The Redistricting Advisory Commission of the City of San Jose convened in a Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. in the Willow Senior Center Auditorium.

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 MAY 2, 2001 ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING

Documents Filed: Minutes of the regular meeting of May 2, 2001.

Discussion/Action: The Minutes were approved. Vote: 7-0-4. Absent: Dean, Fadness, Johnson, Ota.

3. PUBLIC HEARING


Continued discussion of Potential District Boundary Changes, including responses to Commission comments from the May 9, 2001 meeting

Documents Filed: : Letter from J. Michael Gonzales, President, Willow Glen Neighborhood Association; dated April 20, 2001; Letter from Manny Barbara, Superintendent, and Diane Lemke, President, Board of Trustees, Oak Grove School District dated April 25, 2001; Letter from Jackie Maruhashi, Asian Law Alliance, on behalf of 15 Asian Pacific American agencies and individuals dated May 9, 2001.

Discussion/Action: Chair Fiscalini opened the public hearing. For the benefit of the public attending the hearing, Deputy Director Kent Edens provided background on the Commission’s progress to date. Chair Fiscalini explained that there are strict State and Federal laws, as well as adopted criteria, that the Commission is required to follow in the redistricting process. He emphasized the importance of having input from the public. The following individuals spoke on the Redistricting Plan: Bill Hughes, District 4; Dianne Lemke, Manny Barbara, Amelia Hill, Oak Grove School District; Rudy Nasol, Berryessa Citizens Advisory Council; Lan Nguyen, Vietnamese American Foundation; Paul Fong, Coalition of Concerned Asian Pacific Americans; Rubie Golart, Mt. Pleasant area; Matthew Mo, Berryessa District; John Hessler, Santa Teresa Foothills Neighborhood Association; Jackie Maruhashi, Asian Law Alliance; Dale Warner; Independence High Neighborhood Association; Amor Santiago, Asian Americans for Community Involvement; Greg West; Kim Sinan, Asian American Public Policy Institute; Hung Nguyen; Gilbert Wong, OCA-Silicon Valley; Ike White, District 8.

4. NEW BUSINESS

1. Continued discussion of Potential District Boundary Changes, including responses to Commission comments from the May 2, 2001 meeting

Documents Filed: Tables: City of San Jose “Ten Percent No. 3” City Council Redistricting Plan 2000 Population Variation; City of San Jose 2000 Population by Race and Ethnicity (Hispanic Exclusive) by Existing Council District; City of San Jose 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Ethnicity (Hispanic Inclusive) “Ten Percent No. 3” Redistricting Plan vs. Existing Council Districts; City of San Jose 2000 Population by Race and Ethnicity (Hispanic Exclusive) “Ten Percent No. 3” Redistricting Plan vs. Existing Council Districts; “Ten Percent No. 3” City Council Redistricting Plan Response to Previous Redistricting Meeting Comments; Map: Existing City Council Districts and “Ten Percent No. 3” Redistricting Plan.

Discussion/Action: Michael Bills, Planning Department, introduced the Ten Percent “No. 3” Redistricting Plan and indicated that it is based on a 10% deviation. He reported that this plan is at the maximum extent of the range, with a total deviation of 9.5%, and that the average deviation in each District is 3.7% from the mean. He explained that this plan minimizes the extent of changes in nine of the ten Districts, in terms of being either high or low in population. In response to comments regarding race and ethnicity breakdown, he indicated that Asian population in District 8 and Hispanic population in District 4 has increased rather than being diluted. He pointed out that this plan has a total transfer area population of 45,000 people, about 5% of the City’s population, compared with a transfer area of 120,000 people in the first plan. He reviewed changes to the Plan based on direction received from the Commission, and commented that the “No. 3” Plan minimizes the extent of changes that are necessary to bring the plan within legal requirements. He added that this plan significantly reduces the number of transfer areas without affecting racial and ethnicity composition of Districts. Commissioners expressed concerns they have with the “No. 3” Plan and identified changes they would like to see.

Documents Filed: None

Discussion/Action:None

Documents Filed: None

Discussion/Action: None

Documents Filed: None