955 School Street
Napa, CA 94559
www.cityofnapa.org
CITY OF NAPA
MEETING MINUTES - Draft
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Scott Sedgley
Vice Mayor Liz Alessio
Councilmember Mary Luros
Councilmember Bernie Narvaez
Councilmember Beth Painter
6:30 PM City Hall Council ChambersTuesday, December 14, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING - 6:30 PM
A Special Meeting for the City Council of the City of Napa was called on Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. to be held at City Hall Council Chambers, 955 School Street, Napa, California, for the purpose identified on the Agenda. This Special Meeting was called by the Mayor in accordance with California Government Code Section 54956.
1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M.
1.A. Roll Call:
Councilmember Narvaez, Councilmember Painter, Vice Mayor Alessio, and Mayor Sedgley
Present: 4 -
Councilmember LurosAbsent: 1 -
2. AGENDA REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS:
City Clerk Carranza announced the following supplemental items:
Item 3.A.:
- PowerPoint Presentation by City Staff and Consulting Demographer Redistricting Partners.
- DistrictR Map submissions submitted by the Napa County Progressive Alliance on December 12, 2021. Maps are also available to view online at https://districtr.org/event/City_of_Napa.
- Email from Kevin Teague
- Email from Amy Martenson, Chair, Napa County Progressive Alliance (Copies of all supplemental documents are included in Attachment 1)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS:
ATTACHMENT 2
December 14, 2021CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - Draft
3.A. 312-2021 2021-2022 Redistricting Process - 2nd Public Hearing with Proposed District Boundary Map
(See supplemental documents in Attachment 1)
Mayor Sedgley opened the public hearing.
City Clerk Carranza, and Elizabeth Stitt of Redistricting Partners, provided the staff report.
Mayor Sedgley called for disclosures; Council provided them.
Mayor Sedgley opened public testimony.
David Campbell on behalf of the Napa County Progressive Alliance - acknowledged the tribal lands and read submitted email comment addressing the West Pueblo/Linda Vista island suggesting that the lines be drawn so that some or all of the unincorporated island may be added to District 4 upon annexation to the City.
A motion was made by Vice Mayor Alessio, seconded by Councilmember Painter to close the public testimony. The motion carried unanimously.
The discussion was brought back to Council; questions and individual comments ensued.
Staff and Ms. Stitt responded to questions regarding future annexation of the islands, provided additional clarification regarding the law and mapping criteria, and clarified definition of population versus Citizen Voting Age Population.
4. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL OR CITY MANAGER: None.
5. ADJOURNMENT: 7:20 P.M.
Submitted by:
_______________________________
Tiffany Carranza, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Office of the City Clerk
City Council of the City of Napa
Special Meeting
December 14, 2021
FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA:
EVENING SESSION:
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS/APPEALS:
3.A. 2021-2022 Redist
ricting Process – 2nd Public Hearing with Proposed District Boundary Map Powe
rPoint Presentation by City Staff and Redistricting Partners. DistrictR Map submissions submitted by the Napa County Progressive Alliance on December 12, 2021. Maps are also available to view online at https://districtr.org/event/City_of_Napa. Email from Kevin Teague received on December 13, 2021. Email from Amy Martenson, Chair, Napa County Progressive Alliance received on December 13, 2021.
ATTACHMENT 2
2021-2022
REDISTRICTING
PROCESS
2nd Public Hearing With
District Boundary Map
December 14, 2021
City Council Special Meeting
12/14/2021
Supplemental I - 3.A.
From: City Staff & Redistricting Partners
ATTACHMENT 2
Redistricting Process for
Councilmember
District Boundaries
in the City of Napa
o Councilmember District Boundaries
for N
ovember 2020 Election
• (Based on 2010 Census)
o Redistricting Process for
Nov
ember 2022 Election
• (Based on 2020 Census)
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Napa
Redistricting 2021-2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Agenda
This presentation will cover some basics for those first engaging in the process and go into a potential map for the City of Napa.
• Redistricting Criteria
• From COI to draft Maps
• City population / Demographics
• Draft Map A
• Next Steps
Things we will cover
ATTACHMENT 2
Redistricting Criteria
FAIR MAPS Act (California Elections Code Section
21621)
• Substantially equal size - peo ple, not citizens
• Contiguous – dist ricts should not hop/jump
• Maintain “communities of interest”
• Fo
llow easily identifiable lines
• Keep districts compact – app earance/function
ATTACHMENT 2
From COI to Maps
With more cities and counties using
community based redistricting, we
move redistricting out into the public,
with maps driven by Community of
Interest testimony.
• Input from community drives process
wit
h multiple ways for the public to
engage.
• Rules for process emph asize the
importance of traditional criteria and
minimizing divisions of neighborhoods.
• Releasing maps for feedback – toda
y we
will see plans to spark more public
engagement.
