 Good afternoon and welcome to our pretty damn April 19th, 2022 special meeting of the city council. I would like to ask for your call for coming. Our first item on today's agenda the 2022 legislative program manual for members of the public who are streaming this item, like comment on. Now is time to call in using the instructions on this. The order will be a presentation by staff, followed by questions from council. And then we will take public comment and return to celebration and act. I have a lot at 45 minutes for this item. And I would like to welcome Elizabeth Smith. Our communication manager that item. Thank you. Thank you mayor and members. I'm going to share my screen. Hey, we are fortunate today to also have our federal legislative equipment. Chris, Chris, I always grew up your last name, Elio. And, and, Christy, you want to turn on your camera and say hello. Hello, thanks for having me. He's here and will answer any questions that you have about our federal federal program. And unfortunately, our colleagues from the Guaco group are not joining us today. You'll have to excuse me. I'm having a weird allergy attack right before I got on the meeting. So sorry about that. So we'll start a little bit of background. I'll quickly go through this. So, you know, we, the program and platform legislative program is not new. It is, is something that the council has been adopting for several years, as I understand it. And, and so what this is, is it update the legislative session for its legislative year. It's, it's basically intended to be a guide so that we can act swiftly as new legislation forward that we have your direction for how we should be engaging on advocacy positions and conveying our priorities are legislative. We were fortunate. I think this is an example of how it could do anything in government, which is we are fortunate to really have some positive successes that out of the last year. $14 million in American Rest Plan Act funds $1.4 million homelessness assistance from HUD and that was it letting our legislators know what our priorities are and what we're wanting to do with with our ARPA funds. We received the year mark that was Congressman Panetta for the water meter replacement project that created 11 jobs. And then at the state level, the unstuck applications and one of those big applications was for the Pacific Station project where we were able to work with the agency that was granting the funds and explain our, our case and then also and that basically unlocked the application so that we were successful. And then, last but not least, through former Mayor Myers, continuous advocacy along with that of staff and, and our legislators being responsive to us. We received $14 million today for the homeless response work that you recently approved. So we'll go into the platform, you know, the guiding principles are pretty simple. Basically, when it comes down to it, it's all about. So where we are right now is a lot of big ambition as a city. We are working on some really important and there are funding opportunities out there in the world that we want to go grab, where that those things that the council prioritizes that our city prioritizes are funded or we're able to. So specifically on the legislative priorities, you'll see that these track exactly with where you've been spending a lot of time around addressing housing sustainability and resilient. Making sure that we have a strong infrastructure and a resilient. And then the economic vitality up and down. And then the business to the individuals. Individual. In terms of how we're going to go about this, already been going about here in, in trying to move on things that we care about. Bring in that thing. Direct engagement lawmakers that that range from letters, which I know that you've already done several this year. Public testimony or even by just building coalitions so working with other an example of that that we have already done this here is work with Santa Monica and sidewalk. Where that our voice around our environment and then building coalitions locally but also building conditions across. The last is having those federal and say agent. Like saw the benefit from. Station. For another way that we engage through these community funding requests, this is a federal process. We are able to make requests of our senators and our and our. As I mentioned, we had the water replace project last year. That was funded process. But in our request, they map priorities. Backstation north, the library makes project, both of those on the house. Regional workforce development, and that's a green jobs. Initiative homelessness response and while. Just a note on this that a future availability of these funds really swings right up. So depending on the November elections, see if we can do this again next year, but we have put in our request through that. You heard about this in the. Action plan conversation, but the idea of bringing forward a coalition really focus on systems change. So make sure that our. Our gathering together with cities for experience of the same things really advocate for the specials. As a. And develop your. You're thinking about that systems change. It's really about what is the direct funding cities and how can we advocate that? What are the new funding? Is that we should pursuing given our situation on the coast or our situation as a. As a county seat. What we should we be holding the state accountable for doing around mental health crisis response and and the in the issue there among other. And then I'm figuring out what our local response mechanism could be are there are there is their legislation that make it easier for easier for us. Manage the issue of. In our a lot for a few pieces of legislation that. I'm tracking right now this is not exhaustive it's a there is so much there's 1000 bills over 1000 bills that going through the legislature right now so. We'll see that these track to our sort of the topic but I wanted to let you know that. My eye is on them working with our. On. One is just making sure that we're squeezing every bit of funding that we can out of the. And jobs act. So our water infrastructure work so we're looking at those and Chris is excellent about letting us know when funding opportunities. We are. When that I think you guys are already clear with is. Which is about. Seek what exemptions for universities. I know that. City manager has is working. There is. That's the legislation that we had input on with Santa Monica. That will allow for more sort of local regulation around sidewalk. The manner. Our our. Environment. Sp 989. Is a grant funding opportunity around green jobs. For climate resiliency and career. Sp 1416 and. Five is around. Expanding the definition of an action around. Mental illness. The definition. What is gravely disabled. Firing. Homelessness and housing were the top. Issues. Coming through the legislature not surprising on everybody's. It's. At the top. Here's a few. One is a. Not a bill. But it was the initiative. And it's ACA 14 but. Would basically. Dedicate 5% of general fund revenues. That is. Something really. That. There's. A number of bills. With. One. From. 11 is really focused on. Mandating that. Valities that. Have a higher capita. Homelessness rate than that of. All the other 49 state. The average of the 49 state. Would mandated to themselves in a shelter crisis. And there's a number of. And requirements. Along with that. There's a bill about. Going through the legislature now. About the protection of. Parkland so. For example. The bench land. Would. Covered by this where it would allow local. Government. To. In the name of. The environment. That we're threatening the environment. There's a bill about. Being fine forgiveness for. Where. Experienced. RVs. Helping. RVs. Get. In compliance. Through. A. Sequel exemption. Shelters so as we. Navigation. This really helps. Getting that on. Grant. Grant programs. Outreach. And police. And then. The. An interesting one. That I am going to dig into and haven't. Haven't gotten. Into. Yet is. 31. Which. Would allow. An agent. Like city of Santa Cruz to say to another agent. Or homeless. Have created an. Or. Or. Our. Would. And then. As we just wrap up on. Housing. There's a number of things around housing. Protection. The key messages. We need more housing. We're going to do legislation that. That allows that. And. And the downside of that for us. Is that. Much of that legislation. Local. And. And. And the downside of that for us. Is that. Much of that legislation. Local. So. You've got. On the. On the positive side. Funds. That approved. For housing project. Coming through. There's. Loosening of. ADU. Standards and. Heights. Adaptive reuse by right. Is. Saying that it. If. We're reusing. Adapting and reusing a parcel plan. Doesn't matter what the zoning is. If it's going to be affordable housing. For. For. So again that's that local. All. Streamline bidding in the. Which. Would. Only impact. ADU's affordable housing. And. Delters. Navigation. It would basically strip away. And. There are. Provisions on. All housing. These. Proposed. Which. Basically any. Any. Municipality. Have. Density. For. Greater. Would be. Acceptable. Legislation. Basically. Would. For. Well. Housing. Which. Could really. Line. And then. On the flip side there's a grant. Program for waiving and deferring. For housing impact. So. Clearly people are coming at it. Different angles. Here in. As there was. So some just some deadlines. In mind. These bills are going through. Right now. May 6 is. The. Policy. To. Be done with their bills and make. Is the is the deadline. School committees. And. Then they all the bills. Out of the house. Having been. The house. Right. So. I think that's when we'll get. A sense of really what. From all those. Thousand bills. What have we. What have we whittled down. Priority. So. So. So. So. So. The budget bill has to be passed by. That. Not. 15 and then. That. The houses have to. With all their bills on the 31st governor. Or veto by. So. I've. A lot. The only right. The only right. That action that we have for you is that you. Approve the. Legislative. Man. But I'm. Here to answer any questions that I know. Chris is. Thank you Elizabeth. I'm. Going to. Right. I'm really glad you were able to include Senator Eggman, who of the bills, the eight package feel on behavioral health, standing the definition of gravely disabled, I've been following that one as well. Let's see. I'm going to get out. I'll go ahead and start with the council member to ask a question. Okay. Sounds good. This is sort of a broad question for you, Elizabeth, and maybe Chris, so some of these think would have positive impacts in our local community, and I know often there's population that are mandates about funding. I'm thinking about specifically spanning the definition of gravely disabled. What does that look like in terms of mental health response, and how will local communities how will our capacity and resources be built so that we can implement this state? That's just one example. Yeah. I mean, I think that that's the rub, right? And so what's been the legislation forward and there's funding to do it is limited. So I mean, I think that that's a real issue. Many of these bills do acknowledge that they are a local mandate for folks, and yeah, it's I think we have to see where it goes. I don't know, Chris, if you have experience with your municipalities around these sort of mandates that come. Thanks, councilmember, it's nice to see you on the federal level. Congress does like to kind of make new rules and regulations, the kind of funding behind it. It doesn't seem to be as cute as it is, say, you know, thousands of bills that are all dealing with, but it happens. I'll give you a couple of examples that I think are continue to be the biggest one on the federal level of communication and the FTC trying to sort of a real local role for Europe, for such exciting things like that. As we see increases in technology in areas like drones and autonomous vehicles also kind of by those industries to get themselves any local possibilities, so for those of you. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. Thank you. And so I guess I just want to congratulate you on what you did last year for us. Thank you to our staff. Just goes to show, having a legislative, especially on a year like last year, my question is actually from Matt. I really am very impressed by your idea of Haiti, you know, multi-city portion around, and I just wonder if you could do that a little bit. I was mayor. And so, you know, there was an casual set of several of us participated in the Water Act discussed. So I'm just curious if you can give us a little bit more detail on it. As the other thing that everybody else there that I talked about was the role of how basically how people enter, exit our city as often times, that's the first thing they do when they get off the city. So I just curious how trans-cultures are shared with so many of the cultures, not only in the city, but in the county, and quite against the public. Yeah, thanks for the question. Councilmember Myers. Happy to speak to you. Thank you. We know from our own experience that the issue of homeless affects coastal communities and disproportionate on several fronts, and in practical ways as well as you're describing in our part of the pow-tran, borders, not just Santa Cruz, but throughout Coastal. The same could be true for our relationship with the Coastal Commission, and many of the policies that we set forth, ways in which homeless impact our coastal regions, our watersheds well, and many of the environmental aid, sensitive habitats that compass not just Santa Cruz, but our neighbors up and down the coast. So the idea behind this is for Santa Cruz to really serve in a leadership role, aged with other communities in California that have similar ways to Santa Cruz. The standard of voice in Sacramento is many of the bills that Elizabeth described earlier are making their way through the process. Identify areas that we may be able to help sponsor legislation, press, speak concerns that we have as a community, and see if we can really get some traction in that work across the country. So that's the spirit behind it. We'll also, of course, be engaging with how cities on that work already had some conversations with local rep, customs on that front as well. A lot of work there to be done, but we're excited about that. That's a lot of work. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Council members? All right. Time, I will go out to our attendees. And if you are interested in commenting on 2022 legislative program manual platform, raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone or cell phone, and webinar polls on your Twitter. When it's your time to school, hear an announcement that you've unmuted, and the timer will be set three minutes. And I see a hand raised, and the name, Reggie Meisler. Hi there. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. You know, I don't know where to begin with this. I'm just really disturbed at the notion that our executive branches, like in our resources and lobbying the state to try to get legislation that think serves the coastal region, and it sounds like focused on the environment and not on curving the houseless folks who are our residents, who 75% of which know became housed in the city. And now we've sort of, they've gotten too poor, and we don't care about, we don't care more about what means like standard of our beaches now. And I mean, who's giving city manager this authority to use our public funds to help lobby the state for these pieces of like, for a lack of better term, go fascist style legislation. And you know, this is really like disconcerting, like what I would like is, I don't think city manager would have any ability to lobby state level legislatures. And in fact, I think there's a California constitutional code that says can't do that. So I would look at that. And I would also, I mean, I know like, I don't think the city council would agree with me, but at least let city council want a lobby state, like keep it in the same branch of government, please. Like, we've got the police writing their own reform laws, and then city council just kind of passing them. We've got city manager writing the laws that apply to them. Your council rule that comes up for basically suggestion is that city staff should prepare a bunch of, a bunch of policy ideas and there should be a few questions to the public, little public, and there should be no amendments. And so, I mean, this just seems like a transparent executive overreach. And it's being assisted by legislators right now. And I would like, so, I guess I'll say that, Dane, because I know it's, anyways, but I've seen it. Thank you for your input. Are there any other questions that would like to comment on the council's recommendation? I'll just move to program manual and platform agenda item for us. Press star nine to raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, I will bring it back to the council. And are there any council members that would like to move the motion? Council member Cummings. I'll go ahead and move staff right now. Council member Myers. We have a first member Cummings. A second by council member Myers. And I will bring it now for discussion. Council member Brown. Thank you, mayor, and thank the president, Elizabeth, to Chris as well, and all the work you do in Sacramento. I just wanted to make a comment, you know, in response to the public commenter, whose concerns, many ways I share, I, you know, I do think that the way that make decisions about what our legislative priorities will be, how much time staff and on taking particular positions and lobbying is relatively, I guess I'll say. And so, you know, until we don't micromanage those of the staff, the lobbying process, putting together a legislative program, and I appreciate the effort of staff to try to put it in organized framework that can make legible in some ways what this is already doing. And I agree that council members should be more involved in those efforts. And you know, and I know it's kind of challenging, but I do think that being more engaged, the particulars of those is important, and I recognize it on our own, and maybe in a smaller group. But I like that idea, and I recognize that there are brains on time and resources for the program. So, you know, I support it. I wish we could have a more robust conversation around it and really, you know, dive into what a lot of this legislation and fortunately can. But I will offer myself up on any time, and I would participate in meetings with our elected officials. I do think it's our, you know, an important role for council members. So, while I, you know, I don't necessarily have a lot of legislation on this list. I'm not sure, you know, I mean, we're tracking it, and I'm not sure where the council would come down to kind of bring the legislation for a vote. It does provide a, but this is up. I'll see if it's there. Will Court, we'll accept the report. Council Member Brown. Here to comment on any of the specific items you don't be with or have any additional direction for legislative items. You know, it's, I'm probably not right. It would be more appropriate if I have a specific, I can talk with Elizabeth offline and navigate that. But, you know, the general of the loss of local control that was raised, mentioned the context of a couple of different areas of active defectors. You know, I have about all the states is taking and grouping local authority. And so I have an interest in watching those. I also, I'm not sure what's done the council about that at the moment. And in terms of the particular bills, I'll just check out the list. I appreciate the follow-up question. Yeah, and I encourage all of us to stay in close connection with Elizabeth, helping pack a lot of bills. And I know several of us also pack bills and having our own conversations with some of the legislators or representatives. So I think it's important that they engage with our concerns and any exciting ones that might be helpful for our city to be aware of our staff as well. Elizabeth, can you comment briefly on what it means to lobby? Sure. You know, I think that when I think about lobbying this recent example, our focus has been on bringing resources to accomplish the goals that you all have set through your ordinances or through your planning, the re-envisioned Santa Cruz as an example of the guiding documents that really help focus our efforts last year. And so it can take a number of forms. One is to counsel write the letter for the signature of the mayor to express a position. The other is that we are talking with staff on use of interest to the council and following up on the impact of that on the city and the county position. I will say, Council Member Brown, that our direction and so I want to be clear that that is, and I don't want there to be anything about it. This is an extension of the council's priority. So I understand that you're not a monolith. You all have your own opinions about things. So that could be an element that we would have to negotiate through. But I think it's important to say that our direction and what I hope to do in this legislative platform was reflect back those things that I had heard, things that we had passed in our own citywide legislation and tracking those back how they might. So that being, if you want to get involved with direct lobbying, please let me know. It's coming from you, then it is coming from staff. Your voice is very powerful. So I think that by all means, let us out of this, you know, get involved and do this work. Because you have power. So I'm welcome to say thank you. I appreciate that. And I would tend to suggest that I feel like stripping our thanks. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Cummings and then Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask the staff for purposes of transparency. Passing this, my understanding, would not, you know, it's accepting the report given today. And it doesn't necessarily bringing items, Council, for example, if you want to write letters in support of any other state bill. So I just wanted to see if you can clarify on that. For example, I know that AB 2932 would shift things from a 40-hour work to a 32-hour work. I do something like that, you know, members of the public that want to have the Council weigh in on it, whether or not we want to send a letter to the court. So just trying to want to get clarity with the public Council's ability to support other states or federal bills. Of course. Now our advocacy is that you're correct. I really tried to hone in on those things that I knew are priorities based surveys, based on the work that you got all the way. But it's not exclusive. It's not, and that there is, because new bills, all the bills around here, the boundaries of those bills are changing all the time as they go through committee. And so it's a very, very much a dynamic environment that we should engage throughout. And so I've just heard members of the public, there are, you know, Assembly, Senate, federal bills that deal with the importance of weighing in on this and very reaching out to us. So this is how we can help support the desires and support those pieces of legislation and so we can have conversations about whether the city should weigh in on certain things. Thank you, Council Member Meyers. New documents? No. I'm sorry. It's a reformatting and a big figuring to make the paper my goal. I brought my presentation to the tab and tried to make the platform a little... It was two separate documents. The manual and the... They go hand-in-hand. I rolled, and so I wanted to bring them both to the pillar document. But the manual has been updated. Well, I just, yeah, I just... I mean, I think that I think also so much of what a city has to do is really look... Right? Reboll or we... Offset. Which is the offset greater cost. Quite... Quite... Well, Charles said some things that we've done. So I just, I guess I want to thank you. I read the document. I read some with me, but I also was like, wow, it's also just... Let you know that... It's a great document. I had a look at it. And then... Also as a policy... Having the goals and having the team... I haven't done it. But thank you guys so much federally. Thank you, Council Member Meyers. And just being a time checker at 4.15 and having a 10 minutes, 10 to 15 minutes item. And Council Member Contrary Johnson or Vice Mayor Watt... You wanted to comment before we move to action. No, thank you Mayor. I'll just express my appreciation. And I do think that these relationships and communications and advocacy play a critical role for our cities. And, you know, as... As Council Member Meyers mentioned and Council Member Brown mentioned, I think we all have a role. I know we met with that yesterday and just continue to really build these relationships and try to find resources to actualize a lot of people. So, yeah, thanks so much. Thank you. And I'll just reiterate what my colleagues have said. Thank you for all the work. Thank you so much. Thank you, Elizabeth Smith, and pointing us as well and all your support. I wonder if you might just a minute and briefly describe your role in all of this, how you fit in this process. Sure, thank you very much Mayor. You know, essentially I... What I consider myself to be a city's federal advocate in Washington, D.C. I consider myself to be kind of an extension of staff and to kind of go back to the discussion we're in for while some people call me a lobbyist, I really do feel both the Council are the best for the city. You know, the city is better than I do, although I love the city in no way. But you know it better and you can really, you know, advocate on the city and have done a marvelous job in my experience doing it. And I'm appreciative. So what I do a lot of is to have contact with Elizabeth and other staff about opportunities in Washington, D.C. For instance, we've got this infrastructure bill that was approved in November of 2021. Two trillion dollars. And I might add, you know, we were used to the pandemic and the city got direct funding and got that 14 million dollars to spend on related losses, assistance money, some other things. The infrastructure bill was crafted by a bipartisan group of senators who, you know, sort of present the entire state. So more than 60% of that bill is available through, it's available to states through blocks. The other part of that is available through some of the, through formula grants like transit agencies and others. But a lot of it is competitive. So as opposed to getting these allocations, that he's going to have to compete a lot with funds. And I know that staff level, they are ready to do that. And I hope that I can help to, you know, present those opportunities in the city in timely manner for the next few months. Great, thank you. Appreciate all your work. Thank you. Okay, so thank you so much. And we have the motion on the table by council member, can I second? By council member Meyers. We have a roll call. Council member, I'm sorry. Aye. That motion passed as unanimous. And now with council member Golder app. And now at this time, we will have court break before we return at five o'clock for item number one, our agenda. Item number two will be the second public hearing input from the community regarding the selection of a district map and election. Following that item will input regarding a seven district map and election. So we'll have an hour and a half on each of those items. Look forward to starting that discussion at five o'clock. Hello, everybody. Welcome. And