ELECTORAL DISTRICTS 2015/08/19 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL DISTRICTS MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015
6:30 P.M.
Anaheim City Council Chambers
Committee Members Present: Hon. James Jackman, Ret.; Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock, Ret.;
Hon. Stephen Sundvold, Ret.; Hon. Thomas Thrasher, Ret.; Hon. Edward Wallin, Ret.
Staff Present: City Clerk Linda Andal, Outside Counsel Ben De Mayo, Consultant Justin Levitt.
Chairman Wallin called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. and the committee members provided
brief introductions. Without objection, public comments followed presentation of Item No. 1.
1. Presentation and discussion of draft City Council district boundaries, including
narrowing the number of Proposals under consideration and related actions.
a. Presentation of the Anaheim Planning Department's Geographic
Information System and overlay tools as it relates to the district mapping
boundary process.
City Clerk Linda Andal explained a GIS system with overlay functionality was created in
response to Committee and public requests and was available online for immediate use. Ms.
Andal explained the steps to access the program via www.anaheim.net/districts, where a user
could view all draft maps. She highlighted the features of the system, which included allowing
users to access any submitted draft map and view it with various overlays, such as police
districts, neighborhood council districts, historic districts, land use, and zoning designations.
Ms. Andal advised that if a desired layer was not currently available, the Committee or public
should contact her with their request and the layer could be added to the system.
Ms. Andal introduced Principal Planner Susan Kim who further demonstrated the system. Ms.
Kim navigated to various maps highlighting the data that would display by clicking within any
district of the selected map. Data included district number, population, and ethnic/racial diversity
breakdown. Ms. Kim also highlighted the various layers that could be viewed within any selected
map, such as elementary school boundaries, special study areas (Anaheim Resort, Platinum
Triangle, Canyon Business Center), and various neighborhoods (Tile Mile, Avon-Dakota, Little
Arabia, County Pocket). She further demonstrated how a user could enter a specific address to
determine the district in which the address would fall. Ms. Andal concluded the presentation
noting that any new maps received by the City would also be uploaded into the system.
b. Presentation of draft proposals by city demographer
Demographer Justin Levitt reported that Anaheim had received 20 full map public submissions
as well as one single district map, noting that this exceeded what San Diego had received at
this stage of the process, expressing his gratitude for the response and participation. He
remarked that a new stage of the process was beginning where the Committee would start
focusing on what the future of Anaheim would look like; announcing he had created Consultant
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts
August 19,2015
Page 2 of 6
Map No. 4 in response to the Committee's request to review a map that divided the Resort area,
while keeping the Colony whole, and maintaining two majority-Latino districts. He explained this
map had two mjority-Latino districts by Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP), as well as by
surname registration.
Mr. Levitt reviewed the rules for districting noting that the primary consideration from the U.G.
Constitution was that each district has equal total population, based on Census data, which
would include children, people staying in hote/a, college enrollees, etc. He explained that as
Anaheim's population was approximately 335,000 people, each district would have a population
of approximately 56.000. He noted that some variation was allowed, but only up to 5%. In
reviewing the Federal Voting Rights Act, Mr. Levitt explained that Section 5 was not applicable
to Anaheim but that Section 2 did apply to ensure protected classes and groups which had
historically faced discrimination, be provided equal opportunity to elect candidates of their
choice. He noted, however, that race could not be the predominant criteria for district
boundaries but was considered through using CVAP. He added this had to be reviewed in plan
development as a district could be mjority Latino or Asian by total population but not by CVAP,
particularly as the Latino population tends to be younger and not U.S. citizens especially
compared to other groups.
Mr. Levitt reviewed the California Elections Code traditional redistricting criteria of topography,
geography, coheaivenasa, contiguity, intagrity, and cornpaotneam, explaining that these criteria
focused on using m 'ornoadamnd/ornatuna| faaturaa1usepara1ed}s1ricteamvva|| aaenauring
that residents could travel within their district without leaving it. He also discussed communities
of interests and how they may share problems or have similar concerns around such topics as
road condibmno, potho|am, shopping areas, traffic, street lighting, trash oo||ec1ipn, and police/fire
services. Another area for review, Mr. Levitt explained, was population growth within the City as
the legally-required figures of the 2010 Census were five years old.
