The Redistricting Advisory Commission of the City of San Jose convened in Regular Session at 7:08 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 7:08 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 2001 ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING

Documents Filed: Minutes of the regular meeting of April 18, 2001.

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

3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 25, 2001 ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING

Documents Filed: Minutes of the Public Hearing of April 25, 2001.

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

4. NEW BUSINESS



1. Continued discussion of Potential District Boundary Changes, including responses to Commission comments from the April 25, 2001 meeting




Documents Filed: Tables: City of San Jose “Ten Percent No. 2” City Council Redistricting Plan 2000 Population Variation; City of San Jose 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity (Percentages) “Ten Percent No. 2” Redistricting Plan vs. Existing Council Districts; “Ten Percent No. 2” City Council Redistricting Plan Response to 4/18/01 and 4/25/01 Meeting Comments; Map: Existing City Council Districts and “Ten Percent No. 2” Redistricting Plan.



Discussion/Action: Michael Bills, Planning Department, explained that staff has attempted to prioritize comments provided by Commissioners at each of their meetings; however, the number of variables to be considered in the redistricting process makes it impossible to ensure that the interests of all parties are satisfied simultaneously. Because of the time involved in preparing a map that reflects changes proposed by the Commission, and the short interval between meetings, he indicated that staff is unable to produce multiple plans on a week-to-week basis. Chair Fiscalini asked the Commission to resolve the issue of using a 5% vs. 10% deviation. Upon motion by Commissioner Powers and unanimously carried, staff was directed to use the 10% deviation for data preparation. Vote: 10-0-1. Absent: Fadness. Mr. Bills emphasized that the Commission needs to approach redistricting from a city-wide perspective as opposed to only focusing on sub-areas of San Jose. He presented an overlay to the “Ten Percent No. 2 Plan” that enables the Commission to evaluate the correspondence between school district boundaries and Council District boundaries, and what impact boundary changes will have on individual schools within those districts. He noted that nearly all school districts within San Jose are currently split into two or more Council Districts, and that Franklin-McKinley School District is split into four. He indicated that it is not feasible to align all or even several school districts with proposed Council District boundaries. He reported that the “Ten Percent No. 2 Plan” results in a total deviation of 7.3%, but that no Districts are within 1% of the mean. He pointed out the changes made to the plan are a result of comments made by Commissioners, and indicated that constraints resulting from proposed changes have caused a concentration of high population in the central areas of the City. He emphasized that it is easier to prepare a plan beginning with the districts that are limited in their expansion potential, rather than working from the middle and moving outward. In response to discussion regarding ethnic and racial concentrations in certain districts, Chief Deputy City Attorney Norm Sato advised the Commission not to move boundaries solely based on this criteria. Commissioners identified changes they would like to see to the plan, which staff indicated would be incorporated as much as possible for the next meeting. Chair Fiscalini commented that the Commission can not give the impression of favoring one district over another, and that the Redistricting Plan is not going to please everyone.

5. OLD BUSINESS



1. Update on availability and timing of race/ethnicity data using the “Hispanic Exclusive” methodology




Documents Filed: None.



Discussion/Action: Mr. Edens reported that County staff provided copies of the data tables for the census tracts that are of interest to the City of San Jose. He stated data on both the “Hispanic Exclusive” and “Hispanic Inclusive” methodologies will be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Bills, Planning Department, acknowledged the individuals from the County who worked with City staff on this. Dustin De Rollo, Office of the Mayor, indicated that the Mayor would send a letter of appreciation to the County, and Chair Fiscalini requested staff to send a letter from the Commission.

6. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS




Documents Filed: None



Discussion/Action:Chair Fiscalini asked if the Commission needed to schedule meetings for May 23 and May 30. Upon motion by Commissioner Christensen and unanimously adopted, meetings were scheduled for May 23 and May 30. Vote: 10-0-1. Absent: Fadness.

Documents Filed: Letter from Leyva Community Action Team.

Discussion/Action: Khanh Nguyen, Leyva Community Action Team, distributed a letter expressing the community’s desire to remain part of District 8. John Hesler, President of Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association, suggested that the goal of the Commission should be to make as few changes as possible to the existing Council District boundaries. Sun Quong, Berryessa area, commented on boundary changes

The Redistricting Advisory Commission adjourned at 8:52 p.m.