Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-13; Independent Redistricting Commission; MinutesINDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Jan. 13, 2022, 6 p.m. Virtual Meeting Council Chamber 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 CALL TO ORDER: 6 p.m. ROLL CALL: Fabiano, Stanley, Ashton, Harris, Sardina, Cadwallader, Arndt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Stanley led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public speakers for non-agenda public comment. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DRAFT MAPS OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED VOTING DISTRICTS — That the Independent Redistricting Commission hold a public hearing and receive public comment regarding draft maps of the city's proposed voting districts. Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission will: 1.Discuss and vote on which map groupings should be eliminated from consideration 2.Discuss and vote on which maps to move forward in each grouping for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Commission 3.Provide direction to the demographer regarding any maps the Commission would like to have adjusted, drawn and analyzed at a future meeting. (Staff Contact: Faviola Medina, City Clerk's Office) National Demographics Corporation (NDC) representative Shannon Kelly reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk). Chair Fabian° opened the duly noticed public hearing at 6:21 p.m. The following members of the public called into the Independent Redistricting Commission meeting to voice their comments: Kris Wright thanked the commission and stated that she submitted map no. 94249 on Dec. 16, 2021 and it is a four coastal district map submitted via the District R program. She explained that she tried to keep the council members in their original districts. She further explained that she used Cannon Road and El Camino Real as boundaries and kept the Bressi Ranch and Rancho Carlsbad areas together. She added that she had a very low standard deviation population number of 0.16%. She also added that she liked the idea of a four-coast district. She commented that the individuals that drew up the current map were from the southern portion of Carlsbad, and many streets are divided in half. She further added that she Jan. 13, 2022 Independent Redistricting Commission Regular Meeting Page 2 drew the map as fairly as possible excluding the errors made with the current district map, and hopes the commission considers her map. Anthony Bona explained that he lives in District 1 and asked the commission why it was focusing on four districts. He added that he had submitted six district maps. He further added that the coastal area should be its own district and that people who live on the coast have other needs and desires. He also asked the commission if it had considered homeless people. He further added that he noticed some of the maps changed the numbers of some districts that seems politically motived. Arnie Cohen explained that he was one of the originators of the city's current district map. He further explained that the focus in creating the map was on the coast and that the reason the horizontal design was used was that every council member needed to take into consideration the impact of traffic going in either direction throughout the city. Mr. Cohen explained that one of the reasons for having four beach districts, was that the issues varied from north to south and having different council members represent the different areas is important. He explained that the potential of the state giving the city control over its portion of the beach will provide competing priorities and having all council members with an interest in the coast will be important. He addressed the issue of people just discovering what district they are in and using a quadrant map may make people vote differently than they did in the past election just after discovering what district they reside in. He further addressed the difference in the population numbers between the District R and Maptitude mapping programs. He stated he was concerned about created maps where the population deviation was under the 10% requirement that are now over the 10% once they were put into the Maptitude program. John User expressed his concern that the commission was not presented with maps that caused the minimum amount of change to the existing districts. He explained that District 4 was way within the boundaries of the statistical requirements. He added he thought District 3 was also within the requirements, but said it depended on the areas along the eastern border which he felt were census block numbers and that if District 3 is not within the 10% mark from the highest to the smallest, its only off by a little which means there would be very little to change. He added that District 1 was too low, and District 2 was too large. He suggested the commission move the eastern boundary from District 1 into District 2 and the northern section to get within the 10% criteria as most of the new housing will be in the northern part of the city. He explained that the map he submitted met that criteria he just described, adding his map leaves Districts 4 and 3 the same and District 1 is pushed into District 2. He further added that many maps have east-west boundaries that change the boundary between Districts 3 and 4 when there's no need for that. Dee L. expressed her opposition to creating a separate district along the coastline adding that every homeowner, taxpayer and legal resident is part of the Carlsbad coastal community. She added that by creating a separate coastal district from the northern to southern limits of the city and east to /-5 would be creating a segregated, socioeconomic community based on income and further added that there are higher salaries and incomes necessary as one move's closer to the coast. She explained that for purposes of fair and effective representation each district should be equally represented by all income levels. She also expressed her support for Jan. 13, 2022 Independent Redistricting Commission Regular Meeting Page 3 the current district map with a few modifications. She explained that she lives in a community she thought was census unit 20 and some of the single-family homes on streets built as a planned community are divided and that one side of the street is one district and the other side of the street is another district. She added that all homes that were built as a planned community in the late 70s and constructed and sold as a community should all be part of the same voting district. She further explained that the current boundaries take Oxford Street, Lyons Court and York Road and split them down the middle with each side belonging to a different district. She explained that this does not appear to coincide with the city's community of interest definition. Steve Puterski introduced himself as an alternate member of the Independent Redistricting Commission. He expressed that a couple of small adjustments to the existing map is all that is