Report to Mayor and City Council
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Special Orders of the Day
SUBJECT:
Title
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC HEARING NO. 8) RELATED TO CHANGING FROM AN AT-LARGE TO A BY-DISTRICT SYSTEM FOR ELECTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT: CONSIDERATION OF DEMOGRAPHER'S RECOMMENDED MAPS, REVIEW OF POTENTIAL ELECTION SEQUENCING, DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, AND REVIEW OF POTENTIAL DATES TO APPROVE BALLOT MEASURE FOR MARCH 3, 2020 CHARTER AMENDMENT (CITY COUNCIL)
Body
I. SUMMARY
This public hearing is a continuation of the October 1 public hearing, and the recommendation will be to continue the public hearing after discussion to November 5 to be able to consider additional maps created by the second demographer, NDC, and any additional maps created by the public using the enhanced Public Participation Kit created by NDC.
Tonight, the City Council may revisit the four maps created by the original demographer, Compass Demographics, the three original Draft Maps plus an additional map (Map 1T) based on input received by City Council on September 17. Additionally, Council did discuss on October 1 several issues related to election sequencing, i.e. once the Council has selected a map they then must also select which districts stand for election in 2020 and which stand for election in 2022 (Exhibit 19).
Finally, this staff report revisits the City Council discussion on the possible dates for adoption of the Council Districting Ordinance would still allow for District elections in November, 2020, and the milestone dates for approval of a ballot measure to propose a charter amendment on the March, 2020 ballot.
Background
On May 22, 2018, the City received a letter from Shenkman and Hughes, PC, demanding that the City Council elections transition from the current “at-large” method to “by-district” in order to conform to the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2001. Shenkman asserts that the City of Carson is in violation of the CVRA because “racially polarized voting” occurs in the city.
While it was reported that Shenkman has sued the City on behalf of the Southwest Voters Rights Project in September, the City only received formal notice of the suit through the City Clerk’s office on Monday, October 7. Now that litigation has been filed, it will have its own calendar with milestone dates which the City needs to be mindful of. Further discussion of such dates may be provided by the City Attorney.
A by-district election process means voters within a designated Council electoral district elect one City Council member who must also reside in and be a registered voter of that district. The City of Carson currently elects City Council members through an at-large election process, which means that each voter elects all members of the City Council. The Mayor would continue to be elected at large.
Compass Demographics was hired by the City in May, 2019 to create proposed district boundaries. A public electronic “participation toolkit” was made available on the City’s website during the public hearing period for the public to draw and submit maps. Residents were able to provide input on boundaries and suggest criteria for creating boundaries. A total of ten (10) submissions have been received from members of the public so far, from community members who used the Participation Toolkit posted on the City’s web site; those maps were also discussed as they were received, at several public hearings.
Initial Preliminary Map Discussion
To move from at-large elections to by-district voting the City needed to establish the data necessary to complete the process that meets state and federal requirements for the transition to districts. The City’s demographer prepared the preliminary Council district maps, which were presented in a public hearing at the August 6 City Council meeting, a Special meeting on August 17, and a public hearing on September 17. The intent when making the two presentations of the preliminary Council District maps was to solicit input on issues the City Council and community felt needed to be prioritized in setting district maps, including the cohesiveness of neighborhoods and communities, other physical and geographic boundaries, and other factors.
Additionally, at the September 10 Special Meeting, the Council directed Staff to negotiate a contract with a second demographer, NDC. That contract has now been finalized and the demographer has held several scoping meetings with the City, and the Enhanced Participation Kit is being developed and should launch this week. Additional maps from NDC should be available for the November 5 public hearing. No additional maps have been produced by Compass Demographics since the October 1 public hearing.
With additional maps coming from (potentially) Compass Demographics and certainly from NDC, it may be worth considering additional public workshops, similar to the August 17 public hearing held at the Community Center, though even more informal and interactive. Such workshops should be facilitated by a demographer, who would be able to ask questions and perhaps show some of the mapping considerations to members of the public in real time. If so, Council should give direction to Staff on the general timing and locations of workshops, plus the selection of demographer to conduct them. The selection of either demographer would require a contract amendment be approved by Council.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
TAKE the following actions:
1. OPEN the public hearing, and
2. TAKE public testimony, and
3. PROVIDE direction to Staff on possibly conducting additional off-site public workshops with additional maps from the demographer(s), and direction on potential contract amendment to one or more demographer contract to facilitate workshop preparation; and
3. PROVIDE direction to Staff regarding the preparation of ballot language for a proposed Charter amendment to be presented to the voters on March 3, 2020, and
4. CONTINUE the public hearing to November 5, 2019 for consideration of additional maps produced by NDC and any other new citizens’ maps, and further discussion on Council District Election Sequencing Schedule based on the Compass Demographics maps and the NDC maps as well.
