HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10b - Submitting Public Comment to Los Angeles County Redistricting Commission
DATE: November 16, 2021
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dominic Lazzaretto, City Manager
By: Michael Bruckner, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7395 SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION TO ADOPT COUNTY SUPERVISOR
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT
REPRESENTATION FOR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITIES
Recommendation: Adopt
SUMMARY
At the November 2, 2021, City Council meeting, Council Member Verlato, with a
concurrence by the City Council, requested that an item be placed on the November 16,
2021, City Council meeting agenda urging the Los Angeles County Redistricting
Commission (“CRC”) to adopt County supervisorial electoral districts consistent with the
current map for the San Gabriel Valley to the extent possible. Therefore, it is
recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7395 (Attachment “A”), which
will be submitted as public comment at the next CRC hearing on December 1, 2021.
BACKGROUND
Redistricting is a process that occurs every 10 years and utilizes census data to draw
boundaries, or electoral districts, that determine which voters are represented by each
elected official. For both the State of California and the County of Los Angeles, the
redistricting process must be completed by December 15, 2021, in order for the maps to
be in adopted in time for the June 2022 primaries.
In accordance with state law, the County of Los Angeles Redistricting Commission is
required to hold a series of public hearings to solicit community input on the redistricting
process, including communities of interest and draft map proposals. Since January
2021, the CRC has held extensive public hearings to hear proposals from various
community groups and to review draft maps submitted by the public.
Resolution No. 7395 Submitting Public Comment to the Los Angeles County
Redistricting Commission
November 16, 2021
Page 2 of 3
On October 28, 2021, the CRC held a special meeting to discuss the proposed district
maps that have been submitted. The Commission ultimately recommended that four
maps continue to be considered (Attachment “B”). Further, the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments (“SGVCOG”) Governing Board held a special meeting on
Thursday, October 28, 2021, to review the draft maps and to make a recommendation
to the CRC on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley. It is anticipated that the working group’s
recommendations will go to the Governing Board for consideration and possible action
at the Board meeting scheduled on November 10, 2021.
Based on discussions to date, it is expected that the SGVCOG will urge the CRC to
adopt a map that will include the entire San Gabriel Valley in a single supervisorial
district; however, at the November 2, 2021, City Council meeting, the City Council
expressed an interest for the San Gabriel Valley to continue being represented in at
least two districts.
DISCUSSION
Under the current supervisorial district map, the City of Arcadia is represented by
Supervisor Kathryn Barger in District 5, which includes the Cities of Alhambra,
Bradbury, Covina, Duarte, Glendora, La Canada-Flintridge, La Verne, Monrovia,
Pasadena, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and
Temple City. Supervisor Barger has been very supportive of the San Gabriel Valley’s
interests and has been especially responsive to concerns and issues raised by the City
of Arcadia. District 1 Supervisor Hilda Solis represents the remaining cities in the San
Gabriel Valley which include the Cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Claremont, El Monte,
Industry, Irwindale, La Puente, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pomona, Rosemead, South
El Monte, Walnut, and West Covina. Under the current map, the City of Diamond is the
only city represented by District 4 Supervisor Janice Hahn.
While the San Gabriel Valley as a whole shares many commonalities, the current split of
communities fairly represents the fact that parts of the Valley often have different
concerns and priorities due to their specific locations, economies, and demographics.
Combining all of these communities into a single Supervisorial District would be a
disservice to the uniqueness that exists within the Valley.
Of the four redistricting proposals, three maps (Maps A, B, and C) continue to provide
approximately equal representation of San Gabriel Valley cities across two supervisorial
districts, with all three maps including Arcadia in a newly defined District 5. However,
Map D consolidates most of the San Gabriel Valley into a single district. A summary of
the cities’ current representation and proposed representation is listed below:
Resolution No. 7395 Submitting Public Comment to the Los Angeles County
Redistricting Commission
November 16, 2021
Page 3 of 3
San Gabriel Valley Cities Representation
In Each Proposed Supervisorial Map
Current Map A Map B Map C Map D
District 1 14 15 15 15 23
District 4 1 2 0 0 0
District 5 16 14 16 16 8
Of the four maps currently under consideration by the CRC, Map B appears to best
meet the City Council’s stated goals of maintaining the split representation of the San
Gabriel Valley between two districts; it also consolidates most Foothill communities in a
single district and provides the most compact and comprehensive proposal for all
districts.
