Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting District Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gilroy holds third districting hearing; demographer presents three draft maps, public maps elevated for next round
Summary
Redistricting partners presented three draft six‑district maps and staff and the public discussed communities of interest. Council accepted public input and authorized at least one public‑submitted map (JH05) to be elevated for further consideration and modification.
The Gilroy City Council and its redistricting consultant held the third required public hearing on the city’s transition from at‑large to district‑based elections, reviewing communities of interest, trends in public map submissions, and three draft map options.
Liz Stitt of Redistricting Partners told council staff had received 27 public maps by the seven‑day posting deadline and identified common trends: testimony repeatedly urged keeping the city’s East Side together as a distinct community of interest, while public maps varied on whether to split the East Side north‑to‑south and how to configure western districts along Hecker Pass Highway.
The consultant presented draft maps A, B and C, each kept population deviation under the legal target (all under 10% total deviation) and each produced four districts with Latino citizen‑voting‑age populations (CVAP) above 50 percent. Draft A preserved an east‑side district using Hecker Pass as a divider; Draft B split the East Side north/south; Draft C was derived from community‑submitted neighborhood groupings and emphasized West Side neighborhoods.
Members of the public and several council members addressed the council during the hearing. Multiple speakers praised maps JH05 and JH07 (public map identifiers) and urged the council to consider them. One resident described long‑term neighborhood connections near Leavy and Leysley (transcribed spellings) and asked council to preserve those neighborhoods in a single district.
Council members asked the consultant to provide more detailed street‑level PDFs and encouraged staff to make Districtor links available so residents can zoom and see street names and parcel boundaries. Council also discussed schedule options; one council member requested delaying final action to allow more time for public review before the final vote.
Council direction at the hearing included elevating a public‑submitted map, JH05 (ID 289301), to draft status (to be processed as “Draft D”) for formal consideration at the next meeting and asking staff and the demographer to explore a modest adjustment to increase the Latino CVAP in the affected district where feasible. Staff confirmed that additional public maps may be elevated at council request and reminded the public of the seven‑day posting deadline for map submissions prior to the next meeting.
No final map vote was taken at this session; the council and Redistricting Partners will present revised drafts and a narrowed set of maps at the next hearing(s) before a final selection is scheduled.
Why it matters: moving to district elections will reconfigure how councilmembers are elected and which voters select each seat. The process must balance numerical equality, legal compliance, and keeping communities of interest intact.
