>> [INAUDIBLE] BARKING, PLEASE EXCUSE THEM.
[00:00:01]
[LAUGHTER]>> IT WON'T BE THE FIRST DOG [OVERLAPPING].
[LAUGHTER] I'M JUST KIDDING ABOUT MY WIFE, BY THE WAY.
I DON'T WANT TO GET IN TROUBLE.
>> WELL, IT'S 6:02. ARE WE READY, MADAM CLERK? DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?
[1) CALL TO ORDER]
>> WHY DON'T WE GET STARTED AT THIS TIME? GOOD EVENING.
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO AB361 ISSUED BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2021 IN GOVERNMENT CODE 54953E.
ALL MEMBERS ARE JOINING THIS MEETING REMOTELY VIA ZOOM WEBINAR.
I WILL NOW CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL?
>> ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT, MAYOR.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. IF YOU ARE ABLE, PLEASE STAND FOR A FLAG SALUTE.
MADAM CLERK, DO YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT CAN GIVE AN INVOCATION?
>> MAYOR REYNA, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU'RE ABLE TO STAND, WE'LL SALUTE THE FLAG, AND THEN PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR A MOMENT ON SILENCE.
>> THANK YOU. YOU MAY ALL BE SEATED AT THIS TIME.
MADAM CLERK, DO YOU AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE?
>> YES. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I HAVE RECEIVED AN INTERPRETER REQUEST FROM A RESIDENT.
IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS REQUEST, WE WILL NEED TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS.
IN A MOMENT, I'M GOING TO ACTIVATE THE LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION MODE.
ONE MOMENT. I'M GOING TO ACTIVATE THE LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION MODE.
AT THE END OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, WHEN I SAY, "PLEASE SELECT A LANGUAGE CHANNEL," EVERYONE WILL NEED TO SELECT A LANGUAGE CHANNEL.
IF YOU ARE ON A COMPUTER, YOU WILL CLICK ON THE WORLD ICON THAT WILL APPEAR NEXT TO THE OTHER ICONS AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF YOUR ZOOM WINDOW, THEN SELECT ENGLISH OR SPANISH.
IF YOU'RE ON A TABLET OR SMARTPHONE, YOU WILL CLICK ON THREE OR THE FOUR DOTS, LET'S SAY MORE, AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF YOUR ZOOM WINDOW, THEN CLICK ON LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION.
>> ACTIVATING LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION MODE NOW.
PLEASE SELECT A LANGUAGE CHANNEL.
[00:05:15]
MAYOR, WE MAY PROCEED.>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. ITEM 4, PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS RESERVED FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, AND INCLUDING THE COUNCIL I THINK IS A GOVERNING BOARD FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY.
THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING, AND ONLY COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS CONCERNING THIS AGENDA ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE ALLOWED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FOLLOWING THE STAFF PRESENTATION.
WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 5, PUBLIC HEARING.
[5a. Review draft maps adjusting district boundaries and Conduct Public Hearing No. 2 to receive public input on district boundaries. (Hurlbert)]
REVIEW DRAFT MAPS, ADJUSTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2 TO RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT ON DISTRICT BOUNDARIES. MR. HURLBERT.>> YES. THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
TONIGHT, AS WAS JUST MENTIONED, THIS IS THE SECOND OF FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.
THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT WILL BE MADE BY THE FLOW ANALYTICS LED BY KENT MARTIN AND ALEX BRASCH.
THEY WILL BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, AND FOLLOWED BY SOME DISCUSSION AND ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS.
THE GOAL TONIGHT REALLY IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAPS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND THE ANALYSIS OF THOSE, AND THEN FOR THE COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND TWO OR THREE OF THE FIVE OR SIX MAPS THAT WE'LL LOOK AT FOR COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD, WITH OR WITHOUT CHANGES FOR THE THIRD HEARING, AND THEN AT THAT HEARING, TO CHOOSE A FINAL REDISTRICTING MAP TO BRING FORTH FOR ADOPTION AT THE FOURTH WEEK.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. MARTIN FOR HIS PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR REYNA AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
I AM KENT MARTIN WITH FLO ANALYTICS; SENIOR PLANNER WITH FLO AND PROJECT MANAGER.
I'M HERE WITH ALEX BRASCH, WHO IS OUR LEAD ANALYST FOR THIS PROJECT.
KEVIN RANCIK WON'T BE HERE THIS EVENING, BUT HE WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK FOR OUR THIRD PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A RECAP FROM OUR LAST PRESENTATION, THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WAS ON MARCH THE 1ST, WHAT WE DID AT THAT TIME IS REALLY JUST SHARED THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS, THAT ALL MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, NOT JUST IN CALIFORNIA, BUT ACROSS THE NATION NEED TO DO BECAUSE OF THE US CENSUS.
