Agenda packet, special meeting — Santa Cruz City Council, March 29, 2022

CITY OF SANTA CRUZ
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Meeting - March 29, 2022
4:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING, ZOOM
COVID-19 ANNOUNCEMENT: Due to the Omicron variant, this meeting will be held via teleconference ONLY.

In order to minimize exposure to COVID-19 and to comply with the social distancing suggestion, the meeting may be viewed remotely, using any of the following sources:
 Click on Zoom link (no time delay): https://zoom.us/j/94684401344  Online at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/citycouncil/council-meetings  Online at Watch – Community Television of Santa Cruz County  Comcast Channel 25
Or: Call any of the numbers below. If one is busy, try the next one.  1-833-548-0276 (Toll Free)
 1-833-548-0282 (Toll Free)
 1-877-853-5247 (Toll Free)
 1-669-900-9128
Enter the meeting ID number: 946 8440 1344
 When prompted for a Participant ID, press #.
 Press *9 on your phone to “raise your hand” when the Mayor calls for public comment.
 It will be your turn to speak when the Mayor calls on you. Press *6 to unmute yourself. The timer will then be set to 2 minutes.

Correspondence to be included in the agenda packet must be received by 11:00 am on Tuesday, March 29th.
3/29/2022 4:30:00 PM City Council Special Meeting 2
The City of Santa Cruz does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Out of consideration for people with chemical sensitivities we ask that you attend fragrance free. Upon request, the agenda can be provided in a format to accommodate special needs. Additionally, if you wish to attend this public meeting and will require assistance such as an interpreter for American Sign Language, Spanish, or other special equipment, please call the City Clerk’s Department at 420-5030 at least five days in advance so that we can arrange for such special assistance, or email [email protected]. The Cal-Relay system number: 1-800-735-2922.

Si desea asistir a esta reunión pública y necesita ayuda - como un intérprete de lenguaje de señas americano, español u otro equipo especial - favor de llamar al Departamento de la Secretaría de la Ciudad al 420-5030 al menos cinco días antes para que podamos coordinar dicha asistencia especial o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected]. El número del sistema Cal-Relay es: 1-800- 735-2922.

City Council Special Meeting
Call to Order
Roll Call
Public Hearings

1. Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding the draft six-district maps and election sequencing, and conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing.

2. Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding the draft seven-district maps and election sequencing and conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing.

Adjournment
City Council Special Meeting

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/21/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/29/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Six-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding the draft six-district maps and election sequencing, and conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing.

BACKGROUND: On May 26, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS 29,657, declaring its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections for the City Council, commencing with the General Municipal Election in November 2022.

On February 22, 2022, the City Council placed a proposed Charter Amendment creating six districts and an at-large, directly elected Mayor on the ballot for the June 7, 2022 Primary Election. As a result, the City Council must choose both a final six-district map and sequencing and a final seven-district map and sequencing. The Council-adopted six-district map would prevail if the charter amendment passes, and the Council-adopted seven-district map would prevail if the charter amendment does not pass. Given the challenges of receiving input on drafts of two different models, the City Council will take the two models up as two separate agenda items.

The City released three draft six-district maps and election sequencing in late February for community review in anticipation of the two legally required public hearings for public input into the drafts. This is the first of the two public hearings, and the second is scheduled for April

19. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this public hearing is for the public to provide input regarding the content of the draft six-district maps and the proposed sequences of elections.

The City contracted with National Demographic Corporation (NDC) to develop draft district map proposals for City Council consideration. Incorporating feedback received from two public hearings and additional outreach efforts in the fall, NDC developed three draft six-district proposals.

1.1 The City must comply with state and federally-mandated criteria when developing districts.

These include requirements that each district:
• Must contain a nearly equal population.
• Must be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act. • May not be drawn with race as the predominate factor in violation of the principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and its progeny. • Must be contiguous, which means districts should not hop, skip and jump over some areas to include others.
• Must be drawn to maintain “communities of interest” so that people of like interests are brought together for representation.
• Should be consistent with city, county and local government boundary lines as much as possible.
• Should be compact. California defines compactness “as not bypassing nearby populated areas in favor of more distant populated areas.”
If the City Council provides direction to NDC to change the maps in any way, the revised maps must be published at least seven days before City Council consideration.