Mr. Levitt stressed the importance of public input in this process and referenced the website as
the main vehicle for sharing information including all submitted maps, a calendar of meeting
times and locations, and the webviewer that was demonstrated. He encouraged the public to
share their opinions about proposed district lines, encouraging them to be specific about where
a line should be drawn or not and its effect on the surrounding community.
Public Comments:
Greg Diamond, presenting for Brian Chuchua, reviewed the two maps they had submitted and
explained the divisions of each district to create oonnpact, obvious districts with as close to equal
population as possible. He explained that Chuchua Map 4 was modified, specifically District 4 to
include the Ponderosa community boundary, included District 5 as a Latino-majority district and
District 4 with a slight Latino advantage. Mr. Diamond expressed concern that if two Latino-
majority districts had high percentages of Latinos, then the three other districts plus Anaheim
odno-
rD joritydis1rictahadhighperoentoAeeofLaUnoa. thenthathnaeotherdistrictap|us /\naheinl
Hills would have large disadvantages for Latinos. Mr. Diamond also provided historical
information about candidates with Latino names in previous elections and the future possibility
of the same occurring, which could split voters. In response to a question from Judge Thrasher,
Regula,Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts
August 19,2015
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Diamond expressed his preference for Chuchua Map 4 over Chuchua Map 2v3 due to the
South Anaheim boundaries.
Mr. DeMayo offered clarification on the population numbers included in the CVAP —that they
were 5 year rolling figures, currently from 2009-2013 as released in January 2015. Mr. Levitt
further clarified that the Ponderosa map was submitted by the community.
Benita Gagne explained she had started with Demographer Map 1 and wished to keep two
majority-Latino districts while also considering popu|otion, ethnicity, and CVAP. She adjusted
the lines to include the Colony in one district and other boundaries to allow for population
requirements with the resulting map having a 3.35% deviation. She noted her map had two
majority-Latino districts (C>4/C>5), one majority—white district (D6), and three white-plurality
districts; however she emphasized that District 3 only had a 2% difference white/Latino so were
closely equal. Ms. Gagne continued stating her map kept the entertainment areas together as
the surrounding areas shared similar concerns of traffic and household income levels.
Claudio Gallegos explained his map was created to show two Section 2 districts without
gerrynnandering, but that he would now withdraw his map from future consideration and urged
the committee to consider Reyes Map 2 and Mills Map 1. Chairman Wallin asked Mr. Gallegos
to choose only one, upon which Mr. Gallegos chose Reyes Map 2.
Jason Mills explained he submitted Map 2 as a possibility but favored Map 1 as it ensured mjor
landmarks were spread among districts, neighborhoods were kept together(in particular the
Colony), followed main arterial streets, and had a 3.4% deviation. Upon questions from
Chairman Wallin, Mr. Mills withdrew Map 2 and Mr. Levitt confirmed Map 1 was within
acceptable population deviations. Judge Jackman questioned the advantage of Mills 1 over
Reyes 2, with Mr. Mills explaining that his map allowed better representation for the Hispanic
population and kept working-class neighborhoods together.
Oscar Reyes withdrew Map 1, as Map 2 was preferred as the boundaries in West Anaheim
changed to more vertical lines to separate emerging working-class neighborhoods and the Little
Arabia/Brookhurst Corridor area. Chairman Wallin and Judge Stock questioned why the map
only had one mjority-Latino district, reiterating his concern that the City should have two such
diatricto, if possible, with Mr. Reyes replying he could make adjustments accordingly.
Arturo Ferraras, South Neighborhood District Chairman, speaking for the Ponderosa
Community, discussed the community workshop that was held to discuss communities of
interests and their boundaries, noting that the proposal only included a single district. Mr.