WE TOOK PUBLIC INPUT AT THAT TIME FROM MARCH THE 1ST THROUGH MARCH THE 17TH, AND THEN DRAFT MAPS WERE PUBLISHED ACTUALLY BY THE 18TH THROUGHOUT MASTER, PUT UP ON THE ENGAGEMENT PORTAL LAST TIME WE HAVE A PRESENTATION OF THOSE DRAFT MAPS FOR PUBLIC INPUT FOR THIS NEXT WEEK, AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO GET SOME INPUT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO REVISE AND/OR WINDOW DOWN THESE DRAFT MAPS.
THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION OF THE PROCESS.
ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE HERE ON STEP 3 FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
DRAFT MAPS WILL PRESENT THOSE, AND THEN GET SOME INFORMATION, HOPEFULLY, FROM THE COMMUNITY, AND CERTAINLY, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS TO START MAKING REVISIONS OF THOSE MAPS.
THE FINAL MAP CERTAINLY WOULD BE PRESENTED, HOPEFULLY, BY APRIL THE 5TH.
THAT'S THE TIMELINE THAT WE HAVE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SHOOTING FOR.
[NOISE] MORE DESCRIPTION OF THESE DRAFT MAPS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE TOOK INPUT FROM BOTH THE CITY REDISTRICTING TEAM THAT IS HERE TONIGHT, AS WELL AS ANY MAPS THAT WERE SENT FORWARD OR ANY INFORMATION AT ALL SENT FORWARD FROM THE PUBLIC.
WE PRODUCED FIVE DRAFT MAPS THAT WE POSTED.
AS I MENTIONED ON THE18TH, ON THE WEBSITE FOR PEOPLE TO VIEW, WE DID RECEIVE A ONE SCENARIO MAP AFTER THAT SUBMITTAL DEADLINE OF THE 17TH THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE DRAFT MAPS, BUT WE DO HAVE IT AVAILABLE.
I'LL BE ASKING AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION IF THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US TO ALSO SHOW THAT SUBMITTAL AS WELL, FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT.
INPUT THAT WE RECEIVE TONIGHT, AND CERTAINLY THROUGH THE END OF THIS WEEK MAY RESULT IN SOME REVISIONS TO THESE DRAFT MAPS,
[00:10:04]
WHICH WILL AGAIN BE SHARED AS CITY MANAGER HURLBERT SAID AT THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING NEXT TUESDAY, MARCH THE 29TH.AT THAT TIME, WE'LL BE REVIEWING WITH THE COUNCIL ANY REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT MAPS THAT WERE PUT FORWARD FROM INPUT OR FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DIRECTLY AND WORKING TOWARDS FINAL MAP.
THE NEXT SLIDE JUST SHOWS THAT, SO FINAL MAP WILL BE POSTED ONCE IT IS DETERMINED BY THE COUNCIL AT NEXT TUESDAY'S MEETING.
WE'LL ALSO HAVE OUR FOURTH PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 5TH, BEFORE THE COUNCIL DETERMINES WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO VOTE OR NOT.
CERTAINLY, WE WILL UPHOLD ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN BOTH THE DRAFT MAPS THAT ARE BROUGHT FORWARD TONIGHT, AS WELL AS ANY REVISIONS LEADING UP TO THE FINAL MAP THAT'LL BE VETTED AND REFLECT PUBLIC SENTIMENT.
SO WE'RE HOPING THAT WE GET MORE PUBLIC SENTIMENT TO GIVE US SOME INPUT ALONG THE WAY.
GENERALLY THESE ARE COMPROMISES FROM SOME GOOD IDEAS AND IT REALLY NEEDS TO GO THROUGH DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL TO GET TO THAT FINAL MAP.
THIS TIME WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS PASS IT OVER TO ALEX BRASCH.
HE IS GOING TO JUST REVIEW SOME REAL HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS FOR ANY PATRONS WHO MAYBE DID NOT ATTEND THE MARCH 1ST MEETING.
IT'S GOOD TO REVIEW THESE SO THAT FOLKS KNOW THE PROCEDURES THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW IN DEVELOPING DRAFT MAPS.
>> THANKS AGAIN. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE GENERAL CRITERIA THAT KENT MENTIONED WE NEED TO FOLLOW AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND THINK ABOUT CHANGES TO THE EXISTING DISTRICT.
THESE ARE ALL INCLUDED IN AB849, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE FAIR MAP ACT.
I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THESE PRETTY QUICKLY.
FIRST AND FOREMOST WE NEED TO HAVE DISTRICTS BE POPULATION BALANCED, EACH OF THEM.