I.
Body
III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate.
IV. BACKGROUND
Preliminary maps created by the original demographer for discussion purposes have been posted since the beginning of August. The Draft Maps prepared by the demographer were originally exactly that: drafts prepared for discussion purposes. The demographer has offered feedback on the public Submissions and their compliance with both the CVRA and the federal Voting Rights Act. In some cases, the demographer has advised the City that several of the public Submissions may have issues complying with the Federal Voting Rights Act or are “unbalanced,” meaning the difference in the size of the districts is outside the allowed deviation.
Recommended Maps for Consideration Including Election Sequencing
Pursuant to Section 10010(a)(2) of the California Elections Code, all of the maps were posted on the City’s website by Monday, September 24. With the exception of the new amended Draft Map 1T, the demographer’s Draft Maps have not changed since the meeting on August 17 and have remained on the City’s web site since then. In addition, this report contains additional discussion about election sequencing, which is required to be discussed along with sequencing maps, prior to adoption of the Districting Ordinance. A draft ordinance will be included at a future City Council meeting for the Council to review, but it would need to be finalized after the selection of a map and the selection of an election sequencing plan before it could be introduced.
Compass Demographics considered the elements of the CVRA and the federal Voting Rights Act, and considered any community input on communities of interest and other points as described above. For convenience, all of the exhibits from previous public hearings have been included here: the three draft maps are attached as Exhibit Nos. 1-3, while the initial nine (eight submissions plus amended No. 7B) citizen submissions are Exhibits 4-12. Also, per the Council’s request is a table (Exhibit 13) that links the Exhibit number to the Draft Map or Submission number for easy cross reference. This table now includes the name of the person or organization which submitted the map. Exhibit 14 is the Demographer’s Map 1T, Exhibit 15 is Mayor’s Map 1, Exhibit 16 is Submission 009, Exhibit 17 is Submission 010, and Exhibit 18 is the PowerPoint presentation on election scheduling made at the September 17 meeting. Exhibit 19 is a new matrix called “Matrix of Council Seats Shown by District in All Proposed Maps” to be used when discussing potential election sequencing.
On September 10, 2019, the City Council discussed a number of matters related to the current process of establishing District voting in Carson, including the status of the draft maps and the demographer; the overall timetable for adoption of a Council District Ordinance; the effect of the City of Carson Charter on the adoption of a Council District Ordinance; and, a timetable for bringing the Charter Amendment to the voters in either March, 2020 or November, 2020.
Schedule and Next Steps
While the Council has expressed interest in moving ahead on the district voting process, many members of the Council have expressed a desire to not take an action that directly contravenes the City Charter, at least without being in litigation or ordered by a court to do so. The Council also does not wish to engage in litigation solely for the purpose of resolving that question. To that end, the City Council requested the following:
o Timelines for both a March, 2020 election and November, 2020 election to amend the charter (the April 8, 2019 City Council Staff Report including an election schedule for March 3, 2020 and November 3, 2020 elections, included as Exhibit 14); and
o Steps and timeline in general for Council to take Council action to go to district elections via passage of the Ordinance (the Ordinance timeline):
1. The CVRA requires a minimum of two public hearings during the initial process prior to the drafting of preliminary Council district maps by the City’s demographer: the City held three. The first three noticed public hearing on district voting were held on May 21, 2019, June 13, 2019, and June 18, 2019.
2. The CVRA also requires a minimum of two public hearings during the initial process after draft maps have been published. The City held a public hearing on August 6, August 17, and September 17. The September 17 public hearing was the first of the scheduled public hearings after the publication of the preliminary maps to discuss election sequencing and election sequencing was also discussed on October 1. Until new maps are produced by NDC, the Demographer’s “Draft” maps are now become the “Recommended” maps for the Council to consider. There is now Map 1T for consideration, from the October 1 meeting. NDC’s maps would not supplant the original maps but would be additional maps for the Council’s consideration.
