Sonoma County officials gear up for redistricting hearing

Sonoma County’s redistricting advisory panel wanted to make the five supervisorial district boundaries more equitable, but the map they drew is anything but, critics say.

The county’s Advisory Redistricting Commission, a 19-member citizen’s group tasked with drafting the map, will present it to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, ahead of the state’s December deadline for approval.

The commission’s map, which it voted to forward the supervisors last week, has already drawn a public outcry.

The map — known as NDC-D-51162 — would move unite all of Rohnert Park into District 5, which encompasses the Russian River and stretches along the coast up to Sea Ranch. It would also move southwest Santa Rosa, including Roseland and Moorland, into District 3 which includes the bulk of downtown Santa Rosa.

Community members in smaller communities in District 5, however, worry about the potential for Rohnert Park to dominate the district’s politics.

Rohnert Park isn’t happy either.

On Thursday, Rohnert Park City Council sent a letter to the county objecting to the map and asking to be placed, as one entity, in District 3 instead.

“I will say that mixed reviews would perhaps be overly kind,” Board of Supervisors Chair Lynda Hopkins said of the feedback she has received on the map.

Under the county’s current map, Rohnert Park is split between District 2 and District 3. The advisory commission sought to consolidate Rohnert Park into one district in response to requests from community advocates during the commission’s outreach sessions.

Moving Rohnert Park into District 5 was the only way the commission was able to keep Rohnert Park undivided and still achieve the population balance that federal and state laws require, according to advisory commission chair Ed Sheffield.

Sheffield acknowledged that Rohnert Park’s appearance on the proposed map is odd — it forms a peninsula poking out of District 5 — but said critics of the map may be missing the criteria the commission had to use to draw a legal map.

“I don’t think that they’re seeing that there’s a criteria that puts in order what redistricting commissions need to be focused on, and yes keeping cities intact and census designated places intact is important,” Sheffield said. “But above that is keeping districts contiguous and not dividing up neighborhoods.”

He added that the commission has worked on redistricting for four months.

Every 10 years state and federal law requires counties to redraw supervisorial districts in order to ensure each district contains a relatively equal number of residents and address other demographic concerns.

Recently released census data shows the county’s population is 489,710, and the existing districts are already fairly balanced, at about 100,000 or fewer people each. Under federal and state law, the district with the smallest population must still be within 10% of the largest district.

California’s Fair Maps Act, passed in 2019, established a new “standardized” set of redistricting criteria that “gives greater attention to communities of interest when drawing up district boundaries,” Sheffield said.

On Tuesday, Sheffield said he plans to provide more context on the state’s new criteria.

“We’re all entirely new to this process, but we’re doing more than just checking boxes this go-round,” Sheffield said, referencing state requirements and the Board of Supervisors’ instruction that the commission focus on equity.

Now that the commission has identified a proposed map, the redistricting process moves forward to the Board of Supervisors which will make the final decision. The deadline to approve a new map is Dec. 15.

District 5, represented by Hopkins, District 2 represented by Supervisor David Rabbitt and District 3, represented by Chris Coursey, stand to see the most drastic changes if the map is adopted as is.

“I’m sitting back just wondering where my colleagues are going to go with this especially our chairwoman Lynda Hopkins,” Rabbitt said. “Because if anything her district is nearly 50% different.”

Rabbitt acknowledged the proposed map addressed the challenge of moving southwest Santa Rosa into District 3 but wondered whether it creates more problems than solves, in part because delays in releasing the census data gave the commission very little time to draft a map and collect feedback.

He also expressed some skepticism of District 2’s proposed eastern boundary which stretches further north along Petaluma Hill Road toward Bennett Valley.

Hopkins plans to ask if it is possible to put Roseland and Moorland in District 3 while also placing Rohnert Park in a “more urban district,” she said.

“I do believe we have the ability to request modifications to the map,” Hopkins said. “That’s certainly something worthy of exploring.”

Tight-lipped about his thoughts on the proposed map, Coursey said he plans to “withhold judgment” until he hears from the commission.

Beyond Tuesday’s hearing, Sheffield said the commission’s work is done, but it will do its best if the board sends the map back for further work.

“I wouldn’t recommend spinning your wheels,” Sheffield said.

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.