El Cerrito reviews draft district maps as residents urge keeping San Pablo corridor intact

The El Cerrito City Council held a special meeting on June 9 to continue the public hearing on transitioning the city to district-based elections, hear a presentation of three draft maps and receive public comment about communities of interest and the sequencing of elections.

City Attorney (staff) told the council the city received a March 17 demand letter alleging racially polarized voting under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), and staff retained a statistician whose analysis found statistical indications that could support the claim. That exposure led the council to pursue the CVRA safe-harbor process for moving to districts rather than litigating. City Attorney noted the safe-harbor timeline (generally 90 days from the council’s resolution of intent) and said the resident’s attorney declined to grant extensions.

Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners, the city’s demographer, reviewed the Fair Maps Act criteria that will guide line-drawing — population equality (target about 5,200 residents per district based on an adjusted census count of roughly 26,000 for the city), contiguity, communities of interest and compactness — and explained why alternative options such as ranked-choice voting were not pursued as part of the safe-harbor approach. Mitchell summarized three city-drafted options (Draft A, B and C) and dozens of public-submitted maps. He described Draft A as having a 5.5% total population-deviation, Draft B about 4% deviation with more compact shapes, and Draft C as a blended alternative that better preserves a Hillside district in Mitchell’s view. Mitchell also walked the council through citizen voting-age population data, saying ethnic populations in El Cerrito are dispersed enough that no clear majority-minority district could be created using current data (examples cited included the highest reported Latino CVAP around 17% and Asian CVAP near 28% in specific districts).

Fourteen members of the public (in person and virtually) addressed the council. Neil Tsutsui, who said he lives in El Cerrito, asked that apartment and renter communities along the San Pablo Corridor not be fragmented across multiple districts and asked that the council post his public map (map 109) for the required seven-day review before the next hearing; he said his map had a 1.53% population deviation. Several other speakers raised related points: Richard Brooks encouraged broader civic engagement and offered assistance completing online community-of-interest forms; Betsy Basher asked whether the “Hillside” designation referred to natural open space versus residential hillside areas and questioned how incumbency would be handled to avoid disadvantaging sitting council members; Grant Ricketts asked who filed the demand letter and urged cities to coordinate to resist what he described as opportunistic plaintiff tactics; Rebecca Kenny said the compressed timeline meant many residents still do not understand the change and urged stronger outreach before the 2028 elections.

During council discussion and Q&A with the consultant and staff, Mitchell described a commonly used sequencing approach: numbering districts so odd-numbered districts are up in the first election under new lines (the city’s working example would schedule three districts for 2028 and the remainder for later cycles, producing a two-cycle transition to fully district-based elections). He emphasized that precise sequencing is decided after a final map is selected and after council members’ residences are known; the council and staff said they avoid drawing lines with incumbent residences in mind during the public-drafting phase. City Attorney reiterated that the council must complete the safe-harbor map selection within the statutory timeline unless the plaintiff agrees to an extension; staff reported the plaintiff’s counsel would not agree to an extension.

Council members and staff agreed to provide and overlay additional data for the next hearing, including multifamily/renter and assessor-appended voter data, to better evaluate how draft lines affect renters and neighborhoods. The consultant also offered to bring the mapping tool into a council meeting so members and the public can watch line edits live. The council voted to close the public hearing by voice vote; the transcript records the motion carried with one abstention. The council did not adopt a final map at the meeting and indicated it would use the public feedback and potential map modifications to narrow choices at the next hearings.

The council’s next steps are to post maps that will be considered (maps must be public for seven days before a final adoption vote on a particular map), prepare any modifications (including potential council-directed adjustments shown in public), and return for additional hearings to narrow and adopt a final map consistent with the CVRA safe-harbor process.