Public Outreach and Engagement
The City has engaged in a broad outreach effort to encourage community feedback and participation in the development of district maps. The City’s District Elections Webpage has been a central point for updated information throughout the transition process, including public meeting information, draft maps, surveys, and tools for citizens to create their own district map proposals. City staff has held both virtual and in-person meetings with representatives from various community organizations, including leaders of organizations serving underrepresented populations in the City. Staff also hosted two virtual forums to provide information to the community on the process and how to share feedback on the draft map proposals.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. However, transitioning to district elections required the City to retain the services of a demographer, National Demographics Corporation. The cost of contracted services to date are $19,500. Given that no city has yet successfully defended against a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit, transitioning to by-district elections will save the City significant funds in legal expenses that would be associated with a CVRA lawsuit.

Prepared By:

Casey Hemard
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

1.2 ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT MAP 601.PDF

2. DRAFT MAP 602.PDF

3. DRAFT MAP 603.PDF

4. POLCO SURVEY RESULTS – SIX DISTRICT MAPS
Attachments 1 – 3 can be viewed online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/districtelections

1.3 4
2 6
5 1
3 Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
River St
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware Ave
Fair Ave
Alta Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
Beach
2n
St
d
St
W Cliff Dr
California St
King St
Palm
St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Western Dr
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Trevethan Ave
Isbel Dr
Seabright Ave
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummins), 5 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and6 (Kalantari-Johnson, Golder & Meyers)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummins), 6 (Kalantari-Johnson,Golder & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (vacant) �2021 CALIPER

1.4 NDC 601
District 1
Total Pop 10,606
Deviation from ideal 90
% Deviation 0.86%
% Hisp 21.9%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 7,989
% Hisp 12%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,733
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,785
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,555
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,748
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 23%
immigrants 15%
naturalized 36%
english 79%
spanish 13%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 19%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 17%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 9%
income 75-200k 42%
income 200k-plus 21%
single family 81%
multi-family 19%
rented 35%
owned 65%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 10,475
-41
-0.39%
25%
61%
2%
6%
8,191
15%
77%
1%
4%
7,201
13%
12%
2%
1%
83%
0%
6,163
12%
12%
2%
1%
84%
0%
4,942
10%
10%
2%
1%
86%
0%
10,397
15%
67%
18%
14%
43%
77%
16%
2%
4%
5%
38%
27%
23%
16%
76%
23%
16%
13%
38%
11%
57%
43%
66%
34%
3 10,269
-247
-2.35%
15%
67%
2%
11%
8,632
13%
75%
1%
8%
7,862
10%
9%
4%
1%
84%
2%
6,527
9%
9%
4%
1%
85%
1%
5,358
9%
8%
4%
1%
85%
1%
10,675
20%
59%
21%
13%
51%
82%
7%
5%
5%
3%
23%
30%
36%
21%
62%
17%
11%
11%
43%
19%
76%
24%
36%
64%
4 10,820
304

2.89%
30%
53%
3%
10%
7,254
14%
70%
5%
8%
6,297
17%
16%
3%
1%
73%
4%
5,075
15%
14%
3%
1%
74%
4%
3,830
14%
13%
3%
1%
77%
4%
9,913
16%
68%
16%
19%
22%
72%
18%
6%
5%
11%
39%
22%
21%
15%
72%
35%
22%
14%
23%
7%
40%
60%
76%
24%
5 10,458
-58
-0.55%
37%
32%
8%
21%
10,232
28%
40%
3%
26%
2,565
17%
16%
8%
1%
70%
3%
1,797
14%
13%
7%
1%
75%
2%
2,296
22%
20%
7%
1%
65%
3%
12,282
53%
44%
3%
17%
27%
55%
20%
18%
8%
6%
24%
25%
39%
22%
45%
30%
14%
10%
28%
19%
53%
47%
61%
39%
6 10,465
-51
-0.48%
14%
70%
2%
9%
8,406
12%
78%
2%
6%
7,644
10%
9%
3%
1%
85%
2%
6,676
9%
9%
3%
1%
86%
2%
5,624
9%
8%
2%
1%
86%
1%
10,543
19%
57%
25%
11%
57%
81%
11%
3%
5%
5%
27%
35%
26%
23%
62%
16%
14%
10%
39%
21%
86%
14%
43%
57%
Total
63,093
551

5.24%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%
02/09/2022 1:35 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