3. September 17 and October 1, 2019 contained the first recommendations about election sequencing, which is required to be discussed along with election sequencing maps prior to adoption of the Districting Ordinance. This meeting satisfies the requirements to discuss election sequencing prior to the adoption of a Districting Ordinance.
4. Therefore, two public hearings have been conducted after the maps were drawn (August 6 and August 17), and three (September 17, October 1 and this meeting) will have discussed District Election Sequencing relative to the draft maps; after this public hearings the Council may introduce an ordinance for first reading at any time. Pursuant to the language in the law, the introduction of the Districting Ordinance should conducted as its own separately-noticed public hearing; plus, the second reading adopting the ordinance should also be conducted as a noticed public hearing.
5. It is also anticipated that a special election may be held in March 2020 for the voters to consider an amendment to the City Charter establishing by-district voting. If adopted by the City Council, the first by-district elections for the City Council would occur in November 2020, with two of the new districts up for election; the other two districts would be up in 2022. The question was raised again on September 17: “when would the Council need to act on a districting ordinance in order to have it effective for the November 2020 elections.” The answer to that considered the filing in early August, but as important was the date candidates can pull papers for the election, since the ordinance would contain the election sequencing schedule which would inform the public as to which districts are up for election period. Since an ordinance requires 30 days to become effective, the most prudent date for adoption (second reading) would be the second Council meeting in May, 2020, with the introduction (first reading) prior to that. If the Council would want to wait until the end of the canvass period for a March 3 Charter Amendment, that date is March 24, so the month of April and the first meeting in May would be available for further consideration if the ordinance wasn’t considered prior to placing the Charter amendment on a March ballot.
6. Finally, it is possible that the City Council could choose to place the Charter Amendment on the November 3, 2020 ballot and not adopt the Districting Ordinance until after that election is certified; if that is the case, a new ordinance adoption schedule would need to be produced showing the first district elections in 2022, not 2020.
It was discussed on September 17 that the placing of a Charter amendment on either ballot can proceed independently of the adoption of the Council Districting Ordinance, but to some degree not the other way around, i.e. for the Council to consider taking action on the Districting Ordinance without first bringing a Charter amendment to the voters would violate the City Charter. As to whether or not such an action would be endorsed by the courts either in or in anticipation of a CVRA lawsuit is not an appropriate discussion for this staff report.
With additional maps coming from (potentially) Compass Demographics and certainly from NDC, it may be worth considering additional public workshops, similar to the August 17 public hearing held at the Community Center, though even more informal and interactive. Such workshops should be facilitated by a demographer, who would be able to ask questions and perhaps show some of the mapping considerations to members of the public in real time. If so, Council should give direction to Staff on the general timing and locations of workshops, plus the selection of demographer to conduct them. The selection of either demographer would require a contract amendment be approved by Council.
Last, these dates and milestones are independent of any litigation milestones. As discussed above, now that litigation has been filed, the lawsuit will have its own calendar and milestone dates, such as preliminary hearings and discovery periods, and the City would need to be mindful of these. It is possible that the litigation will proceed more quickly than the ballot amendment schedule, which the City will need to consider as well. Further discussion of such dates may be provided by the City Attorney.
Summary of the 3 Original Demographer-Produced Maps and Demographer’s Map 1T
Demographer’s Draft 1
District 1 extends from the northern boundary of the City to (east to west) a line drawn from just south of Anderson Park and generally westerly along Turmont Street, crossing Avalon Boulevard at the southern edge of Victoria Golf Course, then southeasterly along the 405 Freeway to 213th Street, then westerly to Main Street, north to Torrance Boulevard, then west to the City limits. Major features in the district are Cal State University, the Dignity Health Sports Park, Victoria Golf Course, the Porsche Experience, and the 157 Acre project. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 2 is south of District 1 but entirely north of the 405 Freeway, which forms the southern and western boundary. The district extends to the eastern city limits. Major features in the district are the South Bay Pavilion and the Shell Terminal. There is two incumbent Councilmembers in this district (one term expires 2020, one term expires in 2022).
