The Redistricting Advisory Commission of the City of San Jose convened in Regular Session at 7:05 p.m. in Conference Room 106 of San Jose City Hall

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Chairperson Fiscalini called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 21, 2001 ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING

Documents Filed: Minutes of the regular meeting of April 4, 2001.

Discussion/Action: The Minutes were approved. Vote: 9-0-2. Absent: Dean, Sanchez.

3. NEW BUSINESS

1. Review of 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity of Existing Council District, and Affirmation or Reconsideration of Race/Ethnicity Data Tabulation Methodology (i.e., “Hispanic Inclusive” or “Hispanic Exclusive”)

Documents Filed: Criteria to Guide Redistricting.

Discussion/Action: : Michael Bills, Planning Department, explained that the Commission previously received the “2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity by Existing Council District” table, and that the 1990 figures were being provided for comparison purposes to see the extent of changes by race and ethnicity by District. He reported that Districts 3 and 5 have an Hispanic concentration of 59.1%, a 4% increase from 1990, and that District 4 has become an Asian majority, with an increase from 37.5% in 1990 to approximately 53% in 2000. Commissioner Wilson asked what affect these statistics would have on the redistricting process. Mr. Bills responded that the Commission had adopted the issue of racial and ethnic concentration as criteria for consideration in its review. He added that, as a result of the changes during the 1990’s, the extent of boundary changes would be less than during the previous redistricting process. Commissioner Dean expressed concern regarding the Commission’s position to use the “Hispanic Inclusive” methodology. She believes Commission decisions will be difficult to defend if it does not look at both the “Hispanic Inclusive” and “Hispanic Exclusive” methodologies; and noted the City’s process will be inconsistent with the County because the County is using both methodologies. Deputy Director Kent Edens reminded the Commission that staff reported at the last meeting that they could not provide data both ways because of time constraints and added that the County had purchased software which allows both methodologies to be run easily. Mr. Bills added that the County has spent approximately one-half million dollars in support of the redistricting process. Commissioner Fadness suggested that the City might be able to contract with the County as a resource. Mr. Edens responded that staff will check into this, as well as determine the cost and availability of the software to the City. Commissioner Dean offered her office as a resource to help City staff. Upon motion by Commissioner Fadness, and unanimously carried, staff was directed to determine the cost and availability of the software and, if feasible, recommend approval of its purchase to City Council. Vote: 10-0-1. Absent: Sanchez.

2. Review of “Starting Point” District Boundary Changes and Provide Direction for Subsequent Iterations of Iterations of Alternative Boundaries
   
   Documents Filed: Tables: “Starting Point” City Council Redistricting Plan, 2000 Population Variation; 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity (Percentages), “Starting Point” Redistricting Plan vs. Existing Council Districts; “Starting Point” City Council Redistricting Plan, Population Transfer Area Criteria and Data. Map: Existing City Council Districts and “Starting Point” Redistricting Plan; news article regarding United States Supreme Court ruling in North Carolina.
   
   Discussion/Action: Mr. Edens emphasized that the map reflects a “starting point” only for the Commission to determine boundaries. Commissioner Christensen noted that the County is using a 10% variance in District population and that this would allow more flexibility than the 5% that the Commission adopted. Chair Fiscalini commented that the Commission could increase the variance to 10%. Mr. Bills reviewed the process staff used in developing the redistricting plan. He reported that the plan results in a total deviation from the highest to lowest population among the districts of 4.1%, which meets the Commission’s objective, and that five districts have been reduced to less than 1% variation from the mean. He noted that staff attempted to minimize the extent of changes to existing Council districts, in line with the Commission’s objective. He explained that staff focused on three criteria in developing the plan – to comply with the law, to balance the population among the districts to the greatest extent possible, and to use major streets as boundary separations. Mr. Bills reviewed the “Starting Point” Redistricting Plan map and explained the changes that staff had identified for each district. Because Districts 1, 3, and 9 require the greatest shift of population, Commissioner Johnson suggested that the Commission consider increasing their population to the high end of the mean to avoid significant changes in the future. Commissioner Fuentes expressed concern with the use of major streets to determine District boundaries, as that may mean dividing a community. She requested information on the ethnic breakdown of areas to be transferred into or out of Districts, and suggested that the Commission also consider the economic diversity of those areas. Commissioner Arreola commented that the Commission should not jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Powers noted that the staff plan negatively affects school district boundaries. Chair Fiscalini asked if the Commission should decide whether to use the 5% or 10% deviation. Dustin De Rollo, Office of the Mayor, recommended that the decision be delayed until a representative of the City Attorney’s Office is present to determine the legal ramifications. Each Commissioner provided comments and suggestions on the Redistricting Plan. Linda Herman, representing Berryessa Union School District and member of the Berryessa Citizen Advisory Council, commented on the importance of maintaining unity within District 4 and the Berryessa School District. Bill Hughes, resident of Berryessa, presented a list of groups that support the unity of District 4. Chair Fiscalini summarized the issues presented by the Commissioners as follows: 1) Maintain integrity of the criteria adopted by the Commission; 2) Consider a 10% variance rather than 5% to help simplify the adjustments that need to be made; 3) Staff will provide to the Commission as much economic data as is available; 4) Some Commissioners expressed satisfaction with the staff report and others have concerns. Mr. Edens indicated that staff will be able to develop different scenarios based on Commission input. Jackie Maruhashi, Asian Law Alliance, presented a news article regarding a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the formation of North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District.

A. Distribution of Revised Population Tables Rectifying a Minor Error in the Allocation of Population Between Council Districts 2 and 7

Documents Filed: Revised Population Tables

Discussion/Action: None

B. Distribution of Criteria and Methodology Summaries

Documents Filed: Criteria to Guide Redistricting, April 2001; Race/Ethnicity Data Tabulation Methodology

Discussion/Action: None

Documents Filed: None

Discussion/Action: None

Documents Filed: James Nakamura’s Proposal 1.

The Redistricting Advisory Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m.