Lisa Larkin

PCDCC Member

Thanks to some great media coverage and letters to the editor, on December 7th, the public turned out to let the Board of Supervisors know how they felt about them picking their own Staff Map A over the highly supported collaborative public submitted maps (3 different hybrid alternative maps).

The meeting started with Supervisor Suzanne Jones of District 4 making a motion to rescind the Map A selection and revisit the public supported maps. Bonnie Gore seconded that motion and Holmes also voted yes, so MAP A was rescinded for the time being.

After discussion, Jones made another motion to select the public Hybrid 2.0 Option 1 map. That motion failed initially because Holmes wanted the Hybrid 2.0 Option 2 map. Holmes then made a motion for Option 2, but that failed without a second for a vote. So Jones then quickly made another motion to return to another vote on Hybrid 2.0 Option 1, where Jones, Gore, and Homes all voted yes in support. Gustafson and Weygandt voted in line to give a feel of unanimous support behind the other supervisors, but made it clear they didn’t support it.

There was one more hurdle it had to make it over. Once it was selected, it had to go for a second reading on December 14th to be the final decision on the map. One member of the Planning Commission pulled it from the consent calendar for more discussion. We were not too concerned at this point since we knew if they didn’t have the final map in place on the 15th, the state would end up drawing the map at a cost to the county, as well as the county having no say what so ever in the map selection at that point.

The collaboration group worked hard, 100’s of hours to reach out to the community, leaders, and local elected members, and took all that feedback and developed 3 alternative options that would solve for as much feedback received, while also providing the highest level of Voter Rights Act (VRA) requirements. All that work paid off. In the end, the Hybrid 2.0 Option 1 map submitted by the public collaborators, Julia Sweeney, Lisa Larkin, Amber Beckler, and Wayne Nader is now the official Placer County District map for the next 10 years.

Hybrid 2.0 Option 1 - Highlights

Basic Requirements

·Meets all state and federal requirements

·Achieves population parity of 5% or less deviation

·Adheres to County driven criteria to the extent possible

·Takes a regional focus representing the diverse mix of rural/ag and suburban/city along with planned growth in the next 10 years and recognizes specific plans

·Aligns Communities of Interest, preserves distinct neighborhoods and follows census designated areas, preserves cities

·Balances districts with incorporated and unincorporated

·More compact districts and eliminates carve-outs and minimizes peninsulas

Integrated feedback from community and leaders across the County

·Keeps Lincoln, Rocklin, Loomis whole

·Preserves Roseville across 3 districts

·Aligns Loomis with Newcastle and Penryn and kept together

·Preserves West Roseville Community of Interest

·Each district has unincorporated and incorporated population and preserves strong rural/ag presence

·Sunset Area Plan is contained in one district

·District supervisor span of responsibility is balanced across cities, rural areas and specific plans

This was truly a community driven effort, so while the collaborators made the maps and did the outreach, many of you publicly made comments, submitted emailed comments, wrote letters to the editors, and passed around the news media from the SacBee, Gold Country, and others articles. We thank all of you that participated and made this monumental event happen here in Placer County.

You can find the new district map here where you can zoom in on it for more detail: https://www.placer.ca.gov/countysupervisordistricts