District 3 forms the entire southern tier of the City, following the 405 Freeway from the eastern city limits to Lucerne, then along 223rd Street to Dolores, then along 228th Street to the western city limits. District 3 has the Albertson’s/Home Depot Shopping Center, the Marathon Oil and Phillips 66 refineries, and the Sanitation District facility. There are no incumbents in this district.
District 4 forms the western edge of the city in its central area, from 228th Street to Torrance Boulevard, then following Main Street southbound to 213th Street, following 213th Street to the 405 Freeway, which forms its northeastern boundary. It is entirely south of the 405 Freeway and contains City Hall and the Civic Center, the Carson Street Master Plan area, Carson High School, and Carson Town Center. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2022).
Demographer’s Draft 2
District 1 extends from the northern boundary of the City to University Avenue and then south generally along the Annalee Avenue alignment to Turmont Street and generally westerly along Turmont Street, turning south at Avalon Boulevard to Carson Street, then westerly along Carson Street, then north along Main Street to Torrance Boulevard, then westerly to the City limits. Major features in the district are Cal State University, the Dignity Health Sports Park, Victoria Golf Course, the Porsche Experience, and the 157 Acre project. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 2 is south of District 1 but entirely north of the 405 Freeway, which forms its southern and western boundary. Its northern boundary is University Avenue and its western boundary is irregularly along the Annalee Avenue alignment to Dominguez Street, west to Chico Street and then south to the 405 Freeway, following the freeway to the eastern city limits. Major features in the district are the Shell Terminal. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 3 is a southeastern district, with a community along Avalon that extends north of the 405 Freeway and includes the South Bay Pavilion and a small part of the residential neighborhood immediately north of it. This district is the southeastern portion of the City and is separate by District 4 by Main Street and Dolores Street up to 223rd Street, where the boundary turns east to Avalon Boulevard to Turmont Street and then south again to 405 Freeway to the eastern city limits. District 3 has City Hall and the Civic Center, the South Bay Pavilion, Albertson’s/Home Depot Shopping Center, and the Marathon Oil and Phillips 66 refineries. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires
2022).
District 4 forms the western edge of the city in its central area, from Lomita Boulevard to Torrance Boulevard, then following Main Street southbound to 213th Street, following 213th Street to Avalon Boulevard to 223rd Street, then west to Dolores Street, then west on 234th Street to Main Street, then south again to Lomita Boulevard. It is entirely south of the 405 Freeway and contains some of the Carson Street Master Plan area, Carson High School, Carson Town Center and the Sanitation District facility. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2022).
Demographer’s Draft 3
District 1 extends from the northern boundary of the City to University Avenue and then south generally along the Annalee Avenue alignment to Turmont Street and generally westerly along Turmont Street, and along the southern edge of Victoria Golf Course to the 405 Freeway, then south to the eastern edge of the 157 acre project, then irregularly south and west to Carson Street, then west to the western the City limits. Major features in the district are Cal State University, the Dignity Health Sports Park, Victoria Golf Course, the Porsche Experience, and the 157 Acre project, some of the Carson Street Master Plan area, and Carson Town Center. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 2 is south of District 1 but entirely north of the 405 Freeway, which forms its southern and western boundary. Its northern boundary is University Avenue and its western boundary is irregularly along the Annalee Avenue alignment to Dominguez Street, west to Chico Street and then south to the 405 Freeway, following the freeway to the eastern city limits. Major features in the district are the Shell Terminal. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 3 forms the entire southern tier of the City, following the 405 Freeway from the eastern city limits to Lucerne, then along 223rd Street to Dolores, then along 228th Street to the western city limits. District 3 has the Albertson’s/Home Depot Shopping Center, the Marathon Oil and Phillips 66 refineries, and the Sanitation District facility. There are no incumbents in this district.
District 4 forms the western edge of the city in its central area, from 228th Street to Carson Street, then east to Dolores Street and then irregularly north and east to the intersection of the 157 acre project and the 405 Freeway, then following the freeway northwesterly to Del Amo Boulevard, and continuing eastbound at the southern edge of the Victoria Golf Course, crossing Avalon Boulevard and continuing east along Turmont to Annalee, then irregularly south to Dominguez Street, west to Chico Street and south on Chico Street to the 405 Freeway, following the 405 Freeway southeast to Lucerne, then on Lucerne to 223rd Street. The District contains City Hall and the Civic Center, some of the Carson Street Master Plan area, Carson High School, and the South Bay Pavilion. There are two incumbent Councilmembers in this district (both terms expire 2022).
