HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4b - City Council input on decennial county and statewide redistricting Item 4b
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1001
For Agenda of: 11/9/2021
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL INPUT ON DECENNIAL COUNTY AND STATEWIDE
REDISTRICTING
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a staff report and provide direction on City of San Luis Obispo input on County
Supervisorial and Statewide Redistricting efforts.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this item is to provide the City Council with the opportunity to provide
direction and comments on the County and Statewide Redistricting efforts.
Background
Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts a count of the United States
population. The decennial census is used to determine how many seats each state will
have in the U.S. House of Representatives and for redistricting state legislatures, county
boards of supervisors and if applicable, city council districts. For 2020, the COVID-19
pandemic delayed the results of the census and results were not transmitted to states,
counties, and cities until September 20, 2021. Typically, results are shared by April 1st of
the following year. The result of the COVID-19 impacts is that the timeframe for
engagement and input on redistricting, etc. has been compressed into a shorter time
period.
As stated in the County staff report for a Redistricting Hearing on October 26, 2021
(Attachment A), the Board of Supervisors met five previous times to discuss redistrict
which covered the following five areas: 1) Redistricting Methodologies 2) Census Data
Schedule Updates 3) Hiring a Redistricting Consultant 4) Setting Redistricting Hearings
and Establishing a Public Info Portal and 5) Conducting a Redistricting Hearing and Input
on Communities of Interest.
On October 26, 2021, the Board of Supervisor held a Redistricting Hearing to evaluate
five options, known as “initial draft maps” and maps submitted by the public. There was
no formal action and none of the publicly submitted or consultant generated maps
included with the staff report were identified as preferred or excluded by a majority of the
Board.
Page 75 of 133
Item 4b
The Board will continue to accept maps and comments for the next two Redistricting
Hearings on November 19th and 30th. The deadline for submitting new maps is November
5th for November 19th hearing and the deadline to submit comments on or to modify
previously submitted maps is November 21st for the November 30th hearing.
Elections Code section 21500 broadly covers the process and Elections Code Section
21500 (2) (C) establishes five criteria in order of priority for adopting supervisorial district
boundaries.
21500
(a) Following a county’s decision to elect its board using district-based elections, or
following each federal decennial census for a county whose board is already
elected using district-based elections, the board shall, by ordinance or resolution,
adopt boundaries for all of the supervisorial districts of the county so that the
supervisorial districts shall be substantially equal in population as required by the
United States Constitution.
(1) Population equality shall be based on the total population of residents of the
county as determined by the most recent federal decennial census for which
the redistricting data described in Public Law 94-171 are available.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an incarcerated person, as that term is used in
Section 21003, shall not be counted towards a county’s population, except for
an incarcerated person whose last known place of residence may be assigned
to a census block in the county, if information about the last known pl ace of
residence for incarcerated persons is included in the computerized database
for redistricting that is developed in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section
8253 of the Government Code, and that database is made publicly available.
(b) The board shall adopt supervisorial district boundaries that comply with the United
States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act
of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.).
(c) The board shall adopt supervisorial district boundaries using the following criteria
as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) To the extent practicable, supervisorial districts shall be geographically
contiguous. Areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not
contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge,
tunnel, or regular ferry service are not contiguous.
(2) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or
local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its
division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social
or economic interests that should be included within a single supervisorial
Page 76 of 133
Item 4b
district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of
interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or
political candidates.
(3) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of a city or census
designated place shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.
(4) Supervisorial district boundaries should be easily identifiable and
understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, supervisorial districts
shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the
boundaries of the county.
(5) To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding
criteria in this subdivision, supervisorial districts shall be drawn to encourage
geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not
bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
a. The board shall not adopt supervisorial district boundaries for the purpose
of favoring or discriminating against a political party.
b. For purposes of this chapter, “adopt” or “adoption” in regard to supervisorial
district boundaries means the passage of an ordinance or resolution
specifying those boundaries.
Five different themes emerged from public input received as of the October 16, 2021
Redistricting Hearing and were presented to the Board of Supervisors that evening:
(1) Maintain existing Supervisorial boundaries
(2) Maintain Oceano in the same District as Arroyo Grande and Nipomo and
maintain existing District 4 boundaries
(3) Place Cal Poly in one District or place Cal Poly and City of San Luis Obispo in
the same District
(4) Maintain North Coast towns in one District and
(5) Maintain and place the City of San Luis Obispo in multiple districts.
Based on these themes, four drafts maps were developed and are included as Plans A-
D to this staff report and are described in more details below. Given the themes of public
comment and submitted maps and with a focus on compliance with the required priority
considerations under the Fair Maps Act of the California Election Code, County
consultants and staff have developed four initial draft maps for the publics and Board’s
consideration:
Page 77 of 133
Item 4b
1. Plan A – Status Quo (Attachment Plan A). As noted above, because the County’s
current districts have a total population deviation of 9.3%, the County is not
required to redraw district lines in order to avoid a presumption of an equal
protection violation. Plan A essentially preserves the existing supervisorial
districts, with minor adjustments to account for updated Census block boundaries.
(See Attachment Plan A Initial Map). Existing supervisorial boundaries largely
recognize the unique communities of interest in the City of San Luis Obispo and
with slight changes could be modified to reflect updated Census block boundaries
and achieve compliance with the law and reflect the broad and diverse
communities of interest in the City of San Luis Obispo.
2. Plan B – Cal Poly COI (Attachment Plan B). Plan B works from existing
supervisorial districts, with adjustments to account for updated Census block
boundaries, and includes the entire campus of Cal Poly within one District (District
2) in response to public comment and makes other changes to balance populations
and to provide ease in determining legal metes and bounds in Districts 3 and 4.
