Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-07-11; City Council; ; Second Public Hearing Regarding Draft Maps of the City's Proposed Voting Districts Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(a)(2) (Fourth of Five Public Hearings Relating
CA Review we.-©CITY COUNCIL Staff Report Meeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: Subject: July 11, 2017 Mayor and City Council »/ Kevin Crawford, City Manage�\Celia Brewer, City Attorney 760-434-2891 Second Public Hearing Regarding Draft Maps of the City's Proposed Voting Districts Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(a)(2} (Fourth of Five Public Hearings Relating to Transition from At-Large Elections to By District Elections) Recommended Action Receive public comment regarding draft maps of voting district boundaries, and if desired, eliminate any draft maps the Council no longer wishes to consider adopting. Executive Summary In response to a threat to sue the City for alleged violations of the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA"} (Elec. Code§§ 14025-14032} (Exhibit 1}, and in order to avoid the potentially significant litigation expenses that are likely to occur if the City retains its at-large election method of election, at the City Council's May 9, 2017 hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-083 (Exhibit 2} outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district based elections. Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(a)(l}, on May 30, 2017 and June 13, 2017, the City held two public hearings to receive public input regarding the composition of the City's voting districts before any draft maps of voting districts were drawn. While not legally required, the City also held two public workshops on Saturday, June 10, 2017 for this same purpose. Based on public input, the Council's direction regarding the number of districts, and other legally required criteria, the City's districting consultant/demographer prepared proposed draft district maps for public review and comment. These maps, along maps drawn by members of the public that meet the population and other mandatory districting criteria, were discussed by the public and the Council at the City Council's June 29, 2017 hearing. This July 11, 2017 hearing is the second public hearing required by Elections Code section 10010(a)(2} to take public comment and discuss these draft district maps, as well as additional maps submitted by the public after the deadline for the June 29, 2017 hearing that meet the mandatory districting criteria. Discussion On April 11, 2017, the City received a letter from the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes threatening to sue the City for alleged violations of the CVRA unless the City voluntarily converts to elections by district. The CVRA applies to jurisdictions, including charter cities, that utilize an "at-large" method of election, where voters of t he entire jurisdiction elect the members of the City Council. The CVRA was specifically enacted in 2002 to eliminate several key burden of proof requirements that exist under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("FVRA") (52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq.) after several jurisdictions in California successfully defended themselves in litigation brought under the FVRA. The CVRA is tilted heavily in favor of plaintiffs' attorneys because after the removal of these federal burden of proof requirements, the threshold to establish liability under the CVRA is extremely low, and prevailing plaintiffs are guaranteed to recover their attorneys' fees and costs. Every government defendant in the history of the CVRA that has challenged the conversion to district elections has either lost in court or settled, and has also been forced to pay at least some portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs; indeed, over the relatively short 15-year history ofthe CVRA, and only after an initial challenge to it was resolved in 2006, plaintiff public agencies have paid nearly $15 million to CVRA plaintiff attorneys (Exhibit 3). In sum, all CVRA cases that have been filed have ended with the defendant governmental agency implementing a district election system and paying some sort of attorneys' fee payment. In response to the substantial costs imposed upon cities and other public agencies in defending CVRA suits, in 2016, the California Legislature amended the Elections Codes to simplify the process of converting to by-district method of election and to provide a "safe harbor" process to protect agencies from litigation. Because the City Council enacted Resolution No. 2017-083 declaring its intent to convert to a by-district method of election within 45 days of receiving the Shenkman & Hughes demand letter, a CVRA lawsuit cannot be filed before August 7, 2017 {90 days after the Council's May 9 adoption of the Resolution). (Elec. Code§ 10010(e)(3).) The first step of the process in the City's conversion from its current at-large method of election to a by-district system was to hold two public hearings and receive public comment regarding the composition of the yet to be formed voting districts, before any maps are drawn. (Elec. Code § 10010(a).) These hearings were held on May 30, 2017 and June 13, 2017, and the City held public workshops on Saturday, June 10, 2017 for this same purpose. The City also allowed the public to submit input regarding district boundaries via an on line redistricting tool, provided by the City's districting consultant/demographer (National Demographics Corporation, or NDC), available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/maps.asp . Further background information relating to the districting process is available for the public on the City's website at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/district.asp . At the June 13, 2017 hearing, the City Council directed the City's districting consultant to develop maps containing four districts, which results in the City retaining a separately elected mayor. The City Council made this decision based on the fact that the separately elected position of mayor was established by a voter-sponsored initiative in 1964. When drawing districts to present to the public and Council, the City's consultant considered several mandatory districting criteria required by federal law, as well as other permissive criteria under state and federal law. These criteria were discussed at the May 30, 2017 hearing, and are set forth in Resolution 2017-097 adopted by the City Council (Exhibit 4). Pursuant to these factors, the Council's direction and the input provided by the public, the City's districting consultant developed maps for public review and comment, which were presented along with eligible maps submitted by the public at the City Council's June 29, 2017 public hearing. The June 29, 2017 hearing was the first of two public hearings that must be held after the release of draft district boundary maps, pursuant to Elections Code section 10010(a)(2), and the July 11, 2017 hearing is the second such h~aring. The City's districting consultant will present all the maps previously presented to Council for review and comment, along with any additional eligible draft maps subsequently submitted by the public and posted on or before the July 4th posting deadline for today's hearing (Exhibit 5). Fiscal Analysis The costs of defending the City's current at-large election system in court would be significant due to the risk of having to pay the plaintiffs' fees and costs. Awards in these cases have reached upwards of $3,500,000. When sued, even the settlements reached by cities have included paying the plaintiffs' attorneys fees. If the City Council chooses to maintain its at-large elections and defend the threatened lawsuit, the costs and attorneys' fees would likely exceed $1,000,000. The demographic consultant cost is anticipated to be approximately $35,000. Special counsel fees required to voluntarily convert to district elections are estimated to be $30,000. Additional legal costs will be incurred for additional analysis and public hearings. The City's good faith and considered approach to by-district elections may forestall further threats and demands for attorneys' fees, but other jurisdictions have suffered such demands even after initiating such efforts. Next Steps One more public hearing will be held concerning the proposed district boundaries on July 18, 2017, where the City Council may introduce for first reading an ordinance establishing the district boundaries and the by-district election method pursuant to Government Code section 34886 and Elections Code section 10010. The district boundary map adopted by this ordinance must be receieved and publically posted on or before July 11, 2017. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) The requested action is not a project within the definition of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15378(a) since the action has no potential for resulting in either a direct change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment. Public Notification Prior to this hearing, the City conducted outreach in both English and Spanish to encourage public participation in both the districting process in general, and this public hearing in particular .. A press release was issued and posted on the City's website on June 30, 2017. In addition, staff held two community workshops (one at the Carlsbad City Library on Dove Lane and one at the Harding Community Center) on June 10, 2017. Notice of this Public Hearing was published in English and Spanish in the June 16 and June 30, 2017 editions of the San Diego Union Tribune and the June 23 and June 30, 2017 editions of the Coast News. Staff also published the Spanish version of the legal notice in the June 16 and June 30, 2017 editions of the La Prensa San Diego Newspaper. Exhibits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. April 11, 2017 Correspondence Resolution No. 2017-083 Table of Results of CVRA Litigation Resolution No. 2017-097 Draft Maps Proposed Election Years Sequencing and Plan Listing Tables Correspondence received following the June 29, 2017 Public Hearing !SlfieliHMN ~:fiuGHss:~ ;~~~ ::: --~~ --'~ ~ ~--_ - ~~~ORNE~S --· MAl.lSIJ. CALIFORNIA VIA CERTIFIED MAIL April 5, 2017 Barbara Engleson City Clerk -City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Violation of California Voting Rights Act Exhibit 1 28905 Wight Road Malibu, California 90265 (310) 457-0970 kshenkman@.shenkmanhughes.com RECEIVED APR 11 2017 CITY OP: CARLSBAD CITY CLERK'S OFF/CE i The City of Carlsbad ("Carlsbad") relies upon an at-large election system for electing candidates to its City Council. Moreover, voting within Carlsbad is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Carlsbad's at- large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA"). The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called "at-large" voting -an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat. See generally Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 667 ("Sanchez"). For example, if the U.S. Congress were elected through a nationwide at-large election, rather than through typical single-member districts, each voter could cast up to 435 votes and vote for any candidate in the country, not just the candidates in the voter's district, and the 435 candidates receiving the most nationwide votes would be elected. At-large elections thus allow a bare majority of voters to control every seat, not just the seats in a particular district or a proportional majority of seats. Voting rights advocates have targeted "at-large" election schemes for decades, because they often result in "vote dilution," or the impairment of minority groups' ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence the outcome of elections, which occurs when the electorate votes in a racially polarized manner. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 (1986) ("Gingles"). The U.S. Supreme Court "has long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength" of minorities. Id. at 47; see also id. at 48, fu. 14 (at-large elections may also cause elected officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences"), citing Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 623 (1982); White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755, 769 (1973). "[T]he majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly April5,2017 Page 2 of 4 defeat the choices of minority voters." Gingles, at 47. When racially polarized voting occurs, dividing the political unit into single-member districts, or some other appropriate remedy, may facilitate a minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives. Rogers, at 616. Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ("FVRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, which Congress enacted in 1965 and amended in 1982, targets, among other things, at- large election schemes. Gingles at 37; see also Boyd & Markman, The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History (1983) 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1347, 1402. Although enforcement of the FVRA was successful in many states, California was an exception. By enacting the CVRA, "[t]he Legislature intended to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 808. Thus, while the CVRA is similar to the FVRA in several respects, it is also different in several key respects, as the Legislature sought to remedy what it considered "restrictive interpretations given to the federal act." Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2. , The California Legislature dispensed with the requirement in Gingles that a rminority group demonstrate that it is sufficiently la.rge and geographically compact L19 constitute a "majority-minority district." Sanchez, at 669. Rather, the CVRA requires only that a plaintiff show the existence of racially polarized voting to establish that an at-large method of election violates the CVRA, not the desirability of any particular-remedy. See Cal. Elec. Code § 14028 ("A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs ... ") (emphasis added); also see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 3 ("Thus, this bill puts the voting rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly belongs in front of the cart (what type of remedy is appropriate once racially polarized voting has been shown).") To establish a violation of the CVRA, a plaintiff must generally show that "racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA specifies the elections that are most probative: "elections in which at least one candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving 'ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA also makes clear that "[ e ]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to April 5, 2017 Page 3 of 4 establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action." Id. Factors other than "racially polarized voting" that are required to make out a claim under the FVRA -under the "totality of the circumstances" test -"are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation of' the CVRA. Blee. Code § 14028( e ). These "other factors" include "the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns." Id. Carlsbad's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a "protected class") -to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Carlsbad's council elections. The elections of 2004 and 2006 are illustrative. In 2004, a Latino candidate - Ofelia Escobedo -ran for city council and lost. In 2006, two Latino candidates - Ron Alvarez and Roland Chicas -ran for city council and lost. Each of those candidates received significant support from Latino voters, but fell short of securing a seat in Carlsbad's at-large election due to the bloc voting of Carlsbad's majority non-Latino electorate. In fact, as a result of this racially polarized voting, Carlsbad appears to have had no Latino council members in its recent history. According to recent data, Latinos comprise approximately 13.3% of the population of Carlsbad. The contrast between the significant Latino proportion of the electorate and the absence of Latinos to be elected to the City Council is telling. As you may be aware, in 2012, we sued the City of Palmdale for violating the CVRA. After an eight-day trial, we prevailed. After spending millions of dollars, a district-based remedy was ultimately imposed upon the Palmdale city council, with districts that combine all incumbents into one of the four districts. Given the lack of Latino representation on the city council in the context of racially polarized elections, we urge Carlsbad to voluntarily change its at-large system of electing council members. Otherwise, on behalf of residents within the jurisdiction, we will be forced to seek judicial relief. Please advise us no later than May 22, 2017 as to whether you would like to discuss a voluntary change to your current at-large system. We look forward to your response. Very~s, Kevin I. Shenkman April 5, 2017 Page 4 of 4 .RESOLUTION NO. 2017-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION, PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010(e)(3)(A), TO INITIATE PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS EXHIBIT 2 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, California ("City") is a charter city, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, four of the members of the Carlsbad City Council are currently elected in at-large elections, in which each City Council member is elected by all registered voters of the entire City, with the mayor being separately elected by all registered voters of the entire City, pursuant to California Government Code sections 34871 and 34900 et seq.; and WHEREAS, Section 34886 of the Government Code authorizes any city to change to a by-district system or by-district system with an elective mayor without the need to put such a change to voters; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to move from its current at-large electoral system to a by-district election for members of the City Council in furtherance of the purposes of California Voting Rights Act; and WHEREAS, the City moves to make this transition from an at-large system to a by-district system in accordance with the new procedural rules outlined in Government Code Section 34886 and Elections Code 10010; and WHEREAS, the City received a letter threatening action under the California Voting Rights Act on April 11, 2017, less than forty-five (45) days before the date of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City will begin by working with an experienced demographer to assist the City in establishing maps for a by-district electoral system; and WHEREAS, before drawing a draft map of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City will hold at least two (2) public hearings over no more than thirty (30) days, at which time the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts; and WHEREAS, the City will then publish and make available for release at least one (1) draft map of the new electoral districts, including the potential sequence of elections shown; and WHEREAS, once the draft map has been publicized for at least seven (7) days, the City will hold at least two (2) additional public hearings, over no more than forty-five (45) days, at which time the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map and the proposed sequence of elections prior to the public hearing at which the City Council adopts a map; and WHEREAS, if a draft map is revised at or following a public hearing, the revised map will be published and made available to the public at least seven (7) days before the City chooses to adopt it; and WHEREAS, in determining the final sequence of staggered district elections, the City Council will give special consideration to the purposes of the CVRA, and will take in to accom1t the preferences expressed by the members of the districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to adopt criteria to guide the establishment of electoral districts consistent with legal requirements including reasonable equal population and section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, as well as other concerns and considerations important to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The City Council hereby resolves, pursuant to Elections Code section 10010, to adopt a by-district election system by ordinance as authorized by California Government Code section 34886, for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council Members. 