One More Chance – Concord Residents Encouraged to Comment on Proposed District Map

February 14, 2018 8:00 am · 56 comments

As we previously reported, the Concord City Council is in the process of changing the way City Councilmembers are elected.

Currently, five City Councilmembers are elected at-large, meaning that all registered voters in Concord have the opportunity to vote for all five council positions. Under the new system, City Councilmembers will be elected by district. One Councilmember, who lives in a district, will be elected by registered voters who also live in the same district.

Three public hearings to collect comments from residents on district boundaries have been held. At the last hearing, on Feb. 6, the City Council reviewed four draft District Boundary maps and directed the City’s demographer to modify the Plan Blue map to create the proposed final map, dubbed Plan Cobalt. It divides the City into five voting districts of approximately equal size by population.

The final public hearing on the district map will be held Tuesday, Feb. 27 at Civic Center, 1950 Parkside Drive, in the Council Chamber at 6:30 p.m. The meetings are televised on Concord Cable TV channels Comcast 28, Astound 29, AT&T U-verse 99, and will be streamed live on the City’s website from the home page.

Residents are also welcome to submit comments any time by email to

{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }

Aspirin February 14, 2018 at 8:52 AM

Great start !


KAD February 14, 2018 at 4:26 PM

No, it is not. I agree with you on national politics but not local politics. They did not listen to the public.

What's In A Name? February 14, 2018 at 8:53 AM

The south-of-Cowell segment of zone 1 looks like someone wants to keep socioeconomic residents in the same zones. Same with the extreme reach of zone 2 up to Ygnacio. I thought the aim of this exercise was just to create 5 zones of equal population, but this map seems to attempt to align neighborhoods by some other logic as well.

I thought Plan Orange in the earlier group was more straightforward.


Nature Lover February 14, 2018 at 11:10 AM

I agree.

KAD February 14, 2018 at 12:02 PM

I agree. The Orange Map is the best. The Council never discussed any map but the Blue Map.

RANDOM TASK February 14, 2018 at 9:07 AM






RANDOM TASK February 14, 2018 at 9:11 AM

errrr encouraged to comment on what they made the decision on their own implemented it on their own certified it on their own

they are just adhering to the rules that say they have to allow us to sit at a meeting and then they do what they want soooooo enjoy you voted to give them absolute power so we don’t have to vote so why all the cloak and dagger ….be done with it and set us in servitude to the socialist agenda already running …

50 years of dem/illegals rule


Aspirin February 14, 2018 at 6:12 PM

Yup. It is all the Democrats’ fault.

Good thinking.

Concord Mike February 14, 2018 at 9:29 AM

I agree Blue is the best of the four options.

My one objection to all four plans is the failure to recognize Lime ridge open space as a point of natural division between neighborhoods and districts.

Hopefully they can fix this obvious problem when they realign the districts after the 2020 census.


Recall 'Em All February 14, 2018 at 11:27 AM

I think it looks gerrymandered. Especially since it conveniently puts sitting council members in their own districts.

Bobby February 14, 2018 at 10:04 AM

The Naval station should really be part of district 2.


RDS February 14, 2018 at 10:51 AM

The map image in this post is incorrect.

This is the correct image for the new COBALT plan:

KAD February 14, 2018 at 4:11 PM

Yes, totally agree. It is my back yard. That is why I liked the Orange map the best with a few changes.

Donald E. Gallup February 14, 2018 at 10:44 AM

No single plan can possibly satisfy all interested persons. This is a great improvement over what we had for all the past years.


slagheap February 14, 2018 at 11:31 AM

looking at the map from the link provided by RDS, it looks better than what we’ve got currently. i say go for it.


WC Citizen February 14, 2018 at 11:57 AM

What was the reason given to change the election process? Do the citizens of Concord believe they aren’t being represented proportionately?

Given all that we’ve experienced in the past few years politically I would be interested in who suggested the changes and who is drawing the maps. In other words, who benefits from these changes?


Recall 'Em All February 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM

A threatened law suit from people in LoCal . . .

Anonymous February 15, 2018 at 7:24 AM

The changes are mandated by state law, which Concord waited to follow until threatened by a lawsuit.

RANDOM TASK February 14, 2018 at 12:52 PM

So what council member is claiming to live in section 1 lol
I would like to see that home as it is probably being rented out and the council member mail to a po box

There is no way a council member lives in that area boundary


RunnerDope February 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM

The neighborhood between Babel Ln. and Cowell Park is pretty nice.

Recall 'Em All February 14, 2018 at 2:37 PM


KAD February 14, 2018 at 4:45 PM

Carlyn Obringer lives there. She has mentioned living there quite a few times. She walks a lot to down town.

Hope Johnson February 14, 2018 at 5:27 PM

Random Task – You are correct to be suspicious. The weirdo section jutting out to Cowell Rd has no business being in with North Concord. It’s clearly done so that Obringer will not be in a district with Hoffmeister. Makes no sense otherwise.

Randy February 14, 2018 at 5:28 PM

Helen Allen lived in Sacramento when she was on the council

Whatever February 14, 2018 at 7:16 PM

What’s wrong with our area? Bunch of nice people here. You can stay in North Concord with all of your vehicle burglaries.

Hope Johnson February 14, 2018 at 7:21 PM

Obringer lives in the Alameda which is on the very edge out on Clayton Rd. Really shouldn’t be lumped in with North Concord, seems more connected to the Clayton Rd/Dana Estaes district.

Resident February 15, 2018 at 10:33 AM

Many homes in section 1 (North Concord) are selling for > $500K and in some cases >$600K. The demographics of the area are changing as 1st time homebuyers are moving in.
I would be happy to have Carlyn represent North Concord. She has presented good ideas and truly cares about improving the city.