Demographer’s Draft 1T (Demographer’s redraft)
District 1 extends from the northern boundary of the City to (east to west) Turmont Street, crossing Avalon Boulevard at the southern edge of Victoria Golf Course and extending easterly to Wilmington Boulevard and the City border; from the point of Del Amo Boulevard and the 405 freeway, it extends southeasterly along the 405 Freeway to 213th Street, then westerly to Main Street, north to Torrance Boulevard, then west to the City limits. Major features in the district are Cal State University, the Dignity Health Sports Park, Victoria Golf Course, the Porsche Experience, and the 157 Acre project. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2020).
District 2 is south of District 1 but entirely north of the 405 Freeway, which forms the southern and western boundary. The district is south of Turmont Street, which extends to the eastern city limits. Major features in the district are the South Bay Pavilion and the Shell Terminal. There are two incumbent Councilmembers in this district (one term expires 2020, one term expires in 2022).
District 3 forms the entire southern tier of the City, following the 405 Freeway from the eastern city limits to Lucerne, then along 223rd Street to Main Street, then south to 228th Street, then along 228th Street to the western city limits. District 3 has the Albertson’s/Home Depot Shopping Center, the Marathon Oil and Phillips 66 refineries, Carson High School, and the Sanitation District facility. There are no incumbents in this district.
District 4 forms the western edge of the city in its central area, from 228th Street to Torrance Boulevard, then following Main Street southbound to 213th Street, following 213th Street to the 405 Freeway, which forms its northeastern boundary to Lucrene Street, then south to 223rd Street, then westerly back to Main Street, then south to 228th Street. It is entirely south of the 405 Freeway and contains City Hall and the Civic Center, the Carson Street Master Plan area, and Carson Town Center. There is one incumbent Councilmember in this district (term expires 2022).
This district is considered balanced (the cumulative variance is less than 10%), even though District 2 is at -5.1%; no other district exceeds +/- 5%.
Election Sequencing Under a Districting Ordinance
All current Councilmembers were elected in or prior to November 2018, to four-year terms prior to the any adoption of a District Map or sequencing plan and will still serve their original four-year terms.
None of the incumbents are automatically assigned as the representative of the district in which they live - they remain “at large” incumbents for the rest of their terms. If an incumbent wants to run for reelection, they would then have to run in their district for the district seat when that seat is sequenced for an election. More details on how election sequencing occurs are in the section below:
A. Operation of Hypothetical Districting Ordinance
To illustrate implementation of a districting ordinance, the following discussion is based on an ordinance whereby the City switches to a four district system with an at large elected Mayor, with the first election under the new districting ordinance to take place in 2020. An ordinance that changes the City’s electoral system to districts by 2020 should be a strong affirmative defense to the CVRA lawsuit. The City’s argument is it acted as fast as it reasonably could in the context of the 2020 election.
The districting ordinance would establish four districts, of as equal in population to each other as possible. All of the Demographer’s Drafts described in the previous section meet these criteria. Each district would then have a current Council seat assigned to the district. For example, seats 1, 2, 3 and 4 (with the Mayor as the 5th seat) would each be assigned to one of the four new districts. The Mayor’s at large seat is up for re-election in 2020.
The new districting ordinance will apply when one of these council seats is up for regular reelection (i.e., because the four year term is to expire). Two council seats are up for election in 2020. Under a districting ordinance, the entire electorate would not vote for Council in 2020. Instead, only voters in a district with one of the two seats up for election would vote. Each set of voters for each district would vote only for candidates registered to vote in their respective districts. To file nomination papers for a Council seat, the candidate would need to be registered to vote from the district assigned to the Council seat.
Upon the conclusion of the first election in 2020 under the new ordinance, the Council would then have two councilmembers elected from districts, and the Mayor would have been on the ballot for an at-large election. Meanwhile, the two “holdover” councilmembers elected at-large in 2018 would retain their seats until the second election in 2022 under the new system. When that second election occurs in 2022, the remaining two council seats (elected in 2018) would be up for election through their respective districts in the same manner.
