City of Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA,

Transcription

1 City of Sacramento City Council 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA, Meeting Date: 7/26/2011 Report Type: Staff/Discussion Title: 2011 Redistricting Report ID: Location: citywide Recommendation: Discuss the Redistricting Committee s recommendations and provide direction to staff towards adoption on September 6th of amended Council District boundaries Contact: Scot Mende, Principal Planner, (916) ; Community Development Department, Maria MacGunigal, IT Manager, (916) , Information Technology Department Presenter: Scot Mende, Principal Planner, (916) ; Community Development Department, Maria MacGunigal, IT Manager, (916) , Information Technology Department Department: Community Development Dept / Information Technology Division: Long Range Planning Dept ID: Attachments: 1-Description/Analysis 2-Background.docx CC Redistricting City Attorney Review City Treasurer Review Approved as to Form Prior Council Financial Policy Approval or Matthew Ruyak Outside City Treasurer Scope 7/21/2011 1:44:39 PM Russell Fehr 7/21/ :39:25 AM Approvals/Acknowledgements Department Director or Designee: Cassandra Jennings - 7/21/2011 1:15:15 PM Assistant City Manager: Cassandra Jennings - 7/21/2011 1:24:20 PM Eileen Teichert, City Attorney Shirley Concolino, City Clerk 1 of 27 Russell Fehr, City Treasurer William H. Edgar, Interim City Manager

2 Description/Analysis Issue: Discuss the Redistricting Committee s recommendations and provide direction to staff towards adoption on September 6th of amended Council District. At the July 12 th Council meeting, the council received four recommended district plans from the Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee. The four recommended plans were culled and refined from the original 37 submissions made by the public to the City. Selection and refinement of plan recommendations for adoption of final council district boundaries must be complete no later than September 7th, Policy Considerations: Section 23 of the City Charter provides that "Council districts shall be as nearly equal in population as required under the Federal and State Constitutions. In setting district boundaries, consideration must be given to the following factors: Topography Geography Cohesiveness Continuity Integrity and compactness of territory Community of interests of the districts Existing neighborhoods Community boundaries Staff recommends that the Council consider these factors when developing and selecting new district boundaries. It is also recommended that Council establish a participatory process that includes the community in the redistricting process. In reviewing redistricting boundaries it is also recommended that the City Council solicit two types of submittals: 1) general comments on the redistricting criteria, or 2) actual boundary plans and supporting statistics. All proposed plans should strive for an equal distribution of population between districts and be consistent with the City Charter provisions. Environmental Considerations: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The subject of this report is not, in itself, a project. The subject of this report does not involve a project which requires compliance with the CEQA, inasmuch as it does not involve an activity which may cause a direct or indirect change in the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21065). Sustainability Considerations: None. Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable. Rationale for Recommendation: The proposed Redistricting Committee recommendation discussion continues the process of broad civic engagement consistent with the City s culture of open and transparent government. Financial Considerations: Many of the resources needed for redistricting will be provided by existing staff. On January 18, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution which established a multi-year CIP (I ) for redistricting activities and allocated $160,000 to the effort. No 2 of 27

3 additional funding is requested, however the additional staff resources may require the corresponding reduction of staff resources devoted to other City initiatives and activities. Emerging Small Business Development (ESBD): Not applicable. 3 of 27

4 Attachment 1 Council Redistricting Process 2011 Background: The City of Sacramento must reapportion (redistrict) City Council district boundaries every ten years following the regular U.S. Census. The resulting district boundaries must be balanced in population in accordance with the local, state, and federal rules governing the redistricting process. In January of this year Council approved a participatory process that included Community outreach, education, and the development tools and data to engage the community in redistricting. In February Council extended this process by establishing the Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee. As indicated in the City s Charter council has 6 months to complete the process of redistricting. The 2010 Census Data needed for redistricting was released March 8 th, The City s total population is 466, 488. The target population for each of the 8 districts is 58, 311. There is a substantive imbalance in population in the current council district boundaries. EXISTING COUNCIL DISTRICT POPULATION 4 of 27

