Plan 702 (Drafted by NDC) City Staff welcomes your feedback on the following map. Please leave a comment below. Click here to view the Demographics for this map (PDF) cityofgoleta2022-02-04T13:02:29-08:00 3 Comments Bruce Wilson January 24, 2022 at 5:02 pmLog in to Reply Of the plans that meet the minimum My #1 preference is #202 first, and #702 second. So many of the other plans divide cohesive residential communities . While there are some small differences in these 2 plans, they both have a good distribution of various people and are in geographic areas that are mostly the same. They have schools that serve most of the residents of that district. Anne Rae January 24, 2022 at 7:44 pmLog in to Reply My friends south of 101 are concerned about flooding and airplane noise. North of 101 areas do not have those concerns. Group areas so the city council member can focus on the specifics of the area they represent. CDG January 25, 2022 at 5:44 pmLog in to Reply First Choice: Map Plan 224. Second Choice: NDC’s Map Plan 704. Third Choice: NDC’s Map Plan 702 Map Plan 702 NDC’s review of NDC’s Map 702 identifies this map as having “One District Crosses Minimally” and further appears, of noteworthy importance, to have drawn districts without splitting any communities of interest or neighborhoods (see Page 114 of Agenda Item A.1, Subj: Recommendations to the City Council regarding Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries for District Elections, meeting date January 26, 2022: hereinafter “Agenda Item A.1”). Additionally, Page 147 of Agenda Item A.1 reads in relevant part as, “District 3 crosses over minimally, all other districts stay on one side of the freeway; Population deviation: 9.5%; District Latino CVAP: 29%, 25%, 17%, 31%; All four districts are contiguous; Does not split any neighborhoods; Closely adheres to general plan subareas as communities of interest and, to a lesser extent, elementary school attendance areas; Does not split the airport noise corridor or “demographic outliers;” District boundaries follow the railroad and major streets; District 3 may not be compact.” On a related side note, I am a big proponent of offering each incumbent City Councilmember the opportunity to finish their elected four-year term in the newly formed district where they currently live. Page 5 of Agenda Item A.1 states, “Other traditional considerations that are permitted but not required include: Respect voters’ choices / continuity in office for incumbents, and future population growth.” Leave A Comment Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.