Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - June 20, 2011: Map Selection Advances to Five Finalists
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting - June 20, 2011
The Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee (SRCAC) met on June 20, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The committee continued its charge of reviewing and recommending redistricting maps to the City Council. After hearing public testimony and extensive debate, the committee narrowed the field from 15 maps to five that will be further refined and considered for final recommendation.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of June 13, 2011 Minutes: Moved by Hansen, seconded by Bowler, to approve the minutes as amended to include map numbers of advancing maps. Unanimously approved.
- Staff Presentations (Items 2 & 3): The weekly report on redistricting activities and the staff-suggested work program were received and filed without objection.
Public Comments & Testimony
Ten speakers provided testimony during the Selection of Maps agenda item.
- Mike Barnbaum (District 2, Woodlake neighborhood): Expressed support for map SR014, citing its low population deviation and natural boundaries (Broadway). Asked about incumbency implications.
- Vanessa Cajina (President, Latino Democratic Club): Stated that four of their seven submitted maps (SR035, SR001, SR024, SR014) remain in play. Emphasized keeping South Natomas and the "finger area" together as top priorities. Encouraged collaboration.
- Eric Guerra (Latino community representative): Used an overlay of Latino census tracts to explain differences between maps SR014 and SR031. Argued that both maps capture significant Latino business corridors and density, but no single map can encompass the entire community of interest (>70,000 people). Supported keeping business corridors intact.
- Devin Lavelle: Opposed map SR014, calling its District 7 a "monstrosity" that connects Valley High and Pocket neighborhoods through an unpopulated meadow. Urged committee members to share their own thinking on maps.
- Patty Kleinknecht (Executive Director, River District Business Association): Endorsed all remaining maps except SR031, which splits the River District geographically and removes it from the urban core. Preferred keeping central city and River District together.
- Terrence Johnson (Oak Park Business Association, Stockton Boulevard Partnership): Supported map SR017, arguing that Oak Park should stay together and be linked with Tahoe Park and commercial corridors (Stockton Boulevard). Disagreed with Oak Park Neighborhood Association's preference to join with Curtis Park, citing economic development and community vitality.
- Rosanna Herber (Chair, LGBT Redistricting Committee, Rainbow Chamber of Commerce): Expressed satisfaction with the committee’s top picks (SR035, SR001, SR024). Stated the LGBT community wants the central city kept intact and joined with either East Sacramento, Land Park, or Curtis Park.
- Darrell Roberts (African American Leadership Coalition): Thanked the committee. Noted ongoing dialogue with the Latino community to reconcile differences and emphasized that map SR031 was designed to integrate multiple community interests.
- Madelyn Kalstein (Tahoe Park Neighborhood Association): Supported map SR017, stating that Oak Park and Tahoe Park share working-class characteristics and common interests along the Stockton Boulevard corridor. Opposed a split at 53rd Street.
- Nick Avdis (Valley View Acres Community Association): Requested that the small neighborhood of ~475 people remain in District 1 in any final map.
Discussion Items
- Staff Work Program (Scot Mende): Presented a roadmap for completing the committee’s charge. Proposed narrowing maps to three to five, then refining through public and member input, and producing final recommendations by July 12. Committee members discussed the need for consensus on modifications and managing staff workload. The program was received and filed.
- Selection of Maps to Advance (Maria MacGunigal): Staff presented a composite ranking of the 15 maps under consideration, highlighting top five (green) and bottom five (yellow). The committee proceeded to eliminate maps through a series of motions.
Key Outcomes
- Motions Passed Unanimously:
- Eliminate bottom five maps: SR003, SR002, SR032, SR015, and SR009 (moved by Camp, seconded by Hansen).
- Substitute motion to eliminate only SR008 (moved by Camp, seconded by Bowler; original motion to eliminate SR008 and SR030 withdrawn).
- Eliminate SR027 and SR022 (moved by Rubalcava, seconded by Shah).
- Eliminate SR001 (moved by Motmans, seconded by Hansen).
- Eliminate SR014 (moved by Porter? Actually moved by Hansen/Camp? Minutes show: Main Motion 5 by Hansen/Camp to eliminate SR014) – confirmed in transcript: motion by Hansen, seconded by Camp.
- Motion Failed: A motion to eliminate SR030 (moved by Porter) failed for lack of a second.
- Final Five Maps Advancing: SR035, SR024, SR031, SR017, and SR030.
- Next Steps: The committee will meet on June 27 and July 6 to refine these maps. Staff will prepare analysis of requested modifications. The committee will identify consensus and majority recommendations to present to the City Council on July 12.
- Adjournment: 8:40 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Sorry. If we could come to order, we'll have the clerk call the role, please. Roman Porter? Here. Bill Camp? Here. Cyril Shaw. Steve Hansen. Bill Mottman's. Bernard Bowler. Here. Sandra Fry Lucas. Michelle Rubokava? Here. Steve Maviglio. Absent Miranda Perry. Phil Pluckabum. Absent Maya Wallace. Here. Nadia Leal Currillo? Here. And then, of course, our chair, Joe Cherry. I'm here. We have a quorum. For those that are in the audience, if you wish to speak, if you could complete one of the speaker slips in the back and submit it to the clerk here at the front. Also, if you have a phone, if you could turn it to silent position, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Entertain a motion to uh approve the minutes. May I state something for the record just to do that? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's okay. No. And in this case, we modified what was included in the packet just a bit to show the net the map numbers that were removed so that for those that weren't present, it was more clear. Other than that, those are the only changes that were made. There was an amendment to the minutes I think I forwarded to Stephanie. I don't know if that got in. Or that might have been was that last week? I think it was this week. There was an error in who made the mo. Uh I don't have a copy in front of me, but there was an error in the motions and who made them. There's one that was identical to the previous one, but that was incorrect to the and I sent a change. That was in the multitudes of motions that we had last week, perhaps. You don't have to say it like it's a bad thing. Sometimes what we hear honestly is there is more than one person, not the maker of the motion, but maybe more than one person. It was just incorrect. Okay, well we can fix that. We will we'll make sure to look that up and fix that. Okay, I'm ready. Thank you.
openpublica.com