(See Plan B Initial Draft Map).
3. Plan C – (Attachment Plan C) Remove Cal Poly/City of San Luis Obispo from
District 5. Plan C works from existing supervisorial districts, with adjustments to
remove the Cal Poly campus and the City of San Luis Obispo from District 5 in
response to public comment on communities of interest. The map also makes
resulting necessary changes to expand District 5 into existing Districts 1, 3 and 4
to regain population in that District and to expand District 1 into District 2 to further
balance populations. (See Attachment C – Initial Draft Map).
4. Plan D – (Attachment Plan D) Consideration of School Districts. Plan D works to
align, to the extent possible, with proposed school districts within the County
(pending State approval). (See Attachment Plan D – Initial Draft Map).
City of San Luis Obispo GIS staff have overlaid the four proposals to provide street level
and City of San Luis Obispo’ specific landmark details of existing and proposed
supervisorial boundaries. These maps are labeled as Attachment B. Lastly, following the
October 26, 2021 Redistricting Hearing, the County posted additional maps submitted by
the public and various organizations and groups.
Options for City Council
Staff recommends that, if the City Council provides input on supervisorial redistricting,
that it considers two actions 1) Establishing principles for input and 2) Establishing an ad-
hoc committee.
Page 78 of 133
Item 4b
The following are an example of potential principles for the City Council to consider:
1. Supervisorial Districts should comply with applicable Federal, State Law and
County Codes.
a. Proposed boundaries should address potential dilution concerns under the
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and mitigate against potential adverse
impacts on the pending CVRA demand against the city.
2. Supervisorial Districts should provide geographic boundaries that recognize that
the City of San Luis Obispo and its neighborhoods are a community of diverse
interests.
a. Community of Interest should reflect the understanding that given the size of
the City of San Luis Obispo, it has unique neighborhoods that are their own
unique communities of interest (i.e., Laguna Lake, Cal Poly, San Luis Drive,
Foothill Neighborhood, etc.).
b. It should be recognized that the City of San Luis Obispo is the County seat,
employment hub, and due to its unique size and population, s hould continue to
be represented by multiple supervisorial districts given the exchange of
commerce, commuting, etc.
3. Supervisorial Districts should recognize that Cal Poly and the City of San Luis
Obispo share common interests.
4. Districts should reflect the City’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Major City Goal
principles and any potential long-term impacts of the various map alternatives.
Other principles could be crafted that are consistent with applicable Federal and State
Law and applicable County Codes.
Lastly, due the nature of the issue and the compressed timetable to provide input; if
Council decides to provide comments, staff recommends that the Council select two
members to serve on an ad-hoc committee that authorizes the subcommittee to submit
comments on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo consistent with any adopted principles
and input received from the City’s CVRA legal counsel and demographer.
Next Steps
The next steps and dates in the County process are described below:
1. Nov 19 - Redistricting Hearing #3
2. Nov. 30 - Redistricting Hearing #4
3. Dec. 7 - Redistricting Ordinance Introduced
4. Dec. 14 - Redistricting Ordinance Adopted
Page 79 of 133
Item 4b
Given the schedule, should the City Council decide to provide comments, it is
recommended that comments be provided in time for the November 19, 2021,
Redistricting Hearing. Any comments on maps can be submitted until November 21st for
the last and final Redistricting Hearing.
STATEWIDE REDISTRICTING
Every 10 years, after the federal census, California must redraw the boundaries of its
Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts,
to reflect the new population data. Following the passage of the 2008 Voters First Act
(“Act”), those lines are drawn by the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission. California voters
authorized the creation of the Commission when the Act was approved and the
Commission is charged with drawing the boundaries of California’s Congressional,
Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization electoral districts.
Citizen’s Redistricting Commissioners are selected through an application and selection
process administered by the California State Auditor. Eligible and interested individuals
submit an initial and an Applicant Review Panel is responsible for identifying 60 of the
most qualified applicants – 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 who do not belong to
either of those two parties. 14 Commissioners were ultimately selected to oversee the
redistricting process.
Assembly and Senate Districts representing the City of San Luis Obispo and our region
are likely to be adjusted. Maps and information about the direction that the Commission
is heading can be found at https://www.wedrawthelinesca.org/past_meetings.
Should the City Council be inclined to contribute input to the statewide redrawing efforts,
staff recommends the following principles to guide an ad -hoc committee that would be
charged with commenting and providing input on County and Statewide Districts.
1. Statewide Assembly and Senate Districts should be consistent with Federal and
State Laws.
a. Statewide Assembly and Senate Districts should recognize and include
community of interests and should recognize the broad regional/community
connection with other counties.
2. As such, Districts should be established that recognize regional connections with
other Counties that have shared identity, economic connections, climate, etc.
3. Statewide Assembly and Senate Districts should to the maximum extent feasible
include all communities within San Luis Obispo County.
4. Statewide Assembly and Senate Districts should include efforts to maximize the
principles of the diversity, equity and inclusion.
Page 80 of 133
Item 4b
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Neither the City Council nor any advisory body has provided input of comments during
the County Supervisorial Redistricting process due to the abbreviated public hearing
schedule and recent publication of draft maps.
Policy Context
Elections Code Section 21500 Et Seq. provides the most relevant statutory framework
and criterion for establishing supervisorial districts and CVRA and City Diversity, Equity
and Inclusivity Major City Goal implications should also be considered in any City analysis
and comments.