1.5 4
3 2
1 6
5 Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
River St
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Fair Ave
Alta Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
Beach
2n
St
d
St
W Cliff Dr
King St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Broadway
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Western Dr
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Trevethan Ave
Isbel Dr
Seabright Ave
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummins), 6 (Golder )+ Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Kalantari-Johnson& Meyers) and 5 (Brown) �2021 CALIPER

1.6 NDC 602
District 1
Total Pop 10,855
Deviation from ideal 339
% Deviation 3.22%
% Hisp 22.5%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 8,138
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,880
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 13%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,912
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 84%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,662
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,956
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 23%
immigrants 15%
naturalized 36%
english 78%
spanish 14%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 20%
Child in Household child-under18 26%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 18%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 10%
income 75-200k 41%
income 200k-plus 20%
single family 79%
multi-family 21%
rented 38%
owned 62%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

1.66%
24%
63%
2%
6%
8,381
14%
77%
1%
4%
7,508
13%
12%
2%
1%
84%
1%
6,437
11%
11%
2%
1%
85%
1%
5,192
9%
9%
2%
1%
87%
1%
10,503
14%
68%
18%
14%
44%
78%
15%
2%
4%
5%
39%
26%
22%
15%
77%
22%
15%
13%
40%
11%
60%
40%
66%
34%
3 10,442
-74
-0.70%
18%
64%
2%
12%
8,857
14%
73%
3%
9%
7,160
12%
11%
4%
1%
82%
2%
6,146
11%
11%
3%
1%
83%
2%
4,998
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
10,980
16%
63%
21%
15%
37%
81%
11%
5%
4%
5%
31%
27%
31%
19%
64%
20%
15%
11%
38%
16%
73%
27%
48%
52%
4 10,285
-231
-2.20%
26%
57%
3%
10%
7,165
13%
74%
4%
6%
6,619
13%
13%
4%
1%
76%
3%
5,456
12%
11%
4%
1%
78%
3%
4,289
11%
10%
4%
1%
81%
3%
10,090
21%
61%
18%
16%
31%
73%
18%
4%
5%
10%
29%
26%
27%
21%
70%
30%
19%
12%
28%
11%
47%
53%
65%
35%
5 10,269
-247
-2.35%
33%
40%
8%
16%
9,277
24%
46%
4%
23%
3,682
14%
13%
4%
1%
75%
4%
2,603
13%
12%
4%
1%
78%
4%
2,784
16%
15%
5%
1%
72%
4%
11,131
49%
43%
8%
15%
33%
60%
17%
15%
8%
5%
28%
33%
26%
22%
46%
19%
10%
14%
36%
21%
69%
31%
36%
64%
6 10,551
35 0.33%
21%
58%
4%
13%
8,886
17%
67%
1%
12%
6,453
11%
11%
4%
1%
83%
1%
5,469
10%
10%
4%
1%
84%
1%
4,680
11%
11%
3%
1%
84%
1%
10,898
27%
55%
18%
14%
44%
73%
12%
8%
7%
5%
26%
32%
30%
21%
58%
22%
16%
9%
33%
20%
72%
28%
50%
50%
Total
63,093
586

5.57%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%
02/09/2022 2:42 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

1.7 4
2 6
3 5 1
Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
River St
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware Ave
Fair Ave
Alta Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
Beach
2n
St
d
St
W Cliff Dr
California St
King St
Palm
St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Trevethan Ave
Isbel Dr
Seabright Ave
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummins), 3 (vacant) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 5 (Brown) and6 (Kalantari-Johnson, Golder & Meyers)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummins), 6 (Kalantari-Johnson,Golder & Meyers) + Mayor2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (vacant) and5 (Brown) �2021 CALIPER

1.8 NDC 603
District 1
Total Pop 10,606
Deviation from ideal 90
% Deviation 0.86%
% Hisp 21.9%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 7,989
% Hisp 12%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 7,733
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,785
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,555
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 10,748
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 23%
immigrants 15%
naturalized 36%
english 79%
spanish 13%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 9%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 19%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 17%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 9%
income 75-200k 42%
income 200k-plus 21%
single family 81%
multi-family 19%
rented 35%
owned 65%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 10,475
-41
-0.39%
25%
61%
2%
6%
8,191
15%
77%
1%
4%
7,201
13%
12%
2%
1%
83%
0%
6,163
12%
12%
2%
1%
84%
0%
4,942
10%
10%
2%
1%
86%
0%
10,397
15%
67%
18%
14%
43%
77%
16%
2%
4%
5%
38%
27%
23%
16%
76%
23%
16%
13%
38%
11%
57%
43%
66%
34%
3 10,279
-237
-2.25%
29%
44%
6%
19%
9,855
24%
53%
2%
19%
4,600
14%
13%
6%
1%
77%
1%
3,662
12%
11%
5%
1%
81%
1%
3,518
16%
15%
5%
1%
75%
2%
12,040
38%
54%
8%
16%
32%
64%
15%
14%
7%
5%
23%
21%
45%
19%
52%
24%
16%
9%
35%
16%
59%
41%
54%
46%
4 10,820
304

