AgdaPkt 2019-05-06 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 28 of 48 From: Shannon Guzzetta To: MGR -Alex Khoiikian; GRP -District Elections; MGR -Melissa Stevenson Diaz; GRP -City Council Subject: District Maps -- 13h preference Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 10:38:45 AM I am so relieved that the city asked for, and was granted more time for the district map process. I would recommend asking for even more time as cities around the state are undergoing appeals as to the merits and constitutionality of Shenkman's claims. Why not ask to extend the timeframe beyond 2020 when we can factor in new census data and only be required to draw maps once this decade, also eliminating the continuousness of maps serving current council members rather than the demographics of the city. RWC Communications have offered people the opportunity to submit additional comments and maps but these messages do NOT indicate HOW or where to send comments -- the districtelections&redwood city. ora email address or an address should be provided in big bold text. The communications need to be very clear, and submitted with as much advance notice as possible. For instance, the website states that the council may decide on a map at the 4/8 meeting, but further in the timeline states that additional maps may be submitted by April 27th. This would be ideal, in which case the first sentence needs to be removed from the website. Questions: How many people are on your weekly email list? Who, at the city, receives the district elections email? I read that a new mapping consultant has been brought in, is this true? Is the reason the previous maps were dropped because of the citizen voting age population rather than total population percentages needing to be above 50%? I myself have difficulty with the online mapping platform. If comments are open through April, it'd be a good idea to invite everyone who has submitted map suggestions to a meeting with the consultants for some live demonstrations of adjustments that might please a large group of residents. As one resident stated at a city council meeting last month, we don't need more maps to look at every time, we need to be included in the conversation and provided with explanations about the options. I noted the short timeline for new maps between 3/26-3/30 yielded two new maps, thank you for posting them online on Monday. This timeframe was too short for adequate submission process. The April 27th due date is much better. There needs to be an explanation (printed on the maps) in which Hale and Masur are both in district 2 for 2022, but Masur's term ends in 2020. People are viewing these as invalid. This needs public clarification. Once again, I reiterate that Redwood Shores should be one distinct district. Based on the legal parameters, Redwood Shores fits all of the requirements perfectly. The Shores is population balanced, is contiguous, is served by the Belmont Redwood Shores School District. We must commute through Belmont and/or San Carlos to connect to other areas of Redwood City. Redwood Shores has a well- established set of neighborhoods with governing associations looking out for the interests of our residents and businesses, and our own efficient communication methods for our area. It's not that we don't want to be combined with Bair Island; it is that it doesn't make sense. In my opinion the best option currently available is 13h. If making continued revisions, here are suggestions for 13g: • Separate Bair Island from district 1 and add it to district 2. (population balance) • Remove Edgewood Park from district 7 to district 6, and add more of the woodside plaza area to 7 (from 6). I'm wondering if 13j can be further modified so that it is population balanced by reducing district 6 and adding to 4 & 5. 353