle south of Alvarado. It also doesn't make sense that this district on all the maps crosses over Foothill Expressway. The residents who live on the west side and east side of San Antonio Rd have the same interests of safety. We want to get mail from our mailboxes without being hit by a car. We want ambulances and fire trucks to get into our driveways. The boundary should be Los Altos Avenue, not San Antonio Rd. We live between the Jr High and the High School and have buses , cards and bikes trying to share the road. The City has asked for communities of interest, yet the new maps do not reflect our interest.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
32 year resident of Los Altos
17 1
Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 10:10 AM
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Re-districting
Please keep C2 and F2A districts together in the draft maps. It would be a great opportunity to have districts that share similar concerns and issues.

Nancy Phillips
1171 Volti Ln
Los Altos CA 94024
18 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Cori Mehring <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 12:32 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A Dear Los Altos City Council-members:

As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Thank you,
-Cori Mehring, 30-year Los Altos resident
1936 Colleen Dr.
19 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Aram and June Darmanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 12:44 PM
To: Districts; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve DraŌ Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Thank you,
June Darmanian
1595 Ben Roe Drive
Los Altos
20 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Aram Darmanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 12:54 PM
To: Districts; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Thank you,
Aram Darmanian
1595 Ben Roe Drive
Los Altos
21 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Megan Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 5:07 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Districts
Subject: Please vote for either WIN-WIN Map: Draft C2, or F2A As a Grant Park resident, I encourage council to approve Draft Map C2, or F2A, because either would be a WIN-WIN, by keeping both Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Thank you, Megan Allen
22 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Alice Kwei <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 9:55 AM
To: City Council; Districts; Public Comment
Cc: Alice Kwei
Subject: South Los Altos Redistricting Feedback
Dear Los Altos Council,
As a Highlands resident, I encourage the council to approve Draft Map C2 or F2A, as either option would be a win-win by keeping both the Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Communities of Interest (COI):

Both the C2 and F2A maps create districts that align with important neighborhood interests, including traffic, shopping/business, places of worship, and other areas within walking distance.

Grant Park shares common concerns and interests with the Oak neighborhood:
 Traffic: Concerns regarding Fremont Ave and Grant Road, along with shortcutting through the Grant Park and Oak neighborhoods
 Public Transit stops
 Space and Facilities: Shared access to Oak School and MVLA High School neighborhood facilities such as EV chargers and recreation fields/track outside of school hours  Outdoor walking/running routes throughout both neighborhoods  Shared shopping and business areas within walking distance (Lucky’s Plaza, Foothill Crossing)  Places of worship
Highlands has following common interests with Loyola Corners and nearby areas:
 Traffic: Loyola Corners and Foothill Expressway
 Loyola Corners restaurants/cafés
 Access to Loyola Corners businesses
 Miramonte Avenue Post Office
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Alice Kwei
23 1
Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 2:52 PM
To: City Council; Districts; Public Comment
Subject: South Los Altos Redistricting Feedback - C2, F2A are good Dear Los Altos Council,
As a Highlands resident, I encourage the council to approve Draft Map C2 or F2A, as either option would be a win-win by keeping both the Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Communities of Interest (COI):

Both the C2 and F2A maps create districts that align with important neighborhood interests, including traffic, shopping/business, places of worship, and other areas within walking distance.

Grant Park shares common concerns and interests with the Oak neighborhood:

1. Traffic: Concerns regarding Fremont Ave and Grant Road, along with shortcutting through the Grant Park and Oak neighborhoods

2. Public Transit stops

3. Space and Facilities: Shared access to Oak School and MVLA High School neighborhood facilities such as EV chargers and recreation fields/track outside of school hours

4. Outdoor walking/running routes throughout both neighborhoods

5. Shared shopping and business areas within walking distance (Lucky’s Plaza, Foothill Crossing)

6. Places of worship
Highlands has following common interests with Loyola Corners and nearby areas:

1. Traffic: Loyola Corners and Foothill Expressway

2. Loyola Corners restaurants/cafés

3. Access to Loyola Corners businesses

4. Miramonte Avenue Post Office
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jack Kwei, registered voter in Highlands.
24 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Debby Meredith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:23 PM
To: Districts; Public Comment
Subject: Input on redistricting maps
Honorable Council Members,
Thank you for all your efforts thus far in dealing with the complex task of dividing Los Altos into election districts. I've been following this topic with great interest and wanted to provide feedback for your consideration.

The past 22 years, I have lived with my family on Van Buren Street and love our active and cohesive neighborhood. One of the primary reasons we invested in our home is because of its proximity to Downtown Los Altos. I believe all of our neighbors feel this same way, and we all heavily patronize the shops, restaurants and various services.

Personally, just a few hours ago I walked to and from Downtown to get a vaccine at Walgreens, do some local shopping, and get a cup of tea. My family and I intentionally invest in Downtown Los Altos, and we view this vibrant area as an extension of our home. We feel strongly that we should be represented in the same district as this area, and we look forward to increasing the downtown vibrancy.

In looking at the current Draft Maps, it looks like A, F, F1, F3, F4, and F5 along with the second map submitted by the public submitted as of October 10, 2024, all have our Van Buren neighborhood in the same proposed district as Downtown Los Altos, however the others do not. As a long term and very involved resident, I would respectfully ask that you consider my input in your redistricting decision.

Thank you!
Debby Meredith
460 Van Buren Street, Los Altos, CA 94022
25 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Stanley Quan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 10:50 PM
To: City Council; Public Comment; Districts
Subject: South Los Altos Redistricting Feedback
Dear Los Altos Council,
As a Highlands resident, I encourage the council to approve Draft Map C2 or F2A, as either option would be a win-win by keeping both the Grant Park and Highlands neighborhoods whole and intact.

Communities of Interest (COI):

Both the C2 and F2A maps create districts that align with important neighborhood interests, including traffic, shopping/business, places of worship, and other areas within walking distance.

Sincerely,
Stanley Quan
26 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Dan Perkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 9:01 AM
To: City Council; Districts; Public Comment
Subject: Please preserve the Grant Park Neighborhood in the 5 district plan October 21, 2024
Dear Los Altos City Council,
We are writing to request that the Grant Park neighborhood be left intact within a single district for the new 5 district plan.

The Grant Park community is long rooted in Grant Park School, it’s land acquisition in the 80’s, and the creation of Grant Park which servers a wide variety of community interests, including organized games (soccer), a community play area, summer concerts, and classrooms and the multi-purpose room from the original school which now hosts many community groups including a senior center in South Los Altos. This and many other factors make the Grant Park neighborhood special and unique to Los Altos, a vibrant community we should preserve, not divide.

It is essential the Grant Park neighborhood retain a clear voice on city council, and that our neighborhood not be split between competing interests or be politically gerrymandered.

In addition, we favor the 5 district option over the 4 because it continues and tradition of rotating the mayorship among the city council members. This encourages fuller community participation, recognizes the importance of all our community neighborhoods, and reduces political partisanship.

We strongly encourage City Council to preserve the Grant Park Neighborhood in the 5 district plan.

Respectfully,
Dan & Nancy Perkins
Grant Park Los Altos Residents
27 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Eric Steinle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 11:52 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Election districts
We have neighborhoods.

We need to create election districts.

The simplest, fairest, and most logical way to create election districts is to use the neighborhoods.

The Fair MAPS Act (Elec. Code, § 21130, subd. (c) (2)) tells us what to do: “To the maximum extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criterion in this subdivision [i.e., contiguity], the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.” (Emphasis added.)
A “community of interest,” or, more properly, a “local community of interest,” appears as an alternative, or perhaps addendum, to “local neighborhood.” Local neighborhoods and local communities of interest are not mutually exclusive. We must harmonize the procedural commands of section 21130 with the policy commands of the CVRA.

The CVRA simply says that a district is a "divisible part” of the city (Elec. Code, § 14026, subd. (b)). The Fair MAPS Act (Elec. Code, § 21130) tells us how to apply the CVRA.

In pertinent part, it instructs us:
(c) The districting body shall adopt election district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) To the maximum extent practicable, election districts shall be geographically contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criterion in this subdivision, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single election district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.

Characteristics of communities of interest may include, but are not limited to, shared public policy concerns such as education, public safety, public health, environment, housing, transportation, and access to social services.

Characteristics of communities of interest may also include, but are not limited to, cultural districts, shared socioeconomic characteristics, similar voter registration rates and participation rates, and shared histories.

Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. (3) To the maximum extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, the geographic integrity of a city or census designated place shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.

