No decision on Redwood City district map

Councilmembers were presented with two maps drafted and backed by an Advisory Redistricting Committee made up of 11 appointed residents.

The two maps, Draft Map C2 and Draft Map B, are largely similar in that they both keep the Redwood Shores neighborhood in a separate district while maintaining two majority-minority districts with Latinos accounting for more than 50% of the voting-age population.

Where they differ is in how they divide neighborhoods in the center of the city. Draft Map C2, a modified version of another map removed from consideration during the commission’s Nov. 3 meeting, splits the Mt. Carmel neighborhoods into three districts and separates it from the Eagle Hill neighborhood to keep eight other neighborhoods whole.

Alternatively, Draft Map B keeps Mt. Carmel and Eagle Hills largely together and avoids a three-way split but only preserves six whole neighborhoods.

Councilmembers largely avoided strongly backing either of the two maps but highlighted issues of concern such as keeping neighborhoods and mobile home communities united, preserving the two minority-majority districts in its new map and keeping Redwood Shores whole.

Councilmember Michael Smith also asked that staff bring back map narratives that outline which issues are being addressed within each district such as a shared concern for sea level rise or other policy issues. Similarly, Councilmember Jeff Gee asked for staff to specify what the tradeoffs would have to be made by honoring specific issues in districts.

Councilmember Diane Howard also requested that a minimal change map, which keeps districts largely as they are after accounting for population changes, be brought back for consideration. She also asked that Map C2 be modified to resemble a minimal change map while preserving the two minority-majority districts and for the board to consider Map 93875, a recent community submission that accomplishes the same thing.

“I’ve been elected to represent the whole city so I’m trying to be solemn here,” Howard said about her request to see a minimal change map.

Redistricting committee members opted against pushing forward a minimal change map after noting the community seemed ready for new ideas. The current district map was drafted and adopted two years ago using census data collected in 2010 but the city’s population has grown since then, some districts have experienced more growth than others, said Paul Mitchell with Redistricting Partners, a consulting firm hired to assist in the city’s process.

Aguirre noted the city’s demographics have also been substantially altered by the pandemic in the past two years and will continue to be as people become more aware of social and political issues.

“A lot has changed since then. Our population has changed,” Aguirre said. “The pandemic has literally plagued our communities which also brought up a strong lens on inequalities that are occurring in our societies.”

But Howard argued a minimal change map should be considered given that the city attracted a “great deal” of community feedback during its last process.

During the most recent redistricting process, community input was lacking until the end when draft maps were being decided on, Advisory Redistricting Committee Chair Rudy Espinoza Murray said. Mayor Giselle Hale noted many jurisdictions are undergoing the same process which could be eating at community attention along with the pressures of an ongoing pandemic.

In support of the work done by the Advisory Redistricting Committee members, Aguirre said the council should be thoughtful in how it considers future maps. In agreement, Howard encouraged ARC members to participate in future meetings on the matter through public comment.

The council will take up the issue again on Monday, Jan. 24. Maps can be submitted for consideration during that meeting up until Wednesday, Jan. 12. Legally, the city has until April 17 to adopt and submit its map to the county but Assistant City Manager Khojikian noted staff will need time to work with the county Elections Office to ensure district details are finalized for the November election by the April deadline.

“I want to make sure that as we have to divide our city into districts that it doesn’t create divisions in our neighborhoods and in our constituents,” Aguirre said. “My biggest concern as I listen to things [is] how a process like this can be divisive and I hope it will bring neighborhoods together.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106