Public Engagement
This City Council meeting was noticed, and the County Board of Supervisors has
conducted its own independent hearings as required by the Elections Code. Video
archives of all Board of Supervisor meetings can be reviewed at the County’s webpage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Engaging and providing comments to the Board of Supervisors is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
No unbudgeted outside costs were incurred to prepare this staff report. All costs to provide
input to the County of San Luis Obispo will be covered by existing budget appropriations,
including CVRA counsel appropriations.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide not to provide direct comments or input into the
supervisorial process. The City Council could also request additional information from
City Staff and return for future direction prior to the next scheduled Board meeting and
map submission deadline. These alternatives are not recommended as the compressed
timing and deadline for establishing new Districts is approaching.
Page 81 of 133
Item 4b
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Board of Supervisors 10/26/21 Staff Report
Plan A – San Luis Obispo Draft with Cities
Plan A – Initial Draft
Plan B – San Luis Obispo Draft with Cities
Plan B – Initial Draft
Plan C – San Luis Obispo Draft with Cities
Plan C – Initial Draft
Plan D – San Luis Obispo Draft with Cities
Plan D – Initial Draft
Attachment B – City of San Luis Obispo Detailed Plan A-D Maps
Page 82 of 133
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL
Page 1 of 6
(1) DEPARTMENT
Administrative Office
(2) MEETING DATE
10/26/2021
(3) CONTACT/PHONE
Kristin Eriksson; 805-781-5014
(4) SUBJECT
Hearing to consider initial draft maps for the County’s 2021 redistricting of supervisorial districts and give staff
formal direction for any modifications, as necessary. All Districts.
(5) RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Board conduct a public hearing to consider initial draft maps for the County’s 2021
redistricting of supervisorial districts and provide staff direction for any modifications, as necessary .
(6) FUNDING SOURCE(S)
N/A
(7) CURRENT YEAR FINANCIAL
IMPACT
$0
(8) ANNUAL FINANCIAL
IMPACT
$0
(9) BUDGETED?
yes
(10) AGENDA PLACEMENT
{ } Consent { } Presentation {X} Hearing (Time Est. _3 hours_) { } Board Business (Time Est.______)
(11) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS
{ } Resolutions { } Contracts { } Ordinances {X} N/A
(12) OUTLINE AGREEMENT REQUISITION NUMBER (OAR)
N/A
(13) BUDGET ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED?
BAR ID Number:
{ } 4/5th's Vote Required {X} N/A
(14) LOCATION MAP
N/A
(15) BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT?
No
(16) AGENDA ITEM HISTORY
{ } N/A Date 1/5/2021, #38; 3/16/2021,
#3; 4/20/2021, #33; 6/22/2021, #39;
7/20/2021, Item #1
(17) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW
This item was prepared by the Administrative Office
(18) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S)
All Districts.
Page 83 of 133
Page 2 of 6
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Administrative Office / Kristin Eriksson; 805-781-5014
DATE: 10/26/2021
SUBJECT: Hearing to consider initial draft maps for the County’s 2021 redistricting of supervisorial districts
and give staff formal direction for any modifications, as necessary. A ll Districts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board conduct a public hearing to consider initial draft maps for the County’s 2021
redistricting of supervisorial districts and provide staff direction for any modifications, as necessary .
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) is required by Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution to conduct an accurate
count of the population every ten years. Census data is used to determine how many seats each state will have in
the U.S. House of Representatives and in redistricting of state legislatures, county boards of supervisors and city
councils. In 2020, the Bureau conducted the decennial census, extending the deadline for responses through
October 15, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Normally, the Bureau is required to report final data to
the U.S. President on or before December 31 of the Census year and to States and Counties on April 1 of the
following year. However, due to the extended timeline to complete t he Census count, along with complications in
ensuring the accuracy of data arising from the Bureau’s use of predominantly electronic responses for the first time,
the County did not receive final, State-adjusted data until September 20, 2021.1
1 Per Elections Code section 21508(d)(3), the County cannot publish draft maps until 21 days after State-adjusted data is made available to the public.
Page 84 of 133
Page 3 of 6
Prior Board Action
Previously, the Board took the following actions on redistricting:
1) January 5, 2021 (Item #38) – Staff presented options for redistricting methodologies including using a Citizen
Advisory Committee, using a County Staff Advisory Committee, or allowing a consultant to redraw maps.
The Board directed staff to use a County Staff Advisory Committee to develop and redraw supervisorial
districts and set a Special Meeting for April 23, 2021 to serve as the first hearing regarding redistr icting.
2) March 16, 2021 (Item #3) – the Board received an update providing information about the delays in receipt
of 2020 Census data from April to September of 2021 and canceled the Special Meeting scheduled for April
23, 2021 pending more information.
3) April 20, 2021 (Item #33) – the Board received an update on the County’s redistricting effort and approved a
budget adjustment in the amount of $150,139 from General Fund Contingencies to fund a consulting
contract to assist staff, Public Works labor costs and a contingency amount for the County’s effort in Fund
Center 104 – Administrative Office.
4) June 22, 2021 (Item #39) – the Board received an update on the County’s redistricting public webpage and
set Special Meetings to serve as official redistricting he arings, pursuant to the Fair Maps Act, in October and
November.
5) July 20, 2021 (Item #25) – the Board conducted its first official Redistricting Hearing to hear and consider
public comment and input regarding communities of interest in the County.
Redistricting Hearing #2 – Consideration of Initial Draft Maps
Under the California Elections Code2, new supervisorial districts must be redrawn using the following criteria, in
order of priority:
1) To the extent practicable, districts must be geographically contig uous
2) To the extent practicable, districts must maintain the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and
communities of interest
3) To the extent practicable, districts must minimize division of cities or census designated places
4) Boundaries must be easily identifiable and, if possible, bound by natural/artificial barriers
5) To the extent practicable, districts must not favor or discriminate against any political party
2 See Elections Code section 21500(2)(c).
Page 85 of 133
Page 4 of 6
With assistance from the County’s consultant, Redistricting Partners, staff analyzed population changes in each
existing supervisorial district between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census. A comparison of the population of
current supervisorial districts between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census is below.