This paragraph does not apply to a city.
(4) To the maximum extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, election districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the local jurisdiction. Election district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. 28 2
(5) To the maximum extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria in this subdivision, election districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

Contiguity (¶ 1) and compactness (¶ 5) are not serious concerns in a city of less than 7 square miles. Geographic integrity of a city (¶ 3) does not apply, by its own terms. (The Fair MAPS Act applies to any scheme for district elections in any jurisdiction within the State, not only those imposed by the CVRA.) That leaves the "geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest[, which] shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division” (¶ 2) and the "natural and artificial barriers, streets, [and] the boundaries of the local jurisdiction,” with the added instruction that "election district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents.” (¶ 4)
Put differently, a district is a coherent, readily-comprehensible area characterized by an identifiable commonality. That commonality must be understood in terms of "effective and fair representation." Finally, since districts are to be created in this case to further the specific policies of the CVRA, those districts should further the policy that "the method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of the protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class. (Elec. Code, § 14027.) Whether that is more than a hypothetical concern is not a question that needs to be answered, in the event.

Those drawing district lines must attend, in order of priority, to: contiguity; the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest; barriers, streets, and jurisdictional limits; and, if relevant, compactness.

And, as we only recently learned, census blocs may not be split, an extra-statutory kind of non-negotiable boundary.

To achieve the goals of the CVRA, through application of the Fair MAPS Act, we look first at our neighborhoods. They are the historical “communities of interest” in the city.

The Highlands and Grant Park are established neighborhoods that are “easily identifiable and understandable by residents.” To the fullest extent possible, each of them should be included whole in an election district; but not necessarily in the same election district. South Los Altos as a whole is overall less dense than the neighborhoods further north and west. The Highlands is not populous enough to be its own district, but it makes sense to put it, for example, with as much of Loyola Corners as is needed to fill in the numbers. Grant Park can make up a district on its own.

There are maps with this distribution already showing.

Rancho San Antonio and the areas along Foothill do not seem problematic.

The real problem has been the area west of El Monte. It must fit into two districts. There have been several suggestions for how to do this, any of which will satisfy the minimum requirements of the law, but none of which has been without controversy.

I think that, here, the Fair MAPS Act offers a way to think about how this might be decided. This, I suggest, is where the notion of communities of interest—neighborhoods in fact, if not in name—may come into play.

In its definition of “communities of interest,” the Fair MAPS Act includes criteria that may identify such communities, including “shared public policy concerns such as education, public safety, public health, environment, housing, transportation, and access to social services.”I suggest that the area around the high school would be such a community. It is the only public high school within the city limits, and we all know how much of a headache the traffic situation there has been, for many years and in many ways. This affects residents, students, drivers, and pedestrians (including cyclists) from El Camino Real up to the south side of the high school, and over as far as San Antonio, since the Safe Routes to Schools initiatives are top of mind for just about everyone. That would make the area from ECR up to the high school and over to San Antonio an obvious election district. 29 3
On the west side of San Antonio, there are two different schools, Egan and Santa Rita, which present different issues, although the Safe Routes to Schools concerns are common. There are also different circulation issues on Los Altos Avenue, and a different mix of housing and commercial concerns. Even if that section seems very much like the area on the east side of San Antonio, the impact of the high school is so great as to make that district special. Thus, even if the area going south from ECR on the west side of San Antonio is merely what is left over, it is still different enough from the area on the east side to justify thinking about it as a separate district.

The advantage of this way of approaching districts is that it respects all parts of the law: it starts with neighborhoods, it uses barriers and streets, and it identifies such communities of interest as are based on public policies and issues. That makes the districts safer from challenge.

This means that Maps A and B are the best starting point for determining the final map. 30 City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: October 21, 2024
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Hold Public Hearing No. 6 to receive a presentation from the City of Los Altos' ("City") consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding draft district maps for the City and to discuss and provide further directions as to the further development of additional draft maps; solicit public input on draft district maps and the order of elections of the five new districts, including whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run; reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; and to consider an urgency ordinance adopting district-based elections and approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos.

