The board discussed the matter for close to an hour and 15 minutes before continuing it to 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 2, at which time it's expected a full board will be in attendance.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington, whose district needs to gain voters in the process, was absent from the Tuesday meeting.
The supervisorial redistricting process is conducted every 10 years, following the completion of the US Census.
It's meant to guarantee that each of the county's five supervisorial districts has an equal number of inhabitants in order to ensure fair representation and uphold the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, according to Lake County Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley.
Last month, the Board of Supervisors approved a county redistricting advisory committee led by Fridley and including Assessor-Recorder Doug Wacker and Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely, as Lake County News has reported.
Since then, the committee has held meetings in each of the five supervisorial districts to gain public input on new boundary proposals. The public meetings were a new aspect of the process Fridley – who has been involved with past redistricting efforts – introduced this year.
However, Fridley told the board Tuesday, “The public discussions were not well attended.”
The committee had come up with five redistricting options, which can be found at http://gispublic.co.lake.ca.us/redistrict/. Each of the options is shown in a different color, along with the current boundaries.
In addition, Supervisor Rob Brown had proposed a sixth option that he said came out of a community meeting in his district. He said it was a revision to the third option the committee proposed.
Fridley said Tuesday that in addition to upholding the Equal Protection Clause, the process has to protect minorities' voting rights, recognize geographic and topographic cohesiveness, and not split US Census blocks.
“This is our first public hearing,” said Fridley, who explained that the board would not be taking action during Tuesday's meeting.
Final action, she added, would occur at another public hearing, either on Aug. 16 or Aug. 23. She said the hearings need to be held next month to allow the county surveyor time to prepare the legal description for the new boundaries.
Brown said it was important that Farrington be present for a discussion on the boundaries. “I think his district's going to be impacted a lot.”
Based on numbers Fridley previously had presented to the board, each district's optimal population would be 12,933.
To achieve the sought-after balance, District 1 has to lose 326 people; District 2, 786; and District 5, 479; while District 3 must gain 571 and District 4 needs 1,020, according to committee calculations.
Most of the proposals include taking all or a portion of Cobb in Brown's District 5 and adding it to Supervisor Jim Comstock's District 1. Option 1 would have Supervisor Denise Rushing's district extending into the city limits of Clearlake. Option 3 would see the District 4 boundaries moved deep into Upper Lake, where Rushing would be just out of her district. In option No. 5, Farrington would gain about half of Kelseyville, including a portion of the town itself.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he didn't like having to lose constituents, but added, “It's one of those things that has to happen.”
Smith and Brown would argue about where the lines should be drawn, with Smith arguing against Brown's proposal of extending Farrington's district at both ends. Smith said that would only result in District 3 pushing more into District 2, with all of the other district's having to shift clockwise.
Brown said he had received calls and e-mails from people in Cobb who wanted to be aligned with District 1, and people in Kelseyville who didn't want to go into Farrington's district.
In option 3, Farrington's district would be extended to Upper Lake, where Rushing's home would be just inside the District 4 boundary. Option 6 would have altered the lines to leave Rushing in her district but extend Farrington's reach into other areas, like Bachelor Valley.
Smith said he didn't like that option, because it would have Rushing extended into the city of Clearlake, where he said there already were two supervisors, as both Smith and Comstock's boundaries are there.
Fridley acknowledged that people in Kelseyville were the most vocal in the public input process, and wanted to stay in District 5.
County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said Farrington had asked him to convey his thoughts on the process. Cox said Farrington didn't want to expand into District 3, and didn't think Clearlake should have three supervisors.
“It's too bad he's not here,” Brown said of Farrington.
Rushing said of all the options, “I actually think they're all bad,” with all of them expanding the land mass of District 3, the county's largest supervisorial district by geographic area.
She said the process should be guided by the principals of affecting the least number of people possible. She said it would be a “disaster” to have three supervisors covering Clearlake, asking how it could be managed.
“I think you need some balance there,” she said.
Brown suggested that the District 4 boundary line could follow Highway 20 and over to Hammond Avenue in Nice, which Rushing didn't like.
Brown questioned why all of the roughly 1,000 residents Farrington must pick up must be carved out of District 5. “I'm here to simply advocate for the constituents that I work for that are in my district,” and who have voiced concerns, he said.
Rushing said that her district is “extraordinarily complex,” and wherever the line is drawn, another community and tribe will be added to her boundaries.
Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon said she's unaffected by the proposed changes, and like Rushing advocated for choosing options to minimize changes.
Brown said District 4 should take in 1,000 residents by taking 500 each from District 3 and District 5. Brandon replied that District 5 has to shrink, and there shouldn't be three supervisors in Clearlake.
Cheryl Hutchinson of Clearlake agreed that the city doesn't need three supervisors.
Lorrie Gray, who lives in the Clear Lake Riviera, believed the third option was best, but that the boundary lines could be adjusted so that Rushing remained in her district. Brown said that was how option six came about.
Walt Christensen of Upper Lake was against splitting his community at Middle Creek, advocating for option five, which he said had the least impact.
During the discussion Rushing said she didn't think the committee should worry about where existing supervisors live; Fridley said they didn't.
Fridley told Lake County News in a previous interview that the law allows any supervisor who finds themselves out of their district boundary because of the new redistricting to serve out their term without having to move.
Brown disagreed with Rushing and Smith over which options would have greater impacts on the county.
Smith favored going with option No. 5. “That changes the least amount of people in the least amount of ways.”
Brown favored using Highway 20 as a boundary line, suggesting that was the less dramatic option.
Smith said each of the supervisors could come up with their own maps. Brown shot back, asking if Smith hadn't been aware that he could do his homework and come back with a proposal.
Smith said the work of coming up with options had been given to the committee. “Don't try to put it over on me like I'm not prepared,” Smith said.
Brown asked if there were limits to the numbers of maps they could consider. Fridley said they could have an unlimited number.
After the discussion – which had been scheduled for a half hour – ended up running 45 minutes long, Comstock scheduled the discussion to continue next week, at which time Farrington is expected to be present.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
