HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1991, 2 - THE BOARD'S PROPOSED REDISTRICTING PLAN FOR SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS �NO AGENDA
��►IIDIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���� �Illlll I► ,o- - 9 152
cityof SM
99 ul
I Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
October 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: John D
Subject: The Boar s Proposed Redistricting Plan for Supervisorial
Districts
In the past the City has been largely represented by the Supervisor
from District 5 and to a lesser extent by the Supervisor from
District 3 . The primary differences proposed in the 1991
redistricting plan would further extend District 3 into the eastern
portion of the City, bring District 2 into a portion of the City
north of Highland and would bring a portion of the southernmost
district, District 4, into the Orcutt/Southwood portion of the
City. The "majority Supervisor", in terms of representing the
greatest number of City citizens would be the District 3
Supervisor.
The Board of Supervisors has set a public hearing on their proposed
redistricting plan for October 8th at 9:30 a.m. The essential
question before the Council is whether you desire to make a
statement at the hearing and, if so, what should be the content of
the statement and who will make the City presentation.
Points for possible discussion by the Council are these:
1. With the City being divided up between four Supervisors,
no one Supervisor can be said to truly represent the
City. The City has about one-fifth of the County's
® population, approximately 42, 000 citizens compared to a
o� County population of approximately 210, 000. However, in
a� Y ° terms of representation to the County government, we
� �-�' would have a very small portion of two Supervisors and
c; o a larger portion of two Supervisors.
CD " z2. More abstractly, the question is whether it would be
a better to have one Supervisor representing the City, or
substantial portions of two Supervisors, or portions of
four Supervisors.
3 . The basic issue is whether, and to what degree, the
Supervisors feel they represent the population and the
interests of the City of San Luis Obispo; the "optimistic
view" is that we have legitimate access to four
Supervisors under the proposed plan; the "pessimistic
view" is that we have "real access" to a portion of two
J '/
Supervisors, one who has significant north County
representation responsibilities and one who - .. has
significant south County representation responsibilities.
4. A question is whether the City representation to the
County .is too "diffuse" to do us any good and, assuming
it is, what can be done about it given the apparent
agreement between the five Supervisors on dividing up San
Luis Obispo so that other divisions within the County
don't have to be made.
5. For example, it has been stated that Grover City "refused
to be divided between two Supervisors" and that the
Supervisors representing districts 3 and 4 agreed to
that, thus necessitating the extension of both of their
districts into San Luis Obispo.
6. If this proposed redistricting plan is adopted by the
Board, then it should probably cause a reconsideration
by the City as to how we approach and work with our
Supervisors. Heretofore we have thought of the
Supervisor from District 5 as being our "primary
Supervisor"; this would no longer be the case after the
proposed redistricting.
7. Reasonable criteria for the construction of an "ideal"
supervisorial district might be reasonable compactness,
preservation of a community of interest, and the
avoidance of the appearance of "gerrymandering" . Under
these criteria five supervisorial districts consisting
of a true north County area, a true south County area,
a north coast/balance of north County area, a "central
coast" area from Pismo through Morro Bay, and San Luis
Obispo could be created. This would avoid the picture
presented by the proposed arrangement when we observe
Cambria-to-San Luis, Nipomo-to-San Luis, and Atascadero-
to-San Luis combinations, when the obvious attempt is to
use San Luis as a numbers game solution to create four
supervisorial districts that are pleasing-to-the
incumbents but which otherwise serve little rational
purpose.
All of my maps have been left with Sherry for your perusal.
Please contact Ken or Jeff with your thoughts on this matter prior
to Monday's meeting.
JD:mc
Attachments
C. Jeff
Ken
Sherry
Pam .
Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo- County
Alex Hinds, Director
Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director
Barney McCay, Chief Building Official
Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer
October 29 1991 RECEIVED
TO: JOHN DUNNE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR OCT
FROM: NORMA DENGLER, SENIOR PLANNER SNV MIS BISPO, CA
SUBJECT: REDISTRICTING — CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Per your request yesterday — the following information is a breakdown of the
city's population by proposed supervisorial district:
District 2 — 1,035
District 3 — 22,443
District 4 — 2,006
District 5 — 16,474
Please call me at 549-5600 if you have any questions or comments.
ND/sb/050H/4585H
10-2-91
County Government Center • San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805)549-5600