2.89%
30%
53%
3%
10%
7,254
14%
70%
5%
8%
6,297
17%
16%
3%
1%
73%
4%
5,075
15%
14%
3%
1%
74%
4%
3,830
14%
13%
3%
1%
77%
4%
9,913
16%
68%
16%
19%
22%
72%
18%
6%
5%
11%
39%
22%
21%
15%
72%
35%
22%
14%
23%
7%
40%
60%
76%
24%
5 10,448
-68
-0.65%
24%
54%
5%
13%
9,008
18%
60%
3%
17%
5,827
10%
9%
4%
1%
83%
2%
4,662
9%
8%
4%
1%
85%
2%
4,136
10%
9%
5%
1%
83%
2%
10,916
38%
47%
15%
13%
44%
71%
13%
10%
7%
3%
23%
34%
31%
24%
53%
16%
7%
12%
44%
21%
82%
18%
30%
70%
6 10,465
-51
-0.48%
14%
70%
2%
9%
8,406
12%
78%
2%
6%
7,644
10%
9%
3%
1%
85%
2%
6,676
9%
9%
3%
1%
86%
2%
5,624
9%
8%
2%
1%
86%
1%
10,543
19%
57%
25%
11%
57%
81%
11%
3%
5%
5%
27%
35%
26%
23%
62%
16%
14%
10%
39%
21%
86%
14%
43%
57%
Total
63,093
541

5.14%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%
02/09/2022 2:07 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

1.9 Transition to District
Elections/Transición a
elecciones de distrito - Six
district option/opción de
seis distritos
Survey Results

INTERIM
03/24/2022

1.10 What do you like about Draȷ Map #601? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #601?
District 6 keeps all of the lower westside together, who share many similar challenges.

UCSC is in one district.

Lower Westside is kept together and UCSC has its own district.

Most of it is okay
Draȷ Map #601 :: The lower westside-- the neighborhoods to the south of Mission Street / Highway 1, are in one district (except for a section of the King Street neighborhood that does not belong. It makes sense to use Bay Street to divide Districts 6 and 4. It makes sense to keep the "upper" upper westside in district 3, but district three should extend beyond Western Drive and include the Meder Street neighborhood.

Most neighborhoods pretty intact
ok
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

The maps are irrelevant to the demands of the CVRA. Its aim is to replace the 54% of all citizens' votes that are currently "diluted" with votes that actually help to elect a preferred candidate. Electing the Council instead by "multi-seat" rank-choice voting (RCV) would dilute only 12% of all the votes cast. The Council should choose this path instead of plurality districts. The Charter gives it this authority without having a referendum. I want to explain why I’m asking the Council to become elected at-large by RCV rather than from seven districts. Firstly, contrary to a claim made repeatedly in earlier Zoom Meetings, the CVRA does not mandate the use of district elections. This is confirmed by California’s Attorney General. He writes in his recent Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court’s review of the Santa Monica dispute, that “there are nondistricting remedies that could, in a specific case on specific facts, be an appropriate remedy. (OBM 54-56; Brief of Fairvote as Amicus Curiae at pp. 22-33). Such alternatives might include modified at-large voting systems” (p.18). I’m asking the Council to consider the practical, financial, legal, and democratic advantages of choosing such a “modified at-large voting system”, namely, to become elected at-large by using rank-choice voting (RCV). RCV is already somewhat familiar because San Francisco, Berekley, and Oakland use it, and it is explicitly offered by Chapter 2 of California’s Election Code (Sections 24100 to 24105). I know you understand that the aim of the CVRA is to reduce the number of votes that are currently “diluted” in elections. You also understand that a “diluted vote” is one that does not helped to elect a candidate. Using the RCV method would “dilute” only about 12% of all the votes cast.