5 Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee: The four plans below represent the final recommendations from the Sacramento Redistricting Citizens Advisory Committee to the Council as Plans A, B, C, D. These recommended plans were created from four submissions SR017, SR024, SR031 and SR035 which were culled and refined from the original 37 submissions made by the public to the City. They each take into consideration the intent of the original plan submission while providing refinements to better meet the objectives of the Committee. The Committee has identified strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs for each of the recommended plan options to assist the Council in their deliberations and final adoption of Council Districts. The plans presented vary widely from one another in the way the district boundaries are drawn. It is the intent of the committee to provide Council with divergent solutions that fit within the framework of meeting the requirements of redistricting at the City rather than providing variations on a theme. A B C D Recommended Plans Summary Matrix: The matrix below contains the some of the key criteria that the Committee used to assist in evaluating the 37 submissions made by the public and in the final four recommendations. Included in the Matrix are the following elements: Plan: Letter assigned to uniquely identify each plan. Overall Range Deviation %: The overall range in deviation (calculated as the sum of the maximum deviation of any Council District above the target average plus the maximum deviation of any Council District below the target average) from the target mean population of 58,311 persons as a percentage among all eight districts. Continuity and Integrity: This measures the connectedness of districts. Compactness of Territory: There are many compactness measures. Staff used the Polsby-Popper method that compares the district shape to a circle. The most compact, a circle, would have a value of one. Ranges reflect compactness scores of least compact district to most compact district. Existing Neighborhoods (# split): The number of neighborhoods that are split by districts. (Note that this measure does not differentiate between neighborhoods with 5 of 27

6 strong identity and those neighborhoods which are defined on paper but lack strong identity.) Communities of Interest: This indicates if a Community of Interest (COI) area which was identified through public verbal and or written testimony to the committee is kept intact by districts in a plan. These areas are illustrated in the map below. Valley View acres w/ North Natomas: Defined by public testimony. Latino North: Defined by plan submission SR020 and public testimony - generally east of I-5, south of I-80, west of Rio Linda Blvd., and north of the American River Latino South: Defined by plan submission SR020 and public testimony generally south of Broadway, north of 47th Ave, east of Hwy-99, and west of Power Inn. Central City/LGBT Core: Defined by public testimony uses the Central City Community Plan Area boundary. Meadowview: Defined by public testimony uses the Meadowview Neighborhood boundary (excluding Delta Shores). Del Paso Heights: Defined by public testimony uses the neighborhood boundaries of West Del Paso Heights and Del Paso Heights (i.e., excludes East Del Paso Heights neighborhood). Oak Park: Defined by public testimony uses the neighborhood boundaries of South Oak Park, Central Oak Park, plus North Oak Park. Extended LGBT: Defined by public testimony East Sacramento: Defined by public testimony River Oaks: Defined by public testimony as south and east of I-80, north of Garden Highway, west of I of 27

7 7 of 27

8 Recommendation Plan A (SR017): Please note that the Committee does not specifically endorse the numbering of districts as represented in these recommendations. The district numbers presented are simply the numbering scheme from the original plan submissions. 8 of 27

9 Committee Comments: Positive Characteristics of Plan A: Central City/ LGBT Core area intact (D5) LGBT Equality CA mostly intact (D5/D3/D4) Valley View Acres attached to North Natomas River Oaks intact (D5) East Sac/River Park intact (D3) Latino North mostly intact (D2) Latino South mostly intact (D6) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D6) Meadowview intact Committee Comments: Weaknesses & Trade-Offs of Plan A: Oak Park in D6 instead of D5; Oak Park in different district from Curtis Park South Natomas split (D2/D5) Neighborhoods Split by Plan A: Cannon Industrial Park Erikson Industrial Park Greenhaven Hagginwood Parkway Robla South Natomas Valley Hi / North Laguna 9 of 27

10 Recommendation Plan B (SR024): Please note that the Committee does not specifically endorse the numbering of districts as represented in these recommendations. The district numbers presented are simply the numbering scheme from the original plan submissions. 10 of 27

11 Committee Comments: Positive Characteristics of Map B: Central City/ LGBT Core area intact (D3) LGBT Equality CA mostly intact (D5/D3) Valley View Acres attached to North Natomas East Sac/River Park Intact (D3) Both of these neighborhoods are in different districts (D2/D3) so not intact Latino North mostly intact (D4) Latino South mostly intact (D6) DPH intact (D2) Oak Park mostly intact (D6) Meadowview intact (D8) Weaknesses & Trade-Offs of Map B: River Oaks Community Association split (D1/D4) Oak Park split (D5/D6) and mostly in D6 instead of D5 River Park in different district than East Sacramento College Glen is split (D2/D3) Sierra Oaks in D2 instead of D3 Neighborhoods Split by Plan B: College/Glen Noralto Old North Sacramento Parkway South Oak Park Valley Hi / North Laguna Willowcreek 11 of 27

12 Recommendation Plan C (SR031): Please note that the Committee does not specifically endorse the numbering of districts as represented in these recommendations. The district numbers presented are simply the numbering scheme from the original community plan submissions. 12 of 27