Depending on the City Council’s direction, a draft public comment letter (Attachment
“C”) will be submitted to the CRC, along with a copy of Resolution No. 7395 for their
December 1, 2021, Commission meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as a result of this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed actions do not constitute a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (“CEQA”), based on Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can
be seen with certainty that they will have no impact on the environment. Thus, these
matters are exempt under CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council determine that this project is exempt under the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and adopt Resolution No. 7395
submitting public comment on behalf of the City of Arcadia to the Los Angeles County
Redistricting Commission to adopt County supervisor electoral districts consistent with
the current representation for San Gabriel Valley cities.
Attachment “A” - Resolution No. 7395
Attachment “B” - Maps A through D
Attachment “C” - Public Comment Letter
Attachment "A"
ANALYSIS OF Draft Plan
NName:: Draftt Mapp AA
Presentation to the County of LOS ANGELES
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
ARCBridge Consulting & Training Inc.
www.arcbridge.com
11/2/2021 1
Attachment "B"
11/2/2021 2
Plan Name: Draft Map A
District Latino % White % Black % Asian %
1 1,180,718 60.77% 245,646 12.64% 52,993 2.73% 432,100 22.24%
2 1,026,064 51.80%247,249 12.48% 421,915 21.30% 227,137 11.47%
3 731,615 36.02%905,494 44.58% 87,481 4.31% 252,292 12.42%
4 1,246,664 59.70%349,027 16.71% 125,648 6.02% 316,878 15.17%
5 636,642 31.76% 818,525 40.83% 134,794 6.72% 359,685 17.94%
Maximum Deviation – 7.23%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 1,942,986 -66,599 -3.31%
2 1,980,711 -28,874 -1.44%
3 2,031,020 21,435 1.07%
4 2,088,372 78,787 3.92%
5 2,004,837 -4,748 -0.24%
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
LATINO WHITE BLACK AIAN ASIAN HAWAIIAN OTHER 2+RACES
Ethnic and Racial Information by District
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
11/2/2021 3
CENSUS 2020 POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
NUMBER OF SPLIT CITIES/CSAS, LA CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, COIS
TOTAL POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
LATINO 1,180,718 1,026,064 731,615 1,246,664 636,642
LATINO % 60.77% 51.80% 36.02% 59.70% 31.76%
WHITE 245,646 247,249 905,494 349,027 818,525
WHITE% 12.64% 12.48% 44.58% 16.71% 40.83%
BLACK 52,993 421,915 87,481 125,648 134,794
BLACK % 2.73% 21.30% 4.31% 6.02% 6.72%
AIAN 7,145 6,719 10,637 10,537 14,221
AIAN % 0.37% 0.34% 0.52% 0.50% 0.71%
ASIAN 432,100 227,137 252,292 316,878 359,685
ASIAN % 22.24% 11.47% 12.42% 15.17% 17.94%
HAWAIIAN 2,142 8,224 3,374 8,690 3,209
HAWAIIAN % 0.11% 0.42% 0.17% 0.42% 0.16%
OTHER 13,043 19,149 27,191 16,893 22,183
OTHER % 0.67% 0.97% 1.34% 0.81% 1.11%
2+RACES 9,199 24,254 12,936 14,035 15,578
2+RACES% 0.47% 1.22% 0.64% 0.67% 0.78%
TOTAL 1,942,986 1,980,711 2,031,020 2,088,372 2,004,837
VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
899,314 748,420 551,969 918,011 461,981
57.50% 48.19% 33.24% 56.46% 29.05%
222,865 217,148 783,874 308,691 695,549