4. The City Council further resolves to retain a qualified demographer, hold at least five (5) public hearings and publish at least one (1) draft map and staggering sequence. 5. The City's redistricting/demographic consulting firm, acting under the supervision of the City Manager, is hereby authorized to direct and formulate one or more electoral district scenarios for review by the public and City Council at two or more public hearings if necessary, in accordance with the City's proposed timeline. 6. Working with the demographic consulting firm, staff is directed to publicize relevant maps, information, notices, agendas and other materials regarding by-district elections and to establish means of communication to answer questions from the public. 7. All public hearings shall be noticed as follows: posting on the City's website at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of the hearing and publication at least ten (10) days in advance of the hearing in the newspaper adjudicated to provide notice within the City. 8. The City Manager is authorized to take any and all other necessary actions to give effect to this Resolution. 9. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 9th. day of .May, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher. M. Hall, M. Packard. None. (SEAL) ("() ...., :E :.c >< UJ Citv/Political Subdivision Defendant -- City o_f_Palmdale ·-----··. City of Modesto -·-······-·-····· --Madera Unified School District; Madera County Board of Education --· _g_~ty of Compton ·-·- Tulare Local Healthcare District --· ·- City of Tular~---- Hanford Unified School District -·-----· Compton Community College District I Settlement Conditions Attorneys' _Fees Notes ---- City lost trial on the merits, held an election that plaintiffs argued was Agreed to have voters choose illegal, and unsuccessfully challenged elected officials by districts, an injunction stopping the City from including two with Latino Jcertifying the results of that election; majorities ' __________ $4,500,00._0 ~~ttl~~ent subsequently ~~a~he~--------· ! Moved to District elections; voters had already approved a move to Settlement; Additional $1,700,000 to districts before settlement $3,000,000 ~efense attorneys ·-·-·----------· Moved to "by trustee area" _ ~~ections via admission of liability_ $162,500 court award --· ··--------- Moved to by-district elections via 1 ballot measure; kept mayor at -=~ to hold ..;election re lco1,fidential settlement --- changing to district elections in · 2012 and agreed to cancel 2010 \elections $500,00Q Settlement -----...... ·-·-----·- City agreed to place a ballot measure before voters regarding a move to district elections $225,000 Settlement ------·-·· _,._ -···· Agreed to move to by-trustee district elections $110,000 Settlement ------····--· Agreed to move to by-district elections $40,000 Settlement I I I Moved to by-trustee distr;ct elections before litigation was Ceres Unified School District filed ··-----_______ $3,000 I Settlem_en_t ___ _ z:;:~: Co~-~-u-n-it-y College 1:,7:0:o by-trustee district---~---------~?-~_,QQQJ Settlement County moved to by-District I elections (through a ballot ; measure) and further agreed to · ,redraw its previously-approved I District boundaries by forming i--- nine-person redistricting SanMateo C()~nty -----+com~ittee __ ·---$65_Q_,_~QQj_§ettlement Agreed to place ballot measure on ----~.---··-····-------- ··-------~ City of Anaheim I-----'----... ·------ November 2016 ballot re moving ; . . Settle·m· ent; expected costs include at to by district elections __ · . -· _ _ ___ -~00,000 least_a11oth~r $._8_0_0_,0_0_0 _____ -1 Case dismissed as moot when City 1· changed voting system; m ~·: unsuccessful post election J Court award under catalyst theory, City of Wh.ittier_ chal!~ng~re at large m::t~or _ __ _ ___ $ l_,Q00_,000 I eve~ though case was d!~_Ill_is_se_d __ ___, Santa Clarita Comm Agreed to conduct cumulative j College District _ jvoting, a11d by trustees $850,000 Settlement gity of G3:!9en Grove City of Escondido 1----~~ ---·--·-. City of Santa Clarita f-----·-··-·------- Moved to by district elections via stipluatedjudgment; mayor elec!~i_at large ______ $290,000!Settleme1:1! Settled via court order ( consent decree) after vote of the people failed to adopt by district elec.!i()ns; may<:>_r elected a!l~~~ $385,000 I ~ettlement Agreed to move to cumulative voting method 1 Stipulated judgment, court ordered I ___ ... $600,000JSettlement ________ ._ .... $125,000) Settlement gty of Visalia . 1~g:::tsn1;v~;o by di,;;ict; i ---··· 1 City ~_Sai:i!;:i Barbar~----· imayor remains elected at large -+·· $599,5001Settle,n.ent ____________ . _____ _ / Agreed to pay attorneys fees -1 negotiate in good faith; required placing measure on November City of Fullerton______ j201_~_~allot to move to districts undisclosed Settlement -· ----- Settled before lawsuit filed; agreed I to ballot measure I --· .... -t--------··· Agreed to place ballot measure on I jNovember 2016 ballot ·-----····-··iundisclosed _ !Settlement Agree to move to by district S~lp~ur Springs School lmet_!i()j ________________ ~~-· --······· .. . . ~144,000 I Settleme~! D1stnct ---·---------·-·--------····----·---·····----- 1---------·-··-----------t -- TOTAL PAYMENTS TO 1 ---------------------··----·--·· ~ity of Merced ___ . City of Be~~!}ower $43,000 I Settleme__I_1t ______ _ PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS $14,482,000 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-097 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING LINE DRAWING CRITERIA FOR ADJUSTING COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Exhibit 4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ("City") was elected under an "at large" election system whereby Councilmembers were elected by voters of the entire City; and WHEREAS, the City Council is considering a change to the "by district" elections whereby each Councilmember must reside within the designated district boundary and is elected only by voters of that district; and WHEREAS, the Federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Section 1973) prohibits the use of any voting qualification, or prerequisite to voting, or standard practice or procedure in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color; and WHEREAS, federal law and the equal protection clause require that each district be equal in population to ensure compliance with the "one person, one vote" rule; however, deviations approximating five to ten percent may pass muster under the equal protection clause where required to meet an official criteria; and WHEREAS, the City Council has instructed its demographer and city staff to develop draft maps that fully comply with legal requirements and intends to provide official criteria for any needed deviations. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad I does hereby adopt the following criteria to guide the establishment of districts for council elections: 1. Each Council District shall contain a nearly equal number of inhabitants; and 2. Council District borders shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act; and 3. Council districts shall consist of contiguous territory in as compact form as possible; and 4. Council districts shall respect communities of interest as much as possible; and 5. Council district borders shall follow visible natural and man-made geographical and topographical features as much as possible; and 6. District borders shall respect the previous choices of voters by avoiding the creation of head-to-head contests between Council members previously elected by the voters, insofar as this does not conflict with Federal or State Law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 30th day of May, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packarcf. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. (SEAL) - 2 - Map layers 0Green i ! Census Block [~ Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line --Railroad --River Exhibit 5 City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Green City of Carlsbad -Green Map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 25,664 26,762 26,255 26,647 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -668 430 -77 315 1,098 0/o Deviation -2.54% 1.63% -0.29% 1.20% 4.17% %Hisp 18% 9% 14% 12% 13% Total Pop %NH White 73% 79~1o 72% 75% 75% %NH Black 1% 1% 2o/o 2% 2% 0/o Asian-American 5% 10% 11% 9% 9% Total 20,730 19,850 19,670 19,712 79,962 %Hisp 16% 8% 12% 11% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 77% 82% 75% 78% 78% %NH Black 1% 1°/o 2°/o 2% 1% 0/o Asian-American 5% 9% 10% 9% 8% Total 19,249 20,683 19,485 19,852 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 14% 9% 12% 11% 11% %NH White 80% 82% 76% 77% 79% Pop %NH Black 1°/o 1% 1% 1°/o 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 4% 7% 10% 9% 7% Total 15,020 17,647 16,073 16,226 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 6% 9% 7% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 5% 9% 7% 7% % NH White est. 85% 88% 82% 85% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% Total 7,242 9,509 7,725 7,683 32,159 o/o Latino 8% 5% 7% 6% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1 o/o 1% 1% 1o/o 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% % NH White est. 88% 91% 86% 88% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2°/o 1% Total 11,777 14,928 12,622 13,237 52,563 0/o Latino 9% 5% 8% 7% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 4% 3°/o (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 5% 8% 6% 6% % NH White est. 87% 89% 85% 87% 87% % NH Black est. 1 o/o 1% 1% 1o/o 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 25,730 28,433 27,785 27,969 109,917 age0-19 20% 25% 26% 28% 25% Age age20-60 56% 52% 53% 55% 54% age60plus 24% 23% 21% 18% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 14% 14% 15% 14% naturalized 51% 70% 65% 67% 63% Language spoken at english 80% 84% 81% 85% 83% home spanish 14% 7% 9% 6% 9% asian-lang 2°/o 4% 5% 5% 4% otherlang 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 5% 6% 5% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 47% 36% 45% 39% 42% bachelor 26% 34% 31% 35% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 27% 19% 24% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 22% 34% 32% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 58% 57% 60% 60% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 3% 2% 1% 2°/o income 0-25k 17% 14% 12% 14% 14% income 25-50k 20% 11% 13% 12% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 16% 11% 17% 10% 14% income 75-200k 36% 45% 46% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 10% 20% 12% 21% 16% single family 48% 28% 30% 27% 34% multi-family 41% 66% 65% 66% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 6% 5% 7% 8% occupied 89% 94% 95% 93% 92% rented 54% 30% 32% 29% 36% owned 46% 70% 68% 71% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Darabase. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estin NH \'\1hite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers Oorange L-. Census Block [ _ , Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line ~ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Orange City of Carlsbad -Orange Map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,731 26,132 26,442 26,023 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 399 -200 110 -309 708 0/o Deviation 1.52% -0.76% 0.42% -1.17% 2.69% %I-lisp 14% 18% 12% 10% 13% Total Pop %NH White 72% 74% 74% 80% 75% %NH Black 2% 1% 2°/o 1% 2% % Asian-American 10% 6% 11% 9% 9% Total 20,252 20,673 19,791 19,246 79,962 %I-lisp 12% 15% 10% 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 75% 77% 78% 82% 78% %NH Black 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% % Asian-American 9% 5% 10% 8% 8% Total 20,279 18,946 20,693 19,352 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %I-lisp 13% 13% 11% 9% 11% %NH White 75% 80% 80% 81% 79% Pop %NH Black 1°/o 1% 1°/o 2% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 10% 4% 8% 7% 7% Total 15,902 15,720 16,526 16,818 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 10% 8% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1 o/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 9% 7% 5% 7% % NH White est. 82% 85% 85% 88% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Total 7,402 7,742 8,432 8,584 32,159 0/o Latino 7% 7% 5% 5% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1°/o 1% 1% 0% 1°/o % Spanish-Surnamed 6% 7% 5% 4% 5% % NH White est. 86% 88% 89% 90% 88% %NH Black 1°/o 1% 1°/o 1% 1°/o Total 12,321 12,527 13,572 14,144 52,563 o/o Latino 9% 8% 7% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1°/o 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% % NH White est. 85% 87% 88% 89% 87% % NH Black est. 1°/o 1% 1°/o 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 28,197 26,836 28,017 26,868 109,917 age0-19 25% 20% 26% 27% 25% Age age20-60 54% 57% 52% 53% 54% age60plus 20% 23% 21% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 13% 15% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 61% 53% 70% 70% 63% Language spoken at english 81% 81% 80% 89% 83% home spanish 10% 13% 10% 4% 9% asian-lang 5% 3% 5% 3% 4% other Jang 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 7% 8% 7% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 46% 45% 38% 38% 42% bachelor 29% 28% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 18% 20% 26% 26% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 30% 24% 34% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 59% 59% 58% 59% Co=ute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% income 0-25k 14% 15% 15% 14% 14% income 25-SOk 15% 19% 11% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 17% 15% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 44% 40% 44% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 11% 11% 20% 22% 16% single family 37% 46% 29% 22% 34% multi-family 58% 44% 61% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 5% 10% 11% 5% 8% occupied 95% 90% 89% 95% 92% rented 39% 51% 32% 23% 36% owned 61% 49% 68% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estim NH v;:!hite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Purple C Census Block [ -. Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line --Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Purple City of Carlsbad -Purple Map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 25,971 26,116 26,813 26,428 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -361 -216 481 96 842 0/o Deviation -1.37% -0.82% 1.83% 0.36% 3.20% %Hisp 17% 13% 11% 12% 13% Total Pop %NH White 73% 75% 77% 74% 75% %NH Black 1°/o 2% 1% 2o/o 2°/o 0/o Asian-American 7% 8% 9% 11% 9% Total 20,638 20,442 19,502 19,380 79,962 %Hisp 15% 12% 9% 10% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 76% 78% 80% 77% 78% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2°/o 1% % Asian-American 6% 7% 9% 10% 8% Total 19,975 19,937 19,648 19,710 79,269 Citizen V acing Age %Hisp 14% 12% 9% 10% 11% %NH White 78% 80% 82% 75% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 7% 7% 11% 7% Total 14,834 16,478 16,836 16,818 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 9% 7% 8% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 3°/o 4% 5% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1°/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 8% 6% 7% 7% % NH White est. 84% 85% 88% 83% 85% %NH Black 1% 1 o/o 1% 2% 1% Total 7,065 8,223 9,003 7,868 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 7% 5% 6% 6°/o Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 3% 3% 4% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1 o/o 1% 0% 1% 1°/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 4% 5% 5% % NH White est. 87% 89% 91% 86% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2% 1 o/o Total 11,748 13,098 14,175 13,542 52,563 0/o Latino 8% 8% 6% 7% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1°/o 1°/o 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 7% 5% 6% 6% % NH White est. 86% 88% 90% 85% 87% % NH Black est. 1o/o 1% 1% 2% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 27,144 27,194 27,101 28,479 109,917 age0-19 21% 23% 27% 28% 25% Age age20-60 57% 54% 51% 54% 54% age60plus 21% 23% 22% 18% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 13% 14% 15% 14% natnralized 54% 58% 70% 71% 63% Language spoken at english 80% 83% 85% 83% 83% home spanish 13% 9% 7% 7% 9% asian-lang 3% 4% 4% 6% 4% other lang 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 8% 6~lo 5% 5% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 44% 48% 36% 40% 42% bachelor 30% 28% 33% 35% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 20% 19% 28% 23% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 25% 27% 35% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 58% 56% 61% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 4% 3% 1°/o 2% 2% income 0-25k 16% 13% 15% 13% 14% income 25-SOk 18% 16% 11% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 14% 18% 10% 11% 14% income 75-200k 40% 44% 42% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 12% 9% 22% 21% 16% single family 48% 34% 23% 26% 34% multi-family 41% 61% 69% 67% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 5% 8% 6% 8% occupied 89% 95% 92% 94% 92% rented 54% 36% 25% 28% 36% owned 46% 64% 75% 72% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and T umout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout dat'l. are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estin NH \v'hite and NH Black registration and rumout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers 0 Yellow L Census Block [= Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area ~-· · Pipeline/Power Line -,--,-Railroad --River :' • • • : ElemSchool • ..... City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Yellow 1 City of Carlsbad -NDC Yellow Map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 25,603 26,126 26,703 26,896 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -729 -206 371 564 1,293 % Deviation -2.77% -0.78% 1.41% 2.14% 4.91% %Hisp 20% 14% 11% 8% 13% Total Pop %NH\Vhite 69% 74% 75% 81% 75% %NH Black 2% 2% 2% 1°/o 2% o/o Asian-American 8% 9% 11% 8°/o 9% Total 20,217 19,790 19,813 20,142 79,962 %Hisp 17% 13% 9% 7% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 73% 76% 78% 83% 78% %NH Black 1% 1°/o 1°/o 1% lo/o o/o Asian-American 7% So/o 10% 8% go/o Total 19,030 19,101 20,875 20,263 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 16% 11% 11% 8% 11% %NH\>/hite 76% 78% 79% 82% 79% Pop %NH Black 1°/o 2% 1% 1°/o 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 7°/o 8% 8% 7% 7% Total 14,103 16,254 16,933 17,676 64,966 0/o Latino est 12% 9°/o 7°/o 6°/o go;o Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 4o/o 5% 4% 4o/o % Filipino-Sumamed 1% 1 o/o 1°/o 0% 1°/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 11% 8% 6°/o 5% 7°/o % NH Vlhite est. 82% 84% 85% 89% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1°/o 1°/o 1% Total 6,152 8,271 8,546 9,190 32,159 o/o Latino Bo/o 7% 5% 5% 6% Voter Turnout o/o Asian-Surnamed 3°/o 3°/o 3% 3% 3°/o (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 0% 1°/o % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6°/o 4°/o 4% So/o % NH \Vhite est 86% 87% 89% 91% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% lo/o 1% 1 o/o Total 10,572 13,290 13,824 14,878 52,563 o/o Latino 10% 8% 6% So/o 7% Voter Turnout o/o Asian-Sumamed 3°/o 3% 4% 3o/o 3% (Nov 2012) o/o Filioino-Sumamed 1% 1°/o 1% 1% 1°/o % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 7o/o 6% 5% 6o/o % NH \Vhite est 85% 86% 87% 90% 87% % NH Black est 1% 1% lo/o 1% lo/o ACS Pop.Est. Total 26,045 27,273 28,868 27,730 109,917 age0-19 22% 25% 26% 26% 25% Age age20-60 57% 53% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 22o/o 21% 21% 21% 21% Immigration immigrants 14% 15% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 47% 66% 68% 71% 63% Language spoken at english 80% 80% 81% 89% 83% home spanish 12% 11% 9°/o 4°/o 9% asian-lang 3% 5% 5°/o 3% 4o/o other Jang 5% 4% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 8°/o 7% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 49% 43% 38% 38% 42% bachelor 25% 31% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 17% 21% 25% 26% 22°/o Child in Household child-under18 23% 31% 33% 35% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 60% 59% 57% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 2% 3°/o 1% 2°/o income 0-25k 16% 13% 14% 14% 14% income 25-50k 19% 14% 11% 12% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 18% 15% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 40% 42% 45% 42% 42% income 200k-plus 7°/o 16% 19% 21% 16% single family 51% 31% 31% 21% 34% multi-family 41% 62% 60% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 8% 7% 9°/o 6°/o 8% occupied 92% 93% 91% 94% 92% rented 55% 34% 34% 23% 36% owned 45% 66% 66% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount esti NH \\!hite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Cohen_Flockl [ ' Census Block [= Water Area Streets + Landmark Point 1 Landmark Area 1--Pipeline/Power Line I ~Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting City of Carlsbad -Cohen-Flock 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 25,457 25,434 27,175 27,262 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -875 -898 843 930 1,828 0/o Deviation -3.32% -3.41% 3.20% 3.53% 6.94% %Hisp 20% 15% 11% 8% 13% Total Pop %NH White 72% 71% 75% 82% 75% %NH Black 1% 2% 2°/o 1% 2o/o 0/o Asian-American 5% 11% 11% 8% 9% Total 20,823 18,597 20,210 20,332 79,962 %Hisp 17% 13% 9% 7% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 75% 74% 78% 84% 78% %NH Black 1°/o 2°/o 2% 1% 1% 0/o Asian-American 5% 10% 10% 7% 8% Total 19,059 18,012 21,316 20,882 79;2.69 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 16% 12% 11% 7% 11% %NH White 78% 76% 77% 84% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 1% 2o/o 1% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 9% 9% 6% 7% Total 14,484 15,321 16,993 18,168 64,966 0/o Latino est. 12% 10% 7% 5% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 11% 9% 6% 5% 7% % NH White est. 82% 84% 84% 90% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Total 6,647 7,541 8,336 9,635 32,159 0/o Latino 9% 7% 5% 4% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 6% 5% 4% 5% % NH White est. 86% 88% 87% 91% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 2°/o 1% 1% Total 11,130 12,378 13,676 15,380 52,563 0/o Latino 10% 8% 7% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 7% 6% 4% 6% % NH White est. 85% 86% 86% 90% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1% 2°/o 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 25,216 27,033 29,693 27,974 109,917 age0-19 18% 28% 26% 26% 25% Age age20-60 58% 53% 54% 52% 54% age60plus 24% 19% 20% 22% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 15% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 44% 67% 69% 72% 63% Language spoken at english 79% 80% 82% 89% 83% home spanish 14% 10% 8% 4% 9% asian-lang 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% other Jang 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 6% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 49% 43% 38% 38% 42% bachelor 24% 32% 35% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 18% 21% 24% 26% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 20% 35% 34% 34% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 59% 60% 56% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% income 0-25k 15% 14% 14% 15% 14% income 25-SOk 20% 13% 11% 12% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 18% 15% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 39% 43% 46% 42% 42% income 200k-plus 8% 15% 19% 22% 16% single family 52% 31% 31% 20% 34% multi-family 38% 63% 61% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 10% 6% 8% 7% 8% occupied 90% 94% 92% 93% 92% rented 57% 33% 34% 21% 36% owned 43% 67% 66% 79% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH \Vhite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Cohen_Flock2 .-----, Census Block ( ~ Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line ~ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting National Demographics Corporation, June 21, 2017 City of Carlsbad -Cohen-Flock 2 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 27,387 26,403 25,515 26,023 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 1,055 71 -817 -309 1,872 0/o Deviation 4.01% 0.27% -3.10% -1.17% 7.11% %Hisp 20% 12% 11% 10% 13% Total Pop %NH White 72% 73% 75% 80% 75% %NH Black 1% 2% 2% 1% 2°/o 0/o Asian-American 5% 11% 10% 9o/o 9% Total 22,338 19,193 19,185 19,246 79,962 %1-Iisp 17% 11% 9% 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 75% 75% 79% 82% 78% %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1°/o 1% 0/o Asian-American 5% 11% 9% 8% 8% Total 20,461 19,998 19,458 19,352 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 16% 10% 11% 9% 11% %NH White 78% 77% 80% 81% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 2°/o 0% 2% 1°/o % Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 10% 8% 7% 7% Total 15,722 16,787 15,639 16,818 64,966 0/o Latino est. 11% 9% 7% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 0% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 10% 8% 6% 5% 7% % NH White est. 83% 83% 87% 88% 85% %NH Black 1% 2% 1 o/o 1% 1% Total 7,247 8,172 8,157 8,584 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 6% 5% 5% 6% Voter Tum.out 0/o Asian-Suma.med 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 0% 1 o/o % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 5% 4% 5% % NH White est. 87% 86% 90% 90% 88% %NH Black 1% 2°/o 1% 1% 1°/o Total 12,229 13,271 12,920 14,144 52,563 0/o Latino 10% 8% 6% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 7% 6% 5% 6% % NH White est. 86% 85% 88% 89% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1% 1% 1% 1°/o ACS Pop. Est. Total 27,149 28,728 27,173 26,868 109,917 age0-19 18% 28% 26% 27% 25% Age age20-60 57% 53% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 24% 19% 22% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 13% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 45% 73% 68% 70% 63% Language spoken at english 79% 83% 80% 89% 83% home Spanish 14% 7% 11% 4% 9% asian-lang 3% 6% 4% 3% 4% other Jang 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 5% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 49% 43% 37% 38% 42% bachelor 24% 34% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 20% 26% 26% 22% Child in Household child-under18 20% 36% 33% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 60% 58% 58% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 4% 2% 3% 1% 2% income 0-25k 15% 13% 15% 14% 14% income 25-SOk 20% 11% 12% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 18% 15% 11% 10% 14% income 7 5-200k 39% 45% 44% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 8% 17% 18% 22% 16% single family 52% 26% 32% 22% 34% multi-family 39% 71% 56% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 10% 3% 12% 5% 8% occupied 90% 97% 88% 95% 92% rented 57% 27% 36% 23% 36% owned 43% 73% 64% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California. Statew:ide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH White and NH Black registration and rumout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. I Map layers LJ Drelleshak_l l --1 Census Block [.___: Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area r --Pipeline/Power Line I~ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting National Demographics Corporation,June 21, 2017 City of Carlsbad -Drelleshak 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,081 27,320 25,822 26,105 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -251 988 -510 -227 1,498 0/o Deviation -0.95% 3.75% -1.94% -0.86% 5.69% %Hisp 18% 11% 14% 10% 13% Total Pop %NH White 74% 76% 72% 78% 75% %NH Black 1°/o 2% 2% 1% 2% % Asian-American 5% 10% 11% 9% 9% Total 21,055 20,639 19,329 18,939 79,962 %Hisp 16% 9% 12% 9% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 77% 79% 75% 81% 78% %NH Black 1% 1% 2% 1°/o 1°/o % Asian-American 5% 9% 10% 8% 8% Total 19,557 21,599 19,165 18,948 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 14% 11% 12% 9% 11% %NH White 80% 80% 76% 80% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 1°/o 1% 2% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 4% 8% 10% 8% 7% Total 15,312 17,015 15,778 16,861 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 7% 10% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 6% 9% 6% 7% % NH White est. 85% 87% 82% 86% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% Total 7,372 8,929 7,594 8,265 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 5°/o 7% 5% 6% Voter Turnout o/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% % NH White est. 88% 90% 86% 88% 88% %NH Black 1% 1°/o 1% 2% 1°/o Total 12,006 14,084 12,385 14,089 52,563 % Latino 9% 6% 8% 6% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 5% 8% 5% 6% % NH White est. 87% 88% 85% 88% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,131 29,512 27,368 26,906 109,917 age0-19 20% 25% 26% 27% 25% Age age20-60 56% 53% 53% 54% 54% age60plus 24% 21% 21% 19% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 16% 14% 12% 14% naturalized 51% 68% 65% 69% 63% Language spoken at english 80% 81% 81% 88% 83% home spanish 14% 9% 9% 4% 9% asian-lang 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% otherlang 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 6% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 47% 37% 45% 39% 42% bachelor 26% 34% 31% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 26% 19% 25% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 21% 33% 32% 37% 31% Work (percent of employed 58% 58% 60% 59% 59% Co=ute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 3% 2°/o 1% 2% income 0-25k 16% 14% 12% 14% 14% income 25-SOk 20% 11% 13% 11% 14% Housebold Income income 50-75k 16% 11% 17% 10% 14% income 75-200k 36% 45% 46% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 10% 19% 12% 22% 16% single family 48% 33% 30% 22% 34% multi-family 41% 59% 65% 74% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 9% 5% 5% 8% occupied 89% 91% 95% 95% 92% rented 54% 36% 32% 23% 36% owned 46% 64% 68% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by :t-..1DC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Drelleshak_2 1--: Census Block [ --Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line ~ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting City of Carlsbad -Drelleshak 2 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,453 27,320 25,450 26,105 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 121 988 -882 -227 1,870 0/o Deviation 0.46% 3.75% -3.35% -0.86% 7.10% %Hisp 19% 11% 13% 10% 13% Total Pop %NH White 74% 76% 71% 78% 75% %NH Black 1°/o 2°/o 2% 1 o/o 2% 0/o Asian-American 5% 10% 12% 9% 9% Total 21,504 20,639 18,880 18,939 79,962 %Hisp 16% 9% 12% 9% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 77% 79% 74% 81% 78% %NH Black 1°/o 1% 2% 1% 1% 0/o Asian-American 4% 9% 11% 8% 8% Total 20,146 21,599 18,575 18,948 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 14% 11% 12% 9% 11% %NH White 80% 80% 75% 80% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 1 o/o 1% 2% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 4% 8% 11% 8% 7% Total 15,875 17,015 15,215 16,861 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 7% 9% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 6% 8% 6% 7% % NH White est. 85% 87% 82% 86% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2% 1°/o Total 7,730 8,929 7,236 8,265 32,159 % Latino 8% 5% 7% 5% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 4% 6% 5% 5% % NH White est. 88% 90% 86% 88% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% Total 12,632 14,084 11,759 14,089 52,563 % Latino 9% 6% 8% 6% 7% Voter Turnout ~1o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1°/o % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 5% 7% 5% 6% % NH White est. 87% 88% 86% 88% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1°/o 1% 1% 1°/o ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,376 29,512 27,123 26,906 109,917 age0-19 18% 25% 28% 27% 25% Age age20-60 56% 53% 53% 54% 54% age60plus 25% 21% 19% 19% 21% Immigration immigrants 14% 16% 14% 12% 14% naturalized 50% 68% 66% 69% 63% Language spoken at english 81% 81% 81% 88% 83% home spanish 14% 9% 9% 4% 9% asian-lang 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% otherlang 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 6% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 48% 37% 44% 39% 42% bachelor 25% 34% 32% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 26% 20% 25% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 20% 33% 34% 37% 31% Work (percent of employed 58% 58% 60% 59% 59% Co=ute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 3% 2% 1% 2°/o income 0-25k 16% 14% 13% 14% 14% income 25-50k 21% 11% 13% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 17% 11% 16% 10% 14% income 75-200k 37% 45% 45% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 9% 19% 13% 22% 16% single family 48% 33% 