if members turn on their press, we will begin and resume our city clerk ready. Have we addressed any sound issues? Good audio. Okay. Well, welcome. This is the next item on our agenda. Agenda item number two, the second public hearing to receive input from the community regarding the selection of a district map election. Following this item, we will have items during the input regarding a seven. So this first item, I've allotted an hour and a half for members of the public hearing this meeting. If this item you wish to comment on now is the time to call and use the instructions. The order will be presentation of the item by the city's demographic consultant and staff followed by questions from the council. We will then take public comment on this item. So at this time I would like to welcome Mark and Doug Johnson. Mayor Brunner, you might also want to announce about the translation services. And those that are speaking or will need Spanish translation services. So let's see, who is here for that? We have Peter Bichier. Peter Bichier, would you like to make that announcement? Certainly Mayor. Buenas tardes, ahorita es la oportunidad de hablar sobre las zonas digitales de la ciudad. Queremos compartir para que alquilio lo van a poder hacer español. Si es cuando se darán la posibilidad de hablar, quedaremos al cáncer. Ok, so I don't, anybody with their hands up meeting Spanish translation are nine to receive Spanish translation and we'll make sure I might stop along the way on any important point and make sure it is translated regardless. So let's begin and welcome Peter Bichier and Doug. Doug, why don't you go ahead and start your presentation. Thank you. We'll do. It's good to be back with you. I'm going to share my screen. The slides are going to look familiar as I can touch on the big things prior to getting into the new map for this. So I'll go through the first slides also cover these earlier. But first of all, obviously we're looking at changing the city council election. Right now it's an at large system where council members are like why? Because if you're in a position to a by district system, each candidate has to live in a district where only the voters at district would vote on to represent them. There are a couple of districts in the state that still use something called from district. We have to be from a district that's still citywide but the California voting rights act is another version of that large. We are getting close to the end of a city process that started back in August. The initial hearings to share information with the public and to get the word out about the process. Then had the federal and state release data that we use for the process. And then as was just mentioned, we had the first screen on the map back in March. This is the second hearing. The various map off. As I just mentioned, there will be a come back to this more detail. The council has put an item on the ballot. It will decide whether the 6th map or the 7th district map on the upcoming November election. Just on that, just to highlight that currently there are seven members a rotating mayor. So the one set of the one set of maps with seven districts. The other set of maps change the system to have six districts each electing one council member. And then a citywide election. Tonight, as the mayor mentioned, we are focused on the preferred 6th district map and the preferred 7th district map. We are focused on the preferred 6th district map. The rules that we have to follow and that we can consider when drawing these maps are number one federal law. Fires equal population. Compliance of the federal voting rights act. The race one factor is considered. But it cannot be the predominant. Those are federal requirements. As a prioritized list of requirements as well. The districts must be virtuous. Pre-practical, we have to avoid dividing the interest. We have to try to follow the identifiable bounds. Try to keep it in mind. Not bypassing one school to get to more. State also bans adopting a map or drawing lines or to favor or not. Those are requirements. Other district principles are more bulls that are acceptable. They are not requirements. Respecting the voters. Trying to avoid head to head contests. So that the reelection is left up to voters rather than the lines dictating to voters. And you can also get a very small margin than any population requirement. You can consider population in one area. Not a lot of. Those are categories of district requirements and other. In terms of the voting rights act, we don't dilute the voting strength of any given class. We are looking at the numbers for Asian-Americans. There is a little geographic at college housing. And then there is a small concentration of African-Americans in the lower ocean. The numbers really impact demographics of an election. As you can see in this map from the concentration of lighter and a little more. That blocks down the black area. That's really the area. Of course, when we are talking about interest, we get a much larger range of characteristics and dynamics. So this is one example. You can see there is a concentration. No surprise. And then also down in that flat lower ocean. It's up to over 75% of households. Other parts of the city. Very different percentages. And we do have available other geographic funds. This is the one that really reflects what we are looking for. Getting into the map. At the last screen. He showed you the district map. Just to briefly touch on them. Six to one. As you can see. In area five. Comes down and gets the west end of the city. Six to four. The flat. Really gets the coast all the way over to the side of the city. And then we try to compact the neighborhood focus. With the rest of the district. They kind of fell into place. As a result of how five were drawn. So two. Very different approach. So two actually has four to come down. And touch the ocean. So that gives a very different perspective. Also six districts covering use. Divided five and six. And those two sets of differences. The four districts on the coast. Two districts in UC. B to the different drawing on. Somewhat similar although it does. 603 really combines. Very similar to 601. Does divide. Yes. And that and you can see where. In five. The other districts are larger. We took it back to the public in the council at the last screen. The other districts. You can see a big topic was rather than. River is a boundary. There was a lot of. That during saying. Lower. And so both of these. There's also discussion of not wanting. Too much. With especially the west side. The one. In this case. And then we get. A population. Make a full district. But we keep it very close. Yes. But it's not going all the way. The differences between these two maps. District four comes farther north. All the way up to. In six or four B on the right. And it comes much farther. Instead of picking up the area around. A nearly lagoon. It. Comes all the way over. But then comes all the way up. All the way. And one road. That of. The river. Before. Then obviously. With the. And in six or four B. A little bit of an odd. But. Coming down. Into the Lagoon neighborhood. But it. Look in there really does make sense. The neighborhood boundaries. While it is. A purely. Neighborhood with. Is a. Other. In district six. We end up with those. Those two goals of. And. Minimize. Blending of. Very different. Both of them I should know. Also. So we can come back to as you. Get into more maps. Perhaps narrow the. Is the like. This is the decision on which district. In 2020. And which would be up. And so. I suppose. Many cases in alternate. Has been posted on the district website. Part of the. Available there. We can come back to those. I'm happy to answer. Questions about it. As well as any. That is a quick introduction to the. Six district. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Now. Or after the public. And. The. The last time that allows. Now. The details. Thank you so much. Are you. Are you able to pull that interactive. Screen. Yes. Thank you. So. I would like to bring it. To. The. The draft. And thank you. For. As well as. New draft. All of these maps. For the public. There. And. Council member. It looks like. You and. Member Myers both. For questions. Go ahead. Mayor. Thank you for that presentation. I was wondering if you can clarify. Sequence that was looking for the agenda report. And. Pretty much all we really had was. The. Description of the different maps and. And that's really what folks on some wondering. When you when. We're supposed to make a decision on the sequence. What. What. I would like to thank. Select the map and. Make final. Also. Will be up and. There's only one member in the district. Falls that really. Signed whatever. That. Where there is. Where there are council members. For a different election. In the same. Members here. That means. Somewhere else. And so that they can see. It also. For. Based on what. Obviously I didn't put it on the slide. But in the. Map that are available. I can bring those up well. There is a listing of council members and we see. How that can play out. That's helpful. And so. I'm like. Thanks for pointing that out. Coming to that. Do you see that. Options on the. Okay council member. My. To. The shifts. That. There was a. Discussion. So I just want to make. For. So. Tonight is the night that we're going to. And then we're also. There's both. Most elections. Have any. To add on the election. For. I just wanted to say. For the report. Council member Cummings. Apologize to all. For not highlighting that. And. We've highlighted that so. In my. Beneficial when we talk about. Sequencing. Of any map. That. For everyone. And so. If. There are no further questions. That. I will bring it out. Public comment. And. Six. So. If. You are a member of. And interested in. Raise your hand. Either by dialing. On your phone. Or by select. And. On your. And when it's your time to speak. You will have. I will go out. To. It looks like the first name is. Your. Yes, thank you. I'll just speak to both of them at once. I see the preferred maps and preferred district voting. Sources have been essentially. Chosen. I mistakenly based my letter on what was written on the seven. District map exhibit B. Indicating a preferred district. Sequence of four or five and seven. That would vote in November, but now I see. Actually in the ordinance. You chose four six seven. Which I oppose. Which in my opinion would result in excessive political. Yoyoing every two years. How confusing. You need to fix that stuff. The seven district model is then a total loser for me. With choices. Seemingly made it make hearing probably moot. But I endorse the maps and elect preferred. Sequence choices that voters will see. As written. For yes on measure E or the six. District elect choices. As well as just the map for seven district. I suspect both are a step down in a sense of public. Governance. Only vote for one person every four years. Therefore has written. I strongly endorse the measure E idea of six. District and an elected mayor. Again, I have some disappointment. The public didn't decide on the mayor's. And this will be a very difficult. Thing to change now. The current tradition of nominating the mayor and vice mayor. Based on a one. Voting. And the people. And the people. And the people indicate a preference for mayors. And was better than a mayor chosen by maybe one vote of one. Council person making the majority. Which I think is part of the seven district plan. Isn't that great. Maybe that's a question. This at large public guiding hand tradition of most votes. Received become mayor will no longer be valid. In a seven district plan. And it becomes purely a council decision. I don't really like that. And wish. Seven district model had a means of letting the people pick the mayor among all willing and winning. Winning candidates. And the council members. The last not to be if that one prevails. Currently some members with two years remaining. Never get there again. Or ever. Although they may have more experience than the top votes better every two years. And have gained more public respect. Although issues would arise that need to be thought through somehow letting the public. At least give advice or actually pick the mayor is badly missing from the seven district model. It could then be more competitive with the system. The district model as the public input on such an important office which it isn't for now. The possibility of giving the public a choice for a two year term mayor. Also seems not considered in the seven district model. Either. Again I endorse the six district. The measure E as written. But it's unfortunate so many possibilities for improvement and actual public input into the seven district model. It's unfortunate so many possibilities for improvement and actual public input into process. By voting assisted. For those that were not explored. Despite the many so called public hearings which hold limited. Way. Thank you for your input. Our next. Raise number of the public is. We. Had. Okay. I'm disappointed in the actions of the majority of this council. And the way this has come to be. Disappointed but not surprised. That this. Proceeded so far in secret. In closed session. Before the public was ever involved. Ranked choice voting. Which. Satisfies the requirements of the lawsuit. Was never taken into account. You've already put it on the ballot. And now you're taking public input. Which is. A. I'm. Us of construction term. Backward. And frankly unconstitutional. Um. Mayor at large gives the potential to have. Four. Four year terms or a 16 term mayor. And because the mayor's. Would be elected at large. That means that. Be. Disappointed or recalled would require. As opposed to fellow council members. Taking the mayor to the woodshed and saying. Shape up. Or we're