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Hold Public Hearing No. 6 to receive a presentation from the City's consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding additional draft maps developed by the public and Redistricting Partners; receive public input regarding the draft maps of five districts prepared by the public and Redistricting Partners; obtain direction from the City Council regarding the development of a revised set of draft maps or additional draft maps; and reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; open, hold, and close the public hearing on draft maps, including approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos and determining which specific districts will constitute the two (2) districts on the ballot in November 2026 and the three (3) on the ballot in November 2028; introduce and adopt an urgency ordinance establishing five (5) districts for the election of City Councilmembers, establishing the boundaries and the identification number of each district, establishing the election order of each district, and adding Sections 2.04.070 through

2.04.100 to Chapter 2.04 of the City of Los Altos Municipal Code; and determine whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run. 31 Agenda Item 1.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to hold this meeting as the City has already retained the services of outside legal counsel and a demographer to assist in the transition to district-based elections.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Urgency Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) Ordinance No. ___ (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance implementing the California Voting Rights Act would not result in a significant environmental effect.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On April 18, 2024, the City received a Notice of Violation of the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA"). The letter asserts that the City is in violation of the CVRA because the City's Councilmember elections are at-large and there is racial polarization and vote dilution within the jurisdiction. On May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intent to transition to a district-based electoral system commencing in November of 2026.

Currently, voters across the City vote "at-large" for all five (5) City Councilmembers. A "bydistrict" election is one in which the City is divided into separate districts, each represented by one City Councilmember who resides in that district and is chosen only by that district's voters. The first by-district City Council election will occur in the November 2026 general municipal election, when two (2) districts will select Councilmembers, with the transition to district-based elections fully completed in the November 2028 general election, when the final three (3) districts will select Councilmembers.

The City Council has held five (5) public hearings for the City’s transition to by-district elections.1 At these hearings, the City's demographer made presentations regarding the requirements for bydistrict elections, and the process for taking public input to help determine how the City Council districts might be constructed. The City Council then heard from the public on the various communities of interest that exist in the City, and how the districts might be drawn to recognize these communities of interest. The City Council and City staff also sponsored several community workshops and outreach at community events in September 2024.

On June 11 and July 13, 2024, the City Council held the first and second of five public hearings required for the City’s transition to by-district elections. Public hearings nos. 1 and 2 were held prior to any draft maps being drawn. Redistricting Partners made presentations at both public hearings regarding the requirements of the CVRA. Those presentations covered the composition and number of districts, as well as the public input process. Members of the public provided input at both hearings regarding various communities of interest in and the various attributes of the City of Los Altos. At its July 13th hearing, the City Council, with public input, provided direction to begin drawing draft maps for a by-district election system comprised of five districts and a rotational mayor.

1 Although the CVRA requires the City to hold only five (5) public hearings, the October 21, 2024 City Council meeting will be the sixth (6) public hearing – not including the additional community workshops held by City Staff. 32 Agenda Item 1.

At the August 28, 2024 public hearing, the City Council received a presentation on the first set of three draft maps (Maps A-C) and began a robust community outreach process. At the August 28th hearing, Redistricting Partners presented three draft maps as a way for the City Council and community to visualize proposed district boundaries. The City Council also provided further direction on the additional information the City should examine when forming the district boundaries, such as the distribution and of information regarding socio-economic status, age, school boundaries, shopping districts, and parks.

At the September 24, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed two additional draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners (Maps D-E) and received an update on the community outreach efforts conducted by the City. The City Council also provided direction on draft maps, including keeping El Camino Real in one district, keeping the Downtown and Civic Center in one district, placing Rancho Shopping Center and Loyola Corners into separate districts and keeping the Highlands in one district.

At the October 8, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed Maps F-F5 which were based on direction received at the September 24th meeting and provided direction to review two versions of Maps C and F2 (Maps C, C2, F2, and F2a) at the October 21, 2024 public hearing.

By law, the City Council has until October 31, 2024 as the final legal deadline to adopt the City Council district boundary map and determine the order of election for the five (5) City Council districts, that is – which two (2) districts will select a Councilmember in the November 2026 general election, and which three (3) districts will do so in November of 2028.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Public Input Received
Over several months, the City Council oversaw an extensive community outreach process and received substantial comments related to district boundaries in the City and draft maps. In response to this input, the City's demographer developed revised maps to address the public's concerns and the direction provided by the City Council, all the while ensuring that the City complied with the criteria mandated by the CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act.

District Formation Criteria
In creating the district boundaries, the City must ensure compliance with the following criteria mandated by the CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act:
 Each district must contain a nearly equal population (no more than a 10% variance but best practices encourage no more than a 5% population deviation);  The districting plan must be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and,  The districts must not be drawn with race as the predominant factor because the overall population balance between districts is the highest priority.