14.25% 13.98% 47.21% 18.99% 43.73%
46,331 344,521 73,393 99,635 102,500
2.96% 22.18% 4.42% 6.13% 6.44%
6,065 5,602 9,201 9,124 11,902
0.39% 0.36% 0.55% 0.56% 0.75%
371,509 197,808 209,270 261,541 288,515
23.75% 12.74% 12.60% 16.09% 18.14%
1,712 6,481 2,668 6,852 2,560
0.11% 0.42% 0.16% 0.42% 0.16%
9,636 14,421 20,773 12,253 16,626
0.62% 0.93% 1.25% 0.75% 1.05%
6,613 18,576 9,224 9,766 10,813
0.42% 1.20% 0.56% 0.60% 0.68%
1,564,045 1,552,977 1,660,372 1,625,873 1,590,446
CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
654,108 435,607 377,060 641,289 343,705
54.52% 38.33% 27.73% 50.15% 25.64%
214,221 193,892 744,143 324,506 667,039
17.85% 17.06% 54.73% 25.38% 49.76%
43,226 350,614 65,533 94,362 96,371
3.60% 30.85% 4.82% 7.38% 7.19%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
275,558 135,032 157,316 200,178 213,725
22.97% 11.88% 11.57% 15.65% 15.94%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
12,718 21,221 15,574 18,471 19,730
1.06% 1.87% 1.15% 1.44% 1.47%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,199,831 1,136,366 1,359,626 1,278,806 1,340,570
# Majority Minority Districts Splits Community of Interest Models (COI)
Max Deviation
Number of Districts with Polsby
Popper-Compactness Score of
>.2 Based on Total Population Based on CVAP
Consolidated
Statistical Areas
(CSAs)
# CSAs
Neighborhood
Councils COI A COI B COI C
7.23 2 3 2 43 30 17 16 19
11/2/2021 4
District 1
District 1 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 60.77% 57.50% 54.52%
WHITE 12.64% 14.25% 17.85%
BLACK 2.73% 2.96% 3.60%
ASIAN 22.24% 23.75% 22.97%
OTHER 0.67% 0.62% 1.06%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 1,942,,986 -66599 -3.31%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/2/2021 5
District 2
District 2 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 51.80% 48.19% 38.33%
WHITE 12.48% 13.98% 17.06%
BLACK 21.30% 22.18% 30.85%
ASIAN 11.47% 12.74% 11.88%
OTHER 0.97% 0.93% 1.87%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
2 1,980,711 -28,874 -1.44%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/2/2021 6
District 3
District 3 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 36.02% 33.24% 27.73%
WHITE 44.58% 47.21% 54.73%
BLACK 4.31% 4.42% 4.82%
ASIAN 12.42% 12.60% 11.57%
OTHER 1.34% 1.25% 1.15%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
3 2,031,020 21,435 1.07%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/2/2021 7
District 4
District 4 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 59.70% 56.46% 50.15%
WHITE 16.71% 18.99% 25.38%
BLACK 6.02% 6.13% 7.38%
ASIAN 15.17% 16.09% 15.65%
OTHER 0.81% 0.75% 1.44%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
4 2,088,372 78,787 3.92%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/2/2021 8
District 5
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
5 2,004,837 -4,748 -0.24%
District 5 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 31.76% 29.05% 25.64%
WHITE 40.83% 43.73% 49.76%
BLACK 6.72% 6.44% 7.19%
ASIAN 17.94% 18.14% 15.94%
OTHER 1.11% 1.05% 1.47%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
ANALYSIS OF Draft Plan
NName:: Draftt Mapp BB
Presentation to the County of LOS ANGELES
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
ARCBridge Consulting & Training Inc.
