UPDATE: Water district expected to choose new map today

The Santa Clara Valley Water District board is expected to adopt
a new water district map today at 1 p.m. The meeting is a
continuation from Thursday’s 6 p.m. public forum.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District board is expected to adopt a new water district map today at 1 p.m. The meeting is a continuation from Thursday’s 6 p.m. public forum.

“You’ve changed your mind a couple of times,” Tony Estremera said to Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate at the board meeting Thursday. Estremera is one of seven water district directors. “I want you to convince me.”

Map S is the only option Morgan Hill and Mayor Al Pinheiro support, they both testified Thursday. It keeps South County together, links them with Los Gatos, which has common interests and needs, and minimizes the influence of San Jose on their district.

Tate and Gilroy Mayor Al Pinheiro’s support last month for two districts – and two representatives – in South County was rehashed again at the meeting attended by about 40 people. After the Palo Alto to Gilroy map was drawn and adopted, Tate and Pinheiro rescinded their support because of the large population in North County it made it unlikely a South County person would be elected to the board.

“It’s important South County works together,” Pinheiro said. “We were derailed from our mission. But we’ve always been accustomed to having two representatives.”

Morgan Hill and Gilroy are now encouraging the water board to support Map S, which keeps the cities together and joins Monte Sereno, Los Gatos and the Almaden area in the new District 1.

The board meets again today at 1 p.m. where they will adopt a new redistricting map at their headquarters, 5750 Almaden Expressway in San Jose.

Also, the results of a survey posted on www.valleywater.org were released Thursday after 220 responded over a two-day period. The most disdain was awarded to the Palo Alto-Gilroy map with 163 votes and the most votes for “I really like this version” was a tie between map Q that links South County with much of South San Jose and map Q3 that joins Gilroy with Campbell while linking Morgan Hill with South San Jose in two separate districts with 76 votes. The survey was created to as another way to gather feedback from the public.

A myriad of comments were submitted with many, but not all, of the votes. The majority reason for liking Map Q and Map Q3 was to “keep communities of color” – specifically the black and Asian communities – “together” as to not fragment their vote.

The directors are expected to make a decision on the new districts this afternoon.

This plea for public input comes after the board was threatened by a lawsuit and sent letters of rebuke over the adoption of the Palo Alto-to-Gilroy map April 27; a decision that was made based on letters of support from Pinheiro and Tate and others, who asked that South County be split so this region would have two representatives as it has been historically.

That plan backfired when a banana-shaped map linked urban Palo Alto to rural Gilroy and discounted the board’s own resolution that emphasizes that “communities of interest” are kept together.

“We confused possible with probable is what we did,” Tate said to the board at a special meeting Tuesday. He apologized for his direction that was misleading to the board.

Now, five maps are back on the table. Three were recommended by the redistricting committee who met over a span of 15 weeks in cities across the county gleaning public comment and participation. The fourth map is one that likely will go away – it’s been the impetus for controversy as politicians and community members spoke Tuesday demanding that the board review its decision. The fifth is a new map that the board drew Tuesday that still bisects South County, joining Gilroy with Campbell and Morgan Hill with the entire eastern section of the county.

“South County asked for two districts and I delivered,” South County’s at-large Director Cy Mann said. “I’m the bad guy now because I carried your message over here and we delivered,” he said to Pinheiro in a heated argument at the Tuesday meeting. Pinheiro said he wanted to be clear on what transpired leading up to the drawing of the new map.

“Let’s be straight-forward, it wasn’t South County that asked for it originally. We weren’t even thinking of Map Q. It came from you, it came from Don Gage, so therefore let’s get things on the table straight,” Pinheiro said. “Do not try to run me over, because you’re not going to do it.”

At the request of the water board, staff public administrator Rick Callendar created the survey that was online about 4 p.m. Tuesday. The Times received an e-mail alert about the survey at noon Wednesday. A press release was not issued, but Callendar said alerts are sent to the public via a long e-mail list.

“The board asked to make sure the information was out there and make sure we get feedback from the maps. That’s the only way I know how to get public comment,” Callendar said.

The survey asks for a rating of preference for each proposed maps on a scale of: I do not like this version, neutral or I really like this version. There is a space to provide comments and leaving your name, title, organization, address or e-mail are optional. Callendar said making it mandatory would upset more people than assuring anonymity.

“I tried to make it work for everybody,” Callendar said.

The only board director to vote against the Palo Alto-Gilroy map was Patrick Kwok, who said all five maps will be brought back to make sure all angles and options are on the table with this go-around.

“Any aspect of getting public input through surveys or comments is a good idea. If some can’t make it to the meeting … We need to be really transparent and open with this process,” Kwok said.

In an 11th-hour decision by the water board, which the board vouches was done based on public input, the new map was approved 5-2 April 27 after all members of the public had gone home then pushed through an adoption vote the morning of April 29. That vote was 5-1 with Palo Alto’s current director Patrick Kwok voting no and South County’s director Rosemary Kamei abstaining.

Others, who oppose how the board conducted itself in its adoption of the Palo Alto-Gilroy map, say the survey is a sham.

“It’s not a true survey,” said Susanne Wilson, who was a county supervisor for 12 years, a San Jose city council member and she served on the redistricting advisory board.

“If it were just getting the word out … to get opinions in that manner doesn’t pass the test of reason for a true cross-section of people.” Wilson said she is not telling anyone she knows to take the survey.

Political motivations are what moved the lines on the map, many have speculated. The joining of Palo Alto with Gilroy makes it difficult for potential candidate and current Supervisor Don Gage to win the Gilroy-Palo Alto seat since the population is far greater in the north. The maps Q, Q2 and Q3 all divide Gilroy from Morgan and will lessen the chance of any South County person to serve on the water board. The recommended maps S and T keep South County together.

Kamei has encouraged public participation since the process’ onset asking constituents to engage and submit their maps and thoughts.

“We’re trying to do as much outreach … with another opportunity to give their opinion,” Kamei said.

The survey can be done repeatedly by an individual if the browser history is cleared; there are no restrictions on voting. Of course, the poll and comment can be traced by the website’s administrator to a specific network just like most online polls, Callendar said. The survey was online until about 4:10 p.m. Thursday.

Monte Sereno council member Curtis Wright serves on the water commission – a liaison among cities and the district – and he spoke on behalf of the county at the meeting Tuesday.

“If they had taken one of those recommendations, there would have been no controversy,” Wright said. “This was very preventable. That’s the sad part.” He added that “perception is what counts” and when it comes to the survey, “they will use it to justify whatever they want to view.”

Several members of the board said they wanted more public input and outreach so that all who wanted could be heard at the public forum scheduled for Thursday at 6 p.m. Wilson suggested airing a public service announcement on KLIV radio.

“I don’t think I can find anything to compliment the board of directors on at this point,” Wilson said.

Interested people can visit www.valleywater.org for more information. A decision could be made as soon as today; if not, the board will meet again at 12:30 p.m. Monday.