Additionally, Election Code section 21130 requires general law cities like the City to adopt districts using the following criteria, which are set forth in order of priority:
33 Agenda Item 1.
 Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
 To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest must be respected and maintained. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social, economic and geographic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.  District boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable. To the extent practicable, districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the jurisdiction.
 To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness.

Drawing and Considering Draft Maps
At the October 21, 2024 meeting, the City Council will again hear public feedback on draft Maps that have previously been submitted by the public and prepared by Redistricting Partners, and provide direction to Redistricting Partners on any proposed revisions to be considered or new maps to be drawn. Maps previously publish can be revised, or new maps drawn. .One map will ultimately be selected for adoption as the five-district electoral map for City Council elections. The public is again invited to provide their input on these draft maps before the City Council selects one of the maps. The draft maps will comply with the district formation criteria required under California and Federal law. The City is using the latest 2020 Census data provided by the Statewide Database with the state prison population reallocated, as required under the Fair Maps Act. These maps will use the underlying Census tract geography to establish the boundaries of individual City Council districts. In drawing these maps, the utmost care will be taken to honor neighborhoods and communities of interest and the public input received.

Regarding the sequence of elections, the City Council will consider which two (2) districts will select a Councilmember in the November 2026 general election and which three (3) districts will do so in November of 2028, As required by law, the City Council will make this decision "in the spirit of the California Voting Rights Act" and will give "special consideration" to community input.

At the October 21st meeting, the City Council will also determine whether candidates for City Council must be residents of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers. Pursuant to Government Code section 34882, a candidate running for a city councilmember position is not eligible to hold that office unless they reside in the geographical area making up the district from which they are elected at the time their nomination papers are issued. There is no requirement related to a minimum residency period, and the City is not required to impose such a requirement. In fact, neighboring cities have taken different positions on this issue – some have imposed a 30-day residency requirement while others have imposed no minimum residency requirement. The City Council invites the public to provide their input on this topic.

Should Council approve the urgency ordinance at the October 21st meeting, the ordinance will go into effect immediately and the City will begin holding district elections in 2026. This ordinance 34 Agenda Item 1.
will require a 4/5th vote for approval. The proposed ordinance for City Council consideration is Attachment 1 to this staff report.

Alternatively, the City Council might also decide that more work is necessary and provide additional direction for revised maps at an additional future hearing, which again will be posted at least seven (7) days prior to that next hearing.2

ATTACHMENTS

1. Urgency Ordinance No. 2024-xxx

2. Draft Maps C, C2, F2, F2a

3. Draft Map C Detail

4. Draft Map C2 Detail

5. Draft Map F2 Detail

6. Draft Map F2a Detail

7. Other Draft Maps (A, B, D, E, F, F3, F4, F5)

8. Draft Maps submitted by members of the public since last meeting (as of October 14, 2024)

2 The requirement that there be five (5) hearings is a minimum and not a maximum. 35 Agenda Item 1.

Ordinance No. ___
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO AMEND THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 2.05.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 TO CHAPTER 2.04, WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL BY FIVE DISTRICTS, ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES,

IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, AND THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT,

ESTABLISH A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SEEK A COUNCIL SEAT FROM

EACH DISTRICT, AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has historically used an at-large method of election, which is consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article 1 and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the City Council to change the method of election by ordinance to a “by-district” system in which each member of the City Council is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides, in accordance with California Government Code Section 34871; and WHEREAS, a by-district system can also be consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-71 which initiated the process of establishing a by-district election system; 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 by-district city council method of election must hold a total of five public hearings, which includes at least two (2) public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and two (2) public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and
WHEREAS, on June 11 and July 13, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(1), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing of the City Council on July 13, 2024, the City Council also invited input on whether to have four (4) districts and an at-large directly-elected Mayor, or five (5) districts with the Mayor selected by the City Council on a rotating basis, and voted to proceed with a five-district system with the mayoral rotation, directing its demographer to draft maps that divide the City into five (5) districts in preparation for the August 28, 2024 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, September 24, October 8, and October 21, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(2), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released 36 Agenda Item 1.

