Dublin Council Selects District Draft Map; Asks For Revisions

DUBLIN, CA ? The Dublin City Council voted Tuesday on one district map out of 15 possible selections, but asked that demographer Kristen Parks present them with a modified version of the selected map before they make a final decision at the final public hearing on Aug. 16. The map will be included in an ordinance and a resolution on which the council will vote.

In February, the city voted to transition to a district-based election system starting in 2024 after receiving a letter from a law firm accusing the city of a ?racially polarized? at-large voting system. Pleasanton and Livermore received similar letters, and have also transitioned to district-based elections. California law requires the following of districts, in descending order of importance:

• Districts must be geographically contiguous.
• Districts must minimize divisions between existing neighborhoods and ?communities of interest? (i.e. shared demographics, shared schools, shared natural boundaries).
• Districts should have easily identifiable boundaries, like major roads or highways as opposed to small residential streets.
• Districts should be as compact as possible.

Districts must also not have a difference in population of more than 10 percent.

At the fourth of five required public hearings, council members submitted their top three choices of 15 draft maps that meet the population requirements - some created by professional demographers, and some by the public. More recent demographic maps took public comments from an extensive public outreach campaign and incorporated them into new maps.

After some discussion, council members gave a preliminary nod to Map 112, which was one of the maps submitted by a resident using an online mapping tool.

As the map currently stands:

• District 1 extends from the western edge of the city to 680, then extends north of Amador Valley Boulevard to Brighton Drive, then follows Village Parkway to the city?s northern edge, swerving around Dublin High.
• District 2 extends east to Hacienda Drive, then roughly follows Tassajara Creek to the city?s northern edge.
• District 3 is bounded roughly by Hacienda Drive to the west, Gleason Drive to the north, I-580 to the south, to Creek Road in the east, with a jagged, snaky border near Valley Vista Drive that is partly due to irregular census blocks, according to demographer Kristen Parks.
• District four comprises the remaining northwestern part of the city.

All districts except District 3 extend from the city?s northern to southern border.

Council members asked Parks of the National Demographics Corporation to bring them back a revised version of 112 that moves a trapezoidal offshoot east of Village Parkway from District 1 to District 2 due to concerns that it would unnecessarily break up the neighborhood. Council members also wanted to give more population to District 2, where Santa Rita Jail and FCI Dublin are located.

Parks said that the trapezoid contained over 1,000 residents and could shift the population deviation between districts, but said she would bring back a modified draft for consideration.

?I think it would be good for us to bring back a revision because I think it?s important for us to see the population because Santa Rita Jail?s in number 2,? City Manager Linda Smith said.

?We understand it?s going to make District 2 significantly higher than the rest. We want to know how significantly higher it?s going to go if we put that triangle in there,? Vice Mayor Josey said. ?I wouldn?t tweak the east side and see what happens. If you come back and tell us it puts us out of compliance, we go, okay, but we want to see it happen.?

Only Councilmember Shawn Kumagai listed Map 112 as his top choice, though he was also the first to question the trapezoid east of Village Parkway.

?I was a little concerned about the little chunk on District 1 east of Village Parkway,? he said. ?Curious what folks think about it breaking up that neighborhood - Village Parkway north of Amador Valley Boulevard area right there. That seemed a little odd to me to cut it there. You?re putting the high school in there, but all that area around the high school adjacent to it is in a different district.?

Before Kumagai, Mayor Hernandez, Vice Mayor Josey and Councilmember McCorriston all listed the district as their second choice, making it the most consistently mentioned option.

?The things that I like about 112 are the low variance and the compactness - it keeps west Dublin together,? Josey said. ?District 2 keeps most of Echo Park with the area that Shawn was concerned about with Lake Drive and Stagecoach and that area. It keeps Camp Parks intact with the boulevard, it spreads out the commercial a little bit as well.?

Three callers voiced support for map 113, while another voiced support for maps 110 and 111. Callers expressed the desire to keep west Dublin in a single district, and to have at least one minority majority district, among other concerns.

Council members listed their top 3 choices. Click on the links to view the map, and see detailed demographic statistics for each district.

Council members also unanimously agreed to accept an election sequencing proposal that would place Districts 1 and 3 up for re-election in 2024, and Districts 2 and 4 up for re-election in 2026. If Map 112 is accepted, Josey and McCoriston will compete to represent District 1 (where they both reside), and Hu will compete to stay in District 3. In 2026, Kumagai will compete to represent District 2, and District 4 will be vacant.

For more information on the district election process, including all draft maps and the history of the process, see the city?s district elections website. To watch the hearing, fast forward to 44 minutes here.