IN ANOTHER SLIDE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT THE METRICS ARE SURROUNDING THAT.
BUT THAT'LL BE USING THE 2020 CENSUS DATA, TOTAL POPULATION.
THEN DISTRICTS NEEDS TO BE CONTIGUOUS.
SO NO SMALL PIECES, TWO AREAS REPRESENTING ONE DISTRICT, THEY NEED TO BE ONE SHAPE.
THEN DISTRICTS NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL LAWS.
I'M MENTIONING HERE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN 1965 BEING ONE OF THEM.
THEN THIS REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND THE MAPS THAT COME FROM IT CANNOT FAVOR-DISFAVOR, PROTECT A CLASS OR POLITICAL PARTY.
ANOTHER GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENT AS BEING AS COMPACT AS POSSIBLE.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION WE CAN FROM THE PUBLIC AND FROM THE COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND COMMUNITIES OF MUTUAL INTERESTS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE PRESERVED AS BEST AS POSSIBLE IN ONE DISTRICT.
THEN LASTLY, DISTRICT SHOULD PRESERVE THE USE OF EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATURAL BOUNDARIES.
A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF THOSE GEOGRAPHIC CRITERIA.
THE FIRST ONE BEING CONTIGUITY, WHICH JUST MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE DISTRICTS SPLIT INTO MULTIPLE PIECES.
OF COURSE, WASCO DOESN'T HAVE ANY REAL ISLANDS TO CONSIDER, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE'RE WORKING IN OTHER AREAS.
WE SHOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE HERE AS WE MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT.
COMPACTNESS, I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY IT'S KIND OF THE QUINTESSENTIAL EXAMPLE OF GERRYMANDERING.
YOU THINK WHAT YOU SEE, EXAMPLES OF THAT.
LIKE THOSE LONG, SINUOUS OR ODD SHAPED DISTRICTS, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO AVOID THAT.
CALIFORNIA LAW STATES, ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO THINK ABOUT DISTRICTS NEED TO INCLUDE POPULATION THAT'S CLOSE.
DON'T REACH OUT IN THIS VERY SERPENTINE FASHION TO BYPASS NEARBY POPULATION, TO INCLUDE SOME FARTHER AFIELD POPULATION.
THERE ARE MANY MATHEMATICAL MEASURES OF COMPACTNESS, BUT THAT'S THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB AND YOU CAN DO THIS PRETTY VISUALLY.
THEN LASTLY, JUST THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATURAL BOUNDARIES THAT WILL FOLLOW LIKE MAJOR STREETS, RIVERS, AND THE OTHER [NOISE] IMPORTANT BOUNDARIES IN THE CITY.
HERE, I'M GOING TO TALK THROUGH THAT POPULATION CRITERIA.
I JUST WANT TO STATE AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT TOTAL POPULATION, NOT THINGS LIKE THE NUMBER OF VOTERS OR THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION, BECAUSE THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS REPRESENT ALL RESIDENTS,
[00:15:02]
NOT JUST THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.WE MEASURE EQUALITY OF THE POPULATION BY LOOKING AT THE DEVIATION FROM THE IDEAL.
THE IDEAL IS SIMPLY THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE CITY IN 2020.
AFTER ADJUSTMENTS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE DATABASE, WHICH WAS MANDATED BY LAW TO ADJUST THE 2020 CENSUS TO ALLOCATE INCARCERATED POPULATION BACK TO THEIR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS.
ONCE THAT'S DONE, WE HAVE A REVISED ADJUSTED TOTAL POPULATION OF THE CITY, DIVIDE THAT BY FIVE, YOU GET THE IDEAL POPULATION PER DISTRICT.
FROM THERE, WE JUST LOOK AT WHAT THE POPULATION OF EACH DISTRICT IS AND SEE WHICH ONE IS MOST POPULATED, WHICH ONE IS LEAST POPULATED.
CALCULATE THE PERCENT DEVIATION FROM THE IDEAL, AND THEN SUM THOSE TWO NUMBERS AND THAT GIVES US WHAT'S CALLED AN OVERALL RANGE OR OVERALL DEVIATION.
WE'RE GOING TO WANT THAT TO BE LESS THAN 10%.
WE'LL GO THROUGH AN EXAMPLE OF THE EXISTING DISTRICTS IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.
ACTUALLY RIGHT HERE. LIKE I SAID, THE 2020 CENSUS POPULATION OF THE CITY WAS ROUGHLY AROUND 27,000.
AFTER ADJUSTMENT BY THE STATEWIDE DATABASE, IT'S 22,795.
YOU DIVIDE THAT BY FIVE AND YOU SEE UP IN THIS TOP-LEFT CORNER HERE, THE IDEAL POPULATION OF 4,559.
NOW IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THIS TABLE BELOW HERE, WE'LL SEE THAT A FAIR AMOUNT OF POPULATION CHANGES HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST DECENNIAL CENSUS WHEN THE DISTRICTS WERE DRAWN.
SO WE SEE HOW DISTRICT 1 IS OVERPOPULATED BY ABOUT 2300.
THAT'S A 49.8% OVER THE IDEAL OF 4,559.
THE SAME TIME DISTRICT 3 IS UNDER POPULATED BY ABOUT 1800 OR 40.2%.
THE SUM OF THOSE TWO PERCENTAGES IS 89.9.
THAT'S THE NUMBER WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS CLOSE TO 0 AS POSSIBLE.
BUT THE POPULATION BEING RELATIVELY SMALL, WE CAN CHANGE THAT PRETTY QUICKLY AND WE'LL SEE SOME OF THOSE IN THE DRAFT MAPS.
AS DISCUSSED DURING THE LAST MEETING.
WHEN STARTING THIS REDISTRICTING PROCESS, WE REVIEWED THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE, POPULATION, RACE, ETHNICITY BECAUSE SECTION TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT PROTECTS AGAINST VOTE DILUTION BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FAIR MAPS ACT STATES THAT EACH OF THESE DRAFT MAP SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY INFORMATION ON TOTAL POPULATION AND THE CITIZEN VOTING AGE, POPULATION BY RACE, ETHNICITY.
THE REASON WE DO THAT IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT ANY MINORITY GROUP THAT CAN POTENTIALLY REPRESENT OVER 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF ONE DISTRICT.
NOW THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE OR BIG CONCERN IN LAW SCHOOL JUST BECAUSE OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE CITY, BUT NONETHELESS, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
IT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN ALL OF THE MAP STATUS THAT WE LOOK AT.
HERE WE'RE GOING TO JUMP INTO THE FIVE DRAFT MAP PROPOSALS AND THE SUMMARY STATISTICS THAT ACCOMPANY IN THEM.
JUST WANTED TO STATE A COUPLE OF THE POINTS OF RATIONALE THAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN THESE WERE DRAFTED.
WE WANTED TO REDUCE THAT OVERALL RANGE OF THE DISTRICT POPULATIONS TO BE LESS THAN 10 PERCENT.
ALSO WANT TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF CURRENT DISTRICTS THAT ARE IMPACTED.
IF WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE ONE BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THAT IDEAL POPULATION, LET'S TRY NOT TO.
ALSO GOING TO KEEP THE CURRENT DISTRICTS AS A CONSISTENT SIZE AND WE'LL JUST MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE.
THEN PRESERVE EXISTING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST WITHIN THE CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
YOU CAN SEE THE TOP LEFT CORNER HERE OR SITTING AT EXACTLY 10 PERCENT.
THIS DRAFT MAP WAS DEVELOPED TO REALLY PRODUCE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CHANGE POSSIBLE.
WE CAN SEE HOW DISTRICT 1 MOVED SOME OF ITS AREA INTO DISTRICT 3.
THAT'S REPRESENTED BY THAT HASH MARK HERE, AND THE EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARY IS RIGHT THERE IN THIS PIECE IN RED,
[00:20:04]
IT WOULD NOW BE PART OF DISTRICT 3.THAT CHANGE DIDN'T GET DISTRICT 1 LOW ENOUGH IN POPULATION.
IT ALSO NEEDED TO GIVE UP SOME POPULATION TO DISTRICT 2 RIGHT HERE.
BUT THAT CHANGES DISTRICT 2 AND LOWERS IT.
BUT DISTRICT 4 WAS ALSO A LITTLE UNDER.
HERE DISTRICT 4 MOVED NORTH AND IT WOULD TAKE A BIT OF AREA FROM DISTRICT 2.
THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVE AT THAT 10 PERCENT BECAUSE WE SEE THAT DISTRICT 1 IS STILL OVER BY 308 PEOPLE, AND DISTRICT 2 IS UNDER BY 3.2 PERCENT.
THE SUM OF THOSE NUMBERS IS JUST ABOUT 10 PERCENT.
OF COURSE, I THINK WE WANT TO STRIVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST SHOWS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU CAN JUST CHANGE A FEW THINGS AND STILL MAKE IT TO 10 PERCENT.
HERE ARE THOSE CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION STATISTICS BY RACE, ETHNICITY.
NOTHING REALLY STANDING OUT IN TERMS OF A BIG SHIFT.
THAT JUST REALLY IS WHAT WE'LL SEE ON ALL THESE SLIDES IS THERE'S A BIT OF NOT HOMOGENEITY IN THE POPULATION, BUT EVERYBODY'S WELL DISPERSED.