Ordinance No. ___
and published at least seven (7) days before each public hearing and the proposed sequence of the elections, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on September 24, 2028, the City Council directed staff to prepare a proposed ordinance adopting a voting district map for the City Council’s consideration and determining the sequence of elections in each district; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held its fifth and final public hearing on the proposal to establish district boundaries, reviewed and considered additional public input, formally selected the voting district map and the election sequence attached to, incorporated in, and set forth, in this Ordinance as Exhibit A, which was introduced for a first reading at the same public hearing; and
WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement above and beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including hosting a webpage dedicated to districting; inviting the submission of community of interest forms to allow the public to provide input on keeping communities of interest in single districts to the extent possible; inviting the submission of draft maps by the public using an interactive mapping tool; and providing districting information to local and to good government, civic engagement, and minority groups active within the City; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Los Altos by district in five (5) single-member districts as reflected in the voting district map referred to as Map ___ and attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 [commencing with Section 14025] of Division 14 of the Elections Code) to encourage by-district elections as one method to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code section 36937, is hereby declared to be necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City, and as such shall take effect immediately and be in full force and effect after its adoption after publication at least once in an official newspaper of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance must be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance to comply with the California Voting Rights Act and any alleged violations of the California Voting Right Act by attorney Kevin Shenkman representing the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it is necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City by complying with the October 31, 2024, deadline granted by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project to create five (5) legally permissible voting districts within 37 Agenda Item 1.

Ordinance No. ___
the City. If this ordinance is not adopted by October 31, 2024, then the City would be exposed to litigation and attorneys’ fees.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA ORDAINS THAT:

Section 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.

Section 2: URGENCY ORDINANCE.

This Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, is hereby declared to be necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Los Altos, and as such shall take effect immediately and be in full force and effect after its adoption after publication at least once in an official newspaper of the City for the following reasons:

The City Council finds that this ordinance must be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance to comply with the California Voting Rights Act and any alleged violations of same by attorney Kevin Shenkman representing the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

Section 3: SECTIONS 2.04.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 OF CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ARE ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

2.04.070 - Declaration of Purpose
The City Council hereby declares that the change of method of electing members of this City Council hereby enacted is being made in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.

02.04.080 - City Council Districts Established
Five (5) City Council districts are hereby established in the City of Los Altos. The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the City Council District Map ___ attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

02.04.090 - Election of Members of the City Council By-District (a) Following the effective date of this Ordinance and upon the commencement of “bydistrict” elections in the order established in Section 2.04.100 of this Chapter, City Councilmembers shall be elected “by-district” as defined in California Government Code Section 34871 or any successor statute. Any candidate for City Council must have been a resident and elector of the district in which they seek election for at least 30 days before the time they file nominating papers or an equivalent declaration of candidacy for the City Council, or such person’s appointment to fill a vacancy therein. No term of any City Councilmember that commenced prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be affected by the adoption of this Ordinance.
38 Agenda Item 1.

Ordinance No. ___
(b) Registered voters signing nominating papers or voting for a City Councilmember shall be residents of the geographical area making up the district from which the City Councilmember is to be elected.
(c) The terms of the office of each City Councilmember elected shall remain four (4) years.

Pursuant to Section 2.04.020 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, no person shall be eligible to serve as a City Councilmember for more than two consecutive four (4) year terms.

02.04.100 - Commencement of District Elections
(a) Commencing on the general municipal election in 2026, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___ and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms. At the general municipal election in 2028, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___, ___, and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms.
(b) The term of office of any City Councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.

Section 4: TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND METES-AND-BOUNDS.

If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the by-district elections. The City Clerk shall also direct the City's demographer to provide a metes-and-bounds description of each district as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be submitted to the City Council at its next regular meeting and kept on file in the City Clerk's office for public review.

Section 5: SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance shall be deemed severable and the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable.

Section 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.

The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Urgency Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) 39 Agenda Item 1.

Ordinance No. ___
(“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance implementing the California Voting Rights Act would not result in a significant environmental effect.

Section 7. PUBLICATION. This Urgency Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.

Section 8: EFFECTIVE DATE:

The City Council finds that it is necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City by complying with the October 31, 2024, deadline granted by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project to create five (5) legally permissible voting districts within the City. If this ordinance is not adopted by October 31, 2024, then the City would be exposed to litigation and attorneys’ fees.

In order to accomplish these goals, Ordinance No. ___ must adopted by means of an Urgency Ordinance.

