Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft Minutes of December 13, 2021 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AD HOC REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE MONDAY DECEMBER 13, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 6 P.M. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Members: Brad Avery, Mayor Diane Dixon, Council Member Will O'Neill, Council Member Staff Present: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director Dan Campagnolo, Systems and Administration Manager Yolanda Summerhill, Assistant City Attorney Amanda Lee, Department Assistant Justin Levitt, Consultant, NDC (National Demographics Corporation) III. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Laura Curran, Corona del Mar, invited everyone to participate in the Corona del Mar Christmas Light Up Corona del Mar Contest. Entries are accepted through December 18, 2021. Prizes are available in the form of restaurant gift cards. Secondly, she thanked Council Members Dixon and Brenner for participating in Assembly Member Cottie Petrie-Norris’ hearing on drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers in Sacramento. Both Council Members were well prepared and represented specific issues related to Newport Beach. Council Member Duffield was unable to attend due to technical difficulties. Jim Mosher, Newport Beach Resident, stated the agenda was “cryptic.” He requested verification on if the Committee would have further meetings. The minutes from November indicate there was disagreement on the proper criteria for selecting maps. He requested clarification on if the City staff and consultant agree that due to the amendments to the Fair Maps Act of California that the correct criteria are those in the City Charter and not the ranking order in the Fair Maps Act. The City Charter states that the districts be natural, contiguous, compact, and provide fair representation. Those criteria make the Fair Maps Act inapplicable to Newport Beach. A central theme of the November meeting was to achieve population equality. He requested comment from the consultant on how population equality is relevant to a City like Newport Beach which votes for representatives at large. He further noted that they are a year out from the election and people are announcing their candidacy not knowing if their district will change. Matt Eimers stated that there were no maps posted for the public to see. He drew four maps for the City to keep the communities together. He wanted them to pick a map that represents the communities and not make East Side and East Bluff the same district as they are two different City Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Meeting December 13, 2021 Page 2 of 6 areas. He encouraged the Committee to see the City as a whole and see how the districts group together. They should also use a map drawn by the community and not a consultant as the people who live in the community know it better. Mayor Avery confirmed that staff would address Mr. Mosher’s questions during the presentation. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Draft Minutes of November 8, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Council Member Will O’Neill, seconded by Council Member Diane Dixon, and carried (3-0) to approve the staff recommendation with Mr. Mosher’s comments incorporated. AYES: Avery, Dixon, and O’Neill NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENCES: None IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Presentation and Review of Draft Council District Maps Submitted by City Consultant (National Demographic Corporation- NDC) and by Members of the Public Recommended Action: 1. Open Public Hearing; and 2. Provide direction to staff on the draft map(s) to forward to the City Council for their consideration. Systems and Administration Manager Dan Campagnolo reported that there were 11 maps before the Committee, two of which were drafted by the consultant. They were pleased with the public submittal. The objective of the meeting is for the Committee to review the maps, take public comment, hold discussion, and then select and direct staff to forward maps to the City Council for consideration and adoption. This is the last Committee meeting for the Council redistricting. He introduced Dr. Justin Levitt. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill asked if Dr. Levitt would address Mr. Mosher’s questions. Dr. Levitt stated he was going to introduce himself first and then get into the presentation which would address Mr. Mosher’s questions. If things remained unclear following his presentation, he was open to questions. The current Council district map is outside of the 10 percent population balance that the courts have said is appropriate for jurisdictions that use districts. The process is being treated with an abundance of caution as some of the laws are vague and open to interpretation. The Fair Maps Act has not been challenged in California Courts as it only took effect in January 2020. Out of an abundance of caution they followed as close to full compliance with the Fair Maps Act as possible. California Law does not distinguish between districts drawn From-District Systems and By-District Systems. The legislative history of the provision about Charters City Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Meeting December 13, 2021 Page 3 of 6 with three or more specified criteria is that it was meant to exclude the Charters of San Diego and Los Angeles where the State Legislature had intentionally written a specific provision they were required to include in their Charter. In the Newport Beach Charter, districts are “fair,” which is undefined legally. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution they tried to ensure as much compliance with the Fair Maps Act criteria as possible. The Fair Maps Act criteria are not that much different than those in the Newport Beach Charter, the main difference is that they are rank ordered. The four statements in the Newport Beach Charter are not specifically rank ordered. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill added that when the City went through the redistricting process 10 years prior it followed Elections Code 21620. It was consistent with state law. There is also overlap with the Voting Rights Act. For example, compactness is in both the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Maps Act. The City wants to be cautious and to have fair, equal, and balanced districts. Dr. Levitt said that they wanted to create seven balanced Council districts of equal population. They must be within a 10 percent deviation and can use the deviation to keep communities, geography, or other criteria together. Changes will be driven by the information received in the 2021 Census. Council Districts 1 and 6 are substantially underpopulated and need to gain population to become balanced. Districts 4 and 5 are substantially overpopulated. Due to the City’s geography although Districts 2, 3, and 7 were within the 10 percent deviation many will need to change to keep districts contiguous. There are 11 draft maps to be viewed by the Committee, and 4 may potentially violate some of the criteria, but do consider communities of interest. Map 3 is slightly over ideal population but illustrates that with minor adjustments it could be within accepted deviation. With Map 11 there are additional concerns. Some of the maps are potentially noncontiguous. District 4 in Map 10 comes together at a single point which is not acceptable under the Fair Maps Act. However, in the past the Courts have recognized that as a potentially valid contiguity. Map 11 divides the Balboa Peninsula into three separate districts, and one has no physical connection to the rest of the City of Newport Beach; therefore, they have flagged Map 11. The consultants initially prepared three draft maps. One was so close to Map 8, which was submitted by a community member, that they dropped it. Map 1 has the least changes from the current districting, and he ran the Committee through the changes. Map 1 is referred to as the “minimal changes map,” which is something the Committee was interested in. Map 8 is similar to the Consultant Map 3, and Maps 4 and 8 have a similar revision to District 6. Council Member Dixon asked for clarification as Dr. Levitt confused Newport Island with Balboa Island. Dr. Levitt apologized for misspeaking. Council Member Dixon requested that an overlay of the current maps be prepared before the meeting with City Council. Dr. Levitt said that they were included in the slides but would make sure that was clearer in the future. Community Department Director Seimone Jurjis explained the overlay was in pastel colors. Dr. Levitt explained the map colors to Council Member Dixon. Council Member Dixon suggested they use a different color for the new boundaries. City Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Meeting December 13, 2021 Page 4 of 6 Dr. Levitt stated Maps 5, 6, and 7 had similar divisions of the Balboa Peninsula so they were grouped together. There is variation in other parts of the City between Maps 5, 6, and 7. There was a proposal that added Balboa Island to District 1 which requires adding the area South or West of the Pacific Coast Highway into District 2 and rotate many of the other districts. Council Member Dixon asked a clarification question on Map 2. Dr. Levitt explained that everything North of 47th Street would be in District 2 on both sides of the Pacific Coast Highway. He showed the Committee the web viewer with the current and proposed district boundaries and explained it could be found on the City’s website. He stated he was prepared to discuss any of the maps and answer the Committee’s questions. The next step is to open the public hearing for feedback and then provide direction to staff for the February 2022 Council Meeting. Mayor Avery opened the public hearing. Council Member O’Neill stated that he appreciated the public’s input. He did not find it particularly favorable to redistrict in a way that would put Corona del Mar and Balboa Island together, nor would it be helpful to put the Peninsula and Balboa Island together. He also wanted Lido Island contiguous. He preferred to forward to Council the maps that comply with the requirements and have the Committee recommend Map 1. Map 1 does not change significantly and complies easily. Barring a compelling argument, he thought that was the best scenario. Council Member Dixon concurred with Council Member O’Neill. Having represented District 1 for seven years she appreciated the continuity. She thought District 1 was distinct but cohesive. The addition of Newport Shores is positive because they often relate to West Newport residents. Map 1 complies with Federal and State requirements with minimal disruption to how residents perceive their Council representation. She looked forward to the public’s comments. She did not support Map 2 because it breaks up the Peninsula and she wanted to keep that together. Mayor Avery also agreed with Council Members Dixon and O’Neill. Map 1 is the closest to the current districting, which is a good thing. There has not been an outcry from the community that there is something amiss with the current districts. Newport Shores being in District 1 is more contiguous. Map 1 is the obvious preferred map. He called for the public comment. Charles