Draft Maps
�
September 14, 2023
Agenda
Things we will cover:
�
Required Redistricting Criteria
There are a number of criteria that are required under the FAIR MAPS Act (ranked):
following city, natural, and man-made boundaries
Traditional redistricting principles used throughout the country and written into state law
Public Testimony: Google Form
I would like to see the redistricting take into account logical break-points like major roadways and zoning sections. The model set by the current Belmont city council districts has our street, west of El Camino, included in District 1 with Sterling Downs and neighborhoods east of El Camino. The line for 1 and 2 goes down the middle of our (secondary, residential) street, so our across-the-street neighbors are in District 2. This doesn't make sense to me, and I find that matters of great importance to folks in District 1 don't resonate as strongly with us west of El Camino, and the city council conversation was focused on the Sterling Downs topics.
Public Testimony: Google Form
It is important that Redwood Shores has the opportunity to have 2 trustees on the board and to guarantee at least 1 Redwood Shores trustee. Please note that Belmont Shores should be considered part of Redwood Shores, so we're talking all voters east of 101. Lack of a Redwood Shores trustee leads to blind spots no matter how good the intentions are of the trustees that are west of 101. Within Redwood Shores there is a line of demarcation at Shell Blvd with west of Shell being the older part of the Shores (many non-HOA homes, Section 8 housing) and east of Shell being the newer parts (all HOA homes and some apartment complexes). There's also a line of demarkation cutting through the lagoon with the Marine Pkwy side and the RWS Pkwy side. It will also be important to look beyond the total numbers of each trustee area and consider the types of housing, natural and man-made geographic boundaries as well as ethnic concentrations especially our Hispanic families.
Public Testimony: Google Form
Thank you for soliciting public feedback on the draft BRSSD trustee maps and for all of the time and energy you are putting into the thoughtful redistricting of our community! As you revise the maps, I urge you to please focus on school communities as communities of interest to preserve.
As the speaker from Redistricting Partners explained in his June 15 presentation, communities of interest are meant to: 1) have a shared culture, 2) be geographically connected, and 3) have a relationship to the agency being districted. Our school communities clearly fit all three of these criteria, and yet several of the draft maps split a single school's community into three different districts and/or include districts that stretch across three or four different school communities.
Cont. next page
Public Testimony: Google Form
It is the "horizontally" drawn districts that seem most problematic in terms of splitting up school communities. For example, in Draft Map A, District D stretches from Fox School all the way down to 101, pulling from nearly all of Belmont's elementary school communities. Draft Map A also splits the Nesbit School community into three separate districts (B, C, and D). In Draft Map B, District 5 stretches from the end of Redwood Shores all the way to Alameda de las Pulgas or further, splitting across at least three elementary school communities.
The "vertically" drawn districts seem to do a better job of preserving school community representation. For example, in Draft Map C, the Nesbit School community is split across two districts (B and D) instead of three. The vertically drawn District A in both Draft Map C and Draft Map A also guarantees that a trustee will be elected from Redwood Shores, whereas Draft Map B presents a world in which there could be trustees only from Belmont (and the Laurie Meadows neighborhood in San Mateo). Continue next page.
Public Testimony: Google Form
On a separate note, I notice that the Sterling Downs neighborhood next to Nesbit School, which has a tight-knit community identity and active neighborhood association, is split in half in both Draft Maps A and C. The community is located between Old County Road and Highway 101 from Ralston Avenue to Sterling View, and this is another community of interest that I urge you to keep intact.
Again, it is important to preserve school community representation as much as possible in our district mapping so our trustees will be able to bring a clear understanding of school communities' needs and concerns to board decision-making, and so that our board will reflect a diverse range of perspectives from throughout the schools in our community. Thank you for your consideration.
Public Testimony: Districtr COI
Identified a community called “North Hills”
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Total Deviation: 5%
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Total Deviation: 6%
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Total Deviation: 6%
Need to correct noncontiguous area in 4
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Total Deviation: 8.4%
DRAFT MAPS
Draft A
Draft B
Draft C
All maps have 1-2 schools in their trustee-areas
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
Redistricting Partners
Redistricting Timeline
BRSSD Trustee-Area Districting
Districting Timeline
The following five-meeting timeline follows the requirements of the California Voting Rights Act:�
May 18, 2023 Public Hearing #1 (Pre-map)�
June 15, 2023 Public Hearing #2 (Pre-map)
September 14, 2023 Public Hearing #3: Introduce Draft Maps
October 19, 2023 Public Hearing #4: Revised Draft Maps
November 2023 Public Hearing #5: Final Vote
