Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 33 of 48 <br />From: Liane Redford <liane.redford@comcast.net> <br />Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 1:45 PM <br />To: GRP -City Council <council@redwoodcity.org> <br />Subject: FW: Resident comments to RWC Council regarding Districting - Map13g <br />To the Redwood City Council: <br />Re: Suggested District Combining Redwood Shores and Bair Island; Invalid— not contiguous <br />Map13g is still one of the three maps under consideration for approval. Map 13g is not valid. It does not comply with <br />California state criteria for defining districts. Contiguity is a requirement. Redwood Shores and Bair Island are not <br />contiguous. <br />Contiguity <br />Contiguity is a requirement. There is no physical connection between Redwood Shores and Bair Island. They are <br />physically separated by San Carlos and water. Bair Island is contiguous to the rest of Redwood City. Redwood Shores <br />and Bair Island do not "touch." Lacking this basic criteria, districting based upon combining Redwood Shores and Bair <br />Island is not allowed. <br />Traditional districting criteria <br />The districting approach by the RWC Council does not seem to follow traditional criteria. While the latest maps now <br />comply with two majority -Latino districts and equal population, they don't fully comply with other traditional <br />criteria. See attachment: Traditional Districting Principles. This document describes the principles typical of choosing <br />districts based upon objective criteria. One important criteria is compactness. Redwood Shores is a perfect example of <br />compactness. <br />The matrix of maps provided by demographer and the RWC Council shows Map13g passes requirements for equal <br />population, two Latino majority districts, and some neighborhood considerations. But, it lacks other required or <br />preferred districting criteria. For your convenience, I have recast the matrix analysis for Map13g. The criteria is changed <br />to show typical and California state districting principles- and requirements -based criteria. See attached: Map 13g <br />matrix - - Traditional and California state criteria. <br />California state districting requirements <br />The below are excerpted phrases from California state districting requirements. They are in order of importance. <br />1) requires that districts be contiguous <br />2) to extent possible preserve geographic integrity — communities of interest <br />3) to extent practicable - compactness <br />4) may not consider candidate residency and districts cannot be drawn to favor or discriminate against a <br />candidate <br />Criteria 4) is not a Redwood City Council requirement. It applies to districts of the State of California. The process is <br />different for Redwood City. The Council has the authority. Incumbent/candidate residency can be considered. It should <br />be considered after the other districting requirements are met. The Council should not ignore or contravene applicable <br />California state criteria. <br />I am sending attachments. To ensure receipt of the attachments, I have sent them again individually. <br />I appreciate the Council taking the time to consider my opinions and thoughts upon combining Redwood Shores with <br />Bair Island. <br />N <br />358 <br />