Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - June 13, 2011

The Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee met on Monday, June 13, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at New City Hall (915 I Street) to continue the process of selecting City Council district maps to recommend to the City Council. The meeting focused on reviewing public testimony on redistricting themes, a revised plan matrix, and advancing maps for further committee consideration. After extensive debate and multiple votes, the committee agreed on a new process: each member will submit their top 5 and bottom 5 maps from the remaining 15 maps by noon on Monday, June 20, 2011. The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of June 6, 2011 Committee Minutes: Approved unanimously (13-0, with Member Maviglio absent).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Paul Noble (President, East Sacramento Improvement Association): Stated the association's top priority is keeping East Sacramento intact (bounded by Business 80, UP tracks, R Street Light Rail). He supported map SR024 and opposed maps SR003, SR006, SR011, SR012, SR030, and SR031 for splitting the neighborhood.
• Daniel Lepham (Board Member, East Sacramento Improvement Association): Emphasized the primary goal of keeping East Sacramento intact; other considerations are secondary.
• Derrell Roberts (Chair, African American Leadership Coalition): Addressed concerns about map SR031, arguing it does not divide Meadowview (as it keeps the populated area intact) but acknowledged it divides Laguna. He urged the committee to continue considering the integrity of Oak Park, Meadowview, and Del Paso Heights as traditional African American communities, and to consider a potential District 2 coalition of African American, Latino, and Southeast Asian communities.
• Vanessa Cajina (President, Latino Democratic Club): Expressed support for the maps in the 'orange' category (those with more than 50% of committee votes for elimination) to be removed, as they did not adequately maintain Latino communities of interest, particularly South Natomas and Oak Park. She noted that maps SR027 and others could be starting points.
• Raquel Simental (Resident, District 3): Endorsed the motion to remove the orange-ranked maps, echoing the Latino community's concerns.
• David Diepenbrock (East Sacramento Improvement Association): Supported removing the orange-ranked maps and reiterated that East Sacramento should remain whole, again listing maps SR003, SR006, SR011, SR012, SR030, and SR031 as problematic.
• Brian Rivas (County Board of Education Member, District 1 Resident): Supported the motion to remove orange-ranked maps and urged continued consideration of Latino communities of interest.
• Benjamin Phillips-Lesenana (Map Author, SR012): Formally withdrew his map (SR012) after hearing East Sacramento concerns about splitting the neighborhood.

Discussion Items

• Weekly Report of Redistricting Activities (Oral): Staff reported on media coverage, e‑comments (8 received directly by members, to be redistributed via staff), and the upcoming progress report to the City Council. Member Shaw noted the state redistricting commission's draft maps divide Sacramento into three Assembly districts.
• Redistricting Themes (Item 3): Staff presented a written compilation of themes from public testimony; received and filed.
• Revised Redistricting Plan Matrix (Item 4): The matrix was updated with additional columns and minor corrections. Members discussed the binary (yes/no) nature of the LGBT community-of-interest column and agreed the matrix is helpful but not definitive.
• Selection of Maps to Advance for Further Consideration (Item 5): This was the main agenda item, consuming about 140 minutes. The committee debated which maps to eliminate, with several motions and substitute motions:
  • Main Motion 1: Unanimously eliminated the 10 maps receiving the most votes for removal (SR004, SR013, SR018, SR019, SR029, SR025, SR028, SR007, SR021) – passed 13-0.
  • Main Motion 2: Eliminated maps SR011, SR012, SR034 – passed 13-0. (Note: SR012 was also formally withdrawn by its author.)
  • Substitute Motion 3 (Camp/Bowler): Each member to bring their single favorite map for discussion at the June 20 meeting – failed 6-7 (8 votes needed).
  • Main Motion 3 (Hansen/Frye-Lucas): Eliminate SR006, SR016, SR030 – failed 7-6 (8 needed).
  • Main Motion 4 (Rubalcava/Hansen): Eliminate SR006 and SR016 – passed 13-0.
  • Main Motion 5 (Pluckebaum/Porter): Each member to submit their top 5 and bottom 5 maps (of the remaining 15: SR001, SR002, SR003, SR008, SR009, SR014, SR015, SR017, SR022, SR024, SR027, SR030, SR031, SR032, SR035) to staff by noon on Monday, June 20 – approved 13-0.
• Committee Ideas, Questions, Announcements: Member Frye-Lucas asked staff to review the top maps submitted by members for trends and commonalities at the June 20 meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Approved Minutes of June 6, 2011.
• Eliminated Maps (from committee consideration): SR004, SR006, SR007, SR011, SR012, SR013, SR016, SR018, SR019, SR021, SR025, SR028, SR029, SR034 (14 maps removed during the meeting).
• Remaining Maps (15): SR001, SR002, SR003, SR008, SR009, SR014, SR015, SR017, SR022, SR024, SR027, SR030, SR031, SR032, SR035.
• New Assignment: Each committee member must email staff their top 5 and bottom 5 maps from the 15 remaining by noon on Monday, June 20, 2011. Staff will compile results for discussion at the June 20 meeting.
• Public Communication: The public is reminded to direct comments to staff to avoid Brown Act issues. Members may receive communications from the public but should not deliberate via email reply-all.