going to vote you out of off. I think the idea of having. There's two people on here. That I wouldn't wish. For four year terms. And. The others I'd be scared to death. To have you as our mayor. For 16 years. Again. Trying to slice and dice. The work of this. Gentlemen whose job is to draw. District lines. It's way too complicated. At this short a notice. Looking at a map that is. What. 14 by eight on my computer screen. Had we had town meetings. Where these maps had been posted. Um. You know at six foot by five foot size. So that you could walk up to it. And take a look and see where you lived. And. See where other people live. Um. And have the opportunity to then sit down as. Town hall meeting. Much like Andy Mills did when he came to town. Um much like any other democracy. Would operate. This council has. Operated. By. I don't even know what your principles are. I don't recognize. Other than to say that your intent. Is to shove this down the throat. Of the people of this city. And you can sit there with your smug look. But. You will be remembered for that. You will you will be remembered. And I doubt if any one of you will be. Returned off. Thank you for your input. Our next member of the public. Has a phone number ending in. Five. Five. Go ahead and unmute. You. Are. And you yourself. Uh. Okay. Three minutes. Yes. But today's meeting. The. Four and a half days notice. The city. Proposes. To. Representation purpose. You see how. This is. As well. As well. As well. As well. Where was an open. And. This. Like. I guarantee. City will attempt to say that. 2020. With. The. Ability of voters right. And ability. In what form of. Right. The city. To function. No. To. New. To. Much. No. To. That's it. No vote, opposed to the measuring, opposed to the amendment of the city charter, to correct the fact that the mayor can elect for council, district, district, district, thereby the charter on change. The council can work to change the city charter to select the seven districts in the first place without the state constitutionally required vote because the council allows the county to be done. Council accepted, turning to the bikes. That question of the ethics will be valid. It's not several blocks. Given the current state of affairs, why didn't the council genuinely give voters an honest choice to comply with the voting rights? That we're done. Due in 2022 ballot, loud voters vote yes or no different measures in order to accurately reflect although some of these are elected, what functions? For example, one measure would ask the voters what is the election? A second measure would ask if there are six or seven districts. A third measure would ask voters they want a mayor elected as part including what scores the direct election mayors can have. A fourth measure that would be on this ballot would ask the voters they want to implement a blank place voting for some comparable system. Now that's what the motion looks like. Certainly not, that's the people way the council has read as it is. The system isn't broken. Council first works, we'll just add. Thank you, the red buzzer has sprung. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Our next member of the public has a phone number ending in one seven zero five. There, go ahead and press first to mute yourself. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, welcome. Oh, great, thank you. I was just beginning to say that I support the map 602 and I really oppose maps so one and two, so three. I think the district, there's one district in those two other maps that is particular that goes all the way to seventh avenue. That certainly violates keeping communities and especially together, but I, when I heard the not part of one before, I just wanted to let council staff know that I think he was Tarlin's new and you don't deserve it. He was also wrong. I was in a forum, that was a public forum that about issues and there were two staff members, the city attorney, Bronson and the city managers have been separating this group and there was only one other person, one other member of the public. So that caller was totally off base and he said there was no public participation. And also they let us know that there were full size, very large maps that were available for viewing. So just want to say, yeah, I actually, yeah, I thought we had not as best, but I know you guys have a lot of interest in you definitely, even if you just threw that, what it was completely off base and neither selected or staff served those kind of purpose. So thank you very much, once again, I just want to say I have the map in this section of course, thank you, that's all. Your input, our next member of the Vivian Bart. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, so thank you, councilman for this opportunity. First I would like to explain that I've lived in the city of Santa Cruz for over 25 years and originally from Angeles, I was born in East L.A., raised in South Central, and they put it out there. And I'm a recent scholar from East L.A. and a retired educator. At these maps, I felt I needed to borrow myself some more on the numbers, I'm punching the numbers. And a serendipity, us, the infringement, voting rights and racially as voting in the city of Santa Cruz. This is together by the California voting rights project that was published February 2020. And I believe this is why the city of Santa Cruz members decided to vote in the city of Santa Cruz so that the local members decided to vote with this. One thing that I did in this map and analyzed was that it said on page 24 that there was some possibility of taking a majority voting district city of Santa Cruz, looking at census tracts 104 and census tracts 1081010. And then I put the census tracts and compared them to maps that were on the website. It seemed that census tracts, no one, most close up, sorry, 1004 was stated in the report, most closely identified with CSC. And the census tracts 100810, most all-in-sided with the beach flats area and then so South 101, sorry, South 101. I would, when I looked at the maps and the maps that I put like closest to where the 604B and the 101C, so those are the ones that I would, I was based on what I read in this report. When I did speak last time in March, I did also raise the question that this district guard even with this input and understanding and why all of this discussion started about this big map and was because of that lawsuit and a proposal and this was the reason for it. I just wanted to say that I think the city needs to go beyond voting this big map as far as the Latino community is concerned because there are systematic, since that was said in this report, racially. Thank you, thank you for your input. The next caller has a phone number ending in 495, go ahead and press star six and mute self. Thank you. Welcome Steve. Yeah, my name is Candice Brown and I live on Eastmore Sea neighborhood. And frankly, I haven't followed these maps because they keep shifting, not only whether it's gonna be district election or seven districts, now it's six districts and a mayor, now we're proposing a variety of maps. And it seems very strange to have something of so much impact in this particular one city council as special to the regular city council, so many people don't even have a meeting. And I'm just wondering how much this was provided to ensure that everybody in the city was aware of it. And so for that reason, I know with transportation, with the active transportation plan, there was a lot of different issues and complexity. And because of that, they voted after a lot of specializing, there wasn't coming ground to have two more communities meeting. So I would highly suggest that there's not any consensus of people that are calling in or in the letter, people that I'm talking to in the community council. I think there is need for further discussion, there is need for a two community meetings and there is need for a lot more, get more involved. I just came off, I've been put out for over a month and so I've just now been set my show back into this and just finding, well, there's a lot here to still be thought about. And so I don't think you're ready to make decisions. And if you do so, I wonder why you're doing it. You're doing it because somebody on the council wants to run as mayor, and I think that person should accuse themselves but they should come forward and say, I'm doing this because I went to your job and I'm there for a reason that that's a positive interest and it should not be allowed. And so therefore I think we should step back, ask more community meetings, make sure that people are more transparent about the intention of different changes and therefore, so thank you for your time. And thank you for all your time on the council, thank you. Thank you for your input. Any members of the public that would like to comment on this district draft map and give input on this draft map? We have one member of the public. Go ahead and unmute. Okay, just for a second, what a lot of people are saying here, these are enormously complicated decisions. Like I'm looking at the website, you don't even have the map on the interactive map. Like you can't even look at those, how they are, like you're giving me a really weird look, but they're not on there. So we're supposed to look at 11 maps and figure out what is the best scope in the six, seven funds. All I can think is what are the view into getting out of this by voting for whatever map that you want and how does that last long vision for our city? I really hope that you look at this from a much longer term versus like, oh, well I can run from there or, because a lot of you are neighbors on the lower west side and like that into this as well. There should be more community input. This being, it started at, I don't, I have no idea what's going on. I'm just glad that I'm, I hear about sort of things because I'm involved with community involvement and a lot of people are, they have jobs and they have kids. They have things that they need to do. So don't make a decision today. Let the book decide more and not just going with whatever you think or that's gonna be the best for your policy. That's just really not fair to those of us that here and raise our families here and want to have their vote. Also put those other maps on the interaction map. I don't understand how you add more maps. Don't add them to the interactive. Just very confusing looking at the website even to see what you guys are doing. So just take a step back and think about how long for me and not your own political ambition. Thank you for your input. See, if there are any other members of the public who would like to come on agenda item number two, you welcome the other comment and I do see a hand up. Eric. Hey, Amy. Yeah, hello. So, I guess, yeah, it was a little futile because I guess this isn't gonna be the place for this but it almost feels like you give us our time to put our notes up on the board but there's not even really any accountability as to whether you're even listening to this session. I mean, Martin Walker coming out to help right now wouldn't know. I mean, seriously, it doesn't like, there's no back and forth. Like, so basically, I wanted to ask, you know, like, because like ask the entire council but maybe, yeah, maybe Martin Walker. I just wanted to know if in your opinion, you thought the majority of Santa Crescent's know about like know this is happening or have some sort of idea could it be what is happening? I mean, if not, is that a problem? And I didn't mean that hearing like, oh, you know, we've done X and Y, we've done our due diligence this way but just like in your opinion, do you think 50% of Santa Crescent's population knows this is happening? And if not, is that a problem? I would suggest, and I guess I have a few minutes but yeah, again, this is my little note card that I've stuck back for it. So I guess I'm just talking to myself and hope you guys walk past and read it. And yeah, that's it for all of us. That's 40 people actually listening to this Zoom call. Thanks for formatting it. This really feels like a democratic process. That's it. Here, I'm not jamming out. Thank you for your input. Let's see, are there any other members of the public? Evens, you already spoke. Okay, so, and I will bring it back to multiple and I wanted to start, there were some questions regarding this public comment and first I would like to say that the way our meetings are structured, it is a very formal public comment dialogue. A public comment. And so I know some folks will be constrained to not have dialogue, but we do take your input, you listen, and we appreciate your input. We also create a email that which we get as well as well as phone call, but we get as well as well as but from various community members even just being out and about grocery store, for example. So, thank you for everybody, but it really does get taken into our discussion and be serious. So, with that, I had a couple of questions. I just wanted to address from public input. Had a couple of folks that were concerned about the public access to actual in-maps or unity meetings, calls, that or, and I'm wondering if Doug and Casey do the outreach that has been passed as. Absolutely, Brenna, thank you. I'd love to speak to that. This process has been going on since February 2020. I've only been involved since November, but when I came on, it was already a website, as well as video postings of the prior forums, the city is legally required to have a number of videos, and we have had those and videos of those and held are available on our website. We have also probably met with close to two dozen organizations or groups or had other meetings. Some of those meetings have been with leadership or representatives or organizations that don't necessarily have access to the internet. Wanting to make sure they're providing maps and just reaching out to make sure that they have everything that they need. At the last meeting after somebody asked about the maps, we mentioned that the very, but the blown up maps on hard stock are actually available in the lobby here at City Hall, and those are still there. We've also got maps available, hard copies maps here and various locations around the community, and those locations are listed on the website, and so we've had a lot about which I'm very, we've also had translation services available on the virtual meeting. I would just say that part of what City has done is actually gone beyond formal input process, actually putting mapping tools out for residents, so the residents have the ability both online tool and for those that is drawing. And Mayor Brunner, I would also be happy to show folks how to access interactivity tool that NDC provided to us that has all the maps, including the UCSC map, student history, so all those maps are there, and I'd be happy if you'd like to share everybody how to hack them. Thank you, because that was another question about new maps on the website. So are you suggesting we do that right now? I sure could. So you can see, this is, let me go first to, excuse me, you all are in my way, let's see. So here's the city's transition to district elections website, and underneath the maps that we have all, we have the interact and you'll see at the right, you'll see this, all the various maps in the interaction, and this has been up, all those maps have been up for a week. Well, they've been up longer, the new maps. Right, the new maps are required to be posted for at least seven days of the meeting, so the new maps are available on the city's website. Yeah, I did see that I went and also looked at the large maps at the lobby all, having those other ones. The other question and concern that was brought up public comment was about the city charter being and us going, there's the question of district is on the ballot, the voters decide on whether both districts in an out large mayor which is going on the ballot, fire a charter amendment. And so that doesn't ask, the process E1 with seven doesn't require a charter amendment. And so seven council members. And so is there anything more to, this agenda item is to approve a map, but we have our map for when the ballot after the election in June, we will know on the past six or seven districts we'll have our map ready. So that anyone running in for council member understand where their district was. So it's important to have that ready. And that's why we're voting on a map as well as seven. I'll chime in here. Hi, it's Cassie Bronson, the attorney's office. Yes, that's correct. I would just add specifically address the comment. They were correct that if the measure doesn't pass then the charter would remain and change that correct. However, the council is most likely to pass the ordinance according to the elections which is allowed for the government code section 3486. And there are a number that suggests the ability of very good. Thank you. Cassie Bronson, the attorney's office. So hopefully that helps through one of the questions that brought up public comment. And then there was a caller who was concerned that the meeting started at 330 and we did start the map at five. It was the legislative process. And also, this is not the first second hearing. So I just say that five o'clock, I, you know, I didn't make it at a time or get attendance folks after work. And so that was fine. Is there a timeline for us to approve these maps? Heather? You may want to weigh in. I believe the latest that we can approve these is the 180 days before the November election. The 180 is for your district or redistricting. Got it. Yeah, I think it's July 7th. Certain number of days of the election. I think it happens to fall into the sun. Yeah, we end up with essentially like one day overtake from the election by, you need to map that we'll go on that ballot. Pardon it. For November's ballot, you're talking about? Exactly. And then the further in advance that the further candidates might be on notice. Correct. So is there a way to confirm it's beginning of July is when the absolute deadline to approve maps? I see Cassie popping up. Yes. I believe the day we were looking at was July 6th. However, you know, we really want to get this done. Well, because first of all, we're passing the ordinance that are first things, right? So we need a second thing. Thankfully, we do have a provision in our charter that provides that the ordinance will be effective. At least we don't need it in case it's good. I think there's potentially a little bit more time, but it's really the best way to firm up the map possible as we can get those maps to the county elections officials that candidate be on notice for potentially running and representing ourselves. Thank you. One thing here, I would add that not a legal requirement of policy requirement is this thing's been great about separating, sharing. One of the things we can experience once they get about seven really good, then tails of six or seven just have to get ignored. So it makes sense to spend the time now as you have been looking at the details of the process before they get into the debate, both on which approach, like, when the two questions get heard, that's a really distract from the best. Yeah, that makes sense. And I just wanted to understand that timeline, you know, the several colors that we've learned with opportunity for the public have awareness. And so, thank you. I will bring it out to the council if we can start with anyone moving the recommendation that sent in, then we can go to discussion. All right, Mary, I wasn't gonna move that recommendation with different recommendation, and I did have some follow-up. Okay, so go ahead. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Okay, I'm gonna ask my follow-up questions. First of all, thank you for the work that has been done. And as you said, the years of work that's gone into it, I just wanted to hear a little bit more about the timeline. Got a little lost at 180 days from the November election, but it seems like there is little more urgency for us to select that now, not by July 7th. And so if you could just say that. Sure, and again, Doug and Cassie, Doug is my more of an expert, is far from my former expert, but the drop dead deadline by which to get the maps to the county is the beginning of July and I think Cassie clarified it July 6th. But that's just legal requirement and there's an urgency to getting this resolved as folks do need to know where they're living and with a potential baby for them running for election in a district. And as Doug pointed out, once we'll start focusing on the ballot in June, that the noise around that is gonna consume everything. So we can get this done earlier, rather than later, that would be more ideal. Great, and then there was a survey that was completed and Matt, can you speak to that a little bit? Sure, we did the full post survey. It's a tool that we use and it's been on the website for a number of months. And so a couple of months since we've first posted the initial drafts that NDC provided us in January and we collected feedback on the first round of maps and we received a lot of feedback here. When we first thought we were looking at a seven-district process, we received I think around 120 responses that and around 56 from six-district maps, which came out later on in the process. We put out a survey with the maps this week, did not receive a ton of feedback, but we did share, I think I understand that both shared with the council in the mailbox and the council mail around the agenda items. So we did promote those availability of those through our social media channels and things like that, but probably with the seven-day legal requirement, probably just wasn't as much. We also did let some of the communities that we met with, I let them know about the whole maps and it's public hearing to make sure that they had an opportunity to share that with the district. Okay, great. And you said, I put in my note, two dozen, yes, yes, yes, yes. And it's been over, primarily sent anywhere, once the maps were available, reaching out to folks to make sure they're aware of the process and how it works and asking for their feedback on how best to reach their customers who may not have access to virtual files. Okay, and then the last question, and then, Mayor, I did have a question to make, but the last question is, were some of those Latinx or B-class work with? Absolutely, that was a huge part of my focus, reaching out to, yes, that community. Great, okay, thank you. So I'll make comments. Brief, thank you to everyone who has participated in all of these various forums and avenues that staff and partners have put before us and that those who've called and written letters. I think one caller said, this isn't about seven members and they're absolutely right. This is, whether we do districts or not, that sort of moved on from there. I know that we'll have very strong things about it, but we are, how shape our governance for the next decade. So it's not about me, it's not about my sick colleague. We'll term out, maybe we'll run again, who knows, really about the next many decades. So I'm glad that caller said that. I think this is difficult. This is the first time that we're just a community. All of the maps have trade-offs and impact and I just, I don't think delaying any longer will get us closer to making the perfect decision, using the perfect map because I don't think a perfect map like this. And so just based on feedback from before the surveys, looking at the data, looking at the stats, I would like to recommend that we move forward with that. Do I appreciate the work that the staff has done in integrating our feedback into 6.04 and 6.04B? But I still think that 6.02 has the most balanced approach to our community's right in time. But I'd like to move forward with that. You okay, Mayor? All right, there's a motion from council member on to approve that 6.02 for the six district map. There's second and second by council member Meyers. And do we, do I need to speak to the sequencing right now? The sequencing that's proposed on 6.02, I think. We, does it need to be one or two motions? Someone's got two separate motions or, or either way. I'll make it part of the same motion then that the sequencing that's proposed on graph. Can you pull up map 2.02, is that, okay. So now we can have discussion about 2.02. We have the proposed, though there is no alternative, there's only one option on this map. Some of the maps have a couple of options. So it looks like this map has, can you speak to that again? Yes, thanks, Mayor. So in this case, there is a pairing there are current council members and just, but both the council members are on the same election. So it's a more effective one that that is proposed for their election. And then the one, I don't know, the vacant. So that, that's why there's no. So motion is, is recommending map 2.02. That if the voters decide to go to a six district with the one at large mayor, then this would be the map used and in November of 2022 district four and district six would be available for someone to run plus at large mayor. And then in 2024 district one, two, three and five available for someone to run. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. So, member Meyers. I just want to thank and also knowledge I'm hearing and also it is important for don't think any city council they ran for office had dozens of cities. So this is important to understand games, polls we are trying to respond to the cost of the fight. Also, this is going to be a very, as you're an open, so I just, I did look at map, also hours with all the data on the backside of them. A lot of it, a lot of questions for those folks who they are, want to understand what happened with our city six on the back of the same city. So I think we are where we are. I am to be hard at six or I look at it hard at times. Well, things are just pop out though on six to two which is it really establishes us also. I think about that make district thinking about things like this is just large of all our own services. Districts have to be safe out there. Are those kinds of house, how safe is that work? That was very helpful, no credit. That way when I look at it, so that state food, so that's what it is to divide a whole town, whatever it is in some ways. A little bit envious, I mean a place that's some, that is full of folks, but the same lose that ability in this case, so very different comments on this. And just a quick time fact, we have about another 15 minutes on this item. And I will look like, so two council member coming and council member Brown. Mayor, I had a couple of comments that I wanted to first. One, I just wanted to clear for members of the public to file special round district elections that's going on quite the time and there's community meetings on district elections. I'm back a couple of years now that it wasn't until February of 2002 that we started looking at six districts and there had not been as it comes to outreach on this question of moving towards six districts and a directly elected mayor. Council actually voted unanimously for just district elections till a subcommittee was formed in November, at which point the committee then brought back the notion of moving toward six districts directly like mayor and what I've been hearing from the public and what I'm going to be true is that there was not a process around the output. So I just wanted to make that clear for the public. And while, you know, we might vary in whether we support districts or seven, you know, what's before us are the map. And part of why we sent staff bring us back is because of the fact that there were concerns that were raised around the maps that were first produced, especially relating to full of low income areas where Latino being kept in same districts also having broad representation. Map 604 with staff brought back and while I'm not favoring the district, I thought it was a really good job of trying to address the concerns that raised at the last city council meeting. When we look at the areas where there are higher participation in the community, know that those areas are flat, know that those areas are lower ocean. What 604 did was actually find areas which was expressed by council members. It also did a good job of being the lower west side act. It has district, I mean, the third district, but you know, I think that it does a good job of representing and gathering the upper west side. And you know, what it also did was it heard council members and students really being able to have on the city council and having an opportunity to get elected with district five act which is by having campus and also other agents as a interest able to have the district where they come together. So, and then it also again, addressed around the east side and see bright area in fact. And so I think that based on the fact that staff act with a lot of these concerns, they rest bringing forward map. I'm inclined and also because of the mayor's rules around making staff representation and providing an opportunity to make motion on the staff representation to make a subsequent motion that we adopt that before being. And I did have a question on this as well. Because the other piece of this is that we've done a lot of, had a lot of discussion about map. Haven't had really any discussion and hasn't been much presentation on the election. So, I have a question regarding the elections before we provide that motion. On map 604B, it has two sequences and I'm wondering if staff can take a minute to explain how those sequences would work and how it played to overrepresental for overrepresentation. There's council members in the district at the time. If another district doesn't have a representative, how do we reconcile that? Sure, I have to do it just for questions. There are 604B, there are scenarios or pros in an alternate. Because there are council members, three council members in district one. So that creates vacancies. Really the two things are just trying to get the options for how those are assigned. A couple of tricks that come into this. One is, if a council member who's firm is up in 2022, it's assigned to a district that doesn't come up until 2024. I mean, this current year will be their last office before they have to sit out. On the flip side, 2024 members assigned to 2022, they can run midterm and if they in the district, then they resign their last year at large. That's how it plays out for council members. For the vacancy, yes, this happens in many, many transitions, but there is a vacancy. Interestingly, the council members current terms go until 2024, remain at large council members until 2024. So while there may not be a council member in that, they continue to be represented by the at large 2024 members. So could any of the 2024 council members resign now in 2024, or would actually be in at large, they could even if it's 2020. So yes, there were council members in that, but they would be represented by those. That is extremely helpful. So I want to thank you for explaining that because I was not sure how that would work, but I think that having that clarification that the council members would remain at large for election 2020, and with that then I would support also adding to that motion to go with alternative election sequence for map 6-0. Okay, we have a substitute motion made by the member Cummings and a second by council member Brown, map 6-0 for V with the alternative election sequence. And so we'll do a roll call vote motion. No, and I can share why later. No. No, so the substitute motion does not fight against four. So now we are back to the motion on the four and back to the discussion, council member Brown. Well, I was going to take place for the previous motion. The alternative map, so for it's a little perfluous at this point. I do have some comments in general on the process, but I guess I'll just save those for next agenda item that are relevant. Do you have another comment, council member Cummings? Yeah, I'll just say that having lived in black areas multiple years and in the landfill area that breaking up that area from the lower ocean corridor, also including it with the more well-planned areas that are very just that neighborhood, especially if the idea is that you want to have more representation is likely going to result with less representation. And I would say that if our very interested in having more representation on city council, that I think city that our community to have a discussion around council conversation, especially as it relates to the mayor, if you want to have someone sit in a seat for years and we want to see diversity on our council and in the mayor, because as it stands right now, part of what prohibits people from running is the fact that a lot of hours put in, very difficult for low income and worth class people run for office, so I won't be supporting this because I don't think that it's actually result supporting or no people get elected. And I also think that further including the vote of worth class, lower class, and it will result less. Council Member Brown, looks like you. Yeah, sorry, for a second I lost track about this voting on whether to substitute. So we are still on the substantive matter of the different map. I just want to echo Council Member Cummings' comment. Really highlight questions about low income representation and working class in our city and how it is that they can participate. The political process serving elected office almost impossible to do. I mean I've been trying to do it. I've done it, I've been very lucky to do it as a renter who was in place and now have the good fortune of a network here that's allowed me to have stable housing. So that's just a big question. And then further what I see for all the degrees that has really in attempting but other ideas of risk together are really giving or are not taking that perspective to the class, the lower ocean house, like each class with the upper west side, the inner, the near upper west side, not, I just don't know how to ration out my thoughts around that, have the opportunity to have a district that actually has the potential of a representative represents that down to the area, lower ocean. They have their own kind of all commercial network at area in the river class that's getting cut as a district. I don't know that it really matters as a district, I don't know that it really matters that Council Member Meyers brought up about other apps. And so I guess I know we put hairs about where how to divide this gap is always upsides and downsides, but I feel strongly that using 602, which I have to say I've heard, I've one comment or say they support. So the west side is calling in and they want to do it for west side in fact, one on the side, want to keep right in fact, some of us spoke up about or higher for a Latino candidate, Latinx candidate to elect a district that was shaped more like this or that. So I am disappointed as well that I hope voters spend some time with that map before they make their. Council Member Kalantari Johnson. Thank you Mayor. I just wanted to comment briefly on where my thinking was, I think the 604 attempts at some of the comments were made in the last hearing, but some of my concerns are that it does split up side and particular around the business corridors. So it's let's it right in half. It further separates university from neighborhood and that's already a challenge where we city on the hill and up there silos. I think it further separates the university and it decreases the number of post districts. I think it's important that we have multiple districts that touch those. There were comments in the surveys that were done just that Council Member Brown's point that was brought up there were I think 602 had some of the highest approaches of approved maps in the last survey that we did. And I just want to point to one of the earlier slides that Doug showed us around the principles of how we need decisions and that sort of the being around one base ethnicity is something that's illegal. So I think that's an important point. So those are some of my thoughts around why I ultimately 602 has a more balanced approach of thinking about all the services in need across our country. Thank you. So Council Member Golder or Vice Mayor Watt, did you have any further discussion before we go to vote on this motion? I think I'll go ahead. No, no, no, go ahead. I don't have any. Well, I mean, I just wanted to, you know, speak. I need to, I don't have a gas bag. No, I don't need to. Okay, we have the motion on maps. Motion on maps to by Council Member Meyers. May we have a roll call? That motion passes with five in favor. Again, okay, the maps that we have selected. Thank you for all the put in community input on that map. So two with election been listed on that map. We are now ready to proceed to our next agenda item. Agenda item three. And I am going to call a three minute pass. So we'll be back in three minutes. Next up is agenda item number three. This is the second public hearing. Receive input from the community regarding the selection of a seven district map and election input. For members of the public who are streaming this meeting, it's an item you wish to comment on. Now it's time to call in using the instructions on your screen. The order will be a presentation of the item by this piece of demographic consultant, followed by questions from Council. You will then take public comment and return to Council for deliberation and action. And I would like to end it over to Doug Johnson. Welcome back. Again, there are my screen again. Just to remind you these are handy, but I won't put the rules again, but they are the same seven district map. Please go over the seven district maps that were covered in the last map 101. As a set of highly compact maps, you can really follow major roads just about everywhere, they're bound. And there are four such a ghost there. Map 101 is more of a horizontal alignment of the district. So we only get coastal districts, five, and both of these maps have, yes, entirely in one district. Map 101 follows a combination of major roads and districts as well. And then map 101 is a very different northwest because it does have the, I guess, and district. So it is divided to have a voice. The initial fact was United Pride, Bright Neighborhood, and Discussed Pride would be flat, lower or together. And then there was a comment that 101 would be good for the west side of five. So we do have two maps for you, and each one of these maps takes an additional step. So as you'll see, map 101, oh, I almost got it. We also, as I was mentioning earlier, we did a public map submission as well from, yes, and in map 701. Looking at the new map of walking step-by-step, 101 just has relatively small changes, primarily putting the lower ocean corridor four. And then that triggers a little rotation before pushing over to ocean two. And then two needs to pick a population. So it actually comes in on the north side of the corn picked up that northern area. And then there's a little bit of rotation with really small changes in the population. 101B is called the 101. 101C goes to the larger step. It pushes all the way over to Grand Forty Avenue, going over to the west. I'm sorry, the direction. The Grand Forty and Ocean, from the east boundary, just becomes the west boundary four. Looking at that territory into four, I mean, it goes more this way. And so district one then comes all the way over to the river, Grand River. And district three then comes south of Michigan. Or pick a population down to Laurel and Lincoln. And a result of district five is also south of Michigan. There is a slight difference between the six population. But there's another step of change in the way of the original 101. Then 101 builds on 101C. It has most of those changes. But then over on the west side, it approaches five and six much more like what they've talked about on the west side, like last time. It goes to five and six. The trick that happens in this map, make the population numbers work, is because four has shifted, and five and six are now rotated over in the west side, comes down and picks up water, water, plants, the lagoon, and the neighborhood north of the county. It's balanced from four and five. This really is a progression of is small change is large, the large, trying to pick up a population from the district. So again, we have the interactive maps looking more detailed. But with that, I will stop the question. Thank you, Doug. Council member questions on the seven district map elections. No council. I will then go out to public comment at this time for members of public for streaming this meeting. If this is an item you'd like to comment on, you can raise your hand either by dialing star nine on your phone or select raise hand in the webinar polls on your computer. And if you're trying to speak, you'll hear an announcement that's been unmuted and the timer will be set three minutes. This is for public comment on the seven district map and election. So I will go to the first member of the public, Reggie Meister. Hi there. Hi. I missed the first one of these map discussions, so I'm sure this was probably already covered. But I am just like bewildered at the notion that you can be sued for having a racially polarized elections. But then at the same time, your districts can't be based on race. So how are we accountable to the reason that we were sued in the first? Right? So it almost feels like we're in a situation where we could make it even worse, but because of some bureaucratic definition that district elections are good, that now there's a way like I investigate, because back in Santa Barbara, what picked off is somebody just asked an expert to look at the data and they didn't release it in the public, and they just said the data says that it's racially polarized. And then someone asked another expert, and they again didn't let the public see the data, and they said it's racially polarized. And that was good enough for them, apparently. They just, that created this precedent. So I'm wondering like, can I just hire an expert to determine after one or a couple rounds of election today that this is racially polarized and sue the city and make it change its election system? Because that's what I think would be fair. And I'm just curious what the city attorney has to say about that. Because otherwise, I mean, doesn't this just seem stupid? I mean, like, just silly. Okay. It got muted. Okay, there we go. Next caller, if you have put on the seven-disc map, which map then what should we look for from you? Vivian Bard. So, I'd like to say that the maps, as I've been at this time, 101C or 101B, the ones that align with census tax that would provide the most percentage Latino voters in those six. Also, in the last vote, I was a bit hard, because first I hear Latino representation. That was their outreach done for, I mean, not for outreach for these meetings. And then the next, that same person, those maps where 101C would have given us about 19%. And now the one that has been voted by the council member has now given us a percentage of Latino voters in that number four to 13%, 6% in the amount of registered Latino voters. And that is to preserve C-bride and the businesses. Well, you know, best friends of C-bride and C-bride, best friends of C-bride and C-bride, I really don't think the restaurant and the gas stations and ocean, you know, really belong part of it. So, it seems to lose a shot this morning. That said, they also on a field that if this person said, I don't see a rating distance that reduced amount of Latinos in the district voting registration number. Is going to solve the issues right up in the report about the abridgment of Latino voting rights and racially polarized vote. And it's not just they put in that report city council distance, but it's also other things like the court commission representation in the city council. And that is why it shows that city council members, this is all a serious look into how they can engage the Latino community. There's a council member voted in Santa Cruz local as saying, well, if there are elections, then the Latinos have not run and there was a chance. And so someone doesn't say there's bias voting on behalf of Latinos. And yet, you know, can we say that is the reason why we've only had one U.S. president as their work, their black candidate voting. Look at the systematic reasons in this city why there is not more Latinos running a $20,000 month. I as an educator when I was working not run for office. And then though I have two masks. Thank you for your input. Our next number of public. So number ending in one seven zero five. Hello council. Thank you for taking my call. And once again, I'd like to thank you all for the. Hard work. I think. It is a hard transition and. As I mentioned before, I actually. For the at large that we have now. I don't think that's just by solve. Basically all the insults. I think. For that said. I personally for the. One oh one. I think it. The best job of. Interest. Ever together. Overall. One. So thank you for your time. That's all my. Thank you. Thank you for your input on that. And I'm looking for. One more hand raised. Hello. Welcome. Alright, thanks friend. Thank you. I just is real short. All these people are called in and say there's all this racial bias. Voting and everything. Hey, the city is 37% white. There aren't any white men on the council. Okay, you want to call that discrimination. I'm not, but. You know, that's the way it is. And so. Those people. Are wrong. That's always. Thank you. For your input. Caller and. No number ending in 274. When you yourself. I don't. On my. Down. Anyway. I don't. I'm. Not. And the. The Latino. Are you. No. In. Still on the low west. Are you. Very little in common. Just. More. Like. I'm. I hope that concludes our public comment on item number 37, the script map, and I will bring it to council members, council, anyone who would like to make a motion on the recommendation for a discussion, council member Golder. So for the purposes of furthering discussion, I would like to make a motion to adopt map 101 for the seven district map and the proposed election sequence to run districts 4, 5, and 6, and districts 1, 2, 3, and 7, and 24. Sorry. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to adopt map 101 for the seven district. I can email it for the seven district map and proposed election sequence to run districts 4, 5, and 6, 20, 22, and in 24 districts 1, 2, 3, and 7. Thank you for showing that proposed first alternate, so I'm selecting the proposed election. Is there a second? Is there a second at me here? Second. We have a first site holder motion and a second by Snare Watson, and a discussion on map map 101. Okay. Where? Okay, I've been here. I think I'd like to do the ordinance separate, because there's one other that would be decided on. So if we could just use the map consequence and then bring the ordinance up as a separate item, that will bring together all of that what's going on. I'll see from the trainee's office. My understanding too is that way is focused on the map, the first item, the map, election sequence, and then we'll move back next. Okay. So let's console member discussion. We have console member Cummings to go ahead. Mayor, I've had discussions with members of the public related to what's on the where we're currently at. And so the members of the public were being asked whether they should move forward. Six districts, mayor, and the decision to move forward with seven districts on the outcome of this upcoming election. The six districts at large mayor fails. Not only would it be undemocratic for us to change our election by way of ordinance, but it would also be unconstitutional for us to change our election by way of legislation. The article 11, second five, California state constitution, state, shall be competent. All city charters provide addition to those provisions allowable by the laws of the state. Number three, conduct city elections. Based on the state constitution, we should move forward. The mayor would require vote. Given that there has been no court termination and we are not bound by laws for, given our oath and obligation uphold the constitution of the state of California, we're going to move that we, table, take a substantive motion, table item number three until after certification, 2020 primary result, or indefinitely should the members of the public or with the constitution. Councilmember Cummings, can we, we're right now in discussion for the motion that was made on draft 1-1. And we finish with that first and then go to where you're going. It actually comes forward with this draft. And also, I will say that, you know, it's a little, for me, given the last council meeting, it sounded like the rules of engagement that were established were to start with staff recognition. That's not what followed. You know, I mean, I would refer to the city attorney process, Steve, that being able to make a motion to continue would be appropriate. So, in discussing draft that 1-1, motion was made and you are proposing a substitute motion. I just need clarity on your substitute motion. I sent it to Bonnie. Mayor Brunner, I'll just go ahead and second it while we're at it. Thank you. Someone is not sure. Okay. We have the motion. Bonnie, I think it should be clarified. It's the table item number three. Got the item number three. One and two kind of. Yeah. And I just, just to clarify, because it includes not only the map, but also the ordinance. That would take. Oh, well, then I'd add in. Okay. What's for it? Yeah, then I guess the reason why I said number three is on the agenda. Item number one was the legislative program. Number two was six district number three was. I have a comment. That's okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, I guess I won't be starting this motion to table the item, given that we heard from our demographer and staff that, that having this actually pathway to go, particularly right now, given where we are with the process that has been sort of ensuing and for years at this. And then also just a, there wasn't a seven district map recommendation. It just, it just indicated that we needed to select the seven district map. So for those reasons. Yeah. Um, so. If I. Pardon me, mayor. I could weigh in real. Yes. This is, this is Tony. And I'm listening in my car and I just got home. So I just wanted to weigh in here. If the motion to table is seconded, then that is not a debateable motion. It is in essence the same as a motion to call the question. Um, the council can move directly to voting on the motion table. Okay. So we don't vote on whether. Yeah. It's not a. It's not a sub motion. A motion to table is a non-debateable motion. It ends. Discussion on the item. So if that's accepted, then that would just end the discussion. And if it's not accepted, then the council can proceed to discuss. Seven district map and the proposed ordinance. Um, okay. Thank you for that clarification. Is that clear for other council members? Um, okay. And, um, council member Cummings. I'm still understanding trying to understand your. Um, reasons. Um, for I understand your, um, you bringing this. Writing the ordinance. Seven district. But. The map. Part. Uh, of tying it together. Ordinance. And the map. It's separate. Yeah. Hearing from, uh, members of the public. Um, God, yeah, it was that. Um, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that this should be going public for the public to decide on, and it's likely that we'll see what happens with the six districts, but I think what I've been hearing was that they wanted to have an opportunity to weigh in with their votes that they're not going to have an opportunity to do that. They'd like us to continue to do that. So I think that's where I'm a little confused, that there wouldn't need to be an order, a charter amendment seven, correct? I think some members of the public argue that whether we should move forward with the ordinance, or whether we should move forward with an amendment to our charter, our Constitution in the state of California says, again, that we competent all city tires to provide and those provisions allowable by this Constitution, and by the laws of the state of California to conduct city elections. What I've been hearing from members of the public is that this is something that was established in the Constitution, and as elected officials, even if we do have the opportunity to change something by an ordinance, if it's laid out in our Constitution that people should be making a decision, and that decision shall be codified with the charter that will be moving in the direction, making sure that it's as democratic as possible when we're making major changes shift to our election process and our local community. Can you give us any comment on that? Well, I guess my first comment is that that sounds like debate. This is not a debatable motion. On the other hand, an argument made that in order to amend the current at-large system, which is specified by the charter, that a charter is required, and we've analyzed that at fairly great length and have pointed out that in cases throughout California, charter cities have transitioned district elections by ordinance when they've been threatened to with lawsuits under the California Voting Rights Act, or when they have been sued under the California Voting Rights Act. So it was legal precedent for establishing elections by district in a charter city by an ordinance, even though the charter specifies at-large. I understand the legal argument being made today. It hasn't been validated by any reported court decision that we're aware of, nor has any such an ordinance been pointed out to us in any of the correspondence that you've seen on this particular topic for this meeting. So I understand the argument, but this is really a procedural table to discussion, which should proceed directly to a vote. Okay. So then we will proceed directly. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, councilmember Cummings. So we will go directly to a vote of motion to table the item number three, seven, election of a seven district map. I mean, we have a roll call vote. No. No. Motion to table the item five. So councilmember Cummings commuted. Yeah. Again, I'll just say, you know, we're in this situation and we're in these circumstances because there was a lawsuit filed saying that there's racially polarized voting in Latino by Latinx in the city of Santa Cruz. And again, similar to what I meant first taken was that one of the things that was brought up at the last thing was the fact that you would be using that percentage of vote for people within, for example, district four, because it was disconnected from a lot of a lower ocean, even parts of upper ocean area. The staff recommendation that came back to us at 101 I actually want to express I appreciate. I think that you all took the community concerns into account, some of which came in around splitting the west lower west side districts. It took into that account, trying to keep the sea bright area together to also more of the lower ocean and some of the ocean corridor, which actually would be the Latino vote with district. And so I just want to express the appreciation for what you all did on six, seven districts. It's a really important turn in the back map of Incorporation. I'm much more supportive and will not be voting on map 101. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. We are any discussion on that motion that was made on the table of map 101. Council Member Brown. I just have a question. It sounds like we're going to coordinate separate. Right. So I'll just comment that I'm not going to report the argument that I've made that Council Member Cummings has made and that members of the public have made about the dilution of minority and low income voting neighborhood block within the map that have been selected by this committee. So I'm not going to report the motion for the map 101. Council Member Brown. Council Members with discussion on map 101. So then we go to a roll call vote on the motion to select map 101. And maybe have a roll call vote. Yeah, it was four, five and six for 2022 and then one, two, three, seven. That motion passes the five and two. Thank you, Council Member. Okay. And then moving on map and a seven. And now we will be with the next item selected for the attorney's office and then we will move on to the next item. I'll just give a little spiel. So we have a draft ordinance and the Council has selected different maps than the ones that we put in draft ordinance. So during this meeting, I've been going through and making red lines for a couple of years. So maybe I could share my screen to kind of take you through the changes I made really quick, but that makes sense. Yes. Okay. Do you see that? Yes. Okay. So this is the ordinance. I hit and I'll go through and I'm on section three. Where it said, go for be changed that to, which is the Council selected. Elections are set of instead of the mayor. 4 and 5, you have there for and 6. To in 2024, we have. And again, I've found section 3B, so for B2, going to section 4, this is the 7-disc model. I've changed 101D to just 101, in section subdivision A1, and in subdivision A2, that reflects the electric frequency, which is 4, 5, 6, or 22, and then we have 1, 7, 4, so and then the, we're getting a little bit tricky, I just want to take you through this, we counted for this potential situation of we have uncertain election results as of by stick, so meaning the Charter Amendment has clearly passed by that date, but at a later date, permit that it actually passed. And so in that scenario, the city would actually convert, initially to 7 districts, because we've got to get our distance map to the county by that date. So what we would have is for November 2022, it would be as if we had 7 districts, so we would be going off of 101, and 4, 5, and so forward. That's reflected in the subdivision section 5. But then, what happens after that is we find out, oh, voters actually did select so we would need a version of that. So 2024 have an at large mayor, plus off of that map, so 2 going in 2024, what we have is 3, 4, and 6, and off the map, which is 0, and we sort of looked at the map and came up with that as basically everybody gets vote, and there's no skipping over district areas. And then subdivision B and section 5 talks about there's a vacancy in the office of the council member who's been elected in the 7th district model based off of 1.01 from district 4, 5, and 6, and those are 2 under this scenario. They would be filled by who lives in district 3, 4, or 6, which is basically the same graph. That was a lot of information, and I just wanted to take you to those edits different from what is in otherwise, there are no other edits from section what was in, oh, actually section section 7 talks about the code, and again, I just placed 6.01 references to go through this. Those are the only changes to what this is. Thank you. Council members have questions for City Attorney's Office, Professor Brunson, like council member coming. I wanted to ask again, what's the composition of the different collection, like which district will be up for the election? I was trying to read it ordinance that looked like I didn't see 1, 7. I saw 4, 5, and 6, but 1, 2, 7. Sorry, what's your question? Sadie, I'm sorry. When are the different districts up for 7? Okay, well, what was 7 district? It's going to be reflective of what's helpful. I'll go to, I'll share my, unmute, okay. Okay, for the 7, correct. So. On the top of page 2. Thank you. I'm 7 district. We're going under map 101, page 2. This place was for district 4, 5, and 6. And then I guess my next question is, I guess it was, I'm a little, is this going to go out in public comment, then back for action or are we at the action? Good question. I'm here to see, I have an opinion on that. I'm not sure. We did have this agenda item along with the prior item, but I would like to comment. I'm sorry. Councilmember, thanks for your time. Yeah, so, you know, on our agenda, this is kind of all under item number 3. And so I wasn't clear, but may I ask a question? I was just trying to check to see if this is a comment or if this is a comment at the act of deliberation. My understanding was that this, I mean, I would, I would refer to the mayor on that, but this is listed as an essential action under item 3. So I believe members of the public had had enough, have had enough comment on it, but again, I would refer to the mayor in the Sorry, I was un-muted. We did the map and the election went, but not public comment on the ordinance. So this is the question period and about public comment and then back. So for the question, yes. Any other questions? Councilmembers? Okay. So at this time, I will bring it out to the public and the ordinance that in the agenda packet, the edit to the relevant map that were selected during tonight's meeting have updated in that ordinance as well as elections that were accompanying those. So this is an item, if you're a member of the public and this is an item you'd like to comment on. Now is the time to raise your hand by dialing star nine on your phone, selecting hand in the webinar polls of your computer. And when it's your turn to hear an announcement that's been unmuted and the timer will then be set. If there's any attendees that would like comment on the ordinance, not seeing any hands raised, I will bring it up. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion to move a discussion on the ordinance? Vice Mayor Watkins. I'm happy to move the ordinance given the update. We have a motion to share Watkins through the updated ordinance reflecting those maps. And a second. Councilmember Myers. And a discussion. Any comments from Councilmembers? And anybody who hasn't spoken yet, thank you. Councilmember Brown. Thank Councilmember Coney. Thank you, Mayor Brunner. I was saying I've already spoken as well, but maybe a little bit less. Okay. Thank you. So I, yeah, I take a few comments here. I won't be supporting the ordinance. I've made my on this process pretty clear as forward. I'm just going to try to share what those are, try to encapsulate those without taking a lot of time. Um, so, you know, I just, one, uh, one, you know, I think this is just a fundamentally by democratic process, denying the voters the right whether or not they want this election structure for our government is anti-democratic. Uh, it undermined, I do, I think it undermined this whole process, the way it's done quickly. Um, and the gymnastics that I'm both through and our legal council both just try to, try to get this done away that really kind of still still prior to a vote of the people. Um, it really undermines the process. And I think right. I understand our legal council, our, that's a CRA health voting rights act from Carter, but I don't think this law is sure. And I think that, you know, we'll, we'll learn more forward. Uh, unfortunately, we'll wait if we go this route. Um, three, uh, adopting an ordinance seven districts just not necessary at the time, really kind of repeating first to reinforce that, that the false choice that voters um, the ballot language now for a yes or no on plus an outlarge mayor and you've got to go in and analysis for that. Okay. Well, no vote no, then it's seven just everybody I've talked with learning about this does, they can't even wrap their minds around that. Don't understand it. They don't get the choice. I think that that message is, oh, well, this is kind of a sleeper issue as far as along the discussion. I hard to imagine that our process it doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't. Um, you know, instead of about how we move forward for fair represents, that was really our fair represents. So, think about right about other talk with go into talk with about there. Um, but what we're doing here is not about their represents as far as I can tell. And, um, it's unfortunate. I'm very dismayed. Uh, by the way, this process hold it lock ordinance right now without like very disgenuous to put it before the voters. I recognize that very within the legal brains as as set up by our our legal advisors. Um, but there's just so much more we doing. I think there's a missed opportunity. Thank you, council member Brown. Um, I would just like to, um, say, you know, this whole process as as a new number coming in and already given situation. Um, and, you know, the option for us very limited in terms of a path forward. Um, so, uh, you know, I understand, um, some of the public input and comment feeling kind of closed doors. Um, it has been, uh, a very limited process in terms of what our options have been presented in in that we are moving to the collection. Um, and so here we are trying to make, um, decisions based on all of the input we see to date. And there's been quite a few, um, members of the public who have, uh, written us about, filled out today and, um, our gap this in ways that forward, um, you know, with the best representation that we can within this course situation. And, um, so thank you for your comment. Um, council member coming. Yeah, I'll just, one thing I'll point out, I think I made a lot of my comments around what should do in terms of trying to create a very clear genetic process. Um, but, you know, one of the things that came up with the steps that there is potential that, um, that we may be in a position where we'll have four, seven districts and then six districts, um, 2024 in an at-large fair, if we can't get the votes certified in time. And that was actually one of the reasons that, um, folks brought up as why we should move forward with six districts directly up there. Now it's avoid that happening. And here we're just now being pulled by staff that that might be the outcome that will move seven districts. And I just want to say that, you know, there was a really good opportunity for us to ask voters if we want to move seven districts or not. And they voted yes, so the program amendment of the system would help take constitution. Um, and also ask if they wanted to direct the mayor, which case could have continued to have engagement, conversation around role of the mayor, conversation, what, um, they would do. And, um, and also I think there is some current around the fact that there is potential for overrepresentation with the mayor being, um, and that having an impact on how decisions are made. So, um, I guess the last thing I'll say on the seven issue with regard to the ordinance is that, um, you know, more work, six districts doesn't pass. We're in a position where we have seven districts. There's a lot of work still needs to be done. So currently the council, um, elects the, um, mayor and vice mayor based on how many votes. But we'll be in a situation where there will be people represented of different districts. They'll all be the highest. It will be, um, I think everybody will feel entitled to. So I think it's moving forward, as we continue to work just like really process our mayor and vice, should we end up seven districts? And that's something that I think really needs in mind is, should we not stress that those in a very, um, difficult situation? Should we end up? And I will leave my comments there. Um, yeah, um, not going to be supporting the ordinance, but I want to thank everyone for all the work they've done over the past few counts. Councilmember Cummings, um, I think there will definitely be next step, um, and in, uh, process in terms of the example you brought up, uh, mayor, vice mayor, and, um, once we, you know, get to that next step, having those discussions. Councilmember Golder. Oh, thank you. Then any other council members questions before go to a vote on the ordinance? So, um, we have a motion by Vice Mayor Watkins, seconded by Councilmember Myers on the ordinance end of pocket. We have a roll call vote. That motion passes by current, okay. That does include our agenda items today. Thank you, everybody, for, for input and comment. And we will continue weighing this work uh, next step. The, um, the website on this, the, will also up and running. Maude, are you still here? Sure, I am. What's about the next step that you know of so far? Um, well, you mentioned the website, um, that can speak to this more than I can, but my recollection is that we're actually required in the content on our website. Ten years back, the, the, in this case, it'll be nine years. And then we will do a second reading of the ordinance, which will be, uh, public and so we will notice that website as well. Um, as soon as I confirm that that is probably me, but I will that, that date and I'll be updated on our website. And, um, then this, then there will be the June election ballot measure for the side, whether it's a six or seven decision election. I just had that, that interactive map that we looked at earlier, I already have the title, so that the council select the map, council select seven decision both lists first. Um, okay. Thank you so much. Uh, this meeting is held first. Have a good evening.