Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - June 6, 2011
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - June 6, 2011
The Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee met on Monday, June 6, 2011, at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chamber of New City Hall (915 I Street) to continue its review of 29 submitted redistricting plans and discuss evaluation criteria. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. with 11 of 14 members present.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of May 23, 2011 Minutes: Moved by Hansen, seconded by Bowler. Passed unanimously (11-0).
- Confirmation of Vice-Chair: Moved by Shah, seconded by Perry. Michelle Rubalcava confirmed as vice-chair (11-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- May Lee (representing Capitol – Coalition of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Leadership and Advocacy): Described the diverse Asian and Pacific Islander communities in Sacramento, emphasizing geographic concentrations along Stockton Boulevard (Little Saigon), the Broadway corridor, and South Sacramento. Urged the committee to consider these areas as communities of interest.
- Nick Avdis (Valley View Acres Community Association): Thanked the committee for discussion on contiguity and urged that Valley View Acres be kept with North Natomas (District 1) despite discontiguity.
- John Shields (River Oaks Community Association): Defined River Oaks as the triangle bounded by I-5, I-80, and Garden Highway; requested the area remain intact and strongly preferred to stay with North Natomas due to shared issues.
Discussion Items
- Weekly Report Out (Item 3): Staff reported on media articles regarding redistricting and ongoing outreach to the Asian community.
- Recap of Lessons from the Primers / Redistricting Trivia (Item 4): Staff attorney Matthew Ruyak provided a refresher on the Brown Act, specifically serial meeting prohibitions. Staff then conducted a quiz on redistricting criteria (e.g., equal population, contiguity, compactness, communities of interest) and Voting Rights Act principles.
- Report Back: Linguistic Data for Asian Community (Item 5): Staff presented 2010 census data showing the Asian population is linguistically diverse and geographically dispersed. Member Shah cautioned against assuming language alone defines community of interest; public testimony stressed that Asian communities share common policy needs despite language differences.
- Summary Matrix for Redistricting Plans (Item 6): This was the primary discussion item, lasting 79 minutes (actual time 129 minutes per minutes). Staff presented a matrix evaluating 29 plans on criteria including population deviation, contiguity, compactness (using the Polsby-Popper method), population stability, neighborhood splits, and communities of interest (Valley View Acres, Latino North and South, Central City, Meadowview, Del Paso Heights, Oak Park). Staff identified major themes: downtown/midtown unification, District 1 shrinkage options, East Sacramento configurations, and South Area splits (Pocket/Greenhaven vs. Meadowview).
Key Outcomes
- Removed Population Stability Criterion: Committee consensus that this criterion is not useful because District 1 must shed ~50,000 residents, making stability measures misleading.
- Added Communities of Interest: Staff directed to add East Sacramento (as defined by boundaries from Business 80, the levee, and the railroad) and College Greens to the matrix.
- LGBT Community of Interest: Staff will provide two separate metrics in the matrix: one using the broader Equality California map and one using the Rainbow Chamber (Central City) map, pending further committee direction.
- Elimination Process: Committee members to submit their bottom ten maps (the maps they would most like to eliminate) to staff by Monday, June 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.. Staff will tally the results and present them at the June 13 meeting for discussion and possible elimination. No maps were eliminated during this meeting.
- Further Direction: Staff will provide an updated matrix by Thursday/Friday with additional communities of interest and clearer notation on contiguity issues (e.g., distinguishing Valley View Acres discontiguity from other errors). Committee members will use the themes presentation (to be distributed electronically) to inform their individual selections.
- Follow-Up: Chair reminded members of the required progress report to City Council on Tuesday, June 14, 2011. Members were invited to attend and provide input.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, I'll call the roll. Roman Porter. Bill Camp. Oh boy. Cyril Shaw. Steve Hanson. Bill Muttmans? Bernard Bowler? Here. Sandra Fry Lucas? Michelle Rubokava? Here. Steve Maviglio? Miranda Perry. Phil Pluckabum? Yeah. Maya Wallace? Notile Currell. And then our Chair Joe or Julius Cherry. I'm here. Okay, we do have a quorum. With three absent. Okay. Under the comments of the chair, I want to remind the audience as well as the committee that next week, Tuesday, the 14th? Yes, it's the 14th. We are required to report out to council on our product progress and activities. I don't plan to do any kind of a staff report or that kind of thing. I basically plan to let them know what we've done thus far, where we are, obviously whatever discussions that we have tonight will be included in that report. I'm not sure. Shirley, do you know where we are on the agenda on the council? That hasn't been created yet, but we can certainly make accommodations so that it works for the group. Right. So the agenda for next Tuesday council meeting hasn't been created, but Shirley is obviously aware that we're going to be on there and need to be on the agenda. It was required by council's direction that we report back halfway through. So that's what we're going to do. So again, you're all invited to show up and put any add any input to or cue me into something you think I missed. I'll simply try to report on exactly what we've done. And also I don't know if now is the appropriate time to do that, but we're going to ask our attorney, Matt, to give us a refresher. And maybe we'll do this when we do. We're going to do a piece on kind of generally going over the rules before we do our staff reports, and maybe we'll just have Matt do it at that time. As part of item four, then. Yes. Okay. We'll just add it. No, is it item four? The recap of lessons. Yes. Yes. We'll get we'll get to it there. Okay.
openpublica.com