Jane February 14, 2018 at 4:18 PM

So what happens if there is no one for an area?


Eudamonia February 15, 2018 at 6:04 AM

There is an election in November and that district will get to vote for who will represent them.

KAD February 14, 2018 at 4:19 PM

The staff told them at the beginning of the discussion that 12 people liked the Orange map on the City’s town hall meeting web site whereas the other 3 maps had 2 or 3 people that liked them. The blue mapped made sure that none of the sitting council had to run against each other.


Silva February 14, 2018 at 8:15 PM

Ah, of course.

R February 14, 2018 at 4:53 PM

This map is hideous in so many ways, I can barely talk about it.


Eudamonia February 15, 2018 at 6:08 AM

Please show up to the next meeting to voice your opinion. The Council selected only one map and was very quick to discard (not even discuss) the other maps. They even had good maps submitted by Concord residents, those were barely acknowledged.

Ano February 14, 2018 at 9:56 PM

Whoever thought this was a good plan is an idiot.


Ricardo February 14, 2018 at 10:47 PM

The police department has beat or sector maps that are divided by geographical areas and called for services. They utilize natural boundaries that fit neighborhoods and travel areas together. Why not utilize them, rather than political convenience?


Eudamonia February 15, 2018 at 6:05 AM

That’s a good suggestion! Come to the next meeting and voice your opinion. We need to resist political convenience and incumbent protection.

Fred P. February 15, 2018 at 6:46 AM

Ricardo – are you trying to use common sense?

You know that ain’t gonna work where politics is concerned…..

That being said, you have a good idea!

anon February 15, 2018 at 12:34 PM

Ricardo — the State Legislature has required districts that are cut to protect minorities. So if a police sector map does not create a big chunk for the Hispanics, it would be considered illegal. It is not illegal to protect incumbents. It is illegal to NOT protect the Hispanics. The whole thing is about the minorities, the rest of the city be damned. So if the white people have screwy districts to protect incumbents, nobody cares if there is still a nice district that represents all the Hispanics.

RANDOM TASK February 15, 2018 at 7:20 AM

Why we are so surprised over collusion and obvious abuse of power when it comes to the city council ….you voted to give them absolute power to films off and treat us like tools for their amusement and political gain

Congrats we are indentured sergeants and political pawns


Kenji February 15, 2018 at 9:10 AM

At non-agenda public comment in this past Tuesday’s City Council meeting, I accused Councilmember Ron Leone of having openly cited protection of incumbents as a reason to choose Plan Blue (in a modified form, “Cobalt”) at the third district hearing on Feb 6. Councilmember Leone responded, “That’s not what I said.”

Here is what he said, verbatim.

“Now, I am also thinking of my fellow colleagues in looking at this, because the Blue map, if you look at it like this, does not pit any Councilmembers against each other in any specific district, the way it works out. And so I think that’s only fair to them. And like I said, I’m not caring about myself. I’m just – I’m concerned that we don’t want them to get pushed out of a seat just because we’re going to a district. So why force them to have two against each other? So, that was my idea on that.”


KAD February 15, 2018 at 2:19 PM

Yes, I watched the meetings and heard Leone say that. I can’t believe he has the gall to deny saying this when everyone paying attention heard him. I even watched a replay of the meeting. The others were so relieved they did not even discuss the other maps.

Kenji February 15, 2018 at 3:17 PM

KAD, exactly. When he denied having said it, I was so taken aback that I questioned my own memory of having heard him say it. Had to go back and watch the video to make sure.

Hope Johnson February 15, 2018 at 3:24 PM

Kenji – Leone’s quotes from both meetings should be sent in an email to all council and the City Manager with a request to the City Clerk to include it as benched correspondence at the next district elections meeting on Feb. 27.

Kenji February 15, 2018 at 4:09 PM

Good call, Hope. I’ll do that.

Kenji February 15, 2018 at 8:38 PM

Done. This ought to give Councilmember Leone the time to think over how to reconcile his denial with his quoted words. I’ll deliver the same comment verbally on the record at the Feb 27 Council meeting. He can respond then.

ProConcord February 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM

The Concord Communities Alliance is asking Concord City Council to use the opportunity in developing district elections to build trust with the community. There is huge disappointment on the council’s district map choice without considering all public comment, and choosing one that is convenient to them. Please read and consider signing this petition – it will generate a message directly to the city council’s email address. Please support & sign on here:


Silva February 15, 2018 at 10:56 AM


Eudamonia February 15, 2018 at 1:28 PM

Thank you! Signed.

KAD February 15, 2018 at 2:23 PM


Recall 'Em All February 15, 2018 at 8:03 PM

As in our state, this should have been left to an independent body to decide. Glad you went forward with your best offering.

ProConcord February 15, 2018 at 10:35 AM

Also – the Concord Communities Alliance has posted one possible districts map on its Facebook page, which can be reached at


Recall 'Em All February 15, 2018 at 6:49 PM

Much better but it splits neighborhoods. Take it to Clayton Road and it’s a winner!!

Newellian February 15, 2018 at 2:48 PM

Typical Ron Leone – CYA….


BGR February 15, 2018 at 2:56 PM

Totally pointless exercise. Already designed to protect incumbents who designed what theyand are putting their collective thumb on
the scale v voter preference. Lack of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures less representation not more times five.


BGR February 15, 2018 at 3:02 PM

Totally pointless exercise. Already designed to protect incumbents who designed what they want and are putting their collective thumb on the scale v voter preference. Lack of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) ensures less representation not more times five.


chuckie the troll February 15, 2018 at 4:26 PM

This is EXACTLY what you get when you have single-party rule. They own the judges and the police, they collect (and raise) the taxes, they control the schools. Until we really have an alternative to alt-Left rule, the best we can expect is Mark Desaulnier…


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: