Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/2021 Item 4b, Various signatures November 7, 2021 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are a group of citizens who want to share our concerns regarding the San Luis Obispo County redistricting discussion. The , and we are glad that you will be engaging in the process on November 9. While the principles outlined in your staff report are a good starting point for assessing urge you to be strong and clear about which proposed redistricting maps are reasonable and consistent with the law, and which are not. general take, supported by a more detailed analysis (attached): Maps proposing drastic boundary revisions have been introduced to the Board. They are poorly conceived and pose threats to proper and fair representation. Unfortunately, they seem to have support among some Board members. Given our cthe current district boundaries are fully compliant with state law. No changes are legally required. There certainly is no compelling case legal or moral for radical revisions. The current boundaries (Map A) have worked well for many years, and with small changes they can serve well for many more. Three districts are appropriate for SLO, rippling negative impacts on communities of interest elsewhere in the county It should be noted that over the last 15 years the board has leaned conservative (3-2) for 11 of those years, including the last six years. Advocating for retaining the current boundaries The staff report does not mention the Patten map, which would create radically unwelcome and legally dubious impacts on San Luis Obispo and other communities. Map C wouldhave similarly negative impacts. It is quite possible that moremaps will be introduced before the Board of Supervisors adopts a plan on November30, 2021. Therefore, we strongly recommend that Council: 1. Establish a Council subcommittee empowered to provide strong and timely comment to the County on behalf. 2. Authorize your subcommittee to be specific about why some proposed maps and plans (specifically Maps C, D, and Patten) do not satisfy Election Code Section 21500, and provide other comments as appropriate, if and when new maps and plans unfold. 3. Insist that the Board of Supervisors retains the current legal and fair supervisor districts (Map A), with only minor revision, such as ensuring that Cal Poly is in only one district and not split between two. 4. Advocate for the retention of three board districts within San Luis Obispo. Wehope that the Board of Supervisors will work in good faith with the City and other local governments to complete its redistricting process. However, if the Board chooses partisan interests over the rules set forth in the Elections Code, become part of the public record in order to have full effect. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dave Christy Maggie Cox Dave Cox Sandra Duerr Tom Duggan Jim Gardiner Ken Hampian Bob Koob Don Maruska Steve McGrath Deb Spatafore John Spatafore Sandi Sigurdson Ben Taylor Courtney Taylor Graham Updegrove Chip Visci Ellie Washington Jermaine Washington Sharon Young Attached: ANALYIS OF REDISTRICTING FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ANALYSIS OF REDISTRICTING FOR COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (11-5-21) The existing district boundaries (Map A) meet legal requirements and do not need significant adjustments. Therefore, under redistricting law, no significant adjustments to the current districts are required or warranted to balance population or other demographic considerations. The California State Election Code stipulates that redistricting should neither favor nor disfavor partisan interests. The current boundaries accomplish this balance. A few minor adjustments to the existing boundaries would be sensible (Map B). Specifically, the new dorms at Cal Poly on Grand Avenue split the on-campus population into two districts. This can be cured by a minor adjustment to place the entire campus within a single district. The map submitt radically reconfigures the traditional districts for no compelling reasons. It separates Morro Bay from Los Osos, two communities that have many similarities and common interests. For example, they share the shoreline boundaries of the Morro Bay National Estuary. In severing Los Osos from Morro Bay, the plan links Los Osos to Avila Beach in a convoluted, newly configured district. To make the Los Osos to Pismo Beach and Avila Beach linkage contiguous, and to make this district sufficiently populous to meet legal criteria, this district encompasses a significant portion of the City of San Luis Obispo but along new district lines that are radically different from existing ones. This redivision is unnecessary, and the new lines force disparate communities of interest into a new district, a result precisely opposite the intentions of state redistricting law. The Patten map divides the historic north coast district among four radically re- shaped districts such that Los Osos ends up in one district, Morro Bay in another, Cayucos in a third and Cambria/San Simeon in yet a fourth. These communities have a long history of common interests, inextricably linked by their coastal environmental and economic features (e.g., tourism) and their sharing of the Highway 1 corridor. The connections and interests among these communities are much stronger than interests with inland areas such as Atascadero, Paso Robles, Creston and Shandon. This map removes Oceano from the district with Nipomo, ignoring that these two unincorporated communities have several shared interests and issues related to county governance. These areas comprise a much stronger and obvious community of interest than Nipomo does with areas adjacent to San Luis Obispo. Furthermore, Oceano and Nipomo have significant Latino populations; putting Oceano and Nipomo into separate districts will dilute Latino representation and influence. All of these proposed modifications appear to be politically motivated. Map C is unnecessary, ahistorical, and requires an egregious reconfiguration of District 1 that separates Cambria from the other north coastal communities. Further, it ignores strong ties between San Luis Obispo and nearby communities. Map C is intended to remove any portion of the City of San Luis Obispo from District 5. This adjustment is not demanded by demographic changes, but rather seems politically motivated and for the benefit of certain incumbents. This is inconsistent with Election Code 21500(d), which states ğķƚƦƷ ƭǒƦĻƩǝźƭƚƩźğƌ ķźƭƷƩźĭƷ ĬƚǒƓķğƩźĻƭ ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ƦǒƩƦƚƭĻ ƚŅ ŅğǝƚƩźƓŭ ƚƩ San Luis Obispo has been divided among three districts historically and this seems warranted for several reasons: o -campus population of Cal Poly (technically outside the city limits) is considered. o It is the county seat, the location of key state and district offices and home regional nature. Thus, its relationship to adjacent areas is strong in terms of education, employment and services. o For these reasons, District 5 communities of Atascadero and Santa Margarita are closely linked to SLO, as are Morro Bay/Los Osos and Avila Beach/Pismo Beach. All are areas where many residents commute to San Luis Obispo for work and regional services. Continuation of the division of the city among these three districts serves their respective communities of interest and is more important than any attempt at strict adherence to existing city limits. Without its traditional San Luis Obispo population, District 5 must expand to the north and south, triggering undesirable outcomes, notably: o The new District 5 would take Templeton from District 1. Templeton has traditionally had especially strong connections with Paso Robles. o To make up the population loss in District 1, it must incongruously expand to the coast to encompass Cambria and San Simeon, separating these coastal areas from the rest of the north coast communities (see above). The geographic, economic, social and environmental interests linking Cambria to the other coastal communities are clearly stronger than those to the inland communities. o No objective analysis of the proposed changes in Map C would conclude that removal of portions of San Luis Obispo from District 5 are so compelling as to justify the severing of Cambria from the north coast communities. For all the reasons outlined in this analysis, the Board of Supervisors should follow the California State Elections Code and make only minor refinements to the existing district boundaries. To embrace more radical revisions in order to advance partisan to fairly represent the interests of all County residents.