CITY OF PLEASANT HILL
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 6, 2023
SPECIAL MEETING – 2:00 PM
The meeting will be held both in person at
City Hall, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
and remotely via Zoom in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act Watch on YouTube at: www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting To provide comments via teleconference, click on the meeting link and enter the meeting ID and Passcode:
Meeting link: www.zoom.us
Meeting ID: 817 0169 2327
Passcode: 403177
The meeting ID and Passcode will change each meeting. See more information on Public Participation Options below.
City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page 1 May 6, 2023
City Offices, 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone (925) 671-5267
MAYOR TIMOTHY FLAHERTY COUNCILMEMBER SUE NOACK
VICE MAYOR MATTHEW RINN COUNCILMEMBER ZAC SHESS
COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN VINSON
Options for observing the meeting and participating in public comment are provided below.
Public Communication. The public is welcome to address the City Council on the item(s) listed on the special meeting agenda during the Public Comment period. Comments are generally limited to three minutes.
Public Participation Options
1)_ Watch the Meeting via Youtube Livestream at www.pleasanthillca.org/councilmeeting. 2) Submit Written Comments by 12:00 pm the Day Before the Meeting to [email protected] (comments received by deadline will be provided to the City Council before the meeting). Please specify that the correspondence is for public comment at the Council meeting. 3) Make Public Comment During the Meeting
When the Mayor invites public comment on the specific agenda item(s), you may participate in one of the following three ways:
a. Via Zoom
Go to www.Zoom.us using your computer/smart device and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode provided near the top of this page. We ask that you state your name and city of residence for the record when you start your comments. Please use the "Raise hand" feature in Zoom. You will not be seen or heard until it is your turn to speak. You will be invited into the meeting and asked to speak when it is your turn.
City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page 2 May 6, 2023
b. Via Phone
Call (669) 900-6833 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID and Passcode. Press *9 to “raise your hand” to alert staff that you wish to speak.
c. In Person
Members of the public may attend the meeting in person and may speak on any matter on the special meeting agenda. Please fill out a speaker's card, available at the entry to the meeting room, and turn it in to the City Clerk Recorder.
If, due to a disability, a reasonable accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please refer to the Providing Accessible Communication to the Public Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and AB 2449 document online at www.pleasanthillca.org/accessiblecommunications and contact the ADA Coordinator 24 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 671-5267 or via California Relay at 711.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to the public in the City’s Public Records Portal at https://cityarchive.pleasanthillca.org/WebLink/ (click on City Council Agenda Packets) or by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected] or 925-671-5267.
City Council Meeting Recordings.
Video recordings of special meetings are generally available within 48 hours of the meeting, and may be viewed on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/MeetingVideos and selecting “City Council” from the meeting groups.
Agendas are Available for Review on the City Hall official noticing bulletin board (100 Gregory Lane), at the Pleasant Hill Police Department (330 Civic Drive), the Pleasant Hill Senior Center (233 Gregory Lane), and on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas. Agenda packets will be available to the public on the City’s website at the same time as they are made available to the City Council.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. ACTION CALENDAR
3.1 Public Hearing to Consider Draft Maps and Composition of Districts for By-District Elections The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA (Section 21605) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(3) and 15378. Conducting public hearings for public input regarding transitioning to by-district elections and discussing a schedule for future hearings meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Next City Council Meeting: May 15, 2023
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 06, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DRAFT MAPS AND COMPOSITION
OF DISTRICTS FOR BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this item is to hold the fifth public hearing overall, and the second “post-map” public hearing to review draft maps and the composition of districts and to receive input from the community concerning transitioning to by-district elections.
Background:
On March 6, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-23 declaring its intention to transition to district-based elections. This action was taken in response to the January 19, 2023 letter received from Kevin Shenkman of the Law Offices of Shenkman and Hughes on behalf of the Pleasant Hill Community Alliance, that claimed the City’s at-large system of voting dilutes the ability of Latino and Asian voters to elect candidates of their choice or to otherwise influence the outcome of the City’s elections. This letter is the first step before a potential lawsuit can be filed claiming the City has violated the California Voting Rights Act. On March 20, 2023, the City Council held the first of four required public hearings and on April 3, 2023, the Council held the second required public hearing. On April 17, 2023, the Council conducted an additional “pre-map” hearing to gather additional public input.
A minimum of two “post-map” hearings are required to be held, to review the draft maps and identify the sequencing of district based elections. This means the Council will select a final map, and determine which districts will be on the ballot at its next regular election in November, 2024 and which districts will defer to the general election in November, 2026. By statute, all proposed maps must be provided to the public at least seven days prior to each of these “postmap” public hearings. The two “post-map” public hearings must be held within 45 days of each other. The first “post-map” hearing was held on May 1, 2023.
Analysis:
If the City follows the “safe harbor” process set forth in Assembly Bill 350, a lawsuit can be avoided and the plaintiffs’ fees and costs will be capped at approximately $34,000. Pursuant to Elections Code § 10010, the City must hold at least four public hearings in connection with the
3.1 Packet Pg. 3
establishment of electoral districts. The City is required to hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days before any map or maps of the boundaries for the proposed voting districts are drawn. The first two “pre-map” hearings are for the purpose of developing the criteria used for drawing the maps. At the pre-map public hearings, the community is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. On March 20 and April 3, the Council held the first and second required pre-map hearings. At the second hearing, the Council directed that a further pre-map public hearing be held. Although not legally required, the Council desired to solicit additional public input and comment prior to the map drawing process. The additional hearing was held on April 17, 2023.
As part of this pre-map process, the Council provided direction as to specific factors, such as pertinent communities of interest or geographic landmarks it wanted the demographers to focus consideration on in the preparation of draft maps. The demographers also will evaluate any publically submitted map for compliance with the California Voting Rights Act and Federal Voting Rights Act and present those maps for Council’s consideration at the “post-map” hearings.
To increase public awareness of the transition to district elections, the City has been and will continue to use a variety of public communication channels to engage members of the community, including having sent a postcard to every residence in the City prior to publication of the draft districting maps. Information also will be distributed by publishing newspaper notices five days before each hearing; social media posts; emails sent to a distribution list of members of the public who have submitted written comment, City commissioners, and subscribers to the City’s Outlook newsletter and the City’s bi-weekly Update newsletter.
Districting information will continue to be featured on the City’s website at the following web address: www.pleasanthillca.org/districts, which is populated with information in eight languages (including English) about how the public can participate in the process and answers to frequently asked questions about the districting process. The City has enabled closed captioning translations into all of the languages supported by Zoom. The City also has enabled an automated translation button on the City’s webpage.
