Item 10 - Additional Material posted 12-07-21M EMQRAN DLJ M City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the December 7, 2021 Council Meeting)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CONTACT:
December 7, 2021
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk
(858) 668-4535 or cgallagher@poway.org
SUBJECT: Item 10 -Post 2020 Census Redistricting Process -Second Public Hearing
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
Assistant City Manager
1 of 8
Reviewed By:
Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:
December 7, 2021, Item #10
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Pete Babich
Caylio Frank; Dave Grosch; Barry Leonard; John Mullin; Steve Vaus
Chris Hazeltine
Poway Redistricing
Friday, December 3, 202110:53:21 AM
Redistrictina202ocomments pdf
EM I
Poway City Council,
I plan to speak at the next council meeting regarding redistricting, but I want to provide a little
more of my thoughts than what I can provide in three minutes of speaking so I have attached a
document. It's not too long ;-)
Best regards,
Pete Babich
15997 Grey Stone Rd, Poway
858-212-9191
2 of8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
To: Poway City Council
From: Pete Babich
12/3/2021
I want to share my thoughts on the Poway City Council redistricting process a little
deeper than I can provide while speaking for three minutes at the council meeting.
I'm disappointed that the council and staff waited so long to address the issue of
redistricting. It would have been a good way to get more people involved with the
process and move toward a bipartisan/independent process for 2030. There are plenty of
good people in Poway who would have done a very good job of creating fair districts
which balance population and kept communities of interest together. You just have to
ask them!
It's pretty obvious to me that the council doesn't feel the need to conduct a formal 2020
redistricting. Yes, the population growth from 2017 to 2020 was not huge and according
to NOC, the districts still meet the "constitutional" requirement. On the other hand, there
are some potential issues with the current districts. The biggest issue is that many homes
in Garden Rd area which logically belong in D4 are currently in D2. By my count there
are 287 homes in D2 which rightly belong in D4 and there are 35 homes in the same
census blocks which rightly belong in D2. I think it would be prudent to see if census
blocks have changed or see if those census blocks could be moved into D4 without
exceeding the deviation limit.
In addition, I think our redistricting process should be more analytical. Yes, the primary
objective is to balance population, but we are also tasked with creating contiguous
districts, keep communities of interest together, compact districts, and not favor or
discriminate a political party. So how do we measure our performance on those points?
Part of the problem (which is outside of our control) is that census blocks primarily use
roads for boundaries and not property lines. That means if a census block is part of a
district boundary, people on opposite sides of the street will be in different districts. This
is not a big problem if main roads are used as boundaries, but when interior roads are
used, people in the same neighborhood would be in different districts. Ignoring the city
limit boundaries, the current district boundary interior perimeters look like this:
District 1 2 3 4
Total Perimeter (mi) 11.73 34.14 11.45 14.18
Interior Perimeter (mi) 6.21 8.63 11.24 7.06
Interior Perimeter on Main Rds (mi) 6.21 1.45 6.75 4.37
% District Boundary on Main Rds 100% 17% 60% 62%
For the above analysis, I assumed main roads have traffic lights. Defining a different
criterion for main roads would provide a different result. The key point is to keep
communities of interest intact. The Poway Neighborhood Emergency Corp (PNEC) has
done a pretty good job of identifying 60 neighborhoods or communities of interest within
3 of 8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
Poway. The map is included on page 3, but the current districts divide neighborhoods as
shown in this table:
District 1 2 3 4
Total Neighborhoods 13 31 17 12
Divided Neighborhoods 2 9 11 2
% Divided Neighborhoods 15.4% 29.0% 64.7% 16.7%
There are 12 neighborhoods identified on the chart which are divided. Four of them are
divided along main roads which might be discounted, but the interior boundary of D3
divides the most neighborhoods. Obviously defining neighborhoods differently will give
a different result, but one of the key objectives of redistricting is to reduce the number of
divided neighborhoods.
Another factor in redistricting is creating districts which are "compact." There is no
universal measure of compactness, but one or more measures can be selected to compare
map options. Even if the current districts are maintained, it's important to select some
measures of compactness for use in the 2030 redistricting. For example, I did a
preliminary computation of our current districts using the Reock Score method which is
the ratio of the district area to the area of a minimum bounding circle. A score closer to 1
implies more compactness. The diagrams are shown on page 4 and the results are shown
below:
District
Method 1 2 3 4
Reock Score 0.32 0.44 0.42 0.46
Pols by-Popper
Schwartberg
Convex Hull
X-Symmetry
The absolute values don't mean very much, but they will be useful when comparing
different maps.