ATTACHMENT 2
Community of Interest Forms
Submitting Your COI Form
• Input can be provided in public hearings or using the “Co
mmunity of Interest Worksheet.”
ATTACHMENT 2
Communities of Interest
DistrictR is an online public mapping tool for the public to use to draw their own Communities of Interest and also submit district maps
Drawing YOUR Communities of Interest
https://DistrictR.org/event/City_of_Napa
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Map to Review
There is one plan to review today.
• Plan A – existing lines
Thi
s plan has an overview, data
table, individual district pages and
web map that has been provided to
the City and is available on the
City’s redistricting website.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Deviation is 7.6%
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
DistrictR Maps
These maps were submitted on December 12, after the deadline for public notice for the public meeting.
Napa County Progressive Alliance: Make Shift of WP/LV
Island to Central District Possible After Annexation
ID: 92917
Napa County Progressive Alliance: WP/LV Island
with Central District
ID: 92819
ATTACHMENT 2
Napa County Progressive Alliance: Make Shift of WP/LV
Island to Central District Possible After Annexation
\
ATTACHMENT 2
Napa County Progressive Alliance: Make Shift of WP/LV
Island to Central District Possible After Annexation
\
ATTACHMENT 2
Napa County Progressive Alliance: WP/LV Island with Central District
\
ATTACHMENT 2
Napa County Progressive Alliance: WP/LV Island with Central District
\
ATTACHMENT 2
What’s Next
The City Council can make use of these
mapping options in a number of ways.
• Suggest possible changes –adjus tments can be
made to any of the draft plans.
• Provide direction for the preparation of new
dr
aft map(s) to be put out for public input and
future review and adoption.
• Many more opportunities for community
outr
each and public input
• Consider new draft maps at a public hearing
sch
eduled for January 25, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Napa’s Redistricting Schedule
• TOTAL OF 6 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS:
Held at various locations throughout the City to attract a wide range of partic
ipants
Saturday and Sunday
After 6:00 P.M. on weekday evenings
Newly added virtual option
• TOTAL OF 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1 Public Hearing before maps are drawn
4 Public Hearings after maps are drawn
Held during City Council Meetings at 6:30 PM
• City’s deadline to adopt a FINAL map is April 17, 2022 • Spanish interpretation services will be available upon request
at all Public Hearings & Community Workshops
ATTACHMENT 2
COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS:
Date and Time Location
Wednesday, December 1, 2021,
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
Napa Valley College Community Room
2277 Napa Vallejo Highway
Thursday, January 6, 2022
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
***NEWLY ADDED VIRTUAL OPTION!***
Join Us via Zoom
Saturday, January 15, 2022
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Harvest Middle School Library
2449 Old Sonoma Road
Saturday, January 15, 2022
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM
Las Flores Community Center Gym
4300 Linda Vista Avenue
Sunday, January 30, 2022
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Irene M. Snow Elementary School Library
1130 Foster Road
Sunday, January 30, 2022
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM
St. John Baptist Catholic Church - Parish Hall
924 Napa Street
ATTACHMENT 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Date and Time Location
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
6:30 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall
955 School Street
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
6:30 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall
955 School Street
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
6:30 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall
955 School Street
Tuesday, February 8, 2022
6:30 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall
955 School Street
Tuesday, March 8, 2022
6:30 PM
Council Chambers at City Hall
955 School Street
ATTACHMENT 2
Redistricting Webpage
Quick Tour of Online Tools & Resources!
www.cityofnapa.org/redistricting
ATTACHMENT 2
Questions from Council
to Staff or Consultant?
Invite Public Input Regarding:
Communities of Interest
District Boundaries
Provide direction to City staff regarding
the
composition of district boundaries
ATTACHMENT 2
DistrictR Publicly Submitted Maps as of December 13, 2021 Napa County Progressive Alliance: Make Shift of WP/LV Island to Central District Possible After Annexation
ID: 92917
Item 3.A.
ATTACHMENT 2
Napa County Progressive Alliance: WP/LV Island with Central District ID: 92819
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
From: Napa County Progressive Alliance
To: Redistricting
Subject: Written Public Comment for Public Hearing on Redistricting on Dec. 14, 2021, Item 3A Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 11:48:54 PM
Attachments: Rafferty re Integration of WPLV Island.pdf You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL]
Dear Napa City Council (and City-hired demographer):
At the first public hearing, Napa County Progressive Alliance Steering Committee member, Larry Alexander, submitted public comment on the West Pueblo/Linda Vista county island where he lives. He explained how this island represents a community of interest bound together by race, being a majority Latinx, socio-economic status, being primarily working class, a concern regarding inadequate and aging infrastructure, and a history of being excluded from the civic life of the city. He stated that he believes this community has more in common with the central district, District 4 directly to the east, than District 2, dominated by Browns Valley, which currently surrounds it. His observations are corroborated by data we submitted in 2020, as well as by the map the city’s demographer, Paul Mitchell, submitted that joined this island with the central district in draft map Plan D to create the highest Latinx citizen voting age population district of the final four maps he presented to the Council.