Subsequent to the pre-map hearings, the City’s demographers prepared two draft maps, one depicting a five district configuration and one depicting a four district configuration, with a directly-elected at-large Mayor. In addition, two maps were received from members of the public. The proposed maps were posted to the City’s website on Monday, April 24, 2023, in accordance with the Elections Code. These first four maps were reviewed and discussed by the Council at its May 1, 2023 regular City Council Meeting.
Three additional maps were received from the public on Wednesday, April 26, 2023, after the initial website posting and were analyzed by the City’s demographer. These maps were posted to the City’s website on Friday, April 28, 2023, in compliance with the Elections Code requirement for a seven day posting period before the Saturday hearing. A summary of the additional three maps is included below. Each of the draft maps was analyzed and reviewed by the city’s demographer, and found to be legally viable. This means the maps create potential Council districts that are population-balanced within a margin +/- 10%, are contiguous, and compact.
3.1 Packet Pg. 4
One consideration of district-based elections is the potential to create majority/minority voting districts, where a single identified minority represents 50%+1 of Citizens of Voting Age (CVAP). Pleasant Hill has a relatively low minority total population (40.2%), and the CVAP population is 30.9%, with 69.1% of the CVAP population comprised of Non-Latino Whites. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, given the dispersed nature of minority residency, to create one or more voting districts that represent 50%+ minority citizens of voting age from a single minority. None of the proposed maps achieves this goal, however the highest total minority CVAP population (all minorities - known as a “coalition minority” district), is identified for each proposed map.
A summary of the population deviation and minority coalitions for the three new maps may be found below:
Map ID Population Deviation Minority CVAP Coalition
Draft Map 4, 5 Districts 7.60% D4 – 43.9%
Draft Map 5, 5 Districts 7.94% D1 – 42.1%
Draft Map 6, 5 Districts 0.78% D1 – 40.4%
Draft Maps
Draft Map 4 (5 Districts) was submitted by a member of the public. The districts are compact and contiguous. The map uses major arterial streets or natural geologic features such as creeks or water courses when practicable to divide the districts. District 4 exhibits a combined minority CVAP coalition of 43.9%, which may assist minority voters in electing the candidate of their choice.
Draft Map 5 (5 Districts) was also submitted by a member of the public. The districts are compact and contiguous. Major arterial streets are used for some district divisions, although smaller residential streets are used to divide a portion of the eastern edge of Districts 1 and 2.
District 1 exhibits a combined minority CVAP coalition of 42.1%, which may assist minority voters in electing the candidate of their choice.
Draft Map 6 (5 Districts) was also submitted by a member of the public. The districts are compact, and with the exception of District 2 to some extent, are compact. Major arterial streets are used for some district divisions, although smaller residential streets are used to divide a portion of the eastern edge of Districts 1 and 2 and the eastern edge of District 3 where it meets the western edge of District 4. The map has a total deviation of 0.78%, the lowest of all proposed maps. District 1 exhibits a combined minority CVAP coalition of 40.4%, the lowest of any map.
For the Council’s reference, the population deviations and Minority CVAP Coalitions for the first four maps (reviewed on May 1, 2023) is found below.
3.1 Packet Pg. 5
Map ID Population Deviation Minority CVAP Coalition
Draft Map 1, 5 Districts 6.48% D3 – 45.7%
Draft Map 1, 4 Districts 7.25% D3 – 42.3%
Draft Map 2, 5 Districts 7.43% D1 – 42.3%
Draft Map 3, 5 Districts 9.25% D1 – 42.2%
Should the Council adopt a 4 District map, residents would have the opportunity to vote for two members of the City Council. Residents would vote for their district Council member, and the atlarge Mayor. The Mayor would have no additional powers on the City Council, such as veto powers, but would serve as Mayor for the entirety of either a two or four year term, as selected by the Council.
The next public hearing after May 6th, to receive and consider input from the public concerning the composition of voting districts is scheduled at a special City Council meeting on Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. This will be the third post-map public hearing. The public is also encouraged to provide input via email to [email protected]. Input may also be dropped off at the City Clerk’s Department or mailed to the City Clerk at the following address:
City of Pleasant Hill
Attn: City Clerk
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE LAST DAY TO SUBMIT DRAFT MAPS TO THE CITY CLERK IS TUESDAY, MAY 9TH AT 5:00 P.M.
FISCAL IMPACT
The services of an expert demographer are needed to prepare the maps at a cost of approximately $15,500. There will be additional costs incurred by the work of the City Attorney’s Office during the process. Finally, under the law’s “safe harbor” provision, the City will be responsible for the potential plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs for a maximum amount of approximately $34,000 paid to Mr. Shenkman. As well, the City has executed a contract for translation and interpretation services for a not to exceed amount of $20,000. Informational mailer costs are estimated at $12,000 and costs for “promoted” social media engagement is estimated at $500.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA (Section 21605) and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c)(3) and 15378. Conducting public hearings for public input regarding transitioning to
3.1 Packet Pg. 6
by-district elections and setting a schedule for future hearings meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Senior Center and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page. A Public Hearing Notice was published in the East Bay Times on March 15, 2023, March 29, 2023, April 12, 2023, and April 26, 2023. A news release was posted on social media, and in the City’s bi-weekly Update newsletter.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Conduct post-map public hearing, receive and consider input from the public, and provide further direction to staff regarding the composition of districts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Public Hearing Notice
Correspondence
Draft Maps
Exhibit A - % minority CVAP coalition for each district on each map Prepared by: Janet Coleson, City Attorney
Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager
3.1 Packet Pg. 7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE
PLEASANT HILL CITY COUNCIL
(Transition to District-Based Elections for City Council Members) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 1, 2023, May 6, 2023, and May 22, 2023, the Pleasant Hill City Council will conduct public hearings to receive comment from the public regarding the draft maps for district-based elections for Members of the City Council, pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
In accordance with California Elections Code section 10010(a)(1), the City Council conducted public hearings regarding the establishment of district boundaries for district-based elections on March 20, 2023, April 3, 2023, and April 17, 2023.
The City’s demographer prepared electoral division maps consistent with federal and state law outlining the proposed boundaries of the electoral divisions, and the draft maps are available on the City website at www.pleasanthillca.org/districts. The public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps. Those desiring to be heard on the item will be given an opportunity to do so during public hearings on May 1, 2023 (7:00 p.m.), May 6, 2023 (2:00 p.m.), and May 22, 2023 (7:00 p.m.).