THERE'S NOT ANY PARTICULAR AREAS THAT ARE ONE RACE, ETHNICITY THAN THE OTHER.
ON DRAFT MAP 2, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE OVERALL DEVIATION IS A LOT LOWER AT 3.8 PERCENT.
THE MAIN CHANGES HERE, YOU'LL SEE IN THE NORTH IS DISTRICT 1 GIVES UP AREA TO DISTRICT 3, WHICH EXPANDS UP HERE INTO THE NORTH.
BECAUSE OF THAT DISTRICT 3 TAKES ON TOO MUCH POPULATION.
IN FACT, BECAUSE IF WE RECALL, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS MOVING CENSUS BLOCKS SO THAT'S AT SMALLEST GEOGRAPHY AND SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY LARGE.
YOU CAN SEE THE OUTLINE OF ONE RIGHT HERE.
THAT HAS A LOT OF POPULATION WE NEED TO MOVE.
THAT'S THE LOWEST GEOGRAPHY WE HAVE.
WE'RE MOVING ALL [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICTS 3, A LITTLE OVER-POPULATED, SO DISTRICT 5 MOVES NORTH AND TAKES ON THIS AREA FROM DISTRICT 3.
THEN DISTRICT 4, NEEDS A BIT MORE POPULATION, SO IT TAKES ON A BIT FROM DISTRICT 5 RIGHT HERE.
THAT GETS US TO THAT 3.8 PERCENT.
I SHOULD SAY AS I MOVE THROUGH THIS, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEM IN DETAIL.
WE CAN ZOOM IN ON AN INTERACTIVE MAP IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, THOSE CITIZEN VOTING AGE, POPULATION STATISTICS, FOR DRAFT MAP 3, EVEN LOWER OVERALL DEVIATION OF 1.5 PERCENT.
THE SAME CHANGE WAS MADE BETWEEN DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 3 IN THE NORTH.
THEN WE CAN SEE HOW WE COULD ACHIEVE A LOW OVERALL DEVIATION FOR COMING IN FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
ONE THING THAT CHANGED HERE WAS THIS AREA GOING FROM DISTRICT 1 TO DISTRICT 3.
EXCUSE ME, DISTRICT 3 TO DISTRICT 1, THIS SHOULD NOW BE PART OF DISTRICT 1.
SIMILAR CHANGES BEFORE HERE WHERE DISTRICT 5 COMES UP AND TAKE SOME AREA FROM DISTRICT 3.
THEN IN THIS CASE, DISTRICT 4 IS EXPANDING TO THE EAST AND TAKE ON A LITTLE BIT FROM DISTRICT 5.
THE STATISTICS DRAFT MAP 4, 1.5 PERCENT AS WELL, SAME CHANGE UP IN THE NORTH BETWEEN DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 3.
BOTH OF THOSE CHANGES HERE, WE HAVE THIS AREA NOW BEING DISTRICT 3, THIS PART BEING DISTRICT 1.
DISTRICT 5 TAKES ON A PIECE FROM DISTRICT 3 RIGHT HERE, DISTRICT 4 EXPANDS TO THE WEST INTO DISTRICT 5.
YOU SEE THAT STANCE? THEN DRAFT MAP 5, 1.2 PERCENT OVERALL DEVIATION AND COMMON THEME HERE,
[00:25:03]
BUT THIS IS NEEDING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN BETWEEN DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 3.SO SAME THING UP HERE IN THE NORTH, THAT BIT OF DISTRICT 3 BECOMING PART OF DISTRICT 1 HERE.
THEN THIS IS A BIT DIFFERENT HERE, INSTEAD OF HAVING A CHANGE BETWEEN DISTRICT 5 AND DISTRICT 3, WE HAVE DISTRICT 2 TAKING OUT IN SOME POPULATION AND SOME AREA FROM DISTRICT 3 RIGHT HERE.
TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT, DISTRICT 5 IS ACTUALLY GOING NORTH AND TAKING ON A PIECE OF DISTRICT 2 RIGHT THERE AND THEN DISTRICT 4 IS ALSO EXPANDING TO THE EAST INTO DISTRICT 5 RIGHT THERE.
CVAP STATISTICS AND THEN I'LL TURN IT BACK TO KENT AND WE CAN REVISIT ANY OF THESE TO LOOK IN DETAIL AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO KENT THOUGH TO FINISH UP ON THE TIMELINE.
>> AT THIS POINT, ACTUALLY, I'LL SEE IF WE COULD FLIP IT TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
AT THIS POINT, WE JUST NEED INPUT AND WE'LL BE PASSING IT BACK TO YOU, MAYOR REYNA, TO RUN THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO HAVE A SCENARIO THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS A DRAFT MAP BECAUSE IT WAS TURNED IN AFTER THAT DEADLINE FOR DRAFT MAP SUBMISSION.