The city attorney stated that the City will be annexing these county islands but not until after redistricting. He stated that while council members cannot count the population of this island during redistricting, they could be forward thinking and consider how annexation of this island and its 1,400 residents would affect the districts and make decisions accordingly.
The only draft map being presented at tomorrow’s hearing is the current district map, which does not address the issues surrounding the incorporation of this large island into a future district, issues we brought up last year when the map was adopted.
We have resubmitted a letter written by our attorney Scott Rafferty dated April 26, 2020. In it he explained that unless the City passes an ordinance, the island would automatically go into District 2, creating a population variance of more than 13.3% based on 2010 census data, a variance that would likely be even higher now using 2020 census data. He proposed a solution that would respect the future desires of the island residents, suggesting that the city lands just east of the island be joined with the central district so that upon annexation the island could stay in District 2 or join with District 4 or be split at Carol Drive with the western half staying in District 2 and the eastern half joining with District 4. We submitted that map using DistrictR. https://bit.ly/3pX3Vj4 While we, again, urge you annex this island now, so the population can be counted, and it can be incorporated now into a district, at the very least you can demonstrate good faith and a respect for the desires of these future city residents by attaching it to both districts; that way, without having to pass a resolution, it could join to either district or be split between them. This solution would help equalize the population between districts 2 and 4, guarantee flexibility in incorporating the island into a district upon annexation, and ensure island residents have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the decision.
If you are unwilling to address the West Pueblo/Linda Vista island issue now when it is timely and convenient, it is unlikely that you will do it in the future.
Sincerely,
Amy Martenson
Napa County Progressive Alliance, Chair
P.S. Attached is Larry Alexander’s recent letter to the editor, “Don’t Wait to Annex the Largest Island."
https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/letters/dont-wait-to-annex-the-largest-island/article_f0d62eb5-4bf0-564a-879e-0010c2a45b28.html? utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Scott J. Rafferty
Attorney at law
1913 Whitecliff Court (202)-380-5525
Walnut Creek CA 94596 [email protected]
April 26, 2020
Ms. Tiffany Carranza
Clerk
City of Napa
via electronic mail
Dear Ms. Carranza:
My client and I hope to write separately, before or after tomorrow’s meeting, to reflect on the successes and accomplishments of this proceeding, the first to comply with the FAIR MAPS Act. You, the council, and the staff have set a model that every city in the state is well-advised to consider when they redistrict next year. I know that, it your case, it was a lot of hard work.
We have a continuing concern for the integration of the islands, especially West Pueblo/Linda Vista, into the city upon their annexation. As added effective January 1, 2020, Section 21623(a) requires a city to add new territory “to the nearest existing council district without changing the boundaries of the other council district boundaries [sic].” Map A places the entire West Pueblo Island inside District B (Brown’s Valley).
We question whether this is appropriate, especially since it will cause a population variance of more than 13.3%. Our view is less important than the desires of the residents at the time they join the city. Therefore, we propose two alternative interim approaches for the Council and its demographer to consider. (1) Move these eight census blocks southwest of the intersection of Redwood Road and St. Helena Highway from District B to District C (purple).
This involves the motels and retail along Solano Avenue and a population of 253 (only 132 of whom are adult citizens). With this small change, the West Pueblo Island adjoins both B and C, and can therefore be attached to either. Any movement of population out of B mitigates the excess variance. After annexation, one possibility would be to attach the twelve blocks east of Carol Drive to district C. The blocks have an additional population of 1,065 (pink). This would reduce the population variance to
8.4%.
The combined pink and purple areas correspond to a block group that will (after annexation) have the lowest per capita income in the City of Napa ($20,467). Sixteen percent of the population over 5 speaks Spanish, but does not speak English well.
ATTACHMENT 2
Rafferty to Carranza, April 26, 2020, page 2
Twelve percent lives in poverty. Eight percent are not citizens. Forty-five percent of eligible voters are Latino. We believe that the Island, or at least its eastern half, has more in common with district C than district B, but the Council should give the opinions of the City’s new residents greater weight.
Blue – District A Orange – District B Green – District C Purple, Pink and Crosshatch Orange – Island
ATTACHMENT 2
Rafferty to Carranza, April 26, 2020, page 3
(2) Ame
nd the ordinance to govern how annexations are added to existing districts.
New Section 21623(c) allow charter cities to adopt by ordinance “a different standard for adding new territory to existing council districts.” Conceivably, this could provide additional flexibility in the case of West Pueblo and other future annexations. I defer to Mr. Barrett on whether such an ordinance is appropriate, and what standard it might establish.
Sincerely,
Scott J.
Rafferty
ATTACHMENT 2