At the first meeting of the Los Angeles City Council’s Ad Hoc Redistricting Committee yesterday, the office of the city’s Chief Legislative Analyst presented its report on the redistricting process so far, including a revised map of proposed new City Council districts, based in part on recommendations received last week from the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission, and then significantly reshaped by a set of 38 motions entered by current City Council members at the Council’s last meeting on Tuesday.
After a presentation by CLA representative John Wickham summarizing the CLA’s report, Wickham explained that the report actually includes three maps:
1.The Redistricting Commission’s map K 2.5 (which had been previously and vehemently criticized by several city council members, including several on the Ad Hoc committee, prior to the meeting)
2. A map including what Wickham called “Minimal” changes to the Commission’s map, using several broad guidelines from the City Council motions
3. And then what Wickham labeled a “Hybrid” map that combines elements of the Commission’s map (mostly in the part of the city south of the Hollywood Hills), some recommendations from a map drawn by the Labor Coalition (which had never been officially submitted to the Redistricting Commission, but which several Council Members representing districts in the San Fernando Valley had said they’d prefer), and many of the change motions submitted by Council Members earlier in the week.
Hybrid Map Specifics
The Hybrid map preserves many changes the Redistricting Commission has received positive feedback for recommending, such as uniting Koreatown in CD 10, and uniting many of the city’s Jewish communities in CD 5. It also preserves the Redistricting Commission’s goal of having just one district (CD 4) that bridges the basin and Valley sections of the city. The big difference, though, is that this map significantly rearranges the layout of the proposed Valley districts, more closely hewing to the Labor Coalition map (which has never been publicly available online).
More locally, however, although this was not addressed in either the CLA report nor the Committee discussion that followed, the Hybrid map would also further divide our local Greater Wilshire area, which had been mostly assigned to CD 5 (with the exception of the Melrose and Oakwood-Maplewood-St. Andrews neighborhoods) in the Redistricting Commission map. Instead, the Hybrid map would divide our Greater Wilshire area much more equally between CD 5 and CD 13, as shown within the red outline in the map at the top of this story. More specifically, in the CLA’s Hybrid map, Melrose Ave., Rossmore Ave., and Wilshire Blvd. (east of Rossmore) would be the council district dividing lines in our area, with the Hancock Park, La Brea Hancock, Citrus Square, Sycamore Square, Brookside, Fremont Place, Windsor Village, Wilshire Park, and Country Club Park neighborhoods landing in CD 5…and the Melrose, Windsor Square, Larchmont Village, Oakwood-Maplewood-St. Andrews, Ridgewood-Wilton/St. Andrews Square, Western-Wilton neighborhoods placed in CD 13.
After the CLA report, Committee Chair (and City Council President) Nury Martinez immediately moved that the committee move forward with the Hybrid map. In discussion following the motion, several committee members weighed in to make sure their specific recommendations for changes would or could be honored in this map. These included both minor changes, such as a request from committe member Paul Koretz to unite a bit more of Little Ethiopia in CD 10, and at least one much larger request, from CD 9 representative Curren Price, to move both Exposition Park (which – after a long tug of war – had been assigned to CD 8 by the Redistricting Commission) back to CD 9.
The committee member suggesting the biggest changes, however, was CD 4’s Nithya Raman, who pointed out that even with the Hybrid map’s revisions to the Redistricting Commission’s Draft Plan K 2.5, her district will still be subject to the biggest changes of any district in the city, and will lose about 42% of its current constituents. Raman echoed several council members’ previous complaints that this is largely due to trying to retain that single “bridge” district between the LA Basin and San Fernando Valley, as recommended by an ad hoc committee of the Redistricting Commission that her appointed representative was not part of.
Raman moved that the committe consider another new hybrid map, the publicly submitted Map #76266, which she said honors much of what council members want to keep from the Commission’s recommendations, but also rectifies the extreme reconfiguration of her own district, and also more acceptably addresses districts in the Valley.  Raman also moved that the committee incorporate her motion, 46EE, from earlier in the week, calling for several parts of CD 13 to be returned to CD 4…but neither of those motions was seconded by other committee members, so neither moved forward.
In the end, after a couple more motions (by Raman and others) for much more minor tweaks were requested and passed, Martinez’ motion to move forward with the Hybrid map was approved by a vote of 6 committee members in favor and one opposed. Raman, who said she could not support a map that so significantly reconfigures her district, was the lone dissenter.
What’s Next
Now that the Ad Hoc Committee has recommended a map, the full City Council will consider that recommendation at its next meeting, this coming Tuesday, November 9, at 10 a.m.  The agenda is available here, and a live video link will be available here when the meeting starts.
If, as expected, the Council approves the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendation on Tuesday, there will be two public hearings on the map, one on Wednesday, November 10, at 12 p.m. (see link for agenda), and one on Tuesday, November 23 (time TBD). The meetings are being held as “Special” meetings of the Council, and will be available at the usual channels (broadcast on cable channel 35 and YouTube). YouTube link will be available at https://clerk.lacity.org/calendar when the meeting starts.
Also note, however, that you do not have to attend the hearing to submit comments on the redistricting map, or to make requests for changes. Comments can be very easily submitted using a public comment form on the Council’s Council File page for the issue. The Council File page also holds all official documents (reports, maps, etc.) relating to the City Council redistricting issue, as well as Community Impact Statements submitted by various Neighborhood Councils (including our own GWNC), and all the public comments submitted from the site. Any comments submitted through the form on the site will automatically be entered into the Council File – perhaps the most efficient and public way of adding your voice to the official record. Comments submitted in this manner are also usually reviewed by Council Members before their next meeting, and should carry equal weight to those submitted at public meetings.
Finally, after the two public hearings, the City Council is scheduled to take its final vote on the map at its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 1 (likely at 10 a.m.)…and then the new Council Districts will take effect after the first of the year.
[This story was edited after its initial publication to include updated information about the November 10 Special meeting/public hearing on the Council’s approved Draft Map.]
Thanks for sorting through all the details to provide us a glimpse at how our neighborhoods will be re-mapped. Or well, depending on how the council members vote and what other proposals they come up with. Plus there will be some opportunity for more public comments. I really do like Common Causes suggestion that we take the politics out of the redistricting process.