IT'S REAL SIMILAR TO DRAFT MAP NUMBER 3 THAT YOU SAW.
BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY SHARE THAT IF YOU OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DURING THIS TIME.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MARTIN. THE PROCEDURE FOR THIS, MR. HURLBERT, DO I JUST GO THROUGH AND ASK EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THIS MAP SO THAT THEY CAN BE WITH OR HOW SHOULD I PROCEED?
>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY ADDITIONAL.
THERE WAS JUST THIS ONE MAP THAT WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE SO BY ACCEPTING IT OR BY EVEN JUST SIMPLY VIEWING IT, YOU'RE NOT DISENFRANCHISING ADDITIONAL PEOPLE THAT ALSO TURN THEIR MAPS IN LATE.
THIS IS THE SOLE ONE THAT WAS RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE DEADLINES.
IT'S REALLY IF THERE IS ANY INTERESTS IN THE COUNCIL AT ALL IN VIEWING IT, THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, I DON'T BELIEVE NEEDS TO CONCUR AT THIS STEP, IF ANY ONE OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT, I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT TO SIMPLY VIEW IT AND DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCES.
BECAUSE THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL STEP FOR THE COUNCIL TO SELECT THE TOP TWO OR THREE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE COMING BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING.
IF THIS MAP IS A GOOD CHOICE, I THINK IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO MOVE IT FORWARD RATHER THAN OMIT IT IF EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE OR IF ANY OF YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, I GUESS.
>> CAN MR. MARTIN SPEAK OF THE DEVIATION IN THIS PARTICULAR MAP?
>> THE DEVIATION OF THE ONE THAT WE HAVEN'T SHOWN YET?
>> YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. ALEX, DO YOU HAVE THAT DATA?
>> YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. YES. [NOISE]
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHOW IT.
YOU DON'T HAPPEN TO REMEMBER THE DEVIATION NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD?
>> I ACTUALLY DO. I JUST WANTED TO PULL THAT TO THE SIDE.
IT IS THE LOWEST DEVIATION OF THE MAPS SHOWN THIS FAR.
>> OKAY. I WANT TO ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR PRO TEM PALLARES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS MAP?
>> YES. LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE THE ADDITIONAL MAP.
>> JUST TO BE FAIR, MR. GARCIA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS MAP?
>> THANK YOU. LET'S PROCEED WITH SHOWING THE MAP.
>> GREAT. I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT INTERFACE JUST BECAUSE IT WAS PULLED INTO OUR SYSTEM AND WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT THAT MAP RIGHT NOW.
WE CAN SEE THAT THE EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ARE IN PINK AND
[00:30:06]
THE COLOR BOUNDARIES ARE FROM THE SUBMISSION AND THEY CORRESPOND TO WHAT WE JUST SAW ON THE SLIDESHOW.SIMILAR TO DRAFT MAPS TWO THROUGH FIVE, THE CHANGE IN THE NORTH BETWEEN DISTRICT 1 AND DISTRICT 3 OR DISTRICT 3 EXPANDS TO THE NORTH IS OCCURRING.
DISTRICT 1 HAS EXPANDED SLIGHTLY TO THE EAST INTO EXISTING DISTRICT 3.
DISTRICT 5 EXPANDS TO THE NORTH RIGHT HERE.
DISTRICT 4 EXPANDS SLIGHTLY TO THE EAST RIGHT HERE AND THEN DISTRICT 2 EXPANDS SLIGHTLY TO THE NORTH TO TAKE ON AN AREA FROM DISTRICT 1 RIGHT HERE.
AS MENTIONED, THE STATISTICS FOR THAT OVERALL DEVIATION OF 1.1 PERCENT, DISTRICT 4 IS OVER BY JUST 34 PEOPLE, AND DISTRICT 2 AND 3 ARE UNDER BY 16 PEOPLE.
>> THIS IS THE MAP THAT HAS THE LOWEST DEVIATION OF ALL THE MAPS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU. WELL, WE HAVE A CHOICE HERE, HOW MANY MAPS WE WANT TO PUT FORTH OR WHETHER WE WANT TO DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS REGARDING THESE MAPS AND WHETHER THIS MAP THAT WAS SHOWN TO US WOULD BE ONE OF THE ONES TO MOVE FORWARD.
I WOULD SUGGEST AND THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION THAT WE SELECT THREE MAPS THAT WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUT I WILL GO THROUGH AND BEFORE I DO THAT, I HAVE TO GO TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I HAVE TO MAKE.
>> THANK YOU. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION IS LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VERBAL COMMENT USING ZOOM, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND BUTTON TO REQUEST TO SPEAK.