30% 22% 34% multi-family 41% 59% 65% 74% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 9% 5% 5% 8% occupied 89% 91% 95% 95% 92% rented 54% 36% 32% 23% 36% owned 46% 64% 68% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NTIC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Egelandlb [----Census Block ,--Water Area + Streets Landmark Point Landmark Area ···--River ~ _""'j Egeland! Border between Districts 3 City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting City of Carlsbad -Egeland lb District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,980 26,062 26,156 26,130 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 648 -270 -176 -202 918 0/o Deviation 2.46% -1.03% -0.67% -0.77% 3.49% %Hisp 19% 14% 11% 9% 13% Total Pop %NH White 73% 71% 76% 80% 75% %NH Black 1% 2°/o 2% 1% 2% 0/o Asian-American 5% 12% 10% 8% 9% Total 21,878 19,016 19,981 19,087 79,962 %Hisp 16% 12% 9% 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 76% 73% 79% 83% 78% %NH Black 1°/o 2°/o 1% 1% 1°/o 0/o Asian-American 5% 11% 9% 8% 8% Total 20,093 19,537 20,098 19,542 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 14% 12% 12% 8% 11% %NH White 79% 75% 78% 83% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 4% 10% 8% 6% 7% Total 15,591 15,816 16,220 17,339 64,966 0/o Latino est. 11% 9% 7% 6°/o 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 10% 8% 6% 5% 7% % NH White est. 83% 83% 87% 88% 85% %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% Total 7,391 7,582 8,353 8,833 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 5% 4% 5% % NH White est. 87% 87% 90% 90% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Total 12,196 12,596 13,364 14,407 52,563 % Latino 9% 8% 6% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2012) % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 7% 6% 5% 6% % NH White est. 86% 85% 88% 90% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,648 28,289 28,020 26,960 109,917 age0-19 19% ,29% 25% 27% 25% Age ageZ0-60 57% 53% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 24% 19% 22% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 13% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 47% 71% 68% 69% 63% Language spoken at english 79% 81% 81% 89% 83% home spanish 15% 8% 9% 4% 9% asian-lang 3% 6% 4% 3% 4% otherlang 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 10% 6% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 48% 44% 37% 38% 42% bachelor 25% 33% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 19% 26% 26% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 20% 37% 31% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 59% 61% 58% 57% 59% Co=ute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 2% 2% 1°/o 2% income 0-25k 15% 13% 15% 14% 14% income 25-50k 21% 11% 12% 12% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 17% 16% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 38% 45% 45% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 9% 15% 18% 22% 16% single family 51% 28% 31% 22% 34% multi-family 38% 70% 58% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 2°/o 12% 5% 8% occupied 89% 98% 88% 95% 92% rented 58% 28% 35% 23% 36% owned 42% 72% 65% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estin NH \\lhite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layer~ D Hawneyl D Census Block [. ·.· . Water Area Streets dmarkPoint + Lan dmarkArea Lan L" e . . . lin /Power m _ Pipe e ---+--r Railroad City of Ca~ls?ad 2017 Distnct1ng City of Carlsbad -Hawney 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,908 26,44{; 26,343 25,631 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 576 114 11 -701 1,277 0/o Deviation 2.19% 0.43% 0.04% -2.66% 4.85% %Hisp 17% 17% 10% 8% 13% Total Pop %NH White 72% 70% 77% 81% 75% %NH Black 2o/o 2o/o 2% 1% 2% 0/o Asian-American 7% 9% 10% 9% 9% Total 20,955 19,919 20,049 19,039 79,962 %Hisp 15% 15% 8% 7% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 75% 73% 80% 83% 78% %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1 o/o 1% 0/o Asian-American 7% 9% 9% 8% 8% Total 20,497 18,283 21,349 19,140 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 14% 14% 10% 8% 11% %NH White 78% 75% 81% 82% 79% Pop %NH Black 0% 2°/o 1% 1% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% Total 16,017 15,284 16,878 16,787 64,966 0/o Latino est. 11% 10% 7% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1°/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 10% 9% 6% 5% 7% % NH White est. 83% 82% 86% 89% 85% %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% Total 7,576 7,318 8,584 8,681 32,159 o/o Latino 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1 o/o 1°/o 1% 0% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 4% 4% 5% % NH White est. 87% 87% 89% 91% 88% %NH Black 1% 2% 1% 1% 1°/o Total 12,261 12,207 13,935 14,161 52,563 0/o Latino 9% 9% 6% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2012) % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 8% 6% 5% 6% % NH White est. 86% 85% 88% 90% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 2°/o 1% 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 27,697 27,465 28,355 26,400 109,917 age0-19 22% 25% 26% 26% 25% Age age20-60 55% 55% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 23% 20% 22% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 13% 16% 15% 12% 14% naturalized 53% 60% 71% 70% 63% Language spoken at english 81% 79% 82% 89% 83% home spanish 11% 12% 9% 4% 9% asian-lang 3% 5% 5% 3% 4% other Jang 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 7% 8% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 48% 43% 38% 38% 42% bachelor 26% 31% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 18% 21% 25% 26% 22% Child in Household child-under18 25% 29% 33% 35% 31% Work (percent of employed 59% 60% 59% 57% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% income 0-25k 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% income 25-50k 17% 16% 11% 12% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 18% 15% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 43% 40% 44% 42% 42% income 200k-plus 8% 14% 19% 22% 16% single family 41% 43% 29% 22% 34% multi-family 53% 48% 62% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 7% 9% 10% 5% 8% occupied 93% 91% 90% 95% 92% rented 44% 47% 32% 23% 36% owned 56% 53% 68% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH ~lhite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Kubacki.1 ~--_J Census Block [= Water Area + Streets Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line ~ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting City of Carlsbad -Kubacki 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,495 25,637 26,568 26,628 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 163 -695 236 296 991 0/o Deviation 0.62% -2.64% 0.90% 1.12% 3.76% %Hisp 19% 13% 12% 9% 13% Total Pop %NH White 73% 72% 75% 79% 75% %NH Black 1% 2°/o 2% 1% 2°/o 0/o Asian-American 5% 12% 10% 9% 9% Total 21,627 18,779 19,878 19,678 79,962 %Hisp 16% 11% 10% 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 77% 74% 79% 81% 78% %NH Black 1% 2°/o 1% 1% 1°/o 0/o Asian-American 4% 11% 9% 8% 8% Total 19,950 18,966 20,361 19,993 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 15% 11% 11% 9% 11% %NH White 78% 77% 79% 81% 79% Pop %NH Black 1% 2% 1°/o 2% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 10% 8% 7% 7% Total 15,429 15,718 16,455 17,364 64,966 0/o Latino est. 11% 9% 7% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 4% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1°/o 1% 1% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 10% 8% 6% 6% 7% % NH White est. 83% 84% 87% 87% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Total 7,209 7,671 8,835 8,446 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 6% 5% 5% 6% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 0% 1% 1o/o 0% 1% (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% % NH White est. 86% 87% 90% 89% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Total 12,018 12,418 13,895 14,232 52,563 0/o Latino 9% 8% 6% 6% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% (Nov 2012) % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% % NH White est. 86% 86% 88% 89% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1% 1 o/o 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,241 27,602 28,454 27,620 109,917 age0-19 18% 29% 25% 27% 25% Age age20-60 57% 53% 52% 54% 54% age60plus 25% 19% 22% 19% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 14% 15% 13% 14% naturalized 47% 69% 70% 67% 63% Language spoken at english 80% 81% 81% 88% 83% home spanish 15% 8% 9% 4% 9% asian-lang 2% 6% 5% 3% 4% other Jang 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9% 6% 6% 4% 6% than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 49% 43% 37% 39% 42% hachelor 25% 33% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 19% 20% 26% 25% 22% Child in Household child-under! 8 19% 36% 33% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 59% 60% 57% 59% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 3% 2% 3% 1°/o 2% income 0-25k 15% 13% 14% 14% 14% income 25-SOk 21% 12% 12% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 17% 16% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 38% 45% 44% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 9% 14% 19% 21% 16% single family 49% 29% 30% 23% 34% multi-family 40% 67% 60% 71% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 4% 9% 6% 8% occupied 89% 96% 91% 94% 92% rented 55% 31% 34% 25% 36% owned 45% 69% 66% 75% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount escin NH \1;7hite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demogmphics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers D Linket , __ ...J Census Block [= Water Area Streets + Landmark Point Landmark Area --Pipeline/Power Line -;--;-Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Linke 1 City of Carlsbad -Linke 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,266 26,184 26,390 26,488 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal -66 -148 58 156 304 0/o Deviation -0.25% -0.56% 0.22% 0.59% 1.15% %Hisp 18% 13% 14% 9% 13% Total Pop %NHWhite 74% 74% 71% 80% 75% %NH Black 1% 2~10 2% 1% 2o/o 0/o Asian-American 6% 9% 12% 9% 9% Total 21,467 19,970 18,974 19,551 79,962 %Hisp 15% 11% 12% 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 77% 77% 74% 82% 78% %NHBhck 1% 2% 2°/o 1% 1% 0/o Asian-American 5% 9% 11% 8% 8% Total 20,762 19,369 19,314 19,824 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 15% 11% 11% 9% 11% %NH White 78% 80% 75% 82% 79% Pop %NHBhck 1°/o 0% 2% 1% 1% % Asian/Pac.Isl. 4% 8% 11% 7% 7% Total 15,766 15,945 15,633 17,622 64,966 0/o Latino est. 10% 9% 8% 6% 8% Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 5% 4% 4% % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1 o/o (Nov 2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 8% 8% 5% 7% % NH White est. 83% 86% 84% 87% 85% %NH Black 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Total 7,475 8,124 7,572 8,989 32,159 0/o Latino 8% 6% 6% 5% 6% Voter Turnout o/o Asian-Surnamed 2°/o 3% 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1°/o 1% 1% 0% 1 °/o % Spanish-Surnamed 7% 6% 5% 4% 5% % NH White est. 87% 89% 87% 89% 88% %NHBhck 1% 1% 2°/o 1% 1°/o Total 12,329 12,833 12,738 14,663 52,563 0/o Latino 9% 7% 7% 5% 7% Voter Turnout o/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 3% 5% 3% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 8% 7% 7% 5% 6% % NH White est. 86% 88% 85% 89% 87% % NH Black est. 1°/o 1% 2°/o 1% 1°/o ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,968 27,592 28,022 27,335 109,917 age0-19 20% 25% 28% 26% 25% Age age20-60 57% 54% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 24% 22o/o 19% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 14% 14% 17% 13% 14% naturalized 51% 60% 72% 69% 63% Language spoken at english 81% 82% 79% 89% 83% home spanish 13% 9% 10% 4% 9% asian-lang 2°/o 4% 7% 3% 4% other lang 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 8% 6% 7% 3% 6°/o than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 46% 46% 38% 38% 42% bachelor 28% 30% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 20% 20% 25% 26% 22% Child in Household child-underl 8 23% 29% 37% 35% 31% Work (percent of employed 59% 59% 60% 57% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 4% 2% 2% 1°/o 2% income 0-25k 16% 13% 14% 14% 14% income 25-SOk 19% 14% 10% 11% 14% Household Income income S0-7Sk 15% 17% 11% 10% 14% income 75-200k 39% 45% 43% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 11% 10% 21% 22% 16% single family 48% 33% 28% 22% 34% multi-family 42% 62% 63% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 11% 5% 9% 5% 8% occupied 89% 95% 91% 95% 92% rented 53% 35% 31% 23% 36°/o owned 47% 65% 69% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Sumame-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and tumour data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estirr NH \\'bite and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NTIC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Map layers 0 Mead1 i-=~ Census Block f> :> Water A.tea + Streets Landmark Point : Landmark A.tea --Pipeline/Power Line __,_ Railroad --River City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Mead1 City of Carlsbad -Mead Map 1 District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,544 27,246 25,517 26,021 105,328 21,066 Deviation from ideal 212 914 -815 -311 1,729 %Deviation 0.81% 3.47% -3.10% -1.18% 6.57% %Hisp 20% 12°/o 11% 10% 13% Total Pop %NH\'\lbite 72% 73% 75% 80% 75% %NH Black 1% 2o/o 2% 1% 2% % Asian-American 5% 11% 10% 9% 9°/o Total 21,688 19,843 19,187 19,244 79,962 %Hisp 17% 11% 9°/o 8% 12% Voting Age Pop %NH White 75% 75% 79% 82% 78% %NH Black 1% 2% 1°/o 1% 1% o/o Asian-American 5% 11% 9°/o 8% 8% Total 19,892 20,567 19,459 19,350 79,269 Citizen Voting Age %Hisp 15% 11% 11% 9% 11% %NHWhite 78% 76% 80% 81% 79% Pop %NH Black 1°/o 2% QD/o 2% 1°/o % Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 10% 8°/o 7% 7% Total 15,155 17,354 15,639 16,818 64,966 o/o Latino est. 11% 9°/o 7o/o 6°/o 8°/o Voter Registration 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% So/o 4% 4% 4% o/o Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1 o/o 1% 0% 1% (Nov2014) % Spanish-Surnamed 10% 8°/o 6% 5% 7°/o % NH White est 83% 83% 87% 88% 85% %NH Black 1% 2% 1°/o 1% 1°/o Total 6,983 8,436 8,157 8,584 32,159 o/o Latino 8% 6o/o 5°/o 5% 6% Voter Turnout % Asian-Surnamed 2% 4°/o 3% 3% 3% (Nov 2014) % Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1 o/o 1% 0% 1% % Spanish-Surnamed 7°/o 6% 5% 4% 5°/o 0/o NH \Vhite est 86% 87% 90% 90% 88% %NH Black 1% 1% lo/o 1% 1% Total 11,752 13,747 12,929 14,135 52,563 % Latino 10% 8o/o 6% 5% 7% Voter Turnout 0/o Asian-Surnamed 2% 4°/o 4% 3% 3% (Nov 2012) % Filipino-Surnamed 1°/o 1 o/o 1% 1% 1°/o % Spanish-Surnamed 9% 7% 6% 5% 6°/o o/o NH \Vbite est. 86% 85% 88% 89% 87% % NH Black est. 1% 1% lo/o 1% 1% ACS Pop. Est. Total 26,272 29,605 27,175 26,866 109,917 age0-19 18% 28% 26% 27% 25% Age age20-60 58% 53% 53% 53% 54% age60plus 24% 19% 22% 20% 21% Immigration immigrants 15% 13% 16% 12% 14% naturalized 44% 72% 68% 70% 63% Language spoken at english 79% 83% 80% 89% 83% home spanish 15% 7o/o 11% 4o/o 9°/o asian-lang 2% 6o/o 4% 3% 4% otherlang 4% 4°/o 5% 4% 4°/o Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less 9°/o 5% 6°/o 4°/o 6o/o than Very Well" Education (among hs-grad 50% 43% 37% 38% 42% bachelor 24% 34% 34% 34% 31% those age 25+) graduatedegree 18% 20% 26% 26% 22% Child in Household child-under18 19% 36% 33% 36% 31% Work (percent of employed 60% 60% 58% 58% 59% Commute on Public pop age 16+) Transit 4% 2% 3o/o 1% 2% income 0-25k 15% 13% 15% 14% 14% income 25-50k 21% 11% 12% 11% 14% Household Income income 50-75k 18% 15% 11 o/o 10% 14% income 75-200k 39% 45% 44% 43% 42% income 200k-plus 8o/o 16% 18% 22% 16% single family 52% 27°/o 32% 22% 34% multi-family 38% 70% 56% 73% 59% Housing Stats vacant 10% 3o/o 12% 5% 8°/o occupied 90% 97% 88% 95% 92% rented 58% 27% 36% 23% 36% owned 42% 73% 64% 77% 64% Total and Voting Age population data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Sumame-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database. Latino voter registration and tumour data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount esti NH \Xlhite and NH Black registration and turnout collllts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. .------, Map layers l LSchlesingcr Census Block Water Arca Streets Landmark Point Landmark Area Pipeline/Power Linc --Railroad ltiver City of Carlsbad 20l7 Districting LSchlesinger ' \ City of Carlsbad -LSchlesinger 1 map District 1 2 3 4 Total Ideal Total Pop 26,379 26,487 26,186 26,276 105,328 21,06(, DcYiation from ideal 47 155 -146 -56 301 0 u DcYiation o.1s11 11 0.59'1 0 -0.55°0 -0.21 11 11 1.14(111 0o Jfisp 20(1(1 15°(1 10°0 8°0 13°0 Total Pop d,r1NH\Xt'hite 73° 0 69°u 17°0 i SJ",, 75°n '',, NII Black 1°0 2°u 2'' 1°0 2°0 " ()(I Asian-American 50(1 121'1, 10°u 9°(1 901(1 Total 21,504 19,047 19,908 19,503 79,962 0 l1Hisp 1....,n I" 13(1(1 9n() 7°(1 12°n Voting .\gc Pop ",,NHWbitc 76°'0 73°11 79° II 83°'0 78(111 "" NII Black 1°11 2°11 1°n 10;., 111(1 11 o Asian-American 4°'n 11°0 90,(1 go,o gn1, Total 19,817 18,568 21,240 19,644 19,269 Citizen Voting Age 0 'o Hisp 1y1,() 13"" 10°n gun 11°0 nuNH\Xbite 78°'n 7511 I> 80°n 82°'(\ -;90,() Pop "-,, NII Black 1n(, 20 1°n 1°'o 1°0 0 1, Asian/Pac.Isl. Y'f• 10°0 8(1(1 -c IC 711 (I Total 15,313 15,72'i 16,166 17,160 64,966 0 u Latino esL 11nn 10°1, 7° II 6°n 81'1, Voter Rq .. ,ristration n P Asian-SurnameJ 2°0 5" (l 40(1 30 (l 4°0 1: :1 _ l"ilipino-Surname~-1nn 1n,, 1Pn on(l 11'1, (Nm 2014) '1'1, Spanish-SurnameJ JO",, 9c,c, (/' 0 50 (I 70 (I 'l'i1 :'JII \Vhite est. 83"" 8?,i' (I 86°u 89(1u 8Y11 0'n NH Black 1°0 1(1(1 10(1 I'' " 1°0 Total 7,226 i 7,517 8,577 8,840 32,159 0 11 Latino so, " -;, I,, 5°'o 5°'u 6°0 /Iii Asian-Surnamed 2°11 4°n -I'' 301(1 30(1 " V utc:r Turnout r, o Filipino-Sumamed (Nm" 21114) 0111, I 1°1, 111, ()O'o 1°u n 11 Spanish-Surnamed 711 () 6° ii 411 11 411,{I y1\I 1' o NI I \X.Thite est. 8711 () 8711 () 89°0 91111u 88°11 11 \, NH Black 1°0 1 1°11 1°11 1°0 1°0 Total 11,952 12,298 13,805 14,509 52,563 0 11 I,atino 10°0 8°11 6() () i 5°n 7°(1 Voter Turnout Asian-Surnamed zn() 40(1 40() ! 