Note that this 12% is made clear by the widely published counting method used for RCV. This is also confirmed by Fair Vote’s Amicus Brief also submitted for the Santa Monica case (pp.15-43). Another advantage is that this 12% makes it more likely to provide a “safer harbor” for the Council from receiving any future “demand letters” under the CVRA. This is because it is reasonable to expect that about half of all the votes cast would be diluted if districts were used. Put more positively, future Councils elected by RCV would be supported by about 88% of all citizens’ votes cast, rather than the roughly half that support it now, or might support it if elected from districts.

As a result, I hope I have suggested practical, financial, legal, and democratic advantages for choosing RCV at-large instead of districts: • Practical because it avoids the needless and controversial process of drawing the boundaries for seven districts. It also removes any charges of gerrymandering; • Financial because not drawing boundaries is cheaper than drawing boundaries; • Legal because RCV more clearly satisfies the aim of the CVRA to reduce vote dilution. RCV’s “dilution” of only 12%, rather than diluting about half of all the citizen’s votes is better; • This is why RCV is more democratic. I look forward to having a dialogue with the researcher for this

1.11 poll, Mayor Brunner, or any member of the Council's majority. I am Stephen Bosworth (Ph.D.); 831-332-2704; [email protected].

Nothing, as I was not able to view it.

Lower Ocean and Beach Flats are intact in one district, and more renters in that district; UCSC is mostly or entirely in one district, districts match current neighborhood identities
I think this map best represents how we think of the city of Santa Cruz, upper and lower east and west sides, downtown, UCSC, but not perfectly. By the way, map 601 did not actually appear here, while the other two did.

It's not pictured here
It seems, on first glance to be have “sensible” boundaries giving the city districts that (again on first glance) do not appeared to be gerrymandered.

Santa Cruz needs an elected mayor that serves a full term of 4 years as mayor. We have a total lack of leadership and accountability because our mayor changes every year. We need someone accountable to voters. The City of Santa Cruz has gone WAY downhill over the years with Covid accelerating the downward slide. Other cities have suffered too, but ours appears to be the worst. I just got back from Santa Barbara and there are no encampments in their parks which are all very well managed and most of their stores are still open. Our city looks like a disaster zone, no joke! Fair map for Circles, Downtown, Eastside, Upper Eastside, Westside and UCSC Districts
keeps ucsc as one district
It keeps my neighborhood together and has most of UCSC in the same district....which it should!
I like that UCSC gets representation, but city residents do too. The districts drawn are geographically logical and also likely share similar concerns.

I don't see an image for this map
It creates a valuable split of districts on the West Side.

It includes most of West Cliff Drive and lower Westside together in district 6.

The boundaries east of the river make sense, as does the district downtown and on the lower west side. Consolidating the university into one district makes sense also.

Nothing
East side is all together
Nothing
The districts are compact and reflect real regions of the city What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #601? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #601?
Nothing
Nothing
It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.

Area from river to Yacht Harbor should be in zone 2

1.12 On this map, District 6 connects a section of the King Street neighborhood with neighborhoods on the other side of Mission Street. Mission Street is a 4-lane highway that essentially bisects the westside. The neighborhoods on either side of the highway are NOT connected, they are different worlds. On this map, my blocks of King Street, to the west of Bay Street, are disconnected from the larger King Street neighborhood, but connected to neighborhoods across the highway! The King Street neighborhood has no connection to the neighborhoods on the other side of Highway 1. Also, I do not see any relation between the residences on Meder Street and upper Western Drive to UCSC. What is the connection between the elite multi-million $$$$ estates on the West end of Meder Street and the dormitories of UCSC? Looking at this map, I get the sense that the people who drew the map do not live in Santa Cruz, or have lived here for such a short time that they have no knowledge of the neighborhoods.

Upper westside with ucsc is wierd. District 4 is a little odd none
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

Refer to my answer to Question 1.

Everything, since I was not able to view it.

Divides the “Seabright” neighborhood south of Murray from District 2. Divides the Upper and Lower Harbor areas between two districts (both should be in 2). These areas are geographically, historically, and demographically part of District 2. To divide them off makes no sense. In addition, the strong interests and concerns of the Downtown and the beach/Boardwalk areas would overwhelm any of this smaller area, making it invisible, and underrepresented. Consolidates all of the University into one district, too narrowing focus for that Council member.