IF YOU'RE USING A TELEPHONE, PLEASE DIAL NINE ON YOUR TELEPHONE KEYPAD.
YOU WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE NUMBER YOU'RE CALLING FROM.
WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR COMMENT.
ONCE YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, YOU WILL BE MUTED. AT THIS TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? [BACKGROUND]
>> MAYOR REYNA, I DO NOT SEE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY EMAIL COMMENTS, MADAM CLERK?
>> ONE MOMENT. MAYOR REYNA, I DO NOT SEE ANY EMAIL COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS? MAYOR PRO TEM PALLARES
IF I COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEW MAP ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE TO ZOOM IN ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TWO FOR THAT NEW EDITION?
>> THIS IS PARKSIDE DRIVE RIGHT HERE AND ON THE NORTH SIDE HERE IS 5TH STREET.
THE WEST SIDE IT IS, EXCUSE MY PRONUNCIATION, BECKES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I JUST NEEDED TO SEE IT ZOOMED IN.
>> MR. MAYOR, YOU SAID YOU WANTED THREE COMMENTS OR HOLD OFF ON THAT FOR A MINUTE?
>> THIS IS THE TIME FOR COMMENTS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE, DO SO.
>> NO. I MEANT I'M FINISHED WITH MY COMMENTS, WOULD YOU LIKE MY SELECTION NOW OR A LITTLE BIT LATER?
>> NO. WE'RE DOING THE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME, SO LET'S HEAR FROM THE OTHERS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON MAP 6.
>> THANK YOU. THAT WOULD BE ON ALL THE MAPS, I BELIEVE.
THIS INCLUDES THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION, MEMBER GARCIA.
[00:35:02]
YOU HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS?>> NO, JUST ASIDE FROM MY APPRECIATION TO FLO AND EVERYONE WHO'S WORKED ON PRODUCING THESE DRAFT MAPS.
IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO LOOK AT, I MEAN. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, MEMBER GARCIA. MEMBER LYNCH.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. MEMBER MARTINEZ.
>> YEAH. JUST A QUESTION. I KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL IS EXCEPT FOR ONE MEMBER.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE NONE OF THESE MAPS WILL PUT ANY CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS IN A NEW DISTRICT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IS THERE SOMEONE THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
THESE DRAFT MAPS THAT CAME FORWARD DO NOT MOVE ANY OF THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS OUT OF THEIR DISTRICTS.
>> THANK YOU. OTHER THAN THAT, MR. MAYOR, I'M AMENABLE TO WHATEVER MAP YOU GUYS WANT.
MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE IN DISTRICTS.
I UNDERSTAND WHY WE DID IT, BUT WE'RE A SMALL CITY, SO I'M AMENABLE TO WHATEVER EVERYBODY WANTS.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBER MARTINEZ.
I DO WANT TO SAY THAT PART OF THE PRESENTATION ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE DISTRICTS WITHOUT CHANGE IF POSSIBLE, AS LONG AS THE POPULATIONS WITHIN THE DISTRICTS, THEY HAVE NO MEASURE DEVIATION FROM ONE ANOTHER.
WE DO KNOW THAT DISTRICT 1 GREW A GREAT DEAL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE POPULATION FROM THE LABOR CAMP WAS MOVED TO THE NEW [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT CAUSED DISPROPORTIONATE GROWTH IN THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT, WHICH IS MY DISTRICT.
LOOKING AT THE MAPS, MY OPINION IS THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MAPS THAT HAVE THE LEAST DEVIATION SINCE THAT IS THE GOAL.
WE HAVE A MAP WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO US, WHICH HAS THE LOWEST DEVIATION POPULATION.
MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT DO INCLUDE THAT MAP, THAT WE INCLUDE MAP 5 AND MAP 4 FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> HONORABLE MAYOR, IF I COULD.
>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THE AIR SO THERE ISN'T A QUESTION LATER.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT NOW.
FOR KENT AND ALEX, WERE THERE ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS, OUT OF ALL SIX, THAT RESULTED IN ANY CONCERNS OVER RACIAL DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER METRICS THAT YOU LOOKED AT ACROSS THE DISTRICTS?
>> NO. IN ALL CASES, NOT ONLY THE POPULATION CRITERION OF BEING UNDER 10 PERCENT, BUT LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE COMPACTNESS, CONTIGUITY, RACIAL AND ETHNIC CONCERNS.
ALL THE DRAFT MAP ONE THROUGH FIVE AND THE SUBMITTED MAP THAT WE SAW ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
>> WITH BOTH THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE GUIDELINES?
>> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO REMOVE THAT FROM FOLKS' MINDS THAT WE WOULDN'T INADVERTENTLY CHOOSE ONE THAT HAD A REALLY LOW POPULATION DEVIATION, BUT SOMEHOW TRIPPED OVER ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES.
THAT SHOULD BE GOOD AND SO WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON THE POPULATION DEVIATION NUMBERS.
>> MR. HURLBERT, THAT IS AN EXCELLENT OBSERVATION.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> DO WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS PROPOSAL THAT I JUST MADE, THAT WE USE THE NEW MAP THAT WAS SHOWN TODAY, MAP 5 AND MAP 4, WHICH WOULD GIVE US THREE MAPS TO CONSIDER AT OUR NEXT MEETING? MR. HURLBERT, THAT QUESTION WOULD BE TO YOU.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S RECOLLECTION, IF WE COULD DISPLAY 4, 5, AND 6 MAPS AGAIN BRIEFLY JUST SO EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHAT THOSE WERE.
THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FINE WAY TO MOVE IT FORWARD.
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD, MR. HURLBERT AND MAYOR REYNA, IN THESE PROCESSES, THIS STEP OF PRESENTING DRAFT MAPS, CERTAINLY THE LATE SUBMISSION CAN BE CONSIDERED MOVING FORWARD AS A REVISED MAP BECAUSE IT REALLY IS VERY CLOSE TO, AS ALEX SAID, DRAFT MAPS TWO THROUGH FIVE.
[00:40:02]
IT COULD BE TREATED AS A REVISION AND WE CAN NAME IT SCENARIO 6, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BRINGING IT FORWARD.WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO BRING FORWARD ANY REVISIONS AT THE NEXT MEETING TO WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DETERMINES TONIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD TO THAT NEXT PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK.
>> VERY GOOD. JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AND FOR THE COUNCIL'S BENEFIT AS WELL, MR. MARTIN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE WOULD HAVE MAP 4, MAP 5, AND REVISION NUMBER 6. IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT WILL STILL GIVE US THREE MAPS TO CONSIDER AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> MR. MAYOR, I GUESS A QUESTION TO ASK YOUR FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS JUST PRIOR TO THEIR CONCURRENCE WOULD BE IF THERE WERE ANY REVISIONS TO THOSE THREE THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED.
AT THIS POINT, I THINK IN TALKING TO MR. MARTIN, IT'S PROBABLY NOT PRACTICAL TO INTERACTIVELY WORKSHOP THIS THING, BUT I THINK THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE SEEING 1.5 PERCENT AND BELOW ARE REMARKABLY STRONG FROM A POPULATION DEVIATION STANDPOINT.
I THINK WE COULD SPEND AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME [LAUGHTER] TRYING TO IMPROVE THOSE WITHOUT A LOT OF NET GAIN AT THE END.
CERTAINLY, OPEN TO REVISIONS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE THE PRUDENT CHOICE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE THREE THAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED, UNLESS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD A PARTICULAR FEATURE OF ONE OF THE OTHERS THAT THEY LIKED.
>> WELL, I COULD GO AND HAVE ANOTHER ROUND OF COMMENTS REGARDING YOUR QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL REMAIN THE SAME, BUT THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON THAT, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH MAYOR PROTEM.
>> NO, I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CHOICE OF THE MAP SELECTIONS.
NO REAL PERTINENT COMMENTS TO ADD AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. [LAUGHTER] SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.
I AM IN FAVOR OF [NOISE] MAPS 4 THROUGH 6 AS WELL.
I THINK I AGREE THEY HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DEVIATION FROM THE IDEAL POPULATION.
THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES WHERE WE WOULD POSSIBLY TRIP UP ON.
I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBER GARCIA. MEMBER LYNCH.
>> MR. MAYOR, I AGREE 4, 5, AND 6.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBER LYNCH. MEMBER MARTINEZ.
>> I CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT HIS MAP SELECTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT I SEE AT THIS TIME PERTAINING TO THE MAPS.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBER MARTINEZ.
I'LL DO THIS VIA A MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> OKAY. MADAM CLERK, IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND.
WOULD YOU CALL THE VOTE BY ROLL CALL?
>> MOTION BY MAYOR REYNA, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ TO BRING BACK MAP 4 THROUGH 6 FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ORDINANCE ADOPTION ON OUR NEXT MEETING.
MOTION IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. WELL, BEING THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS, I WANT TO THANK BOTH KENT MARTIN AND ALEX BRASCH FROM FLO ANALYTICS FOR BEING HERE ONCE AGAIN, AND HELPING US WITH THIS REDISTRICTING PROCESS, AND EVERYONE ELSE FOR ATTENDING.
THANK YOU-ALL. HAVE A GREAT EVENING.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.