3°'o 3nu (NoY 2012) 0 11 Pilipino-Sumamed 1(1() 1"" lll(I 1(1() 1°u 11 ,1 Spanish-Surnamed 9° ll 7(1(1 6Pu 501) 6°n 0 n NH ~-bite est. 86°n 85°0 87° 1) i 90°u 87(1 (l "" NI I Black est, 1°u 1" 1°0 1 1°u 111 0 " I ACS Pop, Est_ Total 26.132 28,457 28,301 27.()27 109,917 agc0-19 18°() 28°n 2611 0 26°n 25° u "-\gc agc20-60 57°(1 53° () 53°() 53°11 54(I (I age60plus 251111 18°0 21°0 21 11 11 2J",, Immigration immigrants 14r10 1511 u 15Po 12",, 1411 11 naturalized 45°11 66(1() 71'10 70nn 6T11, Lant,-ruage spoken at cnglish 8()11\l 8(Jl' I> 8111 (1 89°t, 83°'0 home spanish 14°11 9"" 9°11 4°'o 9°11 asian-lang Z10 511 II 5r1 \I 3() (I 411 1, other lang 30() (l() 401) 40() 40() J ,an,L,"1.lagc I;lucncy Speaks Eng. 11Lcss 911(, 6111, 6°n 41'(1 (/' l' than Very \\/ell" Education (among _ hs-grad "-49°'0 42",, 3811 (l '.'1811'11 4211 0 those age 25+) bachelor 24°11 33",, 3511 II 34°11 31°ll graduatcdegree 18°n 21°n 24°(1 2(/1 u 22°0 Child in I louschol<l child-underl 8 19°0 36° u 34t'u 35(),(1 31('(1 \Xi ork (percent of employed 59° (I 6(Y11, 59°0 57°0 59°'1, Commute on Public ror age 16+) Transit 4(111 21'11 2°u 10(1 2°0 : income 0-25k 15",, 14°11 14°;1 14°'0 14°0 income 25-50k 21(',n 1211 0 11('o 11°u 14°0 HouscholJ Income income 50-75k 18°u 15° (l 11°u 10°11 14°0 income 7 5-200k 39(1 ll 45°11 ! 44"" 43°11 42°11 income 200k-plus 8° II 14l'u 19°0 22°() 16°11 single family 51f'u 32°n 28(1\1 22°'11 34c10 multi-family 39°'0 62('(\ 62°u 7Y'o 5911 P yacant JO",, 6" 10°u 511,\1 goo I lousing Stats " occupied 90°0 94°n 90°(, 95°n 92n11, rented 5(l n 34(1() 31°0 23u;, 36° u owned 44°'r, 66°n 69n'o 77'1 n 64°11 fot;il ,rnd \ ot1ng \ge_populanon rlita from the 2010 Decennial Census .S.'::_?~~1:_c-b<1scd Yoter Rc~str:1t1on and Turnuut data from the C:ahforn1;i Su.tew1de Databa~e L~1~1~~-~1 __ :·_o_r!'~--~-~,~~~~~a-~ron -~~1_5l ~1-~~\'.u_t ~ta_!r~ -~P~~~s!1:_~~1r~1a~~ _c~Junts ad1usted usmg Cen~us Population Deparurn.·nt undercount est1rr .\:H \\'bite J.nd ::\H BLICk rq . .,iistr,mun ,md turnout counrs cstunatcd b!· ~DC: Citizen \"otmg .. \gc Pop., .. \gc, Irnm1grnt10n, ,md orhc·r demugrarh1cs from the 2011-201.:':i ~'\mencm Commurnty ::;urn')" and Speci,1! T.1buL1tirm .:':i-rur d,1t,1 NDC Proposed Election Years Sequencing and Plan Listing Tables Proposed Election Years Sequencing Map 2018 2020 Cohen-Flock 1 Option 1: 1 & 3 Option 1: 2 & 4 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Cohen-Flock 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 3 Drelleshak 1 3&4 1&2 Drelleshak 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Egeland lb Option 1: 1 & 2 Option 1: 3 & 4 (other options possible) Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Hawney 1 Option 1: 1 & 3 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Kubacki 1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 3 Linke 1 2&4 1&3 NDC Green 3&4 1&2 NDC Orange 2&4 1&3 NDC Purple 2&4 1&3 Plan Listing "Pop. Dev." is the overall plan deviation from perfect population balance. "Pairs" indicate the number of Councilmembers placed together in a district. Plan Name Pop. Pairs Districts Dev. Touching Airport Area Cohen-Flock 1 6.94% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 Cohen-Flock 2 7.11% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 Drelleshak 1 5.69% none 3 Drelleshak 2 7.10% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 Egeland 1b 3.49% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 3 Blackburn & M. Schumacher in D3 Hawney1 4.85% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 Kubacki 1 3.76% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 Linke 1 1.15% none 2 NDCGreen 4.17% none 4 NDC Oran2"e 2.69% none 3 NDCPurple 3.20% none 4 Exhibit 6 6/21/2017 Districts Touching Coast 4 3 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 4 3 Sheila Cobian To: Subject: Attachments: -----Original Message----- City Clerk FW: Correspondence to Council on Districting 20170630 Carlsbad Districting letter to City Council.pdf From: Steve Linke [mailto ] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:13 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Correspondence to Council on Districting Please forward the attached letter to the City Council and Mayor regarding districting. Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA 92009 Exhibit 7 June 30, 2017 Carlsbad City Council and Mayor 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Districting Dear City Council and Mayor: I submitted one of the districting maps for your June 29, 2017 Public Hearing ("Linke 1," see Attachment 1). I did not attend the hearing, but I just watched portions of it. I only spent around two hours working on my map, but I did try to carefully balance the populations, keep all school districts in the same Council district, use major roads or geographical features, keep various communities together, etc. And, somewhat by coincidence, all current Council members ended up in separate districts. While watching the public hearing, I saw the growing consensus around "horizontal" maps, like "Cohen- Flock 1," and the thought they would be more unifying. In contrast, my map combines the entire coast and lagoon areas into a single district. Obviously, my intent was not to create a "divisive" districting system, and I wanted to point out that I had an important rationale. If possible, I would like this letter to be part of the public record, in case I do not get the chance to speak at a public hearing. I will use "Cohen-Flock 1" as a basis of comparison, but I want to be clear that my intent is not to criticize the extensive work they clearly put into their maps. I drew a red line a bit east of 1-5 through their Districts 2 through 4 (see Attachment 2). Very roughly, the proportion of coastal voters west of the red line in each of those districts is about 10%. (In point of fact, to reach 10% in Districts 2 and 4, the red line would need to be drawn significantly further east, and actual numbers should be explored more closely.) The other -90% of voters in each of those three districts are arguably in more suburban areas well off the coast. And those voters likely have very different needs/priorities than those on the coast. So, it may be in a Council candidate's best interest to largely ignore the -10% of voters with very different interests in order to get elected in their District. (I am not saying that the coastal and non-coastal voters have completely different interests, or that all non-coastal voters have the same interests, but that may be true generally for several important issues.) As many of you may already be aware, there are basically two types of gerrymandering: "cracking" and "packing." I think it could be argued that splitting the southern coastal areas into three separate 10% interests in their respective districts could be considered cracking. On my map, I combined those areas into a more powerful 30% interest in a single district, added to the even more substantial northern coastal community within District 1. Perhaps it could be argued that this is packing, although I do not think that is the case here. In any event, I think you should try to seek a proper balance between cracking and packing that avoids gerrymandering, and I am not sure that the horizontal maps achieve that goal. Sincerely, Attachment 1 L Maplaye:rs _· !Lm11:e1 Census BloC"k: Iand:m:nk Point Pipeline/Powec line &ilro.11.d. City of Carlsbad 2017 Districting Lnike t Attachment 2 j ,( ....... _,...,.., .~f:,\p l,,ycts ~ __ _j Cobcn_Fl~dd Ct"nsm, Block s,i~~c~ L'1m:bni:nk Po3nl :l~!.llnclmf.lir'.k Ari:"ili lliJ)l~linc>/l'o\YCII' l~ine Raiht>a.d City of ,Carlsbad 2017 Districting Cohen-Flock, 1 \ Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Vickey Syage Monday, July 03, 2017 1:05 PM Council Internet Email; carlsbad@NDCresearch.com Matthew Hall; Cori Schumacher; Michael Schumacher; Keith Blackburn; Mark Packard; Celia Brewer; City Clerk Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad District Maps I believe I may have mistyped one of the email address. If this is a duplicate, I apologize. Vickey Syage Begin forwarded message: From: Vickey Syage Subject: Carlsbad District Maps Date: July 3, 2017 at 1 :01 :41 PM PDT To: carlsbad@NDCresearch.com Cc: council@carlsbad.ca .gov Hello All, I am a South Carlsbad resident and have been for 26 years now. I want to provide some feedback as a South Carlsbad resident, because so much focus of our City Council has been North Carlsbad based. We are geographically closer to Encinitas than the Carlsbad Village. For me, it's 4 miles to downtown Encinitas, and 10 to downtown Carlsbad. My kids grew up on Moonlight Beach. Many of us have children in Encinitas or San Marcos schools. We are Carlsbad by zip code, and some city services -such as road services, street lights, trash, and police protection. For some of us, our water is from the Leucadia water district. Most of us live within HOA's. So that being said, it's important that the voting districts honor our neighborhoods and sense of community. Following are the 4 criteria I consider most important when dividing us into equal population voting districts. 1. Honor the Elementary school boundary lines. Middle schools have multiple elementary schools feeding into them, and high schools have multiple middle schools feeding into them -so keeping the elementary school boundaries in tact, will keep the neighborhoods together as well as honoring the school district boundaries. This is HUGE for families. 2. Honor the HOA boundaries. In the South, we have more contact and more governance by our HOA boards than the City, so the sense of neighborhood is defined by HOA. We are the land of PUD's. 3. Provide at least 2 districts for the Coast -North and South. The coast is SO important to all of us. 4. Provide at least 2 districts that surround the airport -another HUGE Carlsbad issue. 5. Most ofus are used to our 4 quadrants, divided by zip code. Population distribution won't 1 allow for making those the district boundaries, but if 92010 could move further south to incorporate some of 92009, honoring school and HOA boundaries, you might end up with districts that look and feel closest to most voters' perception of the City Last but not least, it feels like if the districts are drawn around the current incumbents' residences, that we are gerrymandering. We can wordsmith all we want, but as a regular voter, it feels like gerrymandering. Thank you. Vickey Syage 92011 2 Tammy Cloud-McMinn From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:57 AM City Clerk Cc: Celia Brewer Subject: FW: district boundaries From: Doris Schiller Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:07 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: district boundaries I noticed that two of the citizen submitted (Hawney, Linkel) district suggestions had Camino de las Ondas as a dividing line between districts. The Altamira 1, 3, and 4 communities and the Harbor Point HOA need to all be in one district. We all are affected by being next to the freeway, go to the same elementary school, etc. A natural boundary would be Poinsettia but never a minor neighborhood street like Camino de las Ondas. 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Douglas Johnson > Tuesday, July 11, 2017 1:25 PM Kristina Ray; Sheila Cobian Cc: Subject: Celia Brewer; John Ramirez; Alan Fenstermacher; Justin Levitt -NDC Fwd: Draft Maps FYI -one more public comment just came in on the email: -Douglas Johnson Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patricia Amador Date: July 11, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM PDT To: carlsbad@ndcresearch.com Subject: Draft Maps -.ll Receive -Agenda Item # I I For the Information of the: CllJCOUNCIL . / ACM V CAVCC v Date ~City Manager V My opinion: Draft Map of Linda Schlesinger is the closest to giving each 'council district equal balance. DO NO like demographers maps. It is HIGHLY important to keep the Barrio area intact and not divided between districts. Thank you Patricia Amador 3 Carlsbad, CA 92008 * 1 NDC Proposed Election Years Sequencing and Plan Listing Tables Proposed Election Years Sequencing Map 2018 2020 Cohen-Flock 1 Option 1: 1 & 3 Option 1: 2 & 4 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Cohen-Flock 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 3 Drelleshak 1 3&4 1&2 Drelleshak 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Egeland lb Option 1: 1 & 2 Option 1: 3 & 4 (other options possible) Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Hawneyl Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Kubacki 1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 3 Linke 1 2&4 1&3 LSchleshingerl Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Meadl Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 NDCGreen 3&4 1&2 NDCOrange 2&4 1&3 NDCPurple 2&4 1&3 NDCYellow 2&4 1&3 Plan Listing "Pop. Dev." is the overall plan deviation from perfect population balance. "Pairs" indicate the number of Councilmembers placed together in a district. Plan Name Pop. Pairs Districts Dev. Touching Aiiport Area Cohen-Flock 1 6.94% C. Schumacher & Packard in D 1 2 Cohen-Flock 2 7.11% C. Schumacher &Packard in Dl 2 Drelleshak 1 5.69% none 3 Drelleshak 2 7.10% C. Schumacher &Packard in Dl 2 Egeland lb 3.49% C. Schumacher & Packard in Dl 3 Blackburn & M Schumacher in D3 Hawneyl 4.85% C. Schumacher &Packard in Dl 2 Kubacki 1 3.76% C. Schumacher &Packard in Dl 2 Linke 1 1.15% none 2 LSchleshingerl 1.14% C. Schumacher & Packard in Dl 1? Mead 1 6.57% C. Schumacher & Packard in Dl 2 NDCGreen 4.17% none 4 NDCOrange 2.69% none 3 NDCPuiple 3.20% none 4 NDCYellow 4.91% None 2 7/11/2017 Districts Touching Coast 4 3 2 2 2 4 2 1 4? 2 1 4 3 4 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Douglas Johnson Friday, July 07, 2017 5:00 PM Sheila Cobian; Celia Brewer; Kristina Ray Ali R&CelVe -Agenda Hem # ~ t For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM v'-CA v CC v Date $Jn City Manager v Subject: 'Ramirez, John'; 'Fenstermacher, Alan'; Justin Levitt -NDC Carlsbad public comment emails Attachments: City of Carlsbad Public Feedback on Maps.docx; Syage Schiller Bandich emails.pdf Four emails with public comments about the Carlsbad maps came in this week. They, along with an updated public comments summary log, are attached. Doug Douglas Johnson National Demographics Corporation www.NDCresearch.com 1 City of Cui.shad Public Feedback on Maps Updated: 7 /7 /20017 Name Comment Laura and Robert Email. "Cohen-Flock 2 does the very best job of balancing communities Cunningham of interest, retaining school districts, and offering representation to all of 7/7 our diverse neighborhoods." Jan Bandich Email. Prefers a combination of the Hawney 1 and Cohen-Flock 1. 7/6 "I appreciate all the time and thoughtful diligence so many people contributed in producing such an interesting array of maps to consider, I enjoyed the public discussions, as well as time to contemplate all aspects before making a choice." Doris Schiller Email. Opposes Hawney, Linkel maps because theyuse Camino de las 7/4 Ondas as a district border. "The Altamira 1, 3, and 4 communities and the Harbor Point HOA need to all be in one district." Vickey Syage Email. Shared thought 7/3 Larry Posnicke (sp?) Voicemail on the NDC machine. 6/29 He is concerned about the Orange map because "on the extreme right" it cuts Rancho Carrillo "right in half," and "there is a desert in between one section and the other section." Linda Schlesinger Sent new map submission. Too late for agenda packet and presentation. 