Estimated Populations and Growth (2010 Census to 2020 Census)
District 2020 2010 Change
1 57,982 53,814 4,168 7.7%
2 52,753 57,733 -4,980 -8.6%
3 54,826 52,660 2,166 4.1%
4 57,646 52,797 4,849 9.2%
5 56,000 52,571 3,429 6.5%
Total 279,207 269,576 9,631 3.6%
With an estimated total County population of 279,207, the ideal population for any district would be 55,841. In
order to avoid a presumption of an Equal Protection violation, new districts must have a total population deviation
of less than 10%.3 Total population deviation is determined by adding the absolute value of the population
deviation between the largest and smallest districts. The district with the largest population is District 1 at 57,982
(+3.8%) and the smallest is District 2 at 52,753 (-5.5%), placing the County’s total population deviation at 9.3%, which
is within the required deviation range. The chart below shows each district’s population deviation.
2020 Population and Deviations
District Population Deviation
1 57,982 2,141 3.8%
2 52,753 -3,088 -5.5%
3 54,826 -1,015 -1.8%
4 57,646 1,805 3.2%
5 56,000 159 0.3%
Total Deviation 9.3%
Themes of Public Comment/Input Regarding Communities of Interest
Staff have been compiling and considering public comment and input regarding communities of interest (COIs) in
the County, as well as suggestions for redrawing supervisorial districts while creating draft maps. From this public
input, several major themes developed:
1) Keep the town of Oceano in the same District as Arroyo Grande and Nipomo as a community of
interest/Keep District 4 the same as existing
2) Keep Cal Poly within one District and/or keep Cal Poly and City of San Luis Obispo out of “North County” COI
3) Keep the North Coast towns within one District
4) Keep the City of San Luis Obispo in multiple Districts
3 See Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015).
Page 86 of 133
Page 5 of 6
Additionally, there were numerous comments encouraging transparency, community input and fairness in the
redistricting process. Public comment submitted via the County’s webpage or email can be viewed on the County’s
webpage: www.slocounty.ca.gov/redistricting.
In addition to public comments, six draft maps were submitted in the County’s District-R website or via email. These
maps were considered by staff and incorporated into the analysis for the Initial Draft Maps. Although one map was
submitted as an image only and was difficult to analyze population and demographic data, it was considered. Draft
maps submitted by the public on the County’s District-R mapping tool can be viewed on the County’s District-R
mapping tool website: https://districtr.org/tag/slo_county. Maps submitted via email are viewable on the County’s
webpage: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Administrative -Office/Countywide-Projects-
Programs/Redistricting/Other-Submitted-Maps.aspx.
Summary of Initial Draft Maps
Given the themes of public comment and submitted maps and with a focus on compliance with the required
priority considerations under the Fair Maps Act of the California Election Code, staff has developed four initial draft
maps for the public’s and Board’s consideration:
1) Plan A – Status Quo. As noted above, because the County’s current districts have a total population
deviation of 9.3%, the County is not required to redraw district lines in order to avoid a presumption of an
equal protection violation. Plan A essentially preserves the existing supervisorial districts, with minor
adjustments to account for updated Census block boundaries. (See Attachment 1 – Initial Draft Map – Plan
A).
2) Plan B – Cal Poly COI. Plan B works from existing supervisorial districts, with adjus tments to account for
updated Census block boundaries, and includes the entire campus of Cal Poly within one District (District 2)
in response to public comment and makes other changes to balance populations and to provide ease in
determining legal metes and bounds in Districts 3 and 4. (See Attachment 2 – Initial Draft Map – Plan B).
3) Plan C – Remove Cal Poly/City of San Luis Obispo from District 5. Plan C works from existing supervisorial
districts, with adjustments to remove the Cal Poly campus and the City of San Luis Obispo from District 5 in
response to public comment on communities of interest. The map also makes resulting necessary changes
to expand District 5 into existing Districts 1, 3 and 4 to regain population in that District and to expand
District 1 into District 2 to further balance populations. (See Attachment 3 – Initial Draft Map – Plan C).
4) Plan D – Consideration of School Districts. Plan D works to align, to the extent possible, with proposed
school districts within the County (pending State approval). (See Attachment 4 – Initial Draft Map – Plan D).
For information about the County’s redistricting process or to provide input, the public may go to
www.slocounty.ca.gov/redistricting.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT/IMPACT
The departments of Clerk Recorder, Planning and Building, Public Works, Information Technology and County
Counsel were consulted on this item.
Page 87 of 133
Page 6 of 6
Initial Draft Maps were reviewed by Redistricting Partners, who concluded that each map is compliant with legal
requirements and in line with best practices for redrawing districts.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are no financial impacts from this action.
RESULTS
Conducting the second redistricting hearing, in compliance with the Fair Maps Act, will allow for public input
regarding initial draft maps to inform the redrawing of supervisorial district maps, resulting in a well -governed
community.
