Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Cerrito council advances two draft district maps as public hearings continue
Summary
After a fourth public hearing on the California Voting Rights Act demand, the El Cerrito City Council directed staff to post two draft map options (A2 and C2, with a cleaned‑up C3 variant) for the required seven‑day public review to preserve safe‑harbor protections and limit legal exposure, drawing both support and criticism at the meeting.
The El Cerrito City Council on June 16 continued a fast‑moving public process to transition from at‑large to district‑based city council elections after the city received a demand letter alleging the current system may run afoul of the California Voting Rights Act.
City Attorney Sky Woodruff opened the fourth required public hearing and said the city had commissioned its own analysis showing a statistical possibility of racially polarized voting in past elections and explained that following the CVRA "safe harbor" process — adopting a resolution of intent and then a final resolution within the statutory timelines — can sharply reduce the city's exposure to plaintiffs' attorney fees. "One of the things it provides is that if a plaintiff successfully establishes that a city's at‑large voting system results in racially polarized voting, they are entitled to attorney's fees," Woodruff said.
Redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners walked the council and the public through the Fair Maps Act criteria used to draw districts and the consultant's five draft plans. Mitchell emphasized ordinary redistricting tradeoffs — population equality, contiguity, compactness and keeping communities of interest intact — and showed overlays for renter density, school attendance zones and hillside/open‑space areas used to evaluate the five draft plans. "Districts need to be relatively equal sized," Mitchell said, describing the consultant's target deviations and the need to balance competing community interests.
Public comment was lengthy. Residents who used the mapping tool urged clarity and more time for public review. Michael Cohen said he "had a lot of fun playing with this mapping program" but warned of oddities where census blocks make unpopulated open space appear populated. Map author Neil (presenting his public submission as Map 109) said, "Map 109 unites populations around the Del Norte BART Station" and encouraged the council to allow a small set of public‑tested alternatives to be posted for seven days so the community could provide more focused input.
Council members debated the tradeoffs in real time. Some members expressed concern about odd, hard‑to‑understand shapes on public maps, while others emphasized keeping renter and hillside communities together to preserve communities of interest. After discussion, the council voted to narrow the set of draft maps to two demographer plans (A2 and C2) and to ask the consultant to produce a cleaned‑up variant (labeled C3 / Map 142 in staff's demonstration) that addresses a compactness pinch point. The council instructed staff to post the chosen draft map(s) so they would be available for public review for at least seven days before next steps.
The council and staff said the schedule keeps the city within the CVRA safe‑harbor timeline: council aims to finalize a map at the July 7 hearing (the fifth public hearing), adopt an ordinance changing the election method on July 21, and hold the first district elections in November 2028. The council emphasized that technical precinct conversions and minor administrative fixes will be coordinated with the county registrar if the map is adopted.
Next steps: staff will post the selected draft map(s) and the consultant's technical report, receive additional written and oral public comment, and return to the council on the scheduled dates for final action.