The City Council will then take steps at public meetings in June 2023 to adopt an Ordinance transitioning the City from an at-large to district-based method of electing members of the City Council, approving the establishment of electoral division map boundaries, and approving the sequence of future Council elections, if applicable.
All public hearings will be conducted in the City Council Chamber, located at 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, California, 94523. Agendas will be posted in advance of the meetings in compliance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act and can be viewed at www.pleasanthillca.org/agendas.
Interested parties may subscribe to receive agenda notices at www.pleasanthillca.org/NotifyMe.
This notice is available in English, Farsi, Russian, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Tagalog, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese on the City’s website at www.pleasanthillca.org/districts. If you are aware of a community member needing this notice to be translated to another language or, if in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, you need special assistance to participate in a City Council meeting, contact the City Clerk’s Office at (925) 671-5221 at least 72 hours before the meeting or time when such special services are needed. For more information on the City providing accessible communication to the public, please visit the City’s website at:
https://www.pleasanthillca.org/812/ADA-Accessibility.
_______________________________
Danielle K. Navarro, City Clerk
Publish Date: April 26, 2023
3.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Notice of Public Hearings (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) Correspondence
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) This page left intentionally blank
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: June Catalano
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:39 AM
To: Juanita Davalos
Subject: FW: Minor Tweaks to Election District Maps
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:32 AM
To: June Catalano <[email protected]>; Janet Coleson <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Minor Tweaks to Election District Maps
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Sorry - I meant to copy you as well - so that you would not be blindsided by a last second request ! jp
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jack Prosek <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, May 2, 2023 at 8:10 AM
Subject: Minor Tweaks to Election District Maps
To: tim flaherty <[email protected]>
Cc: matt rinn <[email protected]>, Sue Noack <[email protected]>, zac shess <[email protected]>, Al Vinson <[email protected]> Mayor Flaherty -
It has been noted that while the Maps produced by the districtR website are 98% of what is desired, the question arises as to whether the City Council has to accept one of the Maps EXACTLY as drawn or whether you will be able to make minor changes to achieve more logical boundaries.
The problem appears to arise from the limitations of the program regarding exact streets & property lines which may cross the boundaries of census tracts. Here are two examples where minor changes would be appropriate:
Boundary between NE & NW Districts:
The disrictR program did allow the homes on Vili Way, Eric Court & the west end of Odin Drive to be included in the NE District. However, it did not appear to allow the homes on Aleta Place, the west end of Kiki Drive, Greyfell Place, Halten Court, Tonstad Place, Paso Nogal Court & the homes on the west side of Morello to be included as well. Paso Nogal Park provides a huge barrier between these homes & the ones further west. One might also include the four homes on Morello Court in the NE District.
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 Boundary between the NW & SW Districts:
Looking at a more detailed map of the City, a reasonable division between these two Districts would be down the centerline of Boyd Road west to Pleasant Hill Road, south down the centerline & then west along the southernmost property lines of the homes on Atrice Lane, Croyden Drive, Kinder Lane & Twinview Place out to Taylor Blvd.
Both of these suggested tweaks would provide more rational boundaries for the Election Districts !! Please have the City Attorney address this issue during their presentations at the May 6th and May 22nd Public Hearings on the Election District Maps.
Jack Prosek
PH Resident / Homeowner / Voter
zz
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 9:54 AM
To: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.)
Name:* Daniel Safran
Street
Address:*
105 Rolling Green Circle
City* PLEASANT HILL
Phone
Number:
9259981094
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* Districting
Question
or
Comment:
Dear City Council, I wish I could present my comments in person but, because immunity challenges make me vulnerable to Covid-19, I need to avoid large groups of people. I’m writing regarding plans for creating electoral districts in Pleasant Hill. I support having five districts and oppose having four districts and a mayor elected at large. My interest is to engage as many PH residents as possible in local governance and to assure that members of our city’s minority groups have maximum opportunities for representation. Having five districts will achieve this far better than four districts and a mayor elected at large! Of the various plans considered, draft map #5 is balanced as required by law and best meets the criteria for broad representation. I hope you will consider and choose a districting plan that maximizes Pleasant Hill residents' engagement in local government. Thank you. Daniel Safran Homeowner and Pleasant Hill Resident Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]
* indicates required fields.
View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=16871 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt.
Code Section 6250, et seq.):
Name:: Daniel Safran
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 Street Address:: 105 Rolling Green Circle
City: PLEASANT HILL
Phone Number:: 9259981094
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: Districting
Question or Comment:: Dear City Council,
I wish I could present my comments in person but, because immunity challenges make me vulnerable to Covid19, I need to avoid large groups of people.
I’m writing regarding plans for creating electoral districts in Pleasant Hill. I support having five districts and oppose having four districts and a mayor elected at large. My interest is to engage as many PH residents as possible in local governance and to assure that members of our city’s minority groups have maximum opportunities for representation. Having five districts will achieve this far better than four districts and a mayor elected at large!
Of the various plans considered, draft map #5 is balanced as required by law and best meets the criteria for broad representation.
I hope you will consider and choose a districting plan that maximizes Pleasant Hill residents' engagement in local government.
Thank you.
Daniel Safran
Homeowner and Pleasant Hill Resident
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 5/2/2023 9:53:45 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.188.249.161
Referrer Page: https://www.pleasanthillca.org/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: Karen Yapp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Comments regarding District Mapping
Attachments: Karen Yapp letter 5-2-23.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Please accept the attached PDF letter of my comments after the 5/1/23 City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Karen Yapp
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) May 2, 2023
Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney,
The May 1st Council Meeting was eye-opening. I realized several things at this meeting that concern me. I have enumerated them below.
1) Demographer’s Maps
I was shocked to realize, at the Council meeting last night, that apparently no one on the Council, and no city staff, had reviewed the demographer’s proposed maps prior to posting them for the public. The Council seemed to unanimously feel they were bad maps. Yet they were posted, and were the cause of the anger and frustration you experienced at the meeting.
Surely there must be someone working for the city who would have the knowledge and ability to review the demographer’s input. If you hired a consultant to design a library, wouldn’t someone in the city review and refine the design before it was released for public input? How is this any different?
2) 5 Districts vs 4 Districts
The Council has been virtually silent on the question of a 4-district split. No one from the community has submitted a 4-district option. The demographer’s 4-district map is as bad as his 5-district map. If, at the end of this, you decide to go with 4-districts, the public will feel that you’ve played a game with us through this whole process. You say you don’t want animosity, but that would create extreme animosity. So please make it clear whether the 4-district option is on or off the table. I strongly disagree with 4-districts for previously stated reasons. 3) May 6th Meeting – Saturday
The May 6th meeting needs to be held as more of an interactive discussion. During the May 1 meeting several statements were made that were not clear to me. In a different format I could have asked for clarification. Also, ideas come to people as they listen to you and to other residents. Being limited to 3 pre-scripted minutes, at a specified time, is not a substitute for real dialog. I agree that all map options should be displayed in a large scale for the meeting. You should eliminate the demographer’s Map 1 since everyone hated it. Also, the demographer should attend the May 6 meeting. Clearly, he knows nothing about Pleasant Hill. How can he possibly create a good map?
4) Deadline for Map Submittal for May 6 meeting
On May 1 we heard that the demographer requires 7 days to review a resident map submittal.
And for that reason, maps submitted last Friday could not be included on May 6. That 7-day window is for the demographer’s convenience. Actual time for his analysis is surely under 2 hours. The data is automatically generated. Since his first map was unacceptable, the city should request that he complete his review of the newer map(s) in less time so that they can be available on May 6th. Please negotiate with him to quickly analyze any maps received by noon on May 3 (for example). I plan to submit a 4-district option before that deadline. What good is it if no one will see it on May 6? By the next meeting this will all be a done deal. 5) Post DISTRICR Links to Resident Maps
It is nice to have the maps superimposed on a google map. But it would be better for some of us (those who have created maps or are comfortable with software) to have the map number for the DISTRICTR.ORG web site. Then we could see it there with the accompanying data for population, etc. It would probably help the Council to review the maps too. This website is set up so anyone can look at a previously saved map, but if they edit it, it will be saved as a new map.
It won’t affect the original.
Karen Yapp
39-year resident of Pleasant Hill
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: Michelle Simone <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:10 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Submission of 4-District Maps for Demographer
Attachments: 4-District Map v2 Population.png; 4-District Map v2 VAP.png; 4-District Map Population.png; 4-District Map VAP.png
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
City Councilmembers,
I am writing to submit two 4-district maps for review by the demographer. However, I only wish 4-district maps to be considered if councilmembers disregard the 5-district community maps as a 5-district map is a better fit for our City.
These 4-district maps have been created to honor the requests of residents in the community who want to keep specific neighborhoods together. The neighborhoods that have been requested to be kept together are College Park/DVC, Woodside Meadows, Poet's Corner, Downtown Pleasant Hill, Pleasant Valley, Gregory Gardens, and the communities east of Contra Costa Blvd. The maps submitted keep the aforementioned communities together and limit the division of the communities to the east of Contra Costa Blvd. and Gregory Gardens.
In addition to keeping neighborhoods together, these maps were created to keep communities of interest in East Pleasant Hill together. While our maps may not be able to produce a 50.1%+ citizen's voting population it's important to recognize these communities of interest as more diverse with different needs that could be better represented with two districts. Since our minority resident population and minority voting population is higher in East Pleasant Hill we can help ensure that the voices of all members of our community are heard and represented in district elections if we protect these two areas from being divided.
Maps for Consideration:
https://districtr.org/plan/183189
https://districtr.org/plan/176696
I want to emphasize that these 4-district maps are being submitted only if the City Council decides to adopt a 4- district map. I, along with other community members who have provided public comments, do not want a 4- district map for our city. I believe that a 5-district map would be better suited for our community. Please make this clear during map review at hearings and when displayed for the public.
In the event that council members decide to adopt a 4-district map, I request that these community maps be considered for district elections. The two maps that I am submitting have been created with careful consideration of the requests made by community members and will ensure that the neighborhoods are kept together and communities of interest are represented.
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 Thank you for considering community submitted maps,
Michelle
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) , Population I Data Layers Evaluation
..... Population Balance
CD Uses 2020 Decennial Census prison-adjusted data
on 2020 Blocks.
1 8,338
8,454
1 8,913
1 8,903
UNASSIGNED
POPULATION:
MAX. POPULATION
DEVIATION:
Idea l: 233,613.8
1,133,461
96.43%
O Highlight unassigned units
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) r
+
Buchanan
Field Airport
Population Data Layers Evaluation
~ Population by Race
.... Voting Age Population by Race
co M PARE j White VAP
vi
WITH j Hispanic VAP
vi
AND
jAsian VAP
vi
WVAP HVAP AVAP
0 1111 • 15.4% 23.7%
::!.
- • 10% 14%
0% 0% 0%
111111 14% 15
.6%
e
- 11.6% 10.3%
Overall- 24.4% 18.8%
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) Briones Peak j
Population Data Layers Evaluation
Population Balance
CD Uses 2020 Decennial Census prison-adjusted data on 2020 Blocks. 1 8,958 8,275 18,472 1 8,903
Ideal: 233,613.8
UNASSIGNED POPULATION:
MAX. POPULATION DEVIATION :
O Highlight unassigned units
1,133,461
96.46%
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) Briones 7ak
Population Data Layers Evaluation
Population by Race
Voting Age Population by Race
COMPARE l whiteVAP
WITH I Hispanic VAP
AND IAsianVAP
WVAP
0 :1
-- . 0%
0 -
Overall
--
HVAP AVAP
14.9% 23.3%
10.4% 13.6% 0% 0%
13.9% 15
.7%
11.6% 10
.3%
24.4% 18.8%
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: Karen Yapp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 1:22 PM
To: City Council
Subject: District Map for 4-District option
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
I am submitting this 4-District map for consideration (link below). So far, the only 4-District map is the one created by the demographer. His map is similar to his very unpopular 5-District map. He was able to get one coalition minority majority group, but just barely. He did that at the expense of splitting up multiple neighborhoods and making convoluted configurations. There is no way to accomplish it otherwise.
I disagree with the 4-District option. However, since the 4-District option is still on the table, I'd like my map to be considered. It has a population deviation of 8.4%. It is quite compact. It follows major roads and creeks. It fails to create a coalition minority majority, although the SE area comes close. It preserves all neighborhoods except for the DVC area west of Norse Drive.
Thank you,
Karen Yapp
Link to map: https://districtr.org/plan/183198
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 3.1.b
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 2:33 PM
To: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.)
Name:* Cindy Rubin
Street
Address:*
Hoover Court
City* Pleasant Hill
Phone
Number:
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* District Based Elections
Question
or
Comment:
May 2, 2023 Dear Mayor Flaherty, Vice Mayor Rinn, Councilmembers Noack, Shess, Vinson and Staff- I watched the Pleasant Hill City Council meeting last night (5.1.2023) where item 10.3, “Public Hearing to Consider Draft Maps and Composition of Districts for By-District Elections” was discussed. I know that creating maps is challenging and that there are always going to be those who feel that they are on the wrong side of any decision that’s made. That being said, I have to admit that when I first reviewed the two maps the city’s demographer came up with, the boundaries drawn did not make sense to me. The five district map that draws the boundary cutting Masefield from Shelly and the rest of Poet’s Corner to the west, definitely stood out. I live in the very southern part of the city, south of Oak Park and East of Pleasant Hill Road, which is included in the proposed District 1 along with Masefield and a part of Patterson Blvd. It may be that we have areas of interest that align with those two streets because we are relatively close geographically, but the created district then stretches all the way to the east side of the freeway up to Monument Blvd. and Mohr Lane. Creating a boundary where Patterson is split at Hawthorne between two districts, and Masefield is split from Shelly, does not appear to take those neighbors who live next to each other into consideration. Those areas have a very clear community of interest. While all of us in the city have common concerns, the residents who live near the freeway and the Crossroads Shopping Center have specific concerns to their location that vary greatly from ours in the southern part of the city. As others pointed out last night, the other four districts on that map have issues that should be similarly addressed as well. Ms. Colson and Mr. Priest’s comments last night confirmed that all of the maps that have been submitted by the city and residents, and reviewed so far, fall within the allowable standard deviation of less than 10% and have negligible percentage differences creating “majority minority” districts. They also spoke to the factors that should be considered when creating separate districts, like: CVAP, common interests, compactness, and natural and non-natural boundaries. According to Ms. Colson and Mr. Priest, the concern for achieving the highest percentage of a majority minority district is not the only factor to consider and that the resident submitted maps with close percentages, along with consideration of the other
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 factors, would all be acceptable. Despite the fact that our city would not have any one district with a majority minority, having two out of the five districts with a higher minority population seems more aligned with our city’s goals of diversity and inclusion than creating one district with the bulk of our minority population. Many of last night’s speakers addressed the fact that the Sherman Acres/Fair Oaks/Ellinwood Area and the College Park/DVC neighborhoods should be their own districts. I agree 100%. Each neighborhood in our city has its own unique characteristics and splitting those areas up, or combining geographically distant neighborhoods, should only be done if it makes sense. I know, and/or have met, all of the council members as I have lived in PH for 37 years. I know you all to be good people who care about our community. Clearly, you aren’t in it for the money, so having constituents question your motivation is hard. I appreciate the time and energy you put into trying to make things better in the city. Your concern for all the residents of Pleasant Hill is laudable and the reason why many of you have been reelected a number of times.
However, we now have the opportunity to divide the city into districts so that ideally, each distinct neighborhood can have local representation on the council. Pleasant Hill residents are interested and invested in this process. I was proud of the citizens of PH who took the time to prepare their comments and stayed on message last night. It was good to see a community coming together without yelling or shouting. While one or two of the speakers were more passionate about the process than others, I was a little disappointed with some of the council’s comments afterwards because they seemed to be more defensive than constructive. I would have appreciated more comments about why/how the city demographer’s maps were divided the way they were.
Unfortunately, between the hiring of a demographer instead of going with an independent redistricting commission, comments previously made by the Mayor about his area of residence during a city council meeting, and the resultant maps showing what appears to be districts with forced boundaries, it’s not a leap to see why residents might question things. Those may be the current optics of the situation, but it doesn’t mean they’re right about their assumptions. I hope that as we go further into the process, it will be clear that you will be doing what is best for all the citizens and the city. Thank you, Cindy Rubin
Upload File
Attachment
here
[ ]
* indicates required fields.
View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=16872 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt.
Code Section 6250, et seq.):
Name:: Cindy Rubin
Street Address:: Hoover Court
City: Pleasant Hill
Phone Number::
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: District Based Elections
Question or Comment:: May 2, 2023
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 3 Dear Mayor Flaherty, Vice Mayor Rinn, Councilmembers Noack, Shess, Vinson and StaffI watched the Pleasant Hill City Council meeting last night (5.1.2023) where item 10.3, “Public Hearing to Consider Draft Maps and Composition of Districts for By-District Elections” was discussed. I know that creating maps is challenging and that there are always going to be those who feel that they are on the wrong side of any decision that’s made.
That being said, I have to admit that when I first reviewed the two maps the city’s demographer came up with, the boundaries drawn did not make sense to me. The five district map that draws the boundary cutting Masefield from Shelly and the rest of Poet’s Corner to the west, definitely stood out. I live in the very southern part of the city, south of Oak Park and East of Pleasant Hill Road, which is included in the proposed District 1 along with Masefield and a part of Patterson Blvd. It may be that we have areas of interest that align with those two streets because we are relatively close geographically, but the created district then stretches all the way to the east side of the freeway up to Monument Blvd. and Mohr Lane.
Creating a boundary where Patterson is split at Hawthorne between two districts, and Masefield is split from Shelly, does not appear to take those neighbors who live next to each other into consideration. Those areas have a very clear community of interest. While all of us in the city have common concerns, the residents who live near the freeway and the Crossroads Shopping Center have specific concerns to their location that vary greatly from ours in the southern part of the city. As others pointed out last night, the other four districts on that map have issues that should be similarly addressed as well.
Ms. Colson and Mr. Priest’s comments last night confirmed that all of the maps that have been submitted by the city and residents, and reviewed so far, fall within the allowable standard deviation of less than 10% and have negligible percentage differences creating “majority minority” districts. They also spoke to the factors that should be considered when creating separate districts, like: CVAP, common interests, compactness, and natural and non-natural boundaries.
According to Ms. Colson and Mr. Priest, the concern for achieving the highest percentage of a majority minority district is not the only factor to consider and that the resident submitted maps with close percentages, along with consideration of the other factors, would all be acceptable. Despite the fact that our city would not have any one district with a majority minority, having two out of the five districts with a higher minority population seems more aligned with our city’s goals of diversity and inclusion than creating one district with the bulk of our minority population.
Many of last night’s speakers addressed the fact that the Sherman Acres/Fair Oaks/Ellinwood Area and the College Park/DVC neighborhoods should be their own districts. I agree 100%. Each neighborhood in our city has its own unique characteristics and splitting those areas up, or combining geographically distant neighborhoods, should only be done if it makes sense.