Ferraras noted he would pull the Ponderosa map and support Reyes Map 2 if it could be
strengthened along the northeast side and take into consideration the schools attended by the
children of the area.
Martin Lopez, UNITE HERE Local 11 organizer, supported Reyes Map 2, which he believed
accomplished the legal requirements and maintained the integrity of neighborhoods.
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts
August 19,2015
Page 4 of 6
Ronald Bengochea withdrew his map submittal, discussed voting turn-out, and expressed
support for Reyes Map 2 due to its simplicity.
Mr. Yu (through an interpreter) supported Reyes Map 2 stating it addressed the concerns of
low-income Asian-American seniors and affordable housing concerns.
Dinah Torgerson thanked the Committee and Mr. Levitt for their service and knowledge,
encouraged the committee to keep the central district intact, and expressed a preference for
Consultant Map 3 as it had good boundaries and kept the community cohesive.
Keith Olesen, former Charter Review Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections
nne[nber, reviewed the maps with his neighbors and expressed a preference for Consultant Map
3 as it kept downtown whole (including the Colony), an area of true shared interest. Chairman
Wallin requested comments on how to handle the Resort district with Mr. Olesen deferring to the
residents who live in those areas as he was unfamiliar with their shared interests.
Rudy Gaona, former Council candidate, thanked the Committee and staff for their service and
expressed his belief that Reyes Map 2 was fair, particularly through the D4/D5 separation and
for keeping the Colony together in D3. He emphasized the concept of unity within each district
and within Anaheim.
Eric Anderson expressed appreciation that many maps kept areas contiguous, held similar
areas together, and kept the Colony together. He expressed his preference for Consultant Map
3, noting that all areas were looking for the same things such as repaired streeta, keeping the
lights on, and having a nice, healthy community to grow up in.
Gail Anderson, realtor, thanked the committee for their service and felt heartened by the maps
presented. For her own community (downtown core), she felt Consultant Map 3 best
represented their interests. She provided examples of how the Colony was a community of
interest including supporting community events, Mills Act, potlucks, happy hours, Halloween
parade float building, fighting inappropriate development, and supporting appropriate new
businesses.
Francisco Avila-Espino, speaking for the youth, supported Reyes Map 2.
Claudio Gallegos addressed the issue of having two Section 2 districts indicating he had
dropped his initial plan with two such seats because the Latino population was diluted in the
third dis1rict, due to the difference between CVAP and total population. He explained cross-over
districts and how Reyes Map 2 has one majority-Latino district with two strong Latino-plurality
diatrictm, along with the Mills maps. He encouraged the Committee to consider the will of the
people and continue looking at the maps as they stand with one mjority district and two
pluralities in the mid/high 40%. Chairman Wallin acknowledged that the Latino population may
grow over time and could expand to four Latino-mjority districts; he emphasized the
requirement to use the 2010 Census in this process. Mr. Gallegos added that on Reyes Map 2
the southern district may already be Section 2, but not yet reflected in the population numbers.
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Electoral District
August 19,2015
Page 5 of 6
Ada Tamayo expressed support for Reyes Map 2. She emphasized it was liked by the
community and stated she would encourage people to vote.
Mark Daniels stated that several maps were very good, emphasized the concept of two
majority-Latino districts, discussed the advantage of voter turnout during a Presidential election,
and thanked the Committee for their service.
Ada Brisceno, OCCORD chairperson and interim executive director, noted the large attendance
at the meeting and expressed her view that splitting the landmarks is a good idea and keeping
the Honda Center/Platinum Triangle separate from Disneyland/Resort. She expressed her
support for Reyes Map 2, explaining that it had the most support from various organizations due
to keeping communities of interest together, not concentrating landmarks in one d|athct, and
having a lower population deviation.