If I lived above Meder St. or on the west side of Western Dr. (which I do not) I might object to being grouped with UCSC in district 5 rather than with the rest of the upper west side in district 3. If I lived east of the San Lorenzo river on the lower east side (which I do not) I would strongly object to being grouped with Downtown in district 4 since my location is definitely not downtown and I would want to be in district 2 with the rest of the lower east side. The San Lorenzo river is an important geographical division historically since it provided the distinction between the mission lands and Villa Branciforte which eventually dictated what lands were available to who and that has led to some very long-standing differences and rivalries between east and west Santa Cruz. I never understood this until I took a class from Sandy Lydon. Is there any way to put the lower east side back together, move the Coral St. area into the downtown district and the west of Western Dr. and above Meder St. areas back into the upper west side district and let UCSC stand as its own district (the Pogonip could be included with UCSC, few people live there) and still comply with the requirements for reasonably equal size, geographically contiguous, etc. districts? There should be a definite division between Mission street and the remainder of the "yellow" neighborhood.

I don't feel that these maps alone provide enough information to make an informed decision about which would be more democratic.

On initial review, I don’t like the appearance of the finger in District 4 along West Cliff Drive. I can’t see the sense tracts - that would give be a better sense of how the lines are affecting neighborhoods. Also, I do not know what “proposed sequencing” means.

This is the best map I've seen. THere is nothing wrong with 601.

Prefer seven districts
Nothing.

It might be better to include Western/Meder areas into district 3... or split it North/South with districts 3 and 6.
no image

1.13 It strangely breaks up some East Side neighborhoods, lumping part of Seabright with downtown.

Western Drive split between districts 3 & 5.

It mixes up neighborhoods with different needs.

UCSC is only in one district, Beach Flats competes with downtown and coastal east side
artificial separation of Seabright area north and south of Murray Not representative of Seabright
Important to keep Seabright area contiguous
My neighborhood does not include the beach area which is synonymous with where I live.

Districts #1 and #2 should be split so that Ocean St area is one district and far Eastside is another district to reflect the different communities What do you like about Draȷ Map #602? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #602?
Nothing
Nothing
looks okay
Districts 1 and 2 make sense on this map -- they are logically separated by the San Lorenzo River from the downtown and main Beach neighborhoods. They are somewhat logically divided by Water Street.

Keeps upper east side and lower east side intact
ok
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

Refer to my answer to Question 1.

Nothing.

Retains “Seabright’ below Murray as part of District 2. Keeps the Upper and Lower Harbor together in District 2. Both of these aspects are critical for this below-Murray and for District 2’s identity and interests-in-common. District 4 boundaries fully incorporate city to the bay, and up to HIgh street in manner that makes sense geographically, and historically, and in terms of commercial and development interests in common. Shares representation of University in more than one district allowing for more cooperation and collaboration within the Council, and diversifies the University interests to find commonality with the adjoining neighborhoods (rather than isolating the students-on-campus voting segment).

This map has kept the lower east side intact and maintained the geographic importance of the San Lorenzo river for the most part.

Seems to dilute UCSC vote
Not sure I like it at all. On its face, this version has signs of gerrymandering.

I like electing a mayor.

Nothing.

Meder Street is part of district 6.

1.14 This will work
This is my favorite one, in terms of the layout of representation across the board. The congruity of neighborhoods around commercial and community centers is clear.

The map gives equal access to beach side for most residents, enhancing the opportunity for beach side development and conservation. The UCSC lands comprise a unique district
Both sides of Western Drive are in the same district.

It’s better than 601, it is better on the east side (now referred to as Midtown).

UCSC is in two districts, District 6 is western most of city.

Seabright area north and south of Murray together
Best map !!
Districts make more sense. Seabright residential and commercial area is in same district.

Keep Seabright area as 1 district
That the area I live in, which is known for its beach, is still connected to the beach area.

Not much
As a Seabright resident, I would like to see all of seabright as one district.

What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #602? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #602?
The lower westside is split into districts 6 and 3.