ATTACHMENTS
1 Initial Draft Map - Plan A
2 Initial Draft Map - Plan B
3 Initial Draft Map - Plan C
4 Initial Draft Map - Plan D
5 Redistricting Partners District Analysis
6 Presentation
Page 88 of 133
San Luis Obispo County Draft Plan A with CitiesPage 89 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
1 2 3 4 5
Population 57,985 52,744 54,632 57,622 56,233
Deviation 2,142 -3,099 -1,211 1,779 390
Deviation %3.8%-5.5%-2.2%3.2%0.7%
Other 37,114 40,311 40,625 38,011 43,595
Other %64.0%76.4%74.4%66.0%77.5%
Latino 19,188 9,097 11,175 17,540 9,906
Latino %33.1%17.2%20.5%30.4%17.6%
Asian 1,049 2,878 2,304 1,641 2,093
Asian %1.8%5.5%4.2%2.8%3.7%
Black 634 458 528 430 639
Black %1.1%0.9%1.0%0.7%1.1%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 39,857 49,858 40,695 41,509 45,096
Other CVAP 30,414 39,486 32,664 31,437 37,523
Other CVAP %76.3%79.2%80.3%75.7%83.2%
Latino CVAP 8,283 5,735 5,507 8,444 5,680
Latino CVAP %20.8%11.5%13.5%20.3%12.6%
Asian CVAP 473 2,652 1,654 1,374 1,458
Asian CVAP %1.2%5.3%4.1%3.3%3.2%
Black CVAP 687 1,985 870 254 435
Black CVAP %1.7%4.0%2.1%0.6%1.0%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
Page 90 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
District 1
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,985 2,142 3.8%37,114 64.0%19,188 33.1%1,049 1.8%634 1.1%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
39,857 30,414 76.3%8,283 20.8%473 1.2%687 1.7%Page 91 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
District 2
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
52,744 -3,099 -5.5%40,311 76.4%9,097 17.2%2,878 5.5%458 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
49,858 39,486 79.2%5,735 11.5%2,652 5.3%1,985 4.0%Page 92 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
District 3
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
54,632 -1,211 -2.2%40,625 74.4%11,175 20.5%2,304 4.2%528 1.0%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
40,695 32,664 80.3%5,507 13.5%1,654 4.1%870 2.1%Page 93 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
District 4
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,622 1,779 3.2%38,011 66.0%17,540 30.4%1,641 2.8%430 0.7%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAPLatino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
41,509 31,437 75.7%8,444 20.3%1,374 3.3%254 0.6%Page 94 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan A with Cities
District 5
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
56,233 390 0.7%43,595 77.5%9,906 17.6%2,093 3.7%639 1.1%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
45,096 37,523 83.2%5,680 12.6%1,458 3.2%435 1.0%Page 95 of 133
Page 96 of 133
Page 97 of 133
Page 98 of 133
San Luis Obispo County Draft Plan B with CitiesPage 99 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
1 2 3 4 5
Population 57,987 53,789 54,039 57,297 56,104
Deviation 2,144 -2,054 -1,804 1,454 261
Deviation %3.8%-3.7%-3.2%2.6%0.5%
Other 37,116 41,114 39,998 37,741 43,687
Other %64.0%76.4%74.0%65.9%77.9%
Latino 19,188 9,081 11,066 17,486 10,085
Latino %33.1%16.9%20.5%30.5%18.0%
Asian 1,049 3,122 2,483 1,640 1,671
Asian %1.8%5.8%4.6%2.9%3.0%
Black 634 472 492 430 661
Black %1.1%0.9%0.9%0.8%1.2%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 39,870 50,397 40,197 41,145 45,406
Other CVAP 30,425 39,523 32,607 31,115 37,854
Other CVAP %76.3%78.4%81.1%75.6%83.4%
Latino CVAP 8,285 5,981 5,252 8,415 5,716
Latino CVAP %20.8%11.9%13.1%20.5%12.6%
Asian CVAP 473 2,874 1,554 1,368 1,342
Asian CVAP %1.2%5.7%3.9%3.3%3.0%
Black CVAP 687 2,019 784 247 493
Black CVAP %1.7%4.0%2.0%0.6%1.1%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
Page 100 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
District 1
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,987 2,144 3.8%37,116 64.0%19,188 33.1%1,049 1.8%634 1.1%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
39,870 30,425 76.3%8,285 20.8%473 1.2%687 1.7%Page 101 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
District 2
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
53,789 -2,054 -3.7%41,114 76.4%9,081 16.9%3,122 5.8%472 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
50,397 39,523 78.4%5,981 11.9%2,874 5.7%2,019 4.0%Page 102 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
District 3
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
54,039 -1,804 -3.2%39,998 74.0%11,066 20.5%2,483 4.6%492 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
40,197 32,607 81.1%5,252 13.1%1,554 3.9%784 2.0%Page 103 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
District 4
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,297 1,454 2.6%37,741 65.9%17,486 30.5%1,640 2.9%430 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
41,145 31,115 75.6%8,415 20.5%1,368 3.3%247 0.6%Page 104 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan B with Cities
District 5
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
56,104 261 0.5%43,687 77.9%10,085 18.0%1,671 3.0%661 1.2%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
45,406 37,854 83.4%5,716 12.6%1,342 3.0%493 1.1%Page 105 of 133
Page 106 of 133
Page 107 of 133
Page 108 of 133
San Luis Obispo County Draft Plan C with CitiesPage 109 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
1 2 3 4 5
Population 55,599 56,094 57,020 56,103 54,400
Deviation -244 251 1,177 260 -1,443
Deviation %-0.4%0.4%2.1%0.5%-2.6%
Other 34,991 43,117 42,158 36,770 42,620
Other %62.9%76.9%73.9%65.5%78.3%
Latino 19,011 8,849 11,722 17,285 10,039
Latino %34.2%15.8%20.6%30.8%18.5%
Asian 993 3,597 2,552 1,620 1,203
Asian %1.8%6.4%4.5%2.9%2.2%
Black 604 531 588 428 538
Black %1.1%0.9%1.0%0.8%1.0%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 39,536 54,165 43,097 40,424 39,794
Other CVAP 29,817 42,376 34,375 30,463 34,492
Other CVAP %75.4%78.2%79.8%75.4%86.7%
Latino CVAP 8,486 6,436 6,008 8,370 4,350
Latino CVAP %21.5%11.9%13.9%20.7%10.9%
Asian CVAP 560 3,231 1,814 1,343 663
Asian CVAP %1.4%6.0%4.2%3.3%1.7%
Black CVAP 673 2,122 899 248 289
Black CVAP %1.7%3.9%2.1%0.6%0.7%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
Page 110 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
District 1
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
55,599 -244 -0.4%34,991 62.9%19,011 34.2%993 1.8%604 1.1%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
39,536 29,817 75.4%8,486 21.5%560 1.4%673 1.7%Page 111 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
District 2
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
56,094 251 0.4%43,117 76.9%8,849 15.8%3,597 6.4%531 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
54,165 42,376 78.2%6,436 11.9%3,231 6.0%2,122 3.9%Page 112 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
District 3
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,020 1,177 2.1%42,158 73.9%11,722 20.6%2,552 4.5%588 1.0%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
43,097 34,375 79.8%6,008 13.9%1,814 4.2%899 2.1%Page 113 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
District 4
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
56,103 260 0.5%36,770 65.5%17,285 30.8%1,620 2.9%428 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAPLatino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
40,424 30,463 75.4%8,370 20.7%1,343 3.3%248 0.6%Page 114 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Draft Plan C with Cities
District 5
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
54,400 -1,443 -2.6%42,620 78.3%10,039 18.5%1,203 2.2%538 1.0%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
39,794 34,492 86.7%4,350 10.9%663 1.7%289 0.7%Page 115 of 133
Page 116 of 133
Page 117 of 133
Page 118 of 133
San Luis Obispo County Plan D with CitiesPage 119 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
1 2 3 4 5
Population 57,670 55,100 55,808 56,605 54,033
Deviation 1,827 -743 -35 762 -1,810
Deviation %3.3%-1.3%-0.1%1.4%-3.2%
Other 36,817 41,981 41,456 37,218 42,184
Other %63.8%76.2%74.3%65.8%78.1%
Latino 19,169 9,390 11,322 17,340 9,685
Latino %33.2%17.0%20.3%30.6%17.9%
Asian 1,050 3,241 2,533 1,619 1,522
Asian %1.8%5.9%4.5%2.9%2.8%
Black 634 488 497 428 642
Black %1.1%0.9%0.9%0.8%1.2%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 39,596 52,304 43,091 40,528 41,497
Other CVAP 30,195 40,877 35,033 30,584 34,835
Other CVAP %76.3%78.2%81.3%75.5%83.9%
Latino CVAP 8,245 6,326 5,604 8,358 5,115
Latino CVAP %20.8%12.1%13.0%20.6%12.3%
Asian CVAP 471 3,017 1,652 1,343 1,128
Asian CVAP %1.2%5.8%3.8%3.3%2.7%
Black CVAP 685 2,083 801 243 418
Black CVAP %1.7%4.0%1.9%0.6%1.0%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
Page 120 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
District 1
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
57,670 1,827 3.3%36,817 63.8%19,169 33.2%1,050 1.8%634 1.1%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
39,596 30,195 76.3%8,245 20.8%471 1.2%685 1.7%Page 121 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
District 2
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
55,100 -743 -1.3%41,981 76.2%9,390 17.0%3,241 5.9%488 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
52,304 40,877 78.2%6,326 12.1%3,017 5.8%2,083 4.0%Page 122 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
District 3
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
55,808 -35 -0.1%41,456 74.3%11,322 20.3%2,533 4.5%497 0.9%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
43,091 35,033 81.3%5,604 13.0%1,652 3.8%801 1.9%Page 123 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
District 4
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
56,605 762 1.4%37,218 65.8%17,340 30.6%1,619 2.9%428 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
40,528 30,584 75.5%8,358 20.6%1,343 3.3%243 0.6%Page 124 of 133
San Luis Obispo County
Plan D with Cities
District 5
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
2020 Census
Other %Latino %Asian %Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black %
54,033 -1,810 -3.2%42,184 78.1%9,685 17.9%1,522 2.8%642 1.2%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP %
41,497 34,835 83.9%5,115 12.3%1,128 2.7%418 1.0%Page 125 of 133
Page 126 of 133
Page 127 of 133
Page 128 of 133
O
c
o
n
nor
W
a
y
Fro o m Cree kJeffreyDrL u n e t a D r
C e r r o R o m a ul d o A v e
Oc
onnor
Wa
y
R a m o n a D rPatriciaDrHighlandDrStennerCreekRdMt
B
i
s
h
o
p
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
W F o o th illB lv d
N
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
SanLuisObispoCreekLaguna
Lake
O
c
e
a
n
a
i
r
e
Dr
P r efumoCanyon Rd
C a lle JoaquinDiabloDrM a d o n n a R dL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
ElCaminoRealM adonna P laza
Laguna La k e
Pa r k
101 VachellLn1
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
T
o
r
o
S
t
M io s s i Rd
ChorroStM c C ol l um S t
G
ra
n
d
AveHathwayAveF r e d e r i c k s S t
M arshStCaliforni
aBlvdSanLuisDrHighlandD r
Mt Bish
o
pRd PolyCanyonRdViaCartaN P e r i m e t e r R dSp
orts
C
o
mp
lex
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
Br
oa
d
St M ontereyStCa
lif
o
r
n
ia
BlvdSant
a
Ro
s
a
S
t
E l C a m in o R e a l
California
Polytechnic
S ta te Univ
S a n L u i s
O b i s p o
H i g h S t
Sou t h w o o d D r
F
l
o
r
a
St
LaurelLnP ism oS tS
a
c
ra
m
e
nto
D
r
T a n k F arm Rd
Or c ut t R d
Or
c
u
tt
R
dIslayStSandercockSt
T a n g lewoo d D r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
E llaS tB r a n c h S t
P acificS tBull
o
c
k
L
nBishopS tB uchonS tBe
a
c
h
S
t LeffStHopkins LnRoc
k
v
i
e
wPl
L a wr e n c e D r
ElksLnIn d u s tr ia lW a yBrizzolaraSt
T a n k F a r m R d Br
oadStHigueraStMarshSt
SHigueraStOs
o
s
St
ElCaminoRealS insheim er Par k
M eadow Par k
Paul
Pierce
Pond
HooverAvePoi n s ettia
St
G o l d enrod Ln
F u lle r R d
S u bur ba n R d
Br
o
a
d
S
t
B u c k l e y R d
Ed
na
RdS an Lui s Obispo
C o-M c Che s n ey
Fiel d ElCaminoRealIslay Hill Par k
2
3
5
2
3
5
3
2
5
2
3
5
2
5
3
S
W E
N
CityLimit
Current Districts
Plan A Districts
Plan B Districts
Plan C Districts
Plan D Districts00.5 10.25 Miles
10/29/2021Page 129 of 133
O
c
o
n
nor
Wa
y
PrefumoCreekSycamoreCan y o n Rd
Fro o m Cree kJeffreyDrL u n e t a D r
C e r r o R o m a u l do A v e
Oc
onnor
Way
R a m o n a DrPatriciaDrHighlandDrStennerCreekRdMt
B
i
s
h
o
p
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
W F o o th illB lv d
N
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
SanLuisObispoCreekLaguna
Lake
O
c
e
a
n
a
ir
e
Dr
P r efumoCanyon Rd
C a lle JoaquinDiabloDrM a d o n n a R dL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
ElCaminoRealMadonna Plaz a
Laguna L ake
P ark
101 VachellLn1
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
T
o
r
o
S
t
M io s s i Rd
ChorroStM c C o l l u m S t
G
ra
n
d
AveHathwayAveF r e d e r i cks S t
M arshStCaliforni
aBlvdSanLuisDrHighlandD r
Mt Bish
o
p
Rd PolyCanyonRdViaCartaN P e r i m e t e r R dSp
orts
C
o
mp
l
ex
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
Br
oa
d
St M ontereyStCa
lif
o
r
n
ia
BlvdSant
a
Ro
s
a
St
E l C a m i no R e a l
Califor nia
P ol y te c hnic
State Uni v
S a n L u i s
O b i s p o
H i gh S t
Sou t h wo o d D r
F
l
o
r
a
St
LaurelLnP ism oS tS
a
cra
m
e
nt
o
D
r
T a n k F arm Rd
O r c u t t R d
O
r
c
u
tt
R
dIslayStSandercockSt
T a n g lewoo d D r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
E llaStB r a n c h S t
P acificS tBu
ll
oc
k
L
nBishopStBuchonStBe
a
c
h
S
t LeffS tHopkins LnRo
c
k
v
i
e
wPl
L a w r e n c e D r
ElksLnIn d u s tria lW a yBrizzolaraSt
T a n k F a r m R d Br
oadStHigueraStMarshSt
SHigueraStOs
o
s
S
t
ElCaminoRealSins heim er P ark
Meadow P ark
Paul
Pierce
Pond
HooverAvePoi n s ettia
St
G o l d enrod Ln
F u lle rR d
S ubu r b a n R d
Br
o
a
d
S
t
B u c k l e y R d
Ed
na
RdS an Lu is Obi s p o
Co-M cC hesney
Fie ld ElCaminoRealIs la y Hill P ark
S
W E
N
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Plan A Districts
Current Districts
CityLimit
3
5
2
10/29/2021Page 130 of 133
O
c
o
n
nor
W
a
y
PrefumoCreekSycamoreCan y o n Rd
Fro o m Cree kJeffreyDrL u n e t a D r
C e r r o R o m a u l d o A v e
Oc
onnor
Wa
y
R a m o n a D rPatriciaDrHighlandDrStennerCreekRdMt
B
is
h
o
p
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
W F o o th illB lv d
N
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
SanLuisObispoCreekLaguna
Lake
O
c
e
a
n
a
ir
e
Dr
P r efumoCanyon Rd
C a lle JoaquinDiabloDrM a d o n n a RdL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
ElCaminoRealM adonna P l aza
Lag un a Lak e
P ark
101 VachellLn1
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
T
o
r
o
S
t
M io s s i Rd
ChorroStM c C ol lum S t