The foregoing Urgency Ordinance was duly and properly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on _________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
40 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
41 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
42 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
43 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
44 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
45 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,402 6,566 6,252 6,222 6,226
Deviation 68 232 -82 -112 -108
Deviation % 1.1% 3.7% -1.3% -1.8% -1.7%
Other 3,690 4,058 3,878 3,588 3,570
Other % 57.6% 61.8% 62.0% 57.7% 57.3%
Latino 346 311 258 324 314
Latino % 5.4% 4.7% 4.1% 5.2% 5.0%
Asian 2,313 2,173 2,081 2,275 2,305
Asian % 36.1% 33.1% 33.3% 36.6% 37.0%
Black 53 24 35 35 37
Black % 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,668 3,821 4,143 4,625 3,824
Other CVAP 2,540 2,661 2,992 3,103 2,128
Other CVAP % 69.2% 69.6% 72.2% 67.1% 55.6%
Latino CVAP 176 106 114 224 218
Latino CVAP % 4.8% 2.8% 2.8% 4.8% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 928 1,039 910 1,271 1,466
Asian CVAP % 25.3% 27.2% 22.0% 27.5% 38.3%
Black CVAP 24 15 127 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.7% 0.4% 3.1% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
46 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,402 68 1.1% 3,690 57.6% 346 5.4% 2,313 36.1% 53 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,668 2,540 69.2% 176 4.8% 928 25.3% 24 0.7%
47 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,566 232 3.7% 4,058 61.8% 311 4.7% 2,173 33.1% 24 0.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,821 2,661 69.6% 106 2.8% 1,039 27.2% 15 0.4%
48 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,252 -82 -1.3% 3,878 62.0% 258 4.1% 2,081 33.3% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,143 2,992 72.2% 114 2.8% 910 22.0% 127 3.1%
49 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,222 -112 -1.8% 3,588 57.7% 324 5.2% 2,275 36.6% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,625 3,103 67.1% 224 4.8% 1,271 27.5% 27 0.6%
50 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C: Edited ID 246779
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,226 -108 -1.7% 3,570 57.3% 314 5.0% 2,305 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,824 2,128 55.6% 218 5.7% 1,466 38.3% 12 0.3%
51 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
52 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,402 6,566 6,120 6,410 6,170
Deviation 68 232 -214 76 -164
Deviation % 1.1% 3.7% -3.4% 1.2% -2.6%
Other 3,690 4,058 3,782 3,731 3,523
Other % 57.6% 61.8% 61.8% 58.2% 57.1%
Latino 346 311 257 359 280
Latino % 5.4% 4.7% 4.2% 5.6% 4.5%
Asian 2,313 2,173 2,046 2,281 2,334
Asian % 36.1% 33.1% 33.4% 35.6% 37.8%
Black 53 24 35 39 33
Black % 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,668 3,821 4,076 4,034 4,482
Other CVAP 2,540 2,661 2,935 2,442 2,846
Other CVAP % 69.2% 69.6% 72.0% 60.5% 63.5%
Latino CVAP 176 106 114 160 282
Latino CVAP % 4.8% 2.8% 2.8% 4.0% 6.3%
Asian CVAP 928 1,039 900 1,405 1,342
Asian CVAP % 25.3% 27.2% 22.1% 34.8% 29.9%
Black CVAP 24 15 127 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.7% 0.4% 3.1% 0.7% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
53 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,402 68 1.1% 3,690 57.6% 346 5.4% 2,313 36.1% 53 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,668 2,540 69.2% 176 4.8% 928 25.3% 24 0.7%
54 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,566 232 3.7% 4,058 61.8% 311 4.7% 2,173 33.1% 24 0.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,821 2,661 69.6% 106 2.8% 1,039 27.2% 15 0.4%
55 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,120 -214 -3.4% 3,782 61.8% 257 4.2% 2,046 33.4% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,076 2,935 72.0% 114 2.8% 900 22.1% 127 3.1%
56 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,410 76 1.2% 3,731 58.2% 359 5.6% 2,281 35.6% 39 0.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,034 2,442 60.5% 160 4.0% 1,405 34.8% 27 0.7%
57 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft C2 with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,170 -164 -2.6% 3,523 57.1% 280 4.5% 2,334 37.8% 33 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,482 2,846 63.5% 282 6.3% 1,342 29.9% 12 0.3%
58 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