needed. He added that a couple of speakers expressed the same and most of the letters submitted to the commission say the same thing. He informed the commission that if it gets too radical some of the voters in Districts 1 and 3, which have an election this year, may not be able to vote until the next election. He suggested that this was a risk the commission should not be taking. He added that the current map does a good job of setting the boundaries and communities of interest with development, that's a tough sell to have the commission to consider. He further added the commission should not necessarily take into account future development and population as things could change within a 10-year time. Hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Fabian° closed the duly noticed Public Hearing at 6:39 p.m. Commission discussion ensued regarding the timing of and procedure to follow to eliminate certain maps from consideration and move forward with selected maps. Ms. Kelly explained that in narrowing down the maps the commission is serving the public as it is difficult for the public to focus when there are too many maps for consideration. She also explained that nothing precludes public comment along the way. Ms. Kelly further added that the coastline was the commission's number one physical boundary and attribute in the city. In response to an inquiry from Commission Member Ashton, Assistant City Attorney Cindie McMahon confirmed that the process for selecting final maps from whatever the contenders might be was not on tonight's agenda and that the hope was for the commission to narrow and or provide the feedback on what it would like staff or the demographer to focus on as the commission goes forward in the process now that the public hearings have completed, meaningful public comment has been received and there is a good selection of maps to consider. She added that the commission is not required to eliminate or provide that all or no maps go forward but rather provide the opportunity for discussion and further added that Item No. 3 is the most important task for the commission as it ensures the demographer understands going forward, as there not many more meetings left, what if anything is missing from the selection the commission would like to see, what kind of adjustments the commission would like to make or are interested in. She explained that if there are things that should not go forward, staff wanted to provide the opportunity for the commission Jan. 13, 2022 Independent Redistricting Commission Regular Meeting Page 4 members to express their thoughts. She further explained that if the commission is unable to get its work done by the Feb. 17/ another meeting can be called but scheduling another meeting is not as easy as it may sound. Chair Fabiano requested each commissioner put forth two, three or four maps for discussion. Director of Legislative and Constituent Services Sheila Cobian requested the commission make a motion and vote on the procedure for this meeting. Motion by Vice Chair Stanley, seconded by Commission Member Cadwallader to give their recommendations of maps. The motion carried 6/1 (Ashton — No). Commission Member Harris explained that he liked map nos. NDC 101 and 94249. He added that he was also in favor of adjusting the current map made in 2017-2018. Commission Member Cadwallader explained that she liked map nos. 96786 and 96777. She also suggested eliminating map no. 82160. Commission Member Ashton abstained from providing comments. Commission Member Sardina expressed that she liked map nos. 97774, 77607, 80687 would like to see neighborhood maps placed over the selected maps. Vice Chair Stanley expressed that she liked map nos. 97192, NDC 101, 96786. Commission Member Arndt expressed that she would like to adjust the current map and liked map nos. 69103 and 80687 and was okay with map no. D49365. Chair Fabiano expressed that he liked map nos. 96786, 79064, 96777 and 96973. Ms. Kelly explained that she heard several adjustments commission members would like made and asked if it was possible to get direction from the commission so NDC could prepare one or two new maps. In response to an inquiry from Commission Member Ashton, Ms. McMahon explained that staff has received various questions from commission members over time, and staff is mindful of the Brown Act. She added that any questions received, or answers provided will be included in the commission's agenda packet. In response to Commission Member Sardina's inquiry regarding an overlay of the neighborhood map on some of the more popular maps for the commission's next meeting, Ms. Kelly responded that she would investigate the neighborhood map overlay and the school district map overlay and how to provide it to the commission. Ms. Kelly requested formal direction. Jan. 13, 2022 Independent Redistricting Commission Regular Meeting Page 5 Commission Member Sardina stated she would send the request to City Clerk Services Manager. Ms. Cobian asked the commission if it would like to provide any comments or adjustments to identified maps to Ms. Kelly at this meeting. Commission members provided adjustments they would like to see made to identified maps to Ms. Kelly. In response to Commission Member Ashton's inquiry regarding if when the adjustments are made Ms. Kelly could attach the amount of population that is moving from one district to another as an overlay, Ms. Kelly explained that she could not commit to this being a complete overlay and would investigate. Ms. Kelly added that she could not commit the format the commission would see this information in, but the numbers would be provided. In response to Commission Member Ashton's inquiry regarding the difference the commission would see when a map is put into calipers, Ms. Kelly explained that all 42 maps the commission was presented with at this meeting were put through calipers. She added that the only changes NDC made to maps were to those created in District R, and are done as a cleanup during the transition of the map between the District R and Maptitude mapping program. In response to an inquiry from Commission Member Cadwallader, Ms. Kelly explained that for the population to be balanced, they use the adjusted state general population figure as it is a raw population number and when a deviation number that is less than 10% is needed, the raw population number is used. She added that demographic data is provided by the Census Bureau using CVAP (Citizen's Voting Age Population) and that the Census Bureau obtains this information from surveys in shorter census forms and provides it in that category. She further added that CVAP is also important when it comes to federal voting rights act violations and that court cases always refer to CVAP data. In response to an inquiry from Commission Member Ashton, Ms. Cobian stated the maps could be provided in numerical order in the next commission agenda packet. STAFF AND COMMITTEE MEMBER REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Fabiano adjourned the duly noticed meeting A 8:25 p.m. Sherry Freisinger Deputy City Clerk