Klobe stated that he usually disagrees with the Council, but that was not the case with the redistricting. One of Map 1’s benefits is that District 7 stays the same. Newport Shores generally feels disjointed from District 2 and would align more with District 1. Map 1 also cleans up how Newport Heights and Cliff Haven are handled. Based on this, Map 1 prepared by the consultant is the most attractive. Jim Mosher, Newport Beach resident, stated that Dr. Levitt mentioned it was important for the districts to be contiguous. Newport Terrace is connected through a splinter thread no matter which district it is in which seems to violate the contiguous principle. Dr. Levitt also mentioned legislative history and the City’s Charter ensures that the Council represents all the geographic areas of the City. It calls for contiguousness and compactness of districts. Any long skinny districts, like District 3 on Map 1 is not promoting the idea of geographic diversity because it contains very different areas. The long skinny district defeats the purpose of having districts at all. Therefore, there are problems with the current map. He has never understood District 5 and the connection between Big Canyon and Balboa Island. Separating the two seems logical, but he was not sure there was logic used in the redistricting. City Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Meeting December 13, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Nancy Scarbrough stated that she liked the Map 1. She thought it was interesting and important that there are three districts struggling with the STL problem. In some of the other maps those districts are reduced to two, but that is not a problem with this Map 1. Laura Curran appreciated that Maps 1 and 2 keep Corona del Mar together. She asked the consultant to explain the demographic change in District 1. She asked how people were counted and if short-term lodging made a difference. With short-term lodging there are fewer residents in a house, and she asked if that showed in the Census. Matt Eimers stated that the Map 1 looked good but thought that they should present Council with several options and not just one. He stated that he drew Map 7 and that no one seemed to be looking at the other maps. Map 7 shows possibly four Council Members with votes for the coast. He wanted the Council to see the choices. Mayor Avery thanked him for his participation and the maps. Matt Eimers stated that he drew the map for fun. He thought the biggest issue was how Balboa Island was placed. Mayor Avery called for further public comment. Theresa Chandler stated that this was her first City meeting and that she was motivated to come when she saw the maps. She lives in Corona del Mar and most maps cut it up which bothered her. She was reassured that the Committee was taking a more conservative approach and not cutting up communities with longstanding ties. She supported keeping Corona del Mar in one district. Mayor Avery closed the public comment and asked for further Committee comments and suggestions. Council Member O’Neill suggested Maps 4, 9, 10, and 11 were out of compliance. Maps 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 do comply. Map 3 could comply with a slight rebalance. He recommended sending Maps 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 with a slight rebalance on Map 3, to City Council, with a clear recommendation from the Committee to adopt Map 1. Council Member Dixon agreed with Council Member O’Neill’s concept of providing more for Council to Consider. She recommended Map 1 and asked for Council Member O’Neill to clarify the others. Council Member O’Neill suggested Maps 1, 2, 3 with a rebalance, 5, 6, 7, and 8 because they comply. There should be a clear recommendation to adopt Map 1. Council Member Dixon said that she would go with Maps 1 and 3 but would support Council Member O’Neill and second if that was his motion. Council Member O’Neil said that was his motion and that he also wanted to include an explanation that they would include the other maps to demonstrate public participation. Motion made by Council Member Will O’Neill, seconded by Council Member Diane Dixon, and carried (3-0) to forward Maps 1, 2, revised 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 to the City Council with a recommendation to adopt Map 1. City Council Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee Meeting December 13, 2021 Page 6 of 6 AYES: Avery, Dixon, O’Neill NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENCES: None Community Development Director Jurjis asked if the Committee wanted to do a study session first or if they wanted to jump to a public hearing as an ordinance. Council Member O’Neill asked to be reminded of the requirements. He thought there were four meetings required. Community Development Director Jurjis stated they could do a study session and then put the matter on Consent for the second Council meeting. Council Member O’Neill confirmed that bringing the matter back on Consent would count as the fourth hearing. Community Development Director said that Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill was checking on it. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill said that it would be appropriate to have a study session and then a public hearing. Council Member Dixon stated they were on schedule. She clarified that it would be finalized in March. Current candidates for City Council do not have to file until July. Council Member O’Neill said that candidates had time, especially if the City were to go with Map 1. Mayor Avery closed the item. V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON-DISCUSSION ITEM) None. VI. ADJOURNMENT – 6:43 p.m.