59 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,338 6,646 6,104 6,283 6,297
Deviation 4 312 -230 -51 -37
Deviation % 0.1% 4.9% -3.6% -0.8% -0.6%
Other 3,653 4,163 3,714 3,639 3,615
Other % 57.6% 62.6% 60.8% 57.9% 57.4%
Latino 342 333 239 324 315
Latino % 5.4% 5.0% 3.9% 5.2% 5.0%
Asian 2,290 2,126 2,116 2,285 2,330
Asian % 36.1% 32.0% 34.7% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 53 24 35 35 37
Black % 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,640 3,841 4,084 4,639 3,877
Other CVAP 2,526 2,660 2,950 3,118 2,170
Other CVAP % 69.4% 69.3% 72.2% 67.2% 56.0%
Latino CVAP 176 109 111 220 222
Latino CVAP % 4.8% 2.8% 2.7% 4.7% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 914 1,048 905 1,274 1,473
Asian CVAP % 25.1% 27.3% 22.2% 27.5% 38.0%
Black CVAP 24 24 118 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.7% 0.6% 2.9% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
60 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,338 4 0.1% 3,653 57.6% 342 5.4% 2,290 36.1% 53 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,640 2,526 69.4% 176 4.8% 914 25.1% 24 0.7%
61 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,646 312 4.9% 4,163 62.6% 333 5.0% 2,126 32.0% 24 0.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,841 2,660 69.3% 109 2.8% 1,048 27.3% 24 0.6%
62 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,104 -230 -3.6% 3,714 60.8% 239 3.9% 2,116 34.7% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,084 2,950 72.2% 111 2.7% 905 22.2% 118 2.9%
63 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,283 -51 -0.8% 3,639 57.9% 324 5.2% 2,285 36.4% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,639 3,118 67.2% 220 4.7% 1,274 27.5% 27 0.6%
64 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,297 -37 -0.6% 3,615 57.4% 315 5.0% 2,330 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,877 2,170 56.0% 222 5.7% 1,473 38.0% 12 0.3%
65 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
66 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,646 6,338 6,104 6,410 6,170
Deviation 312 4 -230 76 -164
Deviation % 4.9% 0.1% -3.6% 1.2% -2.6%
Other 4,163 3,653 3,714 3,731 3,523
Other % 62.6% 57.6% 60.8% 58.2% 57.1%
Latino 333 342 239 359 280
Latino % 5.0% 5.4% 3.9% 5.6% 4.5%
Asian 2,126 2,290 2,116 2,281 2,334
Asian % 32.0% 36.1% 34.7% 35.6% 37.8%
Black 24 53 35 39 33
Black % 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,840 3,640 4,085 4,034 4,482
Other CVAP 2,659 2,526 2,951 2,442 2,846
Other CVAP % 69.2% 69.4% 72.2% 60.5% 63.5%
Latino CVAP 109 176 111 160 282
Latino CVAP % 2.8% 4.8% 2.7% 4.0% 6.3%
Asian CVAP 1,048 914 905 1,405 1,342
Asian CVAP % 27.3% 25.1% 22.2% 34.8% 29.9%
Black CVAP 24 24 118 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.6% 0.7% 2.9% 0.7% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
67 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,646 312 4.9% 4,163 62.6% 333 5.0% 2,126 32.0% 24 0.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,840 2,659 69.2% 109 2.8% 1,048 27.3% 24 0.6%
68 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,338 4 0.1% 3,653 57.6% 342 5.4% 2,290 36.1% 53 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,640 2,526 69.4% 176 4.8% 914 25.1% 24 0.7%
69 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,104 -230 -3.6% 3,714 60.8% 239 3.9% 2,116 34.7% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,085 2,951 72.2% 111 2.7% 905 22.2% 118 2.9%
70 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,410 76 1.2% 3,731 58.2% 359 5.6% 2,281 35.6% 39 0.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,034 2,442 60.5% 160 4.0% 1,405 34.8% 27 0.7%
71 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2A with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,170 -164 -2.6% 3,523 57.1% 280 4.5% 2,334 37.8% 33 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,482 2,846 63.5% 282 6.3% 1,342 29.9% 12 0.3%
72 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft A: Edited ID 246303
73 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft B: ID 246722 Edited
74 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft Plan D
75 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft Plan E
76 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
77 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
78 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
79 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
80 Agenda Item 1.

City of Los Altos
Districtr ID 254287, "F2A Draft10.8.2024"
81 Agenda Item 1.