Points of discussion re: the Maps:
BofS Map A has been revised. Map A1 made changes in district population assignments due to “voting precinct” boundaries. (MY NOTE: As of this meeting, Map A1 was not available on the website, and this meeting is the first time it’s being introduced to the public.)
Map B had been withdrawn by the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force.
It was noted that Maps C and D fell well within the population spread criteria set by the BofS, and that the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force had made it clear they strongly supported keeping the Tri-Valley whole within one district. There was no other discussion on either of these maps.
BofS Map E shows how Pleasanton could be kept 100% within one district if it is moved to District 4 with Castro Valley, Oakland, Fairview, Cherryland and Ashland.
BofS Map F shows how if Pleasanton is kept 100% in District 1 with Dublin and Livermore it makes the district too large.
Map G notes non-CDP areas (unincorporated or non-Census Designated Places). This map was also submitted by the Alameda County Citizens Redistricting Task Force.
Points of discussion re: public comment:
It was stated that “most” of the maps were presented at the public meetings held in each of the Districts. (MY NOTE: Map A1 not presented until this meeting, Maps E, F and G not presented until the last public meeting 6/9/2011.)
Letters received from the Mayors of Dublin, Livermore and Fremont in favor of Map A because they felt that having multiple supervisors assigned to their towns was a benefit.
Letter received from Mayor Hosterman opposed to Map A, wanting to keep Pleasanton 100% in one District. Comments received from Hacienda Business Park manager also opposed to splitting the business park between two districts. Additional public comment received was also opposed to splitting Pleasanton. No public comment re: Pleasanton was noted that agreed with Map A. Steven Bocian (I think), Asst City Manager, spoke at this meeting restating Pleasanton’s objection to being split across districts. Supv Haggerty stated that he hadn’t been noticed if this was discussed at a Council Meeting and wanted to see the video of the meeting so he could “review the public comment”.
Other public comment received by BofS was regarding Hayward and was opposed to splitting Hayward on Maps C and D.
Remove Maps A, B and F.
Keep Maps A1, C, D, E and G. Develop “official” designations for public hearing(s) (6/28/2011?) on proposed plan.
My impressions: Supv Haggerty made it clear that those of us in Pleasanton were the only ones in opposition to the redistricting proposed in Map A. Maps E and F were developed as “gotchas” in that “So Pleasanton, you want to stay 100% in one district? Well, here’s how we’ll do it! How do you like it now?”
No discussion on the criteria the “Ad Hoc” committee was supposed to follow in developing their maps – you know – the one about “easily identifiable geographic boundaries” and maintaining “communities of interest”. No positive discussion on any other redistricting scenario except Map A/A1. No discussion on minimizing the split of towns between districts. No discussion on how Map A split out tiny numbers of individuals and families from their communities. No sign that politicking and gerrymandering are not the main criteria followed in this redistricting process. No sign of even one "open mind". Unfortunately, no surprise.