I also don't see any issue with the current map with regard to gerrymandering to provide a
political advantage, but the numbers should be included and evaluated.
I've heard the argument that a formal redistricting costs too much. Cost should never be a
key factor in conducting elections or performing redistricting; it's a cost of doing business
for a democracy!
Finally, given that the council will simply keep the current district map without change, it
would be nice to have the council adopt a resolution that it recommends the 2030
redistricting be performed by and independent/bipartisan commission.
4 of8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
Poway Emergency Neighborhoods
I I
...... .,t.,u,,.,,,.,.
t "1.Rll..c.E.•U::fl:n,.,01R,r -1.t,1A1£M'Cl.0¥$t..•.ru
ID ..... ,r\t:ll't:ol' ti C'tlE..,"'-1.ll"'~,_.,..,n
,.r111-.v.-..,1•U,I.UU
12 Ulll'iV~lllTt!,.V.11 ~ 2() 0.)ViHi.'t"!,Q!J.P((Sf•T[;
v,«lJ,l;:;,,.,_H l~X>f-1-<C.._,,\ l':ttl M"-J'M;.'OOV~J.~C\.
.,10•,nuor.,.i:cfJl,.NT""l,111 •L4l~.,('lc,••n., H 11~ •~"1"-'
Where do YOU live??
• f;(JRJH
~~
.,,......,_.,..,_, [5ii],...,~ .. ~·""""
"'-1Ut:J<.<I'./ uH•V', ,IA"" X-Jltfi,Cfl 1,y,a,,,, r.&Jff'~o;..-V..'1,ir1llll n,sn-. .... t1 U i;-r::.o.ur.,,,,,...,.
-•VMl l'!l:.r,IJ-U,!,\!U H::,,1/"'-"'-'~l~!All~
SJ '"'""'-Ur-IO c1ott1..;•Dli!HIL8~M'O'o
r ... 11 ua1
............ .,,.,.,-,HNI.-.U:
5 of 8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
C = 70/240 = .32 C= 442/1004 = .44
4
C = 95/224 = .42 C = 139/303 = .46
Compactness measured using the Reock Score method is the ratio of the district area
divided by the area of a minimum bounding circle. Area was estimated by counting
squares on a background grid.
6 of8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Cbris...Cwse
~; ~ Pave Grosch: Cavlin Frank: J.Qb.nJ1u.llin; Barrv Leonard
Cbris...Cwse
Dec 7, 2021 Council meeting-Item # !0 Census Redistricting Process
Monday, December 6, 2021 8:40:44 PM
Screen Shot 2021-12-06 at z 55 11 PM onq
EXTE A !!MAI
Councilmembers,
I do not think the current district map gives fair representation to all Powegians.
The map was drawn by the mayor, and approved by the council members. At the time that map was approved, 4
members of the council were from a Green Valley Civic Association neighborhood. (map from GVCA webpage).
GVCA neighborhoods contain only about 1/4 the population of Poway, yet 80% of the council people who approved
the district map were from GVCA neighborhoods.
The district map was gerrymandered to allow the incumbent council members to keep their seats. So, even after
setting aside a south Poway district and bringing in a politically connected outsider to fill that seat, there are still 3
council members from GVCA neighborhoods. We need a map that has more proportionate representation from the
other neighborhoods in Poway.
Additionally, having 3 districts touch Poway Rd so that they "all have skin in the game" dilutes their voices. The
cun-ent maps also dilutes the voices of those Hispanic people who live near to Community Rd, just north of Poway Rd.
By splitting them into 2 different districts, they have less of a voice than they did in the at large community. This is
not the intent of the California Voter Rights Act.
Communities of interest, such as Garden Rd neighborhood, and Rancho Arbolitos are also divided in the current maps.
They should be together.
Neighborhoods that use Twin Peaks Rd should be kept together, and neighborhoods in south Poway that use Poway Rd
should also be kept together in 2 districts, as they have about half the city's population. The 4th district should be the
neighborhoods ofGVCA, most of which use Espola Rd ..
The task of drawing new boundaries should be done by an independent commission, not by the council members. They
should not be choosing their voters.
It is necessary to redraw the maps to ensure that all neighborhoods have a better representation on the council.
Sincerely,
Chris M Cruse
7 of8 December 7, 2021, Item #10
8 of 8
If your neighborhood
is on this map ...
ESPOLA RO
GVCA is here for YOU.
December 7, 2021, Item #10