13 Committee Comments: Positive Characteristics of Map C: LGBT Core area mostly intact LGBT Equality CA mostly intact (D5/D3/D4) Valley View Acres attached to North Natomas Latino North mostly intact (D2/D3) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D5) Meadowview intact (D8) Committee Comments: Weaknesses & Trade-Offs of Map C: River District & Railyards detached from Central City (D3) River Oaks Community Association split (D1/D2) East Sac in different district than River Park (D3/D5/D6Colonial Heights removed from D5 Tahoe Park split (D5/D6) Latino South not substantially intact Neighborhoods Split by Plan C: East Sacramento Fairgrounds Greenhaven Hagginwood Newton Booth Parkway Tahoe Park 13 of 27

14 Recommendation Plan D (SR035): Please note that the Committee does not specifically endorse the numbering of districts as represented in these recommendations. The district numbers presented are merely the numbering scheme from the original community plan submissions. 14 of 27

15 Committee Comments: Positive Characteristics of Map D: Central City / LGBT Core area Intact (D4) LGBT Equality CA mostly intact (D4/D3/D5) Valley View Acres attached to North Natomas East Sac/River Park intact (D3) Latino North COI mostly intact (D2) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D5) Meadowview intact Committee Comments: Weaknesses & Trade-Offs of Map D: River Oaks Community Association split(d1/d4) Latino South not substantially intact Neighborhoods Split by Plan D: Greenhaven Hagginwood Med Center Old North Sacramento Parkway Valley Hi / North Laguna Willowcreek Proposed Timeline 2011: To complete redistricting process staff proposes the following process: July 12 Presentation of SRCAC Recommendations July 26 1 st Round of Council Discussions. By end of meeting provide staff direction on selection of a base map and process for refinement of boundaries. Receive public comment. 15 of 27

16 August 9-2 nd Round of Council Discussions refinement of boundaries and receive public comment. August 23 By end of meeting, provide an intent motion with direction to staff to refine boundaries for final adoption Sept 6. September 6 th Ordinance amending Council District Boundaries Additional Information and Resources: City staff has prepared a redistricting website to provide redistricting information, resources, and facilitate information sharing. The site is located on the City s public website at the following link: This site is designed to provide general information, updates, and access to relevant redistricting data. This site includes a high level description of redistricting, maps, the 37 public submissions, software application tools, news articles, and links to downloadable geographic (GIS) data. This website will continue to expand and will include more information, maps, and data as they become available. 16 of 27

17 City of Sacramento 2011 Redistricting Council Discussion of SRCAC Recommendations July 26, 2011 Maria MacGunigal Scot Mende 17 of 27

18 July 12 Presentation of SRCAC Recommendations July 26 1 st Round of Council Discussions August 9 2 nd Round of Council Discussions August 23 By end of meeting, provide an intent motion with direction to staff to refine boundaries for adoption Sept 6. September 6 th Ordinance amending Council District Boundaries 18 of 27

19 7/19/ of 27

20 COI S USED BY SRCAC 20 of 27

21 Committee Recommendations (17) (24) (31) (35) City of Sacramento 2011 Redistricting 21 of 27

22 Positive Characteristics: Central City/LGBT Core Intact (D5) River Oaks intact (D5) East Sac/River Park intact (D3) Latino North mostly intact (D2) Latino South mostly intact (D6) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D6) Weaknesses & Trade Offs: Oak Park in D6 instead of D5 and in different district from Curtis Park South Natomas split (D2/D5) PLAN A 22 of 27

23 Positive Characteristics of Map B: Central City / LGBT Core Intact (D3) Latino North mostly intact (D4) Latino South mostly intact (D6) DPH intact (D2) Oak Park mostly intact (D6) PLAN B Weaknesses & Trade Offs of Map B: Oak Park split (D5/D6) River Oaks split (D1/D4) East Sac and River Park separated (D2/D3) College Glen and Sierra Oaks in D2 (not D6); College Glen split (D2/D3) 23 of 27

24 Positive Characteristics: LGBT Core area mostly intact Latino L i North mostly intact (D2/D3) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D5) PLAN C Weaknesses & Trade Offs: River District & Railyards detached from Central City (D3) River Oaks split (D1/D2) East Sac split (D3/D5/D6) Colonial Heights removed from D5 Tahoe Th Park split (D5/D6) Latino South not substantially intact 24 of 27

25 Positive Characteristics of Map D: Central City / LGBT Core Intact (D4) East Sac/River Park intact (D3) Latino N mostly intact (D2) Del Paso Heights intact (D2) Oak Park intact (D5) Weaknesses & Trade Offs of Map D: Latino South not substantially intact River Oaks split (D1/D4) PLAN D 25 of 27

26 Option: Select 1 or 2 maps for refinement Option: Work with all 4 maps Option: Select from the maps eliminated by SRCAC from further consideration 26 of 27

27 Additional Information / Resources Redistricting 2011 Website Portal Scot Mende Maria MacGunigal City of Sacramento 2011 Redistricting 27 of 27