I know, and/or have met, all of the council members as I have lived in PH for 37 years. I know you all to be good people who care about our community. Clearly, you aren’t in it for the money, so having constituents question your motivation is hard. I appreciate the time and energy you put into trying to make things better in the city. Your concern for all the residents of Pleasant Hill is laudable and the reason why many of you have been reelected a number of times. However, we now have the opportunity to divide the city into districts so that ideally, each distinct neighborhood can have local representation on the council. Pleasant Hill residents are interested and invested in this process.
I was proud of the citizens of PH who took the time to prepare their comments and stayed on message last night.
It was good to see a community coming together without yelling or shouting. While one or two of the speakers were more passionate about the process than others, I was a little disappointed with some of the council’s
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 4 comments afterwards because they seemed to be more defensive than constructive. I would have appreciated more comments about why/how the city demographer’s maps were divided the way they were. Unfortunately, between the hiring of a demographer instead of going with an independent redistricting commission, comments previously made by the Mayor about his area of residence during a city council meeting, and the resultant maps showing what appears to be districts with forced boundaries, it’s not a leap to see why residents might question things. Those may be the current optics of the situation, but it doesn’t mean they’re right about their assumptions. I hope that as we go further into the process, it will be clear that you will be doing what is best for all the citizens and the city.
Thank you,
Cindy Rubin
Upload File Attachment here: No file was uploaded
Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 5/2/2023 2:33:00 PM
Submitted from IP Address: 67.188.22.169
Referrer Page: https://www.pleasanthillca.org/1557/District-Based-Election-Process Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 11:28 AM
To: June Catalano; Juanita Davalos; Geoff Gillette
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email the City Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
If you are having problems viewing this HTML email, click to view a Text version.
Email the City Council
Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code Section 6250, et seq.)
Name:* Robert Langgley
Street
Address:*
Pleasant Hill
City* Pleasant HIll, CA
Phone
Number:
Email:* [email protected]
Subject:* District Map
Question
or
Comment:
I would like to make two requests: 1. Please create a FAQ section of the City website so that people not familiar with district elections and the process can quickly understand the issues and maps being presented. This is complicated and people shouldn't have to wade through meeting agenda and staff reports. 2. I would like to submit the following map for consideration. I have attach an image of it and it can accessed by the City hired demographer at https://districtr.org/plan/183289, where JSON and CSV files can be downloaded for demographic analysis. Please direct the demographer to the link for inclusion in his comparisons. Thank you.
Upload File
Attachment
here
Demographer Inspired Map.jpg
* indicates required fields.
View any uploaded files by signing in and then proceeding to the link below:
http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Admin/FormHistory.aspx?SID=16878 The following form was submitted via your website: Email the City Council Please note that all emails submitted through this website will be shared with all Councilmembers and certain City staff members. These emails are considered public records under the California Public Records Act (Govt.
Code Section 6250, et seq.):
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 Name:: Robert Langgley
Street Address:: Pleasant Hill
City: Pleasant HIll, CA
Phone Number::
Email:: [email protected]
Subject:: District Map
Question or Comment:: I would like to make two requests:
1. Please create a FAQ section of the City website so that people not familiar with district elections and the process can quickly understand the issues and maps being presented. This is complicated and people shouldn't have to wade through meeting agenda and staff reports.
2. I would like to submit the following map for consideration. I have attach an image of it and it can accessed by the City hired demographer at https://districtr.org/plan/183289, where JSON and CSV files can be downloaded for demographic analysis. Please direct the demographer to the link for inclusion in his comparisons.
Thank you.
Upload File Attachment here: Demographer Inspired Map.jpg Additional Information:
Form submitted on: 5/4/2023 11:27:30 AM
Submitted from IP Address: 204.102.76.163
Referrer Page: https://www.pleasanthillca.org/582/Contact-City-Council-Staff Form Address: http://www.pleasanthillca.org/Forms.aspx?FID=137
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) Population Data Layers Evaluation
..- Population Balance
CD Uses 2020 Decennial Census prison-adjusted data on 2020 Blocks.
1 6,998
6,865
16,874
6,951
16,961
Demographer inspired map
maximizing minority groups &
minimizing population variance
https://districtr.org/plan/183289
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: John Okeefe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 4:13 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Controversial Redistricting Plan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
1) Why is the plan controversial?
2)and is the City heading for an avoidable, expensive, lawsuit? Tx. John Sent from my iPhone
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 1 Juanita Davalos
From: Frank Miceli <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 4:45 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: The Folly of District Based Elections In Pleasant Hill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Greetings,
I just learned that the City of Pleasant Hill intends to change from at-large municipal elections to district- based elections next month.
I've not heard about this change until now, the midnight hour.
Presumably it was widely announced. How has public input been sought? How was the citizenry informed of the public hearings on this subject in March and April? How may I review the content of those two public hearings and what input was offered by the public at that time?
Many CA cities have changed from at-large to district-based elections. What is the evidence for this change significantly increasing minority representation on city councils? If evidence exists, were the cities involved as free of racial/ethnic structuring as PH? What is the evidence for the impact on city financial costs, plus or minus? What is the estimated cost impact for Pleasant Hill? In my opinion this is a waste of time and money, attempting to forcefully jam Pleasant Hill into an identity politics mold for which it is ill suited. Assuming there is no significant evidence of prohibited discrimination, in the event of lawsuits the City is likely judgement proof. Which means that the pressure to "do
something" should be resisted; that "no change" is the wisest course.
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) 2 PH is about 70% white, 14% Asian, 9% two or more races(mainly white and Hispanic), not quite 4% black and 3% other. I've lived in the city for 37 years and I'm not aware of any significant geographical concentration of blacks, or Hispanics or Asians. More than half of all Hispanics characterize themselves as white or a combination. Further, with respect to Asians, we are actually talking about Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Pakistani, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, Thai and various other East and South Asian groups that have little or no commonality of interests. Given these facts, how will a change to district voting in PH promise to actually affect voting results in an authentically representative way? There are no authentic racial or ethnic "districts" in PH so the fallback position, devising an equal number of districts by population is a distinction without a difference.
Then too this scheme fails to recognize one crucially important identity group at all--that of women! There may well be a difference in how women are distributed among the newly devised districts depending on such things as occupation, marriage rates, etc. What impact does the creation of new voting districts that are somehow responsive to racial and ethnic groupings do to the equal representation of women?