Barbara Gonzalez, having lived in various parts of Anaheim, noted that common interests came
from working on shared problems as the downtown area had done. She noted a difference
between Reyes Map 2 and Consultant Map 3 as the downtown was more than just the Colony,
in her opinion; Consultant Map 3 better encompassed the interests of the entire area.
Jose Moreno provided a history of previous efforts for district elections, culminating in the
lawsuit in which he was a plaintiff. He explained that the efforts were about communities coming
together, not just based on ethnicity but also based on geography and economic interests.
Chairman Wallin noted that 70% of voters supported districts at the polls with Mr. Moreno noting
that all precincts except one voted in favor of the measure. Mr. Moreno was encouraged that
the various maps were looking at Section 2 requirements and the economic diversity of the City.
In response to a question from Chairman Wallin, Mr. Moreno supported Reyes Map 2 as he felt
it captured the essence and character of Anaheim and expressed concern regarding some of
the consultant maps.
Genoveva Garcia supported Reyes Map 2.
With no further comments offered, Chairman Wallin closed the public comment portion of the
meeting.
Mr. Levitt explained the Latino voter-registration numbers came from the California Secretary of
State by using a Spanish surname filter, which was then adjusted due to an estimated
undercount. Judge Sundvold requested Mr. Levitt describe the primary differences between
Consultant Map 3 and Reyes Map 2 as they were the most supported maps thus far. Mr. Levitt
responded that the consultant maps were meant to provoke discussion and provide talking
points for people, explaining that Map No. 4 was created to maintain a central Anaheim district
and split the Resort in the south as well as including a high school in each district.
Chairman Wallin questioned a narrow portion of District 1, same on both Consultant Map 3 and
Reyes Map 2, with Mr. Levitt explaining testimony had been received from residents in the
pocket of Brookhurst/I-5/SR-91 that it connected more with West Anaheim rather than Central
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts
August 19.2015
Page 6 of 6
Anaheim. Chairman Wallin requested pros and cons of Reyes Map 2. Mr. Levitt reviewed a
document that summarized the key points on each map, provided alphabetically and by group.
Judge Stock noted no support for Colony Divided/Resort Divided maps nor Colony
Divided/Resort Whole maps, Mills Map 1 as Colony Whole/ Resort Divided with some attention,
and the bulk of discussion and support for Colony/Resort Whole maps.
Mr. Levitt encouraged the Committee to look at maps in other groups to find features that could
be added to a Colony Whole map. He also suggested the Committee move forward with a
certain set of plans, with Chairman Wallin recommending the Committee select five maps. Mr.
Levitt provided information about Reyes Map 2, noting it was within an acceptable population
deviation with the mjor concern of only having one mjority-Latino district by CVAP and two
districts with mid-40% pluralities. He explained the Hispanic CVAP had increased 1-2% total
since 2005. He noted Reyes Map 2 identified a clear community in D5 along State College
Blvd./SR-57 and separated the Platinum Triangle from the Resort area. Mr. Levitt requested
public comment on West Anaheim boundaries at the next meeting.
After discussion among the committee members, the following maps were chosen for further
review: Gagne, Reyes Map 2, Chuchua Map 4, Consultant Map 3, and Consultant Map 4, with
direction to modify the Reyes and Chuchua maps to create two Latino-majority districts.
2. Approve the revised Committee meeting calendar.
City Clerk Linda Andal explained the revised meeting calendar would cancel the September 14
meeting and rescheduled it to September 16 at 6:30 p.m. in the Anaheim City Council
Chambers. This revision was due to a religious holiday.
Chairman Wallin move to approve the revised calendar seconded by Judge Jackman.
Approved vote: 5-0.
3. Approve meeting minutes of the July 1 and July 8' 2015 Advisory Committee on
Electoral Districts.
Chairman Wallin moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 1 and July 8, 2015, seconded
by Judge Stock. Approved Vote: 5-0.
With no further business to discuss, Chairman Wallin adjourned the meeting at 9:18pm.
-spec ully submitted,
410
•
�
Linda N. Andal, CMC