6/28 NDC processed the map so she can bring it and present it in person. Trudie Stapleton I recommend the "Cohen-Flock 2" map. It illustrates a logical and visual 6/26 view of 4 sensibly defined districts within the City of Carls bad. Most importantly I would be disappointed if "Old Carlsbad" is divided. Old Carlsbad, Carlsbad Village and the Barrio should be kept within one district. K. Cinciarelli Historically Carlsbad has for pmposes of planning, population, housing 6/25 been divided into 4 quadrants which are separated by El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd. It seems natural and fits with most of some of the criteria (except equal population) to have representatives elected from each quadrant. I reside in the NE quadrant. Specifically I do not want to see our neighborhood grouped with the downtown Carlsbad area as the needs are quite different. Everyone east of El Camino Real in the NE quadrant should remain grouped together. You should not just carve out a little chunk of streets, without notifying those residents. Please make sure my home address remains a part of the NE quadrant. John :Marshall Hello and thanks for asking for citizen input. My question is whether the 6/25 planning process includes best estimates for future populations in the proposed districts and their ethnic make up? Did the city provide projections/ numbers based on build-out in each district, with current projects and those undergoing the approval process? Robenson Ranch comes to mind with single family home, condos, apartments, some senior, as well as subsidized housing. Linda Sinclair In myopinion, the "Pmple" map prepared by demographers is the most 6/24 appropriate for adoption. Laura Drelleshak A small correction to your stats: My map "Drelleshak 1" actually has two 6/23 c, districts touching the coast, not one (districts 1&2), although district 2 only has a bit of the south end. Ronee Kozlowski After researching, talking with others and as to what is important to our 6/23 family we much prefer the Map CDhen/Flock No. 2. As part of Olde Carlsbad, Ridgecrest Dr., we totally identify to the Village/Barrio area. The areas East of El Camino Real feel almost like a different Gty to us as do most areas South of Cannon. Please take this into consideration. Shirley Anderson I vote for the ORANGE map. I would have preferred the 5 District 6/22 option that was first proposed. From: Doris Schiller [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:07 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: district boundaries I noticed that two of the citizen submitted (Hawney, Linkel) district suggestions had Camino de las Ondas as a dividing line between districts. The Altamira 1, 3, and 4 communities and the Harbor Point HOA need to all be in one district. We all are affected by being next to the-freeway, go to the same elementary school, etc. A natural boundary would be Poinsettia but never a minor neighborhood street like Camino de las Ondas. From: Jan Bandich Sent: Thursday, July 6,2017 3:06 PM To: carlsbad@ndcresearch.com Subject: Feedback on Carlsbad District Maps I have attended the public meetings, printed out all the map choices and discussed them with friends and family, and here are my preferences: My preference is a combination of the Hawney 1 and Cohen-Flock 1 based on: -horizontal distribution, giving each of 4 districts ocean front, railroad, El Camino Real, and 1-5 responsibilities, by which all citizens are impacted and includes/distributes lagoons, shopping centers, parks, Open Space, etc. fairly -prefer the Village/Barrio inclusion in District 1 of Cohen-Flock 1 -prefer the southern border of District 1 to extend to Cannon Rd to South and El Camino Real to East in Cohen-Flock l to unify Old Carlsbad -prefer the total west to east inclusion of District 1 in Hawney 1 I appreciate all the time and thoughtful diligence so many people contributed in producing such an interesting array of maps to consider, I enjoyed the public discussions, as well as time to contemplate all aspects before making a choice. Jan Bandich Carlsbad, CA 92008 May you always have: Love to share, Friends who care, and Health to spare. From: Vickey Syage Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1 :02 PM To: carlsbad@NDCresearch.com Cc: council@carlsbad.ca.gov Subject: Carlsbad District Maps Hello All, I am a South Carlsbad resident and have been for 26 years now. I want to provide some feedback as a South Carlsbad resident, because so much focus of our City Council has been North Carlsbad based. We are geographically closer to Encinitas than the Carlsbad Village. For me, it's 4 miles to downtown Encinitas, and 10 to downtown Carlsbad. My kids grew up on Moonlight Beach. Many ofus have children in Encinitas or San Marcos schools. We are Carlsbad by zip code, and some city services -such as road services, street lights, trash, and police protection. For some ofus, our water is from the Leucadia water district. Most of us live within HOA's. So that being said, it's important that the voting districts honor our neighborhoods and sense of community. Following are the 4 criteria I consider most important when dividing us into equal population voting districts. 1. Honor the Elementary school boundary lines. Middle schools have multiple elementary schools feeding into them, and high schools have multiple middle schools feeding into them -so keeping the elementary school boundaries in tact, will keep the neighborhoods together as well as honoring the school district boundaries. This is HUGE for families. 2. Honor the HOA boundaries. In the South, we have more contact and more governance by our HOA boards than the City, so the sense of neighborhood is defined by HOA. We are the land of PUD's. 3. Provide at least 2 districts for the Coast -North and South. The coast is SO important to all of us. 4. Provide at least 2 districts that surround the airport -another HUGE Carlsbad issue. 5. Most of us are used to our 4 quadrants, divided by zip code. Population distribution won't allow for making those the district boundaries, but if 92010 could move further south to incorporate some of 92009, honoring school and HOA boundaries, you might end up with districts that look and feel closest to most voters' perception of the City Last but not least, it feels like if the districts are drawn around the current incumbents' residences, that we are gerrymandering. We can wordsmith all we want, but as a regular voter, it feels like gerrymandering. Thank you. Vickey Syage 92011 Douglas Johnson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Laura Cunningham Friday, July 7, 2017 4:45 PM council@carlsbadca.gov carlsbad@NDCresearch.com District maps -Cohen Flock 2 Hello, Thanks to everyone for their hard work on this important topic. We are 25+ year residents of Carlsbad, in the Calavera Hills neighborhood. We have reviewed all of the proposed maps, and would like to give our recommendation to the Cohen-Flock 2 proposal. Our second choice would be Cohen-Flock l. We found that the maps submitted by the demographer show little to no understanding of our city, or had a different agenda in mind. Cohen-Flock 2 does the very best job of balancing communities of interest, retaining school districts, and offering representation to all of our diverse neighborhoods. The love these two men have for their city, along with their knowledge really show in their work. This map represents Carlsbad better than any of the others. We hope you will adopt Cohen-Flock 2. Thank you, Laura Cunningham Robert Cunningham Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please distribute to council. Council Internet Email Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:37 AM Morgen Fry City Clerk FW: District Map and election option From: simon angel [mailto:s Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:04 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: District Map and election option All Receive -Agenda L . / I .l For the Information c CITY COUNCIL ACM V CA v CC Jc/ Date Tu1L7City Manager./ My name is Simon Angel and I wish to put forth my preferences regarding the District election maps and the options for district integration elections. My preference of the various maps is the "Linke 1" map. My opinion is that it maintains the Village and Barrio contiguity and it does not diminish or fracture the Hispanic vote, Additionally, it is drawn in recognition that all the residents of Carlsbad living west of the railroad tracks along the coast share a community of interest in that living close to the coast they desire to maintain the natural and environmental protection of the city's most attractive tourism asset. With regard to the phasing in of district elections my opinion is that it would be less disruptive to maintain the present schedule. Packard and M. Schumacher who live in Districts 2 and 4, respectively in the "Linke 1" map shall stand for election in 2018, along with Mayor. C. Schumacher and Blackburn will stand for re- election in 2020 in Districts 1 and 3, respectively in the "Linke 1" map. 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Subject: Hope Nelson Monday, July 10, 2017 6:07 PM Attorney; Council Internet Email; Manager Internet Email; City Clerk Districting All Receive -Agenda Item # ll For the Information of the: To: City Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney CITY COUNCIL ACM _LCA V cc ~,. Date :!JJ]jjCity Manager v7 Re: Carlsbad Districting I am a 17 year Carlsbad resident concerned about the district boundaries the City is in discussion about. It is my understanding the reason for districting is to ensure representation, particularly for minorities. That said, I also agree that a goal should be to keep communities of interest intact. Following that premise, I would support the map that does the following: 1. Keeps communities intact, for example, not splitting the Village/Barrio. Also, because the coastline is a community of a particular nature, the same should apply and the coastal area kept intact, preferably with one district, 2 at most. 2. HOAs, because they represent communities, should not be split between 2 districts. Elementary school boundaries should also be honored, since communities of interest are formed through schools. 3. The attempt to respect incumbents by drawing districts around them frankly disrespects the purpose of this districting process. It requires gerrymandering boundaries which would not be considered otherwise. The maps I find most satisfactory are Cohen Flock 2, Egeland 18, and Kubacki-1. I anticipate you will take these comments into consideration. Sincerely, Hope Nelson Carlsbad, CA 92008 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Council Internet Email Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:09 PM City Clerk Celia Brewer FW: Districting map Updated Demographer Maps Green.pdf From: Kris Wright [mailto:k Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 10:59 AM · I' Receive -Agenda Item # .JL .. , For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL 1 ACM_Ji_CA ~ CC..Jl_. Date ]Qb City Manager 2. To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; carlsbad@ndcresearch.com Subject: Districting map Good morning Mayor and Council, I have been studying the various maps presented by the demographer and citizens. I am happy to see so much citizen involvement. And I have tried to make a few maps myself! They are not as easy as they look! However, I wanted to give my input and have chosen a map made by the demographer. I like the "Green" demographer map for several reasons. 1. It allows all four council members to border the airport. In fact, I'd like to see that one parcel containing the airport to overlap into all four council districts (instead of belonging to just District 3) since it is in the middle of the city and it affects all of us in the city. 2. The map allows special interests like our coastline and downtown and barrio to remain as one interest keeping protected classes of voters together as much as possible (as per the California voting rights act). 3. School districts are kept together. Elementary schools and their corresponding high school districts should ideally not be divided. This is by far the best map that has been submitted to date. Please vote for the Green demographer's map.Attached. thank you. Kris Wright Kris Wright 1 Sheila Cobian From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Wednesday, July OS, 2017 8:57 AM City Clerk Cc: Celia Brewer Subject: FW: district boundaries From: Doris Schiller [ Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:07 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: district boundaries I noticed that two of the citizen submitted (Hawney, Linkel) district suggestions had Camino de las Ondas as a dividing line between districts. The Altamira 1, 3, and 4 communities and the Harbor Point HOA need to all be in one district. We all are affected by being next to the freeway, go to the same elementary school, etc. A natural boundary would be Poinsettia but never a minor neighborhood street like Camino de las Ondas. 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: Cori Schumacher Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:25 AM Sheila Cobian Item: 11 Fwd: Council districts From: Cori Schumacher <cori@corischumacher.com> Date: July 11, 2017 at 7:00:32 AM PDT To: Cori Schumacher <c01i.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Council districts Begin forwarded message: From: Dean Taber Subject: Council districts Date: July 11, 2017 at 6:06:02 AM PDT All Receive -Agenda Item # l1_ For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM v CA ./ CC y" Date }{j]i City Manager v To: "cori@corischumacher.com" <cori@corischumacher.com> I live at . I like the coast being one district. The issues on the coast are different because of the hotels, tourist, etc. Regards, Dean Taber Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Sheila Cobian Subject: FW: Council district South Carlsbad and Ponto From: Cori Schumacher Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:06 PM To: Sheila Cobian <Sheila.Cobian@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Council district South Carlsbad and Ponto Dear Sheila, I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:02 PM, MFS1@aol.com wrote: ..'As an active Community member for 16 years I fee{ I have a voice in our wonderfu{ community in regards to this subject. I fee{ we shou{d NOT 'Break uy Ponto and the coast into muftiJJ{e districts. It makes more sense to keey the coast as a sing{e district. The who{e situation is ridlcufous hut if forced into the situation. I fee{ a Sing{e 'District makes most sense. Yoters in this syecific area need to have a voice in their area afong with the know{edge of events that effect us as homeowners, voters and taxyayers. Sincere{y, Mary :Frances Stan{ey carfs6acf, ca 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:05 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Don't break up Ponto & South Carlsbad I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Ellen Pawls <lv2swm@me.com> wrote: I can't make the meeting Tuesday but as a resident of Vistamar in the South Ponto Beach area I feel it is important to have a large voting block for matters affecting the coast and our beach area. Therefore I would ask that the coast remain as is and not be broken up into two or more separate districts. Thank you Ellen Pawls Carlsbad CA 92011 Sent from wireless 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:05 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Please keep coastal district as it is I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 9, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Chris MacCalmon <surfchickhawaii@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Hello I am a resident ofVistamar in the Ponto Beach area. I do not agree with separating out coastal districts. 'I would like the coast district to remain as it is. Christine MacCalmon Carlsbad CA 92011 Sent from my iPhone 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:04 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Council Districts I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Mary Riley wrote: As a South Ponto resident and homeowner, I would prefer the first map keeping the coastal area as one region. Best, Mary Riley 92011 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:03 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: District Zones I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 6:40 AM, Gail Norman wrote: My support goes to establishing the Carlsbad Coastal area as one single zone to allow focused representation on common concerns and issues Your stellar communications and transparency are appreciated and acknowledged Best Gail Norman Sent from my iPhone (San Pacifico community) 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:02 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: District changes I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 7 :34 AM, Sherri wrote: Dear ms. Schumacher: Thank you for representing our area. I live in south Ponto and would prefer to keep our coastal section as one voting block. I believe the 'divide and conquer' rule would apply with developers and those who represent their interests in our city government should we split in to many pieces! I hope the citizens of carlsbad are savvy enough to understand once a land has been developed there is no going back! I hope we try to keep more of our coastal areas as parks and open spaces so our children and future generations can enjoy. Thank you so much! Regards, Sherri Azimi O.D. 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:02 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Council Districts I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Karen Johnson wrote: My preference would be for the coast to be a single district. My second choice would be to split it in two, but keep South Ponto as a single voting block. Thank you for reaching out to your constituents. It is a refreshing change. Karen Johnson Carlsbad, CA 92011 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:00 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Council districts I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 11 :42 AM, Harry Peacock wrote: My opinion, as a Ponto area person and a retired 30 year California city manager in four cities and two counties, is to prefer that all the coastline be in one council district. That way we would all have one "go to" guy or gal to present coastal issues. My second choice is that having two council seats with coastal areas would be best for our interests but I would prefer a single representative. Seems to me that that person would have two main constituencies, coastal issues and Village issues. I like that idea. Harry R. Peacock 1 Sheila Cobian Subject: FW: Carlsbad Districts From: Cori Schumacher Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:59 PM To: Sheila Cobian <Sheila.Cobian@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Carlsbad Districts Dear Sheila, I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Dolores Hamady wrote: Sorry this is a bit late but I hope my opinion may still be taken into consideration. I live in Santalina at San Pacifico in the South Ponto area ... I feel that the coastal area should be considered one voting block. The main reason for this is that the interests and concerns of those of us who live along the coast are very different from those who live more inland. Therefore, I would like to see Plan I put into effect. Regards, Dolores Hamady 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 8:58 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Ponto Beach Development proposal I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Steven Kesten wrote: Dear Mr. Schumacher, I have noted the upcoming decisions to be made influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together. Coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. As for hearing from the residents in coastal south Ponto, I would like to suggest, as you have already done with Jean Camp's assistance, utilizing the forum of Nextdoor SanPacifico. We live in a very politically engaged community; however, it may be difficult to respond to events that we are unaware of. If there are matters that should be communicated to residents of these areas, this forum may assist you. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Finally, I wish to express my strong preference for the Ponto beach land that is currently being proposed for residential use. Please consider allocating this land for dedicated parkland. There is virtually no accessible parks in our neighborhood and my understanding is that the beachfront community is below what is mandated as adequate park areas. Once this coastal beachfront land is allocated to residential or commercial purposes, it is gone forever. The land is irreplaceable. As a park, it will add immense value and pleasure to tourists traveling here, to the community and the extended Carlsbad region as a whole . . Steven Kesten Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:09 PM Sheila Cobian Celia Brewer Fwd: South Carlsbad feedback. This email contains a disclaimer at the bottom that I am unsure of how to treat legally in order to ensure my colleagues are also able to review the the sender's opinion. I have cc'd Celia so she can advise, or perhaps you have already dealt with this situation before? Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Andrea Lewiston wrote: Thanks for the reminder sent out. I live in the A viara area not ponto but we certainly go south west into ponto and Carlsbad state beach area moreso than northeast. It makes sense to keep the coast at minimum separation as 2 rather than 4 potential voting units. Ponto is set for quite the change and my personal thought is it makes more sense to be part of the aviara block geographically than part ofla Costa toward the south east Thank you. Andrea D!SCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidentiai and may be legally privileged It is intended sole!y for the addressee. Access to this message oy anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you have received this message in error and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Ti,ank you. 1 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:01 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Additional Feedback from Some of our Committee Members on Districting I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:26 AM, Jean Camp wrote: Good morning, I agree with Farhad that the east/west districts are likely the best solution. If we only have one council member looking out for the interests of coastal communities that means you have 3 council members looking out for the inland communities. Under our current at-large city elections all 4 council members must take into consideration what is best for Carlsbad as a whole. That will definitely change under districts -maybe not immediately but given time and a few election cycles, council members will vote on what their districts/voters want, not necessarily what is best for the city as a while. Collaboration between council members will be even more important under districts. Having only one voice/vote for a specific community significantly diminishes their voice as a whole. Having east/west districts ensures all council members have to weigh what is best for both coastal communities and inland communities. I understand we are viewing districts under how this impacts Ponto development, (which I think our interests are hurt by only having one coastal district), however once these maps are in place it is unlikely they will change significantly and we need to think lor:ig term. We need to make the 1 districts as diverse as possible so we keep council members as engaged as possible about what is best for Carlsbad -coastal and inland communities. Thank you Jean for forwarding and encouraging involvement! Kelsey Good morning everyone, This is tough decision since there is advantages and disadvantages either way. I personally think splitting up South and North Coastal region might be more advantageous for us. The City Council is pushing higher density mixed used units in Carlsbad downtown. We don't want the higher densities in Ponto. The disadvantage would be that we would have a smaller voting block and we might get less attention. Thanks, Farhad I agree with Jean that splitting up the coast will be a problem for us and for what we're trying to do. I'm in favor NOT splitting the coast up. Mike I actually do not favor Districting as a framework for City Council at all as you end up with only one City Council member who represents one's community and that Council member may or may not represent the interests of the specific community but rather goes to Council meetings with their own personal "take" on issues. When Districting occurs there is a predisposed concept that the City Council member is "speaking" for the community when that in fact may or may not be the case. John 2 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Barbara and Steve, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:22 PM Cori Schumacher Sheila Cobian Re: (Response) Fwd: input on council districts Thank you for taking the time to send over your opinion regarding districting. I am very grateful to you and will incorporate this into my decision-making. The issue of districting is not one the Council wishes to engage, but we have been put in a very difficult situation because of a demand letter from a lawyer who has been issuing the same demand letter to many of our neighboring cities (Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos). The demand states that if we do not shift to by-district elections, we will be taken to court. Past examples of this situation where cities do fight the demand have spent millions fighting the demand in court. Every single city has lost this battle. There is a full explanation available on the Carlsbad city website here ("Why District Elections" is a good place to start: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/district.asp Thank you again for providing your feedback and I would be more than happy to answer any further questions you might have. Kindest Regards, Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 On Jul 10, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Cori Schumacher <cori@corischumacher.com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Barbara Oetting Subject: input on council districts Date: July 10, 2017 at 10:00:44 AM PDT To: "cori@corischumacher.com" <cori@corischumacher.com> 1 Reply-To: Barbara Oetting Hi Cori -thank you so much for all you do for the city council. You are the only member we trust. With regard to the council districts, we have two thoughts: 1. Our area, the most southwest portion of the city (Ponto) should definitely be kept intact as a voting district. We are a single neighborhood. Moreover, the entire coastal region should be kept together. Our area has never had a voice in the city council (until you were elected) because council members live in, and are more interested in protecting, other areas of the city (again, you are the exception). Obviously, our area needs a voice in light of the Ponto development. The only way we can have a voice is to keep our area together. 2. At a time when the United States Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging political gerrymandering, why is the Carlsbad City Counsel getting into this issue? The City Council is setting itself up for litigation. Barbara and Steve Oetting 2 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Sheila, Cori Schumacher Monday, July 10, 2017 9:00 PM Sheila Cobian Fwd: Coastal representation, South Ponto I have received quite a number of comments related to the districting process. I spoke with Marisa and Kevin at today's briefing about how to best ensure that my colleagues receive the same information and they directed me to forward all the emails to you for inclusion in the public record for tomorrow night's meeting. Many Thanks, Cori Cori Schumacher Councilmember City of Carlsbad 760.434.2830 Direct: 760.450.8863 Begin forwarded message: On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Barbara Kesten wrote: Hi Cori, I have just read about'the interesting decisions to be made tomorrow, influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together .... a coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. 1 As for not hearing from the folks in coastal south Ponto, may I suggest, as you have already done with Jean Camp's assistance, to utilize the forum of Nextdoor ,SanPacifico. We live in a very politically engaged and interested community, however, it may be difficult to respond to events that we are unaware of. If there are matters that should be communicated to residents of these areas, this forum may assist. you. It is in use use by Jodee Sasway, Public Information Officer of the Carlsbad Police Department, to communicate events of public interest. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Thank you for all the information presented in your note to Jean. Kind regards Barbara Kesten 2 Sheila Cobian From: Sent: To: Cc: Marisa Lundstedt Monday, July 10, 2017 3:43 PM Sheila Cobian Celia Brewer All Receive . Agenda Item # I / For the Information of the:- CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fwd: Coastal representation, South Ponto ACM VCA vcc v Date~ City Manager v Sheila, Please include this email in the Council packet for Item 11. Thank you, Marisa Begin forwarded message: From: Cori Schumacher <cori@corischumacher.com> Date: July 10, 2017 at 12:14:19 PM PDT To: Barbara Kesten Cc: marisa.lundstedt@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Re: Coastal representation, South Ponto Dear Barbara, I deeply appreciate your feedback and will incorporate your perspective into my decision-making on districts. I will also forward your suggestions for better communication about important events to our City Management to ask them to better utilize our social media presence for notification and community engagement. With Gratitude, Cori CORI SCHUMACHER Carlsbad City Council Subscribe to my Council Newsletter: Council Newsletter Facebook: Cori Schumacher Carlsbad City Council Twitter: CoriSchumacher 760.434.2830 1 On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Barbara Kesten wrote: Hi Cori, I have just read about the interesting decisions to be made tomorrow, influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together .... a coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. As for not hearing from the folks in coastal south Ponto, may I suggest, as you have already done with Jean Camp's assistance, to utilize the forum of Nextdoor ,SanPacifico. We live in a very politically engaged and interested community, however, it may be difficult to respond to events that we are unaware of. If there are matters that should be communicated to residents of these areas, this forum may assist. you. It is in use use by Jodee Sasway, Public Information Officer of the Carlsbad Police Department, to communicate events of public interest. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Thank you for all the information presented in your note to Jean. Kind regards Barbara Kesten 2 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:30 PM Morgen Fry Cc: City Clerk Subject: FW: Ponto Beach Development proposal Please distribute to council. From: Steven Kesten Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:02 PM To: 'council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Ponto Beach Development proposal To Carlsbad Council, I have noted the upcoming decisions to be made influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together. Coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. As for hearing from the residents in coastal south Ponto, I would like to suggest, as you have already done with Jean Camp's assistance, utilizing the forum of Nextdoor San Pacifico. We live in a very politically engaged community; however, it may be difficult to respond to events that we are unaware of. If there are matters that should be communicated to residents of t~ese areas, this forum may assist you. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Finally, I wish to express my strong preference for the Ponto beach land that is currently being proposed for residential use. Please consider allocating this land for dedicated parkland. There is virtually no accessible parks in our neighborhood and my understanding is that the beachfront community is below what is mandated as adequate park areas. Once this coastal beachfront land is allocated to residential or commercial purposes, it is gone forever. The land is irreplaceable. As a park, it will add immense value and pleasure to tourists traveling here, to the community and the extended Carlsbad region as a whole. Steven Kesten Carlsbad, CA, 92011 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Council Internet Email Monday, July 10, 2017 8:45 AM Morgen Fry City Clerk FW: District Maps: City of Carlsbad Please print and distribute to council this agenda related item. From: SILVA ISAGOLIAN Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 9:10 PM To: Cori Schumacher <Cori.Schumacher@CarlsbadCA.gov>; Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: District Maps: City of Carlsbad Council Members: I am responding to Cori Schumacher's request for input regarding any preference for the three mapping options under consideration. First, I only saw these three new options on the Next Door forwarded email from Cori, and though I tried, I could not locate them on the City's website. From the original maps that were presented, we liked two of the public submissions, Cohen-Flock 1 and Hawney 1. My whole family reviewed these three new options and our preference is the one that gives all four districts a boundary from coast to inland and separates Ponto. I disagree with Cori's assertion that an inland voting block will detrimental to Coastal Carlsbad. And that the citizens of Carlsbad will not vote for something that benefits the coast, and the coast will lose in a voting block. As citizens, we are only voting by districts for the members and we will be voting city wide for the initiatives. My family has owned commercial land on Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Ave) since mid 70's, and my husband and I bought our home here in 1998. We have watched the citizens of Carlsbad band together for the benefit of Carlsbad many, many times. I tend to disagree a lot with past and present council members visions for Carlsbad, so I prefer to read everything before I make up my mind. I like how Cori researches outside of what is required of her, and her dedication for the best option for Carlsbad is admirable. Of course, my whole family voted for Cori, and would happily do so again. But in this matter, we disagree with her preference for the district boundaries. Silva lsagolian Sent from Outlook 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Council Internet Email Monday, July 10, 2017 8:44 AM Morgen Fry City Clerk FW: Council district South Carlsbad and Ponto Please print and distribute to council this agenda related item. From: MFS1@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 4:03 PM To: cori@corischumacher.com; Keith Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Michael Schumacher <michael.schumacher@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Re: Council district South Carlsbad and Ponto ..'As an active Community member for 16 years I fee{J have a voice in our wonderfu{ community in regards to this subject. I fee{ we shou{d NOT 'Break uy 'Ponto and the coast into muftiy{e districts. It makes more sense to keey the coast as a sing{e district. The who{e situation is ridicufous but if forced into the situation. I fee{ a Sing{e 'District makes most sense. Yoters in this syecific area need to have a voice in their area afong with the knowfec(ge of events that effect us as homeowners, voters and taxyayers. Sincere{y, Jvlary :Frances Stan{ey carfsbad, ca 1 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:44 AM Morgen Fry Cc: City Clerk Subject: FW: District Maps Please print and distribute to council this agenda related item. From: Larry Posner Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2017 12:43 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: District Maps Dear city council members ... After much consideration, research and and thought we have to pick the "Hawney 1" map for districking of Carlsbad as the best choice ... Best Regards Larry Posner & Katie Posner Carlsbad, CA. 92009 "Nothing sucks more than that moment, during an argument, when you realize you're wrong!" 