Presumably our city officials considered these obvious problems before their agreement to implement District Based Voting. I understand that district-based maps have already been devised.
Please tell me how the problems I identify above were dealt with in creating district based maps and otherwise moving forward to enact this initiative.
Cordially,
Frank Miceli
3.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Correspondence (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 1, Five Districts
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 Districts 3, 4 & 5
2026 Districts 1 & 2
Total Deviation
6.48%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.c
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Map 1 - Five Districts and demographic data (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) Draft Map 1, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,881 -49 -0.70% 4,420 802 139 15 1,045 11 45 404 2 7,190 260 3.75% 1,060 4,270 216 17 1,050 29 59 489 3 6,741 -189 -2.72% 2,955 1,138 309 26 1,712 45 62 494 4 6,850 -80 -1.15% 4,808 848 62 10 620 10 39 453 5 6,987 57 0.83% 1,120 4,274 159 22 815 7 39 551 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 6.48% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,680 574 3,778 123 14 895 10 36 250 D2 5,868 775 3,601 200 13 885 23 51 320 D3 5,580 861 2,585 253 20 1,435 40 53 333 D4 5,286 578 3,862 52 10 522 9 22 231 D5 5,500 773 3,523 129 18 693 4 26 334 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 5,422 3,779 116 697 4,709 - 541 16 59 D2 5,066 3,483 262 661 4,395 - 351 - 83 D3 4,256 2,315 75 814 3,441 - 756 55 28 D4 5,518 4,329 61 530 4,979 - 474 21 32 D5 5,207 3,698 113 714 4,498 - 427 - 18 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 *NL = Non Latino *AIAN = American Indian Alaska Native
*VAP = Voting Age Population
*CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.c
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Map 1 - Five Districts and demographic data (CVRA Districting Hearing 5) City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 1 Four Districts + Directly Elected Mayor
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 Districts 2, & 3
2026 Districts 1 & 4
Total Deviation
7.25%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.d
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Map 1 - Four Districts and Directly Elected Mayor and demographic data (CVRA Districting Draft Map 1, Four Districts + Directly Elected Mayor – Demographic Data District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 8,740 78 0.90% 1,038 5,688 164 22 1,185 10 62 571 2 9,000 338 3.90% 1,179 6,152 101 19 836 16 52 645 3 8,537 -125 -1.45% 4,005 1,431 366 28 2,001 49 69 588 4 8,372 -290 -3.35% 4,882 1,320 254 21 1,220 27 61 587 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 8,662 Deviation 7.25% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 7,116 742 4,791 141 21 1,025 9 44 343 D2 6,961 826 4,936 86 19 693 11 35 355 D3 7,093 1,061 3,515 306 20 1,689 44 59 399 D4 6,744 932 4,107 224 15 1,023 22 50 371 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 6,698 4,757 65 841 5,855 - 592 16 64 D2 7,322 5,569 103 803 6,513 - 608 21 28 D3 5,770 3,333 202 1,000 4,763 - 954 55 41 D4 5,679 3,945 257 772 4,891 - 395 - 87 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 *NL -= Non Latino *AIAN = Amerian Indian Alaskan Native
*VAP = Voting Age Population
*CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.d
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Map 1 - Four Districts and Directly Elected Mayor and demographic data (CVRA Districting City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 2, Five Districts, submitted by a member of the public
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 3 Districts TBD
2026 2 Districts TBD
Total Deviation
7.43%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.e
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Map 2 - Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA Draft Map 2, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,649 -281 -4.05% 3,148 1,040 195 13 1,647 40 61 505 2 7,164 234 3.38% 802 4,856 128 17 881 8 53 419 3 7,121 191 2.76% 1,267 3,702 369 24 1,234 20 50 455 4 6,810 -120 -1.73% 4,247 1,030 73 17 886 10 33 514 5 6,905 -25 -0.36% 4,774 829 120 19 594 24 47 498 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 7.43% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,397 748 2,683 152 10 1,386 34 51 333 D2 5,855 590 4,080 111 16 765 7 34 252 D3 5,954 946 3,238 319 16 1,044 20 45 326 D4 5,268 695 3,446 62 17 741 5 24 278 D5 5,440 582 3,902 113 16 494 20 34 279 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 4,260 2,465 96 721 3,524 - 771 26 11 D2 5,604 4,040 54 675 4,924 - 485 16 58 D3 5,251 3,363 235 822 4,428 - 497 29 69 D4 4,874 3,454 103 616 4,261 - 504 - 26 D5 5,480 4,282 139 582 4,885 - 292 21 56 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 *NL = Non Latino *AIAN = American Indian Alaskan Native
*VAP = Voting Age Population
*CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.e
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Map 2 - Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 3, Five Districts, submitted by a member of the public
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 3 Districts TBD
2026 2 Districts TBD
Total Deviation
9.25%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.f
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Map 3 - Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA Draft Map 3, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,649 -281 -4.05% 3,148 1,040 195 13 1,647 40 61 505 2 7,290 360 5.20% 815 4,917 129 17 914 8 57 433 3 7,121 191 2.76% 1,267 3,702 369 24 1,234 20 50 455 4 6,684 -246 -3.55% 4,186 1,017 72 17 853 10 29 500 5 6,905 -25 -0.36% 4,774 829 120 19 594 24 47 498 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 9.25% Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,397 748 2,683 152 10 1,386 34 51 333 D2 5,955 602 4,132 112 16 791 7 34 261 D3 5,954 946 3,238 319 16 1,044 20 45 326 D4 5,168 683 3,394 61 17 715 5 24 269 D5 5,440 582 3,902 113 16 494 20 34 279 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 4,260 2,465 96 721 3,524 - 771 26 11 D2 5,692 4,087 54 690 4,998 - 500 16 58 D3 5,251 3,363 235 822 4,428 - 497 29 69 D4 4,786 3,407 103 601 4,187 - 489 - 26 D5 5,480 4,282 139 582 4,885 - 292 21 56 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 *NL = Non Latino *AIAN = American Indian Alaskan Native