B. Two Current Councilmembers Assigned to Same District
When the four districts are drawn, there is the possibility that two (or more) incumbent councilmembers will end up being residents of the same district, which is assigned for election either in 2020 or 2022. However, if the councilmembers are on different cycles (one up in 2020, one up in 2022) only one of the incumbent councilmembers will have his/her seat assigned to that district. If that happens, then both the incumbents could run in 2020 - even though one of those councilmembers running in the 2020 election actually has a term that ends in 2022. This is because both incumbents qualify to run from that district because of residency in that district.
If the councilmember running with a current term that ends in 2022 wins a district seat in 2020, then there would be a vacancy in that councilmember’s old at-large seat. That now-vacant seat would be filled by appointment or special election, until it is filled under a subsequent district election in 2022. (Government Code §§ 36512(b), 34902(a).)
If that councilmember (whose term expires in 2022) does not win election from his/her newly assigned district in the 2020 elections, he/she would serve out the term for their “old” at-large seat until it expires in 2022. However, he/she would be ineligible to run for reelection for that old seat in 2022, when the new districting ordinance applies because the Councilmember (in this example) does not actually live in the district assigned to his/her current council seat. That councilmember would then need to wait two years to run for Council in 2024, when the seat assigned to the district he/she lives in then comes up for election. In the Demographer’s Drafts, there are two districts among the three maps that contain more than one incumbent: Draft 1, District 2 contains two incumbents, one with a term ending in 2020 and one with a term ending in 2022. Draft 3, District 4 also contains two incumbents: both terms end in 2022. See Exhibit 19 for the Matrix of overlapping district seats.
C. Recommendations on Election Sequencing
The recommended election sequencing would depend on the map selected by the City Council and whether the map creates “open” districts (with no incumbent), which would drive part of the recommendation. This discussion will continue to the next meeting.
A Summary of all of the proposed maps and the effects on election sequencing is included in Exhibit 19, the Matrix of Council Seats Shown by District in All Proposed Maps. The Matrix should be easier to follow than the previous narrative discussion provided on September 17 and October 1. It shows how each of the public submissions organizes the incumbents within the districts, and where incumbents end up in the demographer-produced maps. The matrix only shows recommendations for election sequencing in the demographer-produced maps and not the public submissions. A similar analysis will need to be done for each new map produced.
To summarize the actions Council needs to consider at this meeting, they are as follows:
1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and at the end of the discussion, continue the public hearing to November 5, 2019 for consideration of additional maps produced by NDC and any other new citizens’ maps, and further discussion on Council District Election Sequencing Schedule based on the Compass Demographics maps and the NDC maps as well.
3. Provide direction to Staff on possibly conducting additional off-site public workshops with additional maps from the demographer(s), and also direction on any potential contract amendment to one or more demographer contract to facilitate workshop preparation. Either demographer’s contract would need to be amended to make room for the additional scope related to public workshops.
3. Finally, provide direction to Staff regarding the preparation of ballot language for a proposed Charter amendment to be presented to the voters on March 3, 2020. The ballot language would need to be adopted by the City Council by the first Council meeting in December in order to make the March 3 ballot; Council may want to review the language prior to that at one of the two meetings in November.
V. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this point from consideration of district voting.
VI. EXHIBITS
1. Demographer’s Draft Map No. 1 (pg. 12)
2. Demographer’s Draft Map No. 2 (pg. 13)
3. Demographer’s Draft Map No. 3 (pg. 14)
4. Submission Map No. 1 (pg. 15)
5. Submission Map No. 2 (pg. 16)
6. Submission Map No. 3 (pg. 17)
7. Submission Map No. 4 (pg. 18)
8. Submission Map No. 5 (pg. 19)
9. Submission Map No. 6 (pg. 20)
10. Submission Map No. 7 (pg. 21)
11. Submission Map No. 7B (edited) (pg. 22)
12. Submission Map No. 8 (pg. 23)
13. Index of Exhibits (pgs. 24-26)
14. Demographer’s Map1T (pg. 27)
15. Mayor’s Map1 (pg. 28)
16. Submission Map No. 9 (pg. 29)
17. Submission Map No. 10 (pg. 30)
18. PowerPoint presentation on Election Schedules (pgs. 31-41)
19. Matrix of Council Seats Shown by District in All Proposed Maps (pgs. 42-45)
Prepared by: John S. Raymond, Assistant City Manager