1 Morgen Fry From: Council Internet Email Sent: To: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:43 AM Morgen Fry Cc: City Clerk Subject: FW: District Mapping Please print and distribute to council this agenda related item. From: Charm Agnos [mailto: Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 7:53 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: District Mapping Greetings, After researching all the maps by demographers and residents, my choice goes with Flock/Cohen 2. Please take into consideration the residents' choice. On a personal note, it concerns me that Old Carlsbad (my neighborhood and one of the oldest) is not included with Village/Barrio on the demographers' maps. It doesn't make any sense to me unless it is to split up sitting council members. I truly hope that is not the case. Thanks for your time, Charm Agnos 92008 1 Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Morgen, Council Internet Email Monday, July 10, 2017 10:19 AM Morgen Fry City Clerk FW: Coastal representation, South Ponto Please distribute this email regarding an agenda item to council. Andi From: Barbara Kesten Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:47 AM To: cori@corischumacher.com Subject: Coastal representation, South Ponto Hi Cori, All Receive -Agenda Item # .Jl For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL ACM_ vOA~CC~ Oat8~;im City Manager ~ I have just read about the interesting decisions to be made tomorrow, influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together .... a coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Kind regards Barbara Kesten 1 7/f \ CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION July 6, 2017 Carlsbad Mayor and City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Draft Maps of the City's Proposed Voting Districts, Special Meeting Agenda Item #1. June 29, 2017 Dear Mayor and City Council, The Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association Board of Directors has reviewed the subject agenda item and has the following comments and concerns. Because the business park (CRC and all the other parks in the City) represent a large and important part of the business engine that contributes to the success of the City we believe fragmenting political representation for those areas should be thoroughly understood before moving forward with creation of voting districts. The unique situation businesses and property owners in CRC face in this case is that since there is no significant residential area (i.e. voters) within the boundaries of the park, the residential areas within any new district which includes the park will have an influence on the elected officials and their policies regarding the park. To fragment this representation will no doubt complicate the relationships between the business parks owners, tenants and activities; and the voters. As you know there can be potential conflicts in land uses within communities. Business parks involve activities and priorities that are different than residential areas. We are concerned that an imbalance in fair representation would be created by dividing CRC into multiple voting districts. We oppose any district creation that separates the geographic integrity of the Carlsbad Research Center and urge the City Council to carefully evaluate the political implications of doing so. Some of the district configuration options shown divide the park into segments. We believe existing land use and land use continuity within the districts should be considered when creating boundaries. The long term implications warrant your serious attention. Respectfully, Co-CctttG ~-cl{_,,1 Colleen Reilly U President Carlsbad Research Center Owners Association c. Board of Directors 5330 CARROLL CANYON ROAD • SUITE 200 • SAN DIEUU, CAUFClRNIA 92121-3758 PIIClNE (858) 31l-12H • HX (h58) 371-1222 • info@rncisrncrj,1cquet.com • www.rncissncrj;icquct.com Morgen Fry From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please distribute to Council. Council Internet Email Monday, July 10, 2017 2:08 PM Morgen Fry City Clerk FW: Input on council districts From: Barbara Oetting Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:04 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Input on council districts Dear Council members, All Receive -Agenda Item # I 1 For the Information of the:- CITY COUNCIL ACM v CA 1.--CC v Date ,hoj.1 City Manager ~ We have lived in the Ponto area of Carlsbad for 17 years. With regard to the council districts, we have two thoughts: 1. Our area should definitely be kept intact as a voting district. We are a single neighborhood. Moreover, the entire coastal region should be kept together. Our area has never had a voice in the city council because council members live in, and are more interested in protecting, other areas of the city. Obviously, our area needs a voice in light of the Ponto development. The only way we can have a voice is to keep our area together. 2. At a time when the United States Supreme Court is set to hear a case challenging political gerrymandering, why is the Carlsbad City Counsel getting into this issue? The City Council is setting itself up for litigation. Thank you for your consideration, Barbara and Steve Oetting 1 Morgen Fry Subject: FW: Voting Districts From: Council Internet Email Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:05 PM To: Morgen Fry <Morgen.Fry@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: FW: Voting Districts Please distribute to council. -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Chana Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:47 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Manager Internet Email <Manager@CarlsbadCA.gov> Subject: Voting Districts Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am sorry to hear that the City is being forced to develop voting districts due to threatened legal action. I am disheartened because our City population is so small and I have enjoyed voting for all members investing in the entire City. I also wish to believe our city is not discriminatory. The fact that I will only be able to vote for 2 people on a 5 member Council that should have our entire City in its focus is unfortunate. It is too bad smaller cities are not exempt from this situation. I recently reviewed the City web site and saw the Council meeting on TV that started addressing this issue. Also, Tammy from the City Clerk's office was very helpful and informative. This is helpful information as I can not attend meetings easily because I am a full-time caregiver for my 92 year old Mom. Anyway, since the City needs to go in this direction, here are my comments. In reviewing all the maps, I believe it is very important that the SW area I live in includes a District that incorporates both the lagoon, ocean and the airport. The following public maps accomplish this: Mead 1 (District 3), Egeland lb (District 3), Cohen- Flock 2 (District 3), Kubachi 1 (District 3 NEEDS to include AIRPORT). I do not like Hawney 1, Cohen-Flock 1 ( the District 4 is very narrow by SW Batiquitos lagoon), Linke 1 (District 1 has all the ocean), LSchlesinger (District 3 needs to include the airport) I do not like the Consultant Maps especially the Green, Purple, Yellow maps. Orange map maybe if included airport in SW District. It appears the Consultant maps do not include the airport in the southwest District. Please be advised, in the last 2-3 years this area is heavily impacted by southern take off airport traffic and landing flight patterns, and banner planes' flight paths!. .. mostly directly over my house at 7331 Lantana Terrace! (My concern on the airport will be sent later to you, Board of Supervisors, FAA etc. regarding increased noise and safety concerns as I am currently compiling my photos and information). I wish you luck in this endeavor of determining voting districts as I am sure it is very challenging. Thank you for all your efforts in keeping Carlsbad a great place to live. Please continue to work together and not become divisive or focused on special interests due to districting requirements. Sincerely, Pamela Chana ( a 17 year Carlsbad resident and retired small city municipal management employee) 1 Morgen Fry Subject: FW: Coastal representation, South Ponto From: Council Internet Email Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:04 PM To: Morgen Fry <Morgen.Fry@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: City Clerk <Clerk@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: FW: Coastal representation, South Ponto Please distribute to council. From: Barbara Kesten Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:21 PM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Coastal representation, South Ponto Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Gala,'<y smartphone Dear Council Members, Please keep the Coastal area of Carlsbad together! We share the same interests, and concerns about our lovely community. We wish to remain a unified voice, moving forwards, keeping Carlsbad the home we all care for together Please see my letter to Cori below. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Barbara Kesten Hi Cori, I have just read about the interesting decisions to be made tomorrow, influencing our community in South Ponto. I feel strongly that South Ponto region should be kept together .... a coastal voting should not be divided into even smaller segments. The common interests are clear from the geographic point of view, protecting our beautiful communities coast lands,and the small numbers of voters should not be further divided. As for not hearing from the folks in coastal south Ponto, may I suggest, as you have already done with Jean Camp's assistance, to utilize the forum of Nextdoor ,SanPacifico. We live in a very politically engaged and interested community, however, it may be difficult to respond to events that we are unaware of. If there are matters that should be communicated to residents of these areas, this forum may assist. you. It is in use use by Jodee Sasway, Public Information Officer of the Carlsbad Police Department, to communicate events of public interest. We would very much look forward to being involved in shaping the future of our beautiful area! Thank yo for all the information presented in your note to Jean. Kind regards Barbara Kesten 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO: CITY CLERK DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: L?J/ ~ '~ r-Jl11 /; :7 SUBJECT: Q ~Jfit~ [L9~~ LOCATION: ------------------------ DATE NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS: ---------- NUMBER MAILED: ------- I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad and the foregoing is true and correct. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (Signature) (Date) SENT TO FOR PUBLICATION VIA E-MAIL TO: Q Union Tribune -m Coa~t N7'rs . / . /.., _ J., ~ ~f/~C (._:JI/LpJ--v ,-::Dfl} Union Tribune ~1/,(.p ,-t--1,:,{30/;j, . Coast News _ _;}-3 ·.+--le/ __j -7 > PUBLICATION DATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am employed by the City of Carlsbad in the City Clerk's Office and the foregoing is true and correct ( A 0:. /J , Date: Lp//'-f/(7 ~ ){L,yyJ-,L-0./<~'lZ_Lu__ (Signature) Attachments: 1) Mailing Labels 2) Notice w/ attachments CIUDAD DE CARLSBAD NOTIFICACION DE AUDIENCIAS PUBLICAS SE NOTIFICA POR MEDIO DEL PRESENTE que el Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Carlsbad tendra una audiencia publica a las 6:00 p.m., o lo antes posible despues de esto que se pueda escuchar, en la Camara de Concejo en la Sala Municipal de Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, en las siguientes fechas: Jueves, 29 de junio de 2017 Martes, 11 de julio de 2017 El prop6sito de las audiencias publicas es para recibir comentarios del publico sobre los mapas en borrador de fronteras potenciales de distritos electorales del Concejo creados por los miembros del publico y por La Corporaci6n Nacional de Dem6grafos. Cualquier mapa propuesto que sera discutido en cada audiencia publica se pondra a disposici6n del publico por lo menos siete dfas antes de esa audiencia. Se invita a todas las partes interesadas a asistir a la o las audiencias publicas ya expresar opinion es o a presentar informaci6n. Es posible que se continuen las audiencias publicas de vez en cuando, segun surja la necesidad, dando notificaci6n en la audiencia antes mencionada. Las copias del informe del personal estaran disponibles a partir del lunes, 26 de junio de 2017, para la Audiencia Publica del 29 de junio de 2017, y despues del jueves, 6 de julio de 2017, para la Audiencia Publica del 11 de julio de 2017. Si tuviera alguna pregunta, por favor p6ngase en contacto con la Oficina del Abogado de la Ciudad a 760-434-2891 o por correo electr6nico a attorney@carlsbadca.gov. Hay mas informaci6n sobre las elecciones de distrito, la raz6n por este cambio, y el proceso, en el sitio web de la ciudad, http://www.carlsbadca.gov/districts. Si alguna persona quisiera desafiar en corte cualquier acci6n que el Concejo Municipal pudiera tomar acerca del tema de la audici6n publica, tal persona estara limitada a plantear solo aquellos temas que se planteen en la audici6n publica del tema, o en correspondencia entregada oportunamente a la Oficina de la Secretaria de la Ciudad, antes de la fecha de la audiencia publica. CIUDAD DE CARLSBAD CONCEJO MUNICIPAL Enviado: 16 de junio de 2017 Publicar: 16 de junio de 2017 y 30 de junio de 2017. CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at 6 p.m., or as soon thereafter as it may be heard, in the Council Chamber at Carlsbad City Hall, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on the following dates: Thursday, June 29, 2017 Tuesday, July 11, 2017 The purpose of the public hearings is to receive public input regarding the draft maps of potential Council election district boundaries created by members ofthe public and National Demographics Corporation. Any proposed map to be discussed at each hearing will be made publicly available at least seven days before that hearing. All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing(s) and express opinions or submit information. The public hearings may be continued from time to time, as necessary, by giving notice at the aforementioned hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available by Monday June 26, 2017, for the June 29, 2017 Public Hearing and after Thursday, July 6, 2017, for the July 11, 2017, Public Hearing. If you have any questions, please contact the City Attorney's Office at 760-434-2891 or attorney@carlsbadca.gov. Information about district elections, why the city is making this change and the process is available on the city website, http://www.carlsbadca.gov/districts If a person wishes to challenge, in court, any action the City Council may take regarding the subject matter of the public hearing, then that person may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the subject public hearing or in written correspondence timely delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Posted: June 16, 2017 Publish: June 16, 2017 and June 30, 2017. City of Carlsbad Draft Plan Presentation Douglas Johnson, President National Demographics Corporation (NDC)July 11, 2017 Adopted Criteria Equal Population Federal Voting Rights Act No Racial Gerrymandering Communities of interest Compact Contiguous Visible (Natural & man-made) boundaries Respect for voters’ wishes and continuity in office Planned future growth Federal Laws Traditional Criteria July 11, 2017 Each of the four Council districts will have about 26,332 residents. 2 New Maps July 11, 2017 3 July 11, 2017 Yellow Map 4 interactive map July 11, 2017 LSchlesinger 1 Map 5 interactive map July 11, 2017 Mead 1 Map 6 interactive map Previous Maps July 11, 2017 7 July 11, 2017 Green Map 8 interactive map July 11, 2017 Orange Map 9 interactive map July 11, 2017 Purple Map 10 interactive map July 11, 2017 11 Cohen-Flock 1 interactive map July 11, 2017 12 Cohen-Flock 2 interactive map July 11, 2017 13 Drelleshak 1 interactive map July 11, 2017 14 Drelleshak 2 interactive map July 11, 2017 Egeland 1b Map 15 interactive map July 11, 2017 Hawney 1 Map 16 interactive map July 11, 2017 Kubacki 1 Map 17 interactive map July 11, 2017 Linke 1 Map 18 interactive map “Old Carlsbad” Detail July 11, 2017 19 “Old Carlsbad” Review May 30, 2017 20 Latino CVAP / Barrio / Village Map Green Map Green and all but two other maps keep the area united. Two Maps That Divide the Area May 30, 2017 21 Orange MapHawney Map Plan Statistics July 11, 2017 22 Plan Comparison July 11, 2017 Plan Name Pop. Dev.Pairs Districts Touching Airport Area Districts Touching Coast Cohen-Flock 1 6.94% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 4 Cohen-Flock 2 7.11% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 3 Drelleshak 1 5.69%none 3 2 Drelleshak 2 7.10% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 2 Egeland 1b 3.49% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 Blackburn & M. Schumacher in D3 3 2 Hawney 1 4.85% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 4 Kubacki 1 3.76% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 2 Linke 1 1.15%None 2 1 LSchlesinger1 1.14% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 1 4 Mead1 6.57% C. Shumacher & Packard in D1 2 2 NDC Green 4.17%none 4 1 NDC Orange 2.69%none 3 4 NDC Purple 3.20%none 4 3 NDC Yellow none 2 4 This summary is meant to provide a comparison of the draft options, not an endorsement for any specific plan 23 Election Sequencing Options July 11, 2017 Map 2018 2020 Cohen-Flock 1 Option 1: 1 & 3 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Cohen-Flock 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 3 Drelleshak 1 3 & 4 1 & 2 Drelleshak 2 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 2 Egeland 1b (other options possible) Option 1: 1 & 2 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 1: 3 & 4 Option 2: 1 & 2 Hawney 1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 2 Kubacki 1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 3 Linke 1 2 & 4 1 & 3 LSchlesinger1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 3 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 2 Mead 1 Option 1: 1 & 4 Option 2: 2 & 4 Option 1: 2 & 3 Option 2: 1 & 2 NDC Green 3 & 4 1 & 2 NDC Orange 2 & 4 1 & 3 NDC Purple 2 & 4 1 & 3 NDC Yellow 2 & 4 1 & 3 Note: Council may approve alternative sequences to these listed here 24 Councilmember term ends in 2018 Councilmember term ends in 2020 Resides in 2018 district Runs for re-election at end of current term In 2018, runs for district seat. If victorious, resigns at-large 2020 seat and is sworn into by- district 2018 seat for 4-year term. -- OR -- If chooses not to run in 2018, or if not victorious in 2018 by-district election, finishes current term in 2020 and leaves the Council. Can run (but not as an incumbent) in 2022. Resides in 2020 district Finishes current term in 2018 and leaves the Council. Can run (but not as an incumbent) in 2020 or move to a 2018 district and run in 2018. Runs for re-election at end of current term Sequencing Effects on Council July 11, 2017 25