*VAP = Voting Age Population
*CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.f
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Map 3 - Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 4, Five Districts, submitted by a member of the public
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 3 Districts TBD
2026 2 Districts TBD
Total Deviation
7.6%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.g
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Map 4 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA Draft Map 4, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,919 -11 -0.16% 4,520 1,020 59 20 730 9 39 522 2 7,091 161 2.33% 774 4,647 137 15 1,068 9 42 399 3 6,591 -339 -4.89% 3,577 1,113 262 13 1,083 19 58 466 4 6,930 0 0.00% 1,158 3,071 330 26 1,718 47 68 512 5 7,118 188 2.72% 903 4,912 97 16 643 18 37 492 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 7.60% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,275 688 3,605 50 20 618 5 23 266 D2 5,863 572 3,950 119 14 912 9 29 258 D3 5,392 806 3,048 228 7 902 15 49 337 D4 5,783 874 2,722 273 19 1,455 41 59 340 D5 5,601 621 4,024 87 15 543 16 28 267 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 4,937 3,711 32 528 4,405 - 453 - 28 D2 5,595 3,860 100 746 4,831 - 563 16 59 D3 4,871 3,154 273 730 4,142 - 414 - 59 D4 4,342 2,436 87 810 3,539 - 750 55 22 D5 5,724 4,443 135 602 5,105 - 369 21 52 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 NL = Non Latino AIAN = American Indian Alaskan Native
VAP = Voting Age Population
CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.g
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Map 4 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 5, Five Districts, submitted by a member of the public
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 3 Districts TBD
2026 2 Districts TBD
Total Deviation
7.94%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.h
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Map 5 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA Draft Map 5, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,585 -345 -4.98% 3,168 966 195 13 1,634 41 68 500 2 6,820 -110 -1.58% 4,562 779 136 14 877 6 50 396 3 7,105 175 2.53% 1,260 3,699 369 24 1,234 20 46 453 4 7,135 205 2.96% 1,067 4,498 65 20 875 12 37 561 5 7,004 74 1.07% 896 4,800 120 19 622 23 43 481 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 7.94% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,375 707 2,706 152 9 1,387 35 54 325 D2 5,623 567 3,879 116 14 755 5 34 253 D3 5,944 941 3,238 319 16 1,044 20 41 325 D4 5,460 717 3,616 57 20 719 7 25 299 D5 5,512 629 3,910 113 16 525 19 34 266 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 4,194 2,428 96 723 3,459 - 749 42 4 D2 5,433 3,942 60 626 4,803 - 472 21 58 D3 5,238 3,363 235 816 4,421 - 497 29 69 D4 4,938 3,578 29 576 4,353 - 505 - 33 D5 5,666 4,293 207 675 4,986 - 326 - 56 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 NL = Non Latino *AIAN = American Indian Alaskan Native
*VAP = Voting Age Population
*CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.h
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Map 5 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA City of Pleasant Hill – Transition to District Elections Draft Map 6, Five Districts, submitted by a member of the public
Draft Proposed
Election Sequence:
2024 3 Districts TBD
2026 2 Districts TBD
Total Deviation
0.78%
(under the acceptable
norm of <10%)
3.1.i
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Map 6 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA Draft Map 6, Five Districts – Demographic Data
District
Total
Population
Raw
Population
%
Population Latino
NL*
White
Alone
NL Black
Alone
NL
AIAN*
Alone
NL Asian
Alone
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
NL Other
Alone
NL 2+
Races
1 6,915 -15 -0.21% 3,418 1,004 204 12 1,660 41 65 511 2 6,967 37 0.54% 775 4,713 135 15 852 12 48 417 3 6,927 -3 -0.04% 4,510 974 72 18 793 6 41 513 4 6,913 -17 -0.24% 3,583 1,240 331 24 1,200 21 44 470 5 6,927 -3 -0.04% 4,503 975 143 21 737 22 46 480 Total 34,649 4,968 20,727 885 90 5,242 102 244 2,391 Ideal 6,930 Deviation 0.78% Voting Age Population Total VAP*
Latino
VAP
NL White
Alone VAP
NL Black
Alone
VAP
NL AIAN
Alone
VAP
NL Asian
Alone
VAP
NL
Hawaiian
Alone
VAP
NL Other
Race
Alone
VAP
NL 2+
Races
VAP
D1 5,645 727 2,916 159 9 1,417 35 51 331 D2 5,729 578 3,981 120 14 726 11 40 259 D3 5,315 655 3,617 59 18 664 5 21 276 D4 5,695 922 3,093 283 16 998 17 41 325 D5 5,530 679 3,742 136 18 625 18 35 277 Total 27,914 3,561 17,349 757 75 4,430 86 188 1,468 Citizen Voting Age Population CVAP*19
Total
CVAP19
NL White
CVAP19
NL Black
CVAP
Hispanic
CVAP19
Not
Hispanic
CVAP19
NL AIAN
CVAP19
NL ASIAN
CVAP19
NL
Hawaiian
CVAP19
NL Other
D1 4,479 2,671 96 737 3,736 - 781 42 6 D2 5,725 4,238 69 591 5,131 - 491 21 70 D3 4,916 3,592 43 552 4,355 - 493 - 31 D4 4,946 3,171 205 810 4,132 - 472 29 61 D5 5,403 3,932 214 726 4,668 - 312 - 52 Total 25,469 17,604 627 3,416 22,022 - 2,549 92 220 NL = Non Latino AIAN = American Indian Alaskan Native
VAP = Voting Age Population
CVAP = Citizen Voting Age Population
3.1.i
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Map 6 Five Districts (submitted by a member of the public) and demographic data (CVRA
EXHIBIT A
The additional information below is the % Minority CVAP Coalition for each district on each map.
Map # Total Population % Minority CVAP Coalition
Four Districts
1 D1 6,698 28.98%
D2 7,322 23.95%
D3 5,770 42.24%
D4 5,679 30.54%
Map #
Five Districts
1 D1 5,422 30.31%
D2 5,066 31.25%
D3 4,256 45.61%
D4 5,518 21.55%
D5 5,207 28.99%
2 D1 4,260 42.14%
D2 5,604 27.91%
D3 5,251 35.95%
D4 4,874 29.14%
D5 5,480 21.87%
3 D1 4,260 42.14%
D2 5,692 28.20%
D3 5,251 35.95%
D4 4,786 28.82%
D5 5,480 21.87%
4 D1 4,937 24.84%
D2 5,595 31.01%
D3 4,871 35.25%
D4 4,342 43.90%
D5 5,724 22.38%
5 D1 4,194 42.11%
D2 5,433 27.45%
D3 5,238 35.98%
D4 4,938 27.55%
D5 5,666 24.24%
6 D1 4,479 40.37%
D2 5,725 25.98%
D3 4,916 26.94%
D4 4,946 35.89%
D5 5,403 27.23%
3.1.j
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Exhibit A - % minority CVAP coalition for each district on each map (CVRA Districting Hearing 5)