Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - May 23, 2011

On May 23, 2011, the Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee met from 6:02 p.m. to 8:22 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to review 37 submitted redistricting plans, hear public testimony, and take initial steps toward narrowing the field. The committee addressed procedural matters, including the resignation of Member Linn Hom, and voted to recognize the LGBT community as a community of interest without specifying boundaries.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar items were listed.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Greg Hatfield (South Pocket Homeowners Association) expressed support for a north-south linear district configuration, favoring map SR032 or similar plans that align with natural boundaries and avoid splitting the Delta Shores area.
• David DeLuz (Greater Sacramento Urban League / African American Leadership Coalition) urged the committee to publish its criteria and methodology for evaluating maps well in advance of final recommendations, to allow community feedback.
• Erin Flannery (LGBT community advocate) thanked the committee and encouraged members to use all available information, including incumbent data, to make well-informed decisions for the city.
• Darrell Roberts (African American Leadership Coalition) clarified that some map submitters may not have known they could speak tonight, and reiterated the coalition's intent to create a new District 2 that unites South Natomas, Gardenland, and Del Paso Heights as a community of interest.
• Rosanna Herber (LGBT community advocate) apologized for misquoting the city attorney at a prior meeting, and later spoke in favor of recognizing the LGBT community as a community of interest, noting support from multiple organizations.

Discussion Items

1. Weekly Report Out of Redistricting Activities (Oral Report)

• Staff reported media coverage, outreach to the Robla Park Community Association, and that 37 plans had been submitted by the May 16 deadline.
• Action: Received and filed.

2. Summary of Submitted Redistricting Maps (90 minutes allocated)

• Staff presented each of the 37 submitted maps (SR001–SR037), reading plan justifications and inviting submitters to speak. Many submitters were not present, but comments were read into the record.
• The committee debated criteria for evaluating maps. Members agreed to initially exclude maps with population deviations exceeding 10% or those that were incomplete community-of-interest statements. Eight maps were removed:
  • SR005 (74% deviation), SR010 (294% deviation), SR020 (Latino community statement, no full map), SR023 (65% deviation), SR026 (77% deviation), SR033 (superseded by SR034), SR036 (54% deviation), SR037 (114% deviation).
  • SR015 (10.70%) and SR024 (10.83%) were retained as borderline.
• The committee directed staff to produce a matrix for the next meeting (two weeks later) that evaluates the remaining 29 maps against the charter criteria (population equality, contiguity, compactness, communities of interest, etc.) and incorporates public testimony.
• A lengthy discussion occurred regarding whether to include incumbent residence information in the matrix. Members were divided: some argued incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting criterion and important for political stability; others argued it is not in the city charter and could undermine public trust. The committee decided not to include incumbency data in the staff matrix, though individual members could research it independently.
• Action: Received and filed; eight maps removed; staff to prepare matrix.

3. Community Participation After Formal Plan Submission

• Staff outlined continuing opportunities for public input through committee and council meetings (through August/September). The committee's role is to review, organize, analyze, and refine proposals, then recommend preferred plans to the City Council.
• Action: Received and filed.

4. Approval of May 16, 2011 Committee Minutes

• Motion: Steve Hansen/Steve Maviglio to approve. Passed unanimously (14-0).

5. LGBT as a Community of Interest (Oral Report)

• Staff noted that multiple speakers had testified that the LGBT community should be recognized as a community of interest. Debate centered on whether to also define geographic boundaries (e.g., river-to-river, freeway-to-freeway).
• Motion: Phil Pluckebaum moved, seconded by Roman Porter, to direct staff to recommend to the City Council that the LGBT community be considered a community of interest, with no reference to specific boundaries. This was intended to allow staff to analyze the community's geographic concentration based on data and testimony, similar to other communities.
• After additional public comments, the motion passed unanimously (14-0).

Key Outcomes

• The committee accepted the resignation of Member Linn Hom and expressed intent to install Michelle Rubalcava as Vice-Chair (formal vote to be agendized for next meeting).
• Eight submitted maps were removed from consideration due to excessive population deviation or incompleteness, reducing the pool from 37 to 29 (including two borderline maps retained for now).
• Staff was directed to create a matrix evaluating the remaining maps against the charter criteria (population equality, contiguity, compactness, communities of interest, etc.) and to exclude incumbent residence information from the matrix.
• The committee voted to recommend that the City Council recognize the LGBT community as a community of interest, without specifying geographic boundaries, allowing staff to incorporate relevant data and testimony into the analysis.
• The next meeting was scheduled for two weeks later (June 6, 2011, as the committee skipped the following week).