www.arcbridge.com
10/31/2021 1
10/31/2021 2
Plan Name: Draft Map B
District Latino % White % Black % Asian %
11,252,297 60.69% 208,008 10.08% 53,333 2.58% 517,245 25.07%
2 1,352,459 66.93% 120,365 5.96% 344,560 17.05% 161,160 7.98%
3 740,331 36.94%873,500 43.58% 89,112 4.45% 251,423 12.54%
4 662,919 33.62%684,188 34.70% 199,986 10.14% 352,169 17.86%
5 813,697 40.93%679,880 34.20% 135,840 6.83% 306,095 15.40%
Maximum Deviation – 4.57%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 2,063,488 53,903 2.68%
2 2,020,611 11,026 0.55%
3 2,004,374 -5,211 -0.26%
4 1,971,558 -38,027 -1.89%
5 1,987,895 -21,690 -1.08%
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
LATINO WHITE BLACK AIAN ASIAN HAWAIIAN OTHER 2+RACES
Ethnic and Racial Information by District
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
10/31/2021 3
CENSUS 2020 POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
NUMBER OF SPLIT CITIES/CSAS, LA CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, COIS
TOTAL POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
LATINO 1,252,297 1,352,459 740,331 662,919 813,697
LATINO % 60.69% 66.93% 36.94% 33.62% 40.93%
WHITE 208,008 120,365 873,500 684,188 679,880
WHITE% 10.08% 5.96% 43.58% 34.70% 34.20%
BLACK 53,333 344,560 89,112 199,986 135,840
BLACK % 2.58% 17.05% 4.45% 10.14% 6.83%
AIAN 7,825 5,208 9,730 12,360 14,136
AIAN % 0.38% 0.26% 0.49% 0.63% 0.71%
ASIAN 517,245 161,160 251,423 352,169 306,095
ASIAN % 25.07% 7.98% 12.54% 17.86% 15.40%
HAWAIIAN 3,453 3,855 2,844 12,332 3,155
HAWAIIAN % 0.17% 0.19% 0.14% 0.63% 0.16%
OTHER 11,960 14,737 24,861 26,703 20,198
OTHER % 0.58% 0.73% 1.24% 1.35% 1.02%
2+RACES 9,367 18,267 12,573 20,901 14,894
2+RACES% 0.45% 0.90% 0.63% 1.06% 0.75%
TOTAL 2,063,488 2,020,611 2,004,374 1,971,558 1,987,895
VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
946,447 986,335 563,811 492,845 590,257
57.76% 63.61% 34.17% 30.84% 37.92%
185,941 107,253 758,798 598,323 577,812
11.35% 6.92% 45.99% 37.44% 37.12%
44,623 280,189 75,579 162,261 103,728
2.72% 18.07% 4.58% 10.15% 6.66%
6,703 4,243 8,390 10,687 11,871
0.41% 0.27% 0.51% 0.67% 0.76%
436,751 145,163 212,953 288,764 245,012
26.66% 9.36% 12.91% 18.07% 15.74%
2,785 2,994 2,271 9,715 2,508
0.17% 0.19% 0.14% 0.61% 0.16%
8,518 10,386 19,107 20,709 14,989
0.52% 0.67% 1.16% 1.30% 0.96%
6,712 14,131 9,039 14,765 10,345
0.41% 0.91% 0.55% 0.92% 0.66%
1,638,480 1,550,694 1,649,948 1,598,069 1,556,522
CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
719,516 573,312 380,732 346,769 431,439
55.05% 54.15% 28.50% 26.30% 33.31%
197,233 97,292 713,149 569,816 566,190
15.09% 9.19% 53.38% 43.22% 43.72%
44,036 281,285 69,109 158,547 97,164
3.37% 26.57% 5.17% 12.02% 7.50%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
332,694 93,850 157,744 216,639 180,842
25.45% 8.86% 11.81% 16.43% 13.96%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13,535 13,016 15,149 26,773 19,480
1.04% 1.23% 1.13% 2.03% 1.50%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,307,014 1,058,755 1,335,883 1,318,544 1,295,115
# Majority Minority Districts Splits Community of Interest Models (COI)
Max Deviation
Number of Districts with Polsby
Popper-Compactness Score of
>.2 Based on Total Population Based on CVAP
Consolidated
Statistical Areas
(CSAs)
# CSAs
Neighborhood
Councils COI A COI B COI C
4.57% 4 2 2 21 19 11 10 12
10/31/2021 4
District 1
District 1 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 60.69% 57.76% 55.05%
WHITE 10.08% 11.35% 15.09%
BLACK 2.58% 2.72% 3.37%
ASIAN 25.07% 26.66% 25.45%
OTHER 0.58% 0.52% 1.04%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 2,063,488 53,903 2.68%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
10/31/2021 5
District 2
District 2 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 66.93% 63.61% 54.15%
WHITE 5.96% 6.92% 9.19%
BLACK 17.05% 18.07% 26.57%
ASIAN 7.98% 9.36% 8.86%
OTHER 0.73% 0.67% 1.23%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
2 2,020,611 11,026 0.55%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
10/31/2021 6
District 3
District 3 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 36.94% 34.17% 28.50%
WHITE 43.58% 45.99% 53.38%
BLACK 4.45% 4.58% 5.17%
ASIAN 12.54% 12.91% 11.81%
OTHER 1.24% 1.16% 1.13%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
3 2,004,374 -5,211 -0.26%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
10/31/2021 7
District 4
District 4 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 33.62% 30.84% 26.30%
WHITE 34.70% 37.44% 43.22%
BLACK 10.14% 10.15% 12.02%
ASIAN 17.86% 18.07% 16.43%
OTHER 1.35% 1.30% 2.03%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
4 1,971,558 -38,027 -1.89%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
10/31/2021 8
District 5
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
5 1,987,895 -21,690 -1.08%
District 5 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 40.93% 37.92% 33.31%
WHITE 34.20% 37.12% 43.72%
BLACK 6.83% 6.66% 7.50%
ASIAN 15.40% 15.74% 13.96%
OTHER 1.02% 0.96% 1.50%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
ANALYSIS OF Draft Plan
NName:: Draftt Mapp CC
Presentation to the County of LOS ANGELES
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
ARCBridge Consulting & Training Inc.
www.arcbridge.com
11/4/2021 1
11/4/2021 2
Plan Name: Draft Map C
Maximum Deviation – 3.61%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 1,977,715 -31,870 -1.59%
2 1,993,817 -15,768 -0.78%
3 2,050,335 40,750 2.03%
4 2,033,004 23,419 1.17%
5 1,993,055 -16,530 -0.82%
District Latino % White % Black % Asian %
1 1,210,333 61.20% 287,372 14.53% 108,079 5.46% 328,125 16.59%
21,057,310 53.03% 265,157 13.30% 409,959 20.56% 203,619 10.21%
31,370,936 66.86% 331,506 16.17% 77,333 3.77% 235,305 11.48%
4 472,596 23.25% 1,087,347 53.48% 102,131 5.02% 306,029 15.05%
5 710,528 35.65% 594,559 29.83% 125,329 6.29% 515,014 25.84%
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
LATINO WHITE BLACK AIAN ASIAN HAWAIIAN OTHER 2+RACES
Ethnic and Racial Information by District
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
11/4/2021 3
CENSUS 2020 POPULATION AND CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
NUMBER OF SPLIT CITIES/CSAS, LA CITY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, COIS
TOTAL POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
LATINO 1,210,333 1,057,310 1,370,936 472,596 710,528
LATINO % 61.20% 53.03% 66.86% 23.25% 35.65%
WHITE 287,372 265,157 331,506 1,087,347 594,559
WHITE% 14.53% 13.30% 16.17% 53.48% 29.83%
BLACK 108,079 409,959 77,333 102,131 125,329
BLACK % 5.46% 20.56% 3.77% 5.02% 6.29%
AIAN 9,552 6,690 7,665 13,261 12,091
AIAN % 0.48% 0.34% 0.37% 0.65% 0.61%
ASIAN 328,125 203,619 235,305 306,029 515,014
ASIAN % 16.59% 10.21% 11.48% 15.05% 25.84%
HAWAIIAN 7,974 7,593 2,161 4,874 3,037
HAWAIIAN % 0.40% 0.38% 0.11% 0.24% 0.15%
OTHER 14,017 19,708 15,458 31,394 17,882
OTHER % 0.71% 0.99% 0.75% 1.54% 0.90%
2+RACES 12,263 23,781 9,971 15,372 14,615
2+RACES% 0.62% 1.19% 0.49% 0.76% 0.73%
TOTAL 1,977,715 1,993,817 2,050,335 2,033,004 1,993,055
VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
896,249 762,948 1,027,734 360,083 515,719
58.18% 49.63% 63.37% 21.36% 32.76%
252,948 229,893 294,224 943,062 505,694
16.42% 14.95% 18.14% 55.94% 32.12%
83,524 326,794 65,352 83,032 94,628
5.42% 21.26% 4.03% 4.93% 6.01%
8,271 5,585 6,515 11,441 10,036
0.54% 0.36% 0.40% 0.68% 0.64%
274,823 173,804 207,942 249,420 422,623
17.84% 11.30% 12.82% 14.79% 26.84%
6,239 5,999 1,720 3,874 2,402
0.40% 0.39% 0.11% 0.23% 0.15%
9,950 14,228 10,939 24,078 12,968
0.65% 0.93% 0.67% 1.43% 0.82%
8,511 18,158 7,246 10,868 10,267
0.55% 1.18% 0.45% 0.64% 0.65%
1,540,515 1,537,409 1,621,672 1,685,858 1,574,337
CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
682,668 456,284 661,235 269,631 381,953
54.09% 39.72% 57.56% 18.44% 29.53%
271,546 210,487 264,996 908,372 488,277
21.52% 18.32% 23.07% 62.11% 37.76%
81,163 338,362 61,711 78,903 90,004
6.43% 29.45% 5.37% 5.40% 6.96%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
208,197 124,101 148,741 185,625 315,106
16.50% 10.80% 12.95% 12.69% 24.37%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18,476 19,509 12,158 19,883 17,925
1.46% 1.70% 1.06% 1.36% 1.39%
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1,262,050 1,148,743 1,148,840 1,462,414 1,293,264
# Majority Minority Districts Splits Community of Interest Models (COI)
Max Deviation
Number of Districts with Polsby
Popper-Compactness Score of
>.2 Based on Total Population Based on CVAP
Consolidated
Statistical Areas
(CSAs)
# CSAs Neighborhood Councils COI A COI B COI C
3.61 2 3 2 43 30 17 16 19
11/4/2021 4
District 1
District 1 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 61.20% 58.18% 54.09%
WHITE 14.53% 16.42% 21.52%
BLACK 5.46% 5.42% 6.43%
ASIAN 16.59% 17.84% 16.50%
OTHER 0.71% 0.65% 1.46%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
1 1,977,715 -31,870 -1.59%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/4/2021 5
District 2
District 2 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 53.03% 49.63% 39.72%
WHITE 13.30% 14.95% 18.32%
BLACK 20.56% 21.26% 29.45%
ASIAN 10.21% 11.30% 10.80%
OTHER 0.99% 0.93% 1.70%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
2 1,993,817 -15,768 -0.78%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/4/2021 6
District 3
District 3 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 66.86% 63.37% 57.56%
WHITE 16.17% 18.14% 23.07%
BLACK 3.77% 4.03% 5.37%
ASIAN 11.48% 12.82% 12.95%
OTHER 0.75% 0.67% 1.06%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
3 2,050,335 40,750 2.03%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/4/2021 7
District 4
District 4 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 23.25% 21.36% 18.44%
WHITE 53.48% 55.94% 62.11%
BLACK 5.02% 4.93% 5.40%
ASIAN 15.05% 14.79% 12.69%
OTHER 1.54% 1.43% 1.36%
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
4 2,033,004 23,419 1.17%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
11/4/2021 8
District 5
Name Total Pop Deviation Deviation %
5 1,993,055 -16,530 -0.82%
District 5 Total Pop VAP CVAP
LATINO 35.65% 32.76% 29.53%
WHITE 29.83% 32.12% 37.76%
BLACK 6.29% 6.01% 6.96%
ASIAN 25.84% 26.84% 24.37%
OTHER 0.90% 0.82% 1.39%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
LATINO WHITE BLACK ASIAN OTHER
Total Pop, VAP, CVAP
Total Pop VAP CVAP
! "
"" ' #"
"" ' #"
!"! "& # ! # & ! & &
"# & "!" # & " # " & # "" "&
" & # " ! & #" " & !! !&
#" & # " & " !#" #!& #" &
" ! ##& ! " !& # "& " "&
!
#!! !!!
%!! !!!
'!! !!!
)!! !!!
" !!! !!!
" #!! !!!
" %!! !!!
#.
"#$%&
"" ' #"
&%&%
$#
#
!"! "# " #" " !
& "& & & & ##&
# ! "!" # " # " ! "
& # & # & ! & & !&
! " ##" " !#" #
& & " & " & #!& "&
" " ! "! #!! #
& & & & "& !&
# "" !! #" "
& & "& !& & "&
"# #! #!
& & & & & &
" # " " "! "
& & & & !"& &
' "" "! #! #"
'& & #& #& ! & ! &
""! "#! ! #"##"
# " ! " # ! #"
! & #& "#"& "" & "&
! " " " ! !
! & & # #& !"& ###&
! ! ###! " ! ! #" !
& ""#& # & # & !&
! ! # " " !!"
& & & & ! &
! !" # # #! "
!##& & # & & &
" " !!
& & & & &
!" # #
#& & & ! & ##&
"## ! ##
& & & !& &
# "!" !!! !" #
## # !#! " ! ## " !
##& " & " & "& !&
" ##! #" !" "" #!" # #
& & # & & ! &
! # !! !" " #
# & & "& & !"&
! !# " ! !# #
& & & " & &
" ! # " # "
& "& #& & "&
! ! !## # "#
) $ $ $ ' (
#!
"
$
&
+%*
' (
)
" &% % # # $' $! "* "( "*
"" ' #"
"& ! & ##&
# & ! & &
& & # &
& !##& &
& #& &
! !!-
"! !!-
#! !!-
$! !!-
%! !!-
&! !!-
'! !!-
(! !!-
"" ' #"
& #& " &
# & & &
" & ""#& &
"& & &
& & "&
! !!-
& !!-
"! !!-
"& !!-
#! !!-
#& !!-
$! !!-
$& !!-
%! !!-
%& !!-
&! !!-
"" ' #"
& "#"& " &
! & # #& # &
" & # & "&
!& # & &
& & #&
! !!-
"! !!-
#! !!-
$! !!-
%! !!-
&! !!-
'! !!-
"" ' #"!
& "" & "&
& !"& &
#!& # & &
& & " &
!"& ! & &
! !!-
"! !!-
#! !!-
$! !!-
%! !!-
&! !!-
'! !!-
(! !!-
"" ' #""
##& "& !&
!& ###& ! &
"& !& !"&
"& & &
& ##& "&
! !!-
& !!-
"! !!-
"& !!-
#! !!-
#& !!-
$! !!-
$& !!-
%! !!-
%& !!-
&! !!-
November 17, 2021
Los Angeles County Redistricting Commission
County of Los Angeles
PO Box 56447
Sherman Oaks, CA 91413
Dear Los Angeles County Redistricting Commission,
At the November 16, 2021, Arcadia City Council Meeting, the City of Arcadia adopted
Resolution No. 7395 submitting public comment on behalf of the City requesting that the
Los Angeles County Redistricting Commission (CRC) adopt County supervisor electoral
district maps that are consistent with the current representation for San Gabriel Valley
cities. A copy of the Resolution is attached for your reference.
The City of Arcadia believes that the interests of the San Gabriel Valley (SGV) are best
represented as they currently are with two districts sharing nearly equal representation
of SGV cities and communities. Of the four final proposals before the Commission for
review and consideration, three of the maps (A, B, and C) meet these criteria, and any of
these maps would be sufficient to address the City’s concerns.
However, of the three maps the City considers to be acceptable representation of the San
Gabriel Valley, Map B is the preferred option as it continues to consolidate Foothill
communities in a single map, which is a community of interest that is important to Arcadia
residents. Further, Map B is the most comprehensive of the options as it not only
adequately represents the SGV as a voting bloc, but sufficiently captures the entire
County into a single map that is the most complete, comprehensive, and consolidated
electoral map.
On behalf of the City of Arcadia, we would like to thank the CRC for their work on this
important process and for the opportunity for our voice to be heard.
Sincerely,
Sho Tay
Mayor
Attachment: Resolution No. 7395
Cc: Supervisor Kathryn Barger, District 5, Kathryn@bos.lacounty.gov
Supervisor Hilda Solis, District 1, firstdistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
LA County CRC Clerk, Thai V. Le, TLe@crc.lacounty.gov
Attachment "C"