As of the last meeting on November 23rd, Supervisor Miley pushed to have another draft map that included Pleasanton (incorporated and unincorporated) in District 1 with Dublin, Livermore and Sunol. Although that was finally motioned and seconded, Supervisor Haubert picked up on a suggestion from newly appointed Supervisor Brown during the meeting on the 19th, that Pleasanton would be better *split* between Districts 1 and 4. So another motion was seconded to move the southeast portion of Pleasanton (some incorporated, mostly unincorporated) into District 1. (Draft Maps A2 & A3) There seems to be a misunderstanding on the unincorporated agriculture and open space being included in Pleasanton's planning; the Board doesn't believe it is. It's certainly included in "Pleasanton's General Plan 2005 - 2025."
There remains a majority resistance on the Board to moving away from our current configuration. Some of it is because the Supervisors see value in having at least two representatives for larger population areas, giving those areas more votes on board issues. Of course, that assumes both/all supervisors agree on a particular issue, and that splitting a community of interest up, like the Tri-Valley, doesn't dilute the issue. But you know what they say about assuming.
Supervisor Valle has a different view. In both meetings, he brought up what he's calling a "poverty COI" (i.e. community of interest). and the inequity of services within Alameda County depending on where one lives. Using COVID vaccinations as an example, Supervisor Valle spoke on the 19th about how "we were all struggling to get people vaccinated at the Coliseum" and "the East county was sort of to themselves" while the crowds were "huge" at the Coliseum. He further stated, it "almost appeared that the Tri-Valley was separate" and he doesn't want to "send the message that there is exclusivity just because of where you live in Alameda County, we're all part of the same family." He doesn't acknowledge there are not only geographical boundaries (eg. mountain ridges) that separate the Tri-Valley, there are also transportation hurdles. It's not easy to get from the northern part of Alameda County to the southern end. Perhaps, instead of talking about "exclusivity" and hinting at Tri-Valley entitlement, there should have been more than two large vaccination areas to serve the county.
But I digress. Counsel explained that there is no "poverty COI." Most of the highest poverty levels are currently spread across Districts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with some in District 1. They are not all contained within a geographically contiguous area. Supervisor Valle requested a draft map showing the poverty levels across the county; it was approved. (Draft Map A1) Of course it's not easy or unfortunately quick, but I'd like to think that with all five Supervisors affected and involved, as they should have been for the last *10 years*, they could manage to address the issues. "Balkanizing" [term used in the meetings] the rest of the county against the Tri-Valley does no one any good when, as one commenter said, "[t]he proposed realignment to connect part of the Tri-Valley to part of the East Bay does little justice to either group as they have significantly different needs due to different climate, commute, population density and community traditions."
It was interesting that in both meetings it was clearly stated that "Pleasanton hasn't weighed-in." While public commentary was solicited and given, it seems the Board may give "weight" to official city comments. I know Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore Mayors have had input on State Assembly and Senate redistricting and am hoping I (and the board) just missed it on Alameda County redistricting. I've contacted Mayor Brown. The next public meeting is Tuesday, December 2nd. The meeting December 7th is when the first reading of the final mapping is to take place.
Latest Draft Maps: Web Link
To comment online: Web Link
Meeting videos: Web Link