G
ra
n
d
AveHathwayAveF r e d e r i c k s S t
M arshStCaliforni
aBlvdSanLuisDrHighlandD r
Mt Bish
op
RdPolyCanyonRdViaCartaN P e r i m e t e r R dSp
orts
C
o
mp
l
ex
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
Br
oa
d
St M ontereyStCa
lif
o
r
n
ia
BlvdSant
a
Ro
s
a
St
E l C a m i n o R e a l
California
Poly tech nic
S tate Univ
S a n L u i s
O b i s p o
H i g h S t
Sou t h w o o d D r
F
l
o
r
a
St
LaurelLnP ism oS tS
a
cr
a
m
e
nt
o
D
r
T a n k F arm Rd
Or c u t t R d
O
r
c
u
tt
R
dIslayStSandercockSt
T a n g lewoo d D r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
E llaS tB r a n c h S t
P acificS tBu
ll
o
c
k
LnBishopStBuchonStBe
a
c
h
S
t LeffStHopkins LnRoc
k
v
i
e
wPl
L a wr e n c e D r
ElksLnIn d u s tria lW a yBrizzolaraSt
T a n k F a r m R d Br
oadStHigueraStMarshSt
SHigueraStOs
o
s
S
t
ElCaminoRealSi nsheim er Par k
M eadow Par k
Paul
Pierce
Pond
HooverAvePoi n s ettia
St
G o l d enrod Ln
F u lle r R d
S ubur ba n R d
Br
o
a
d
St
B u c k l e y R d
Ed
na
RdS an Lui s Obispo
Co-Mc Ches n ey
Fiel d ElCaminoRealIslay Hill Pa r k
S
W E
N
3
5
2
Plan B Districts
Current Districts
CityLimit00.5 10.25 Miles
10/29/2021Page 131 of 133
O
c
o
n
nor
Wa
y
PrefumoCreekSycamoreCany o n Rd
Fro o m Cree kJeffreyDrL u n e t a D r
C e r r o R o m a u l d o A v e
Oc
onnor
Way
R a m o n a D rPatriciaDrHighlandDrStennerCreekRdMt
B
i
s
h
o
p
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
W F o o th illB lv d
N
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
SanLuisObispoCreekLaguna
Lake
O
c
e
a
n
a
ir
e
Dr
P r efumoCanyon Rd
C a lle JoaquinDiabloDrM a d o n n a RdL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
ElCaminoRealM adonna P laza
Lagun a Lak e
P a rk
101
S H ig u e ra S tVachellLn1
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
T
o
r
o
S
t
M io s s i Rd
ChorroStM c C ol lum S t
G
ra
n
d
AveHathwayAveF r e d e r i c k s S t
M arshStCaliforni
aBlvdSanLuisDrHighlandD r
Mt Bish
o
p
Rd PolyCanyonRdViaCartaN P e r i m e t e r R dSp
orts
C
o
mp
l
ex
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
Br
oa
d
St M ontereyStCa
lif
o
r
n
ia
BlvdSant
a
Ro
s
a
St
E l C a m i n o R e a l
California
Polytechnic
S tate Univ
S a n L u i s
O b i s p o
H i g h S t
Sou t h w o o d D r
F
l
o
r
a
St
LaurelLnP ism oS tS
a
cra
m
e
nt
o
D
r
T a n k F arm Rd
Or c u t t R d
O
r
c
u
tt
R
dIslayStSandercockSt
T a n g lewoo d D r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
E llaS tB r a n c h S t
P acificS tBu
ll
o
c
k
L
nBishopStBuchonStBe
a
c
h
S
t LeffStHopkins LnRo
c
k
v
i
e
wPl
L a wr e n c e D r
ElksLnIn d u s tria lW a yBrizzolaraSt
T a n k F a r m R d Br
oadStHigueraStMarshSt
SHigueraStOs
o
s
S
t
ElCaminoRealS i nsheim er Par k
M eadow Par k
Paul
Pierce
Pond
HooverAvePoi n s ettia
St
G o l d enrod Ln
F u lle r R d
S ubur ba n R d
Br
o
a
d
St
B u c k l e y R d
Ed
na
RdS an Lui s Obispo
Co-Mc Che s n ey
Fiel d ElCaminoRealIslay Hill Par k
S
W E
N
3
52
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Plan C Districts
Current Districts
CityLimit
10/29/2021Page 132 of 133
O
c
o
n
nor
Wa
y
PrefumoCreekSycamoreCan y o n Rd
Fro o m Cree kJeffreyDrL u n e t a D r
C e r r o R o m a u l d o A v e
Oc
onnor
WayR a m o n a DrPatriciaDrHighlandDrStennerCreekRdMt
B
i
s
h
o
p
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
W F o o th illB lv d
N
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
S
t
SanLuisObispoCreekLaguna
Lake
O
c
e
a
n
a
ir
e
D
r
P r efumoCanyon Rd
C a lle JoaquinDiabloDrM a d o n n a RdL
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
alle
y
R
d
ElCaminoRealM adonna Pl aza
Laguna Lake
P ark
101 VachellLn1
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
T
o
r
o
S
t
M io s s i Rd
ChorroStM c C ol lum S t
G
ra
n
d
AveHathwayAveF r e d e r i c ks S t
M arshStCaliforni
aBlvdSanLuisDrHighlandD r
Mt Bish
o
p
Rd PolyCanyonRdViaCartaN P e r i m e t e r R dSp
orts
C
o
mp
l
ex
Rd
E F o o t h i l l B l v d
Br
oa
d
St M ontereyStCa
lif
o
r
n
ia
BlvdSant
a
Ro
s
a
S
t
E l C a m i no R e a l
C alifor n i a
Poly tec hnic
State Univ
S a n L u i s
O b i s p o
H i g h S t
Sou t h w o o d D r
F
l
o
r
a
St
LaurelLnP ism oS tS
a
cra
m
e
nt
o
D
r
T a n k F arm Rd
Or c u t t R d
O
r
c
u
tt
R
dIslayStSandercockSt
T a n g lewoo d D r
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Av
e
E llaStB r a n c h S t
P acificS tBu
ll
oc
k
L
nBishopStBuchonStBe
a
c
h
St LeffStHopkins LnRo
c
k
v
i
e
wPl
L a w r e n c e D r
ElksLnIn d u s tria lW a yBrizzolaraSt
T a n k F a r m R d Br
oadStHigueraStMarshSt
SHigueraStOs
o
s
S
t
ElCaminoRealSinsh eim er P ark
M ea do w P a rk
Paul
Pierce
Pond
HooverAvePoi n s e ttia
St
G o l d enrod Ln
F u lle rR d
S ubur ba n R d
Br
o
a
d
S
t
B u c k l e y R d
Ed
na
RdS a n Luis Obis po
Co-Mc Ch es ney
Field ElCaminoRealIslay Hill P ark
S
W E
N
3
5
2
Plan D Districts
Current Districts
CityLimit00.5 10.25 Miles
10/29/2021Page 133 of 133