It splits up the lower west side and UCSC
It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.
looks okay
The entire King Street neighborhood needs to stay together: bounded by Escalona Drive and Mission Street and extending to about Arroyo Seco on one end and Highland Ave on the other end. It is one neighborhood. It makes no sense to combine UCSC with upper Highland Avenue and Meadow Road. It makes no sense to link the King Street neighborhood with Beach Street neighborhood. What are you thinking? How could any city council member appeal to such a grouping? It makes no sense to combine UCSC with Meder Street ... what is the relationship? UCSC should be in its own separate district. It is not a neighborhood. It is a state institution. The only people who live on campus are those who are affiliated with the campus: students, faculty, and some staff. UCSC is separate from the city. Please do not include it with adjacent city neighborhoods. I am very familiar with the differences between UCSC and city neighborhoods --- I have a long relationship with UC. My spouse is a retired staff member. We knew faculty who lived on campus and the UCSC faculty housing neighborhoods are not part of the city -- they are in a different world. Did the people who are drawing these absurd maps ever walked in these neighborhoods? How is the beach boardwalk neighborhood related to the Westlake neighborhood? I am extremely puzzled. These maps seem to be just random groupings of streets without any reference to the actual neighborhoods in Santa Cruz. I have live in Santa Cruz for nearly 50 years and have lived in several different neighborhoods during those decades: downtown (Laurel Street), UCSC, Seabright, upper westside, (near High 1.15 Street) and the King Street neighborhood (25 years). I would think that it would be important for neighborhoods to have a representative that can represent the concerns of a specific area in the city. The Westlake neighborhood has no relation to the concerns of the tourist area near the boardwalk or with downtown Santa Cruz.

Splits ucsc. Splitslower westside. Splits upper westside. none
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

Refer to my answer to Question 1.

The university should not be included with the historical district. The historical district should be apart of down town.

I think Latinx vote is more diluted with this map. UCSC is also diluted.

Everything on the west side. It makes no sense on the west side where UCSC is now split into 2 districts and the upper west side is split into 4 different districts. UCSC should not be in two districts. While there are some faculty and staff who live on campus permanently, most of UCSC is a very young and transient population with limited interest in the long-term future of the city of Santa Cruz and perhaps too much interest in current, trendy topics, such as 'abolish the police' which some take completely literally. Being young, many are also easily swayed by information on social media that may or may not be true and most rarely gather information from local news outlets such as The Sentinel or local TV news. I have sometimes asked various students about some issues that they have weighed in on, and found a lack of understanding about the issue and oȷen gotten the response that they were just 'going along' with friends. That is distressing at the least. When I've asked if they abstain from voting on issues they know nothing about, they said no, they vote anyway. I myself abstain from voting on issues I feel I know too little about or have no vested interest in, such as port district (I don't have a boat) or school board (I have no children in local schools).

Mission and Bay should be two of the borders on this map.

My neighborhood #4 is grouped with downtown
It gives me pause and makes me wonder if there is gerrymandering here.

I don't like that this map chops UCSC in half. THe UC should have its own voting bloc.

They need representation up there and chopping it up dilutes their participation as well as the permanent resident's input. Don't do that.

Prefer seven districts
splits ucsc
It splits up my neighborhood and splits up UCSC...which is should not.

This map lumps my residence in with UCSC. I ABSOLUTELY do not want that. I'm a UCSC grad and former faculty member, I think the University and students should have representation, but separately from residents.
nothing
Not much — this is my favorite.

It splits up the university area and lower westside.

The boundaries on the west side don't make any sense. District 4 is a whole mess, and splitting the university is nuts.

The upper west side and lower west side should be separate. Main Beach and up ocean street to HWY17 can vibe one. Eastside from Seabright beach to Delaveaga (Midtown) can be one block. downtown and Harvey west combined into one.

Beach Flats competes with downtown and broad area towards west side (District 4 is too diverse and diffuses Beach flats)
This map divides the historic Circles neighborhood into two districts. Why? First, we were told by our city leaders that our circular neighborhood, with its interesting 1.16 encampment history, alleyways, and central circular church property, is not historic. By putting this map out for public consideration, the city now tells us it doesn't even consider The Circles a neighborhood that's worth keeping intact. Who came up with this nonsense? This map also puts the section of West Cliff Drive at the base of Woodrow Avenue in an adjacent district. I'd love to know who came up with the idea of separating West Cliff from Woodrow Avenue.

Nothing
Districts 3 and 4 spread awkwardly across several different regions.

What do you like about Draȷ Map #603? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #603?
The lower westside is together in one district.

It keeps the lower Westside together
mostly okay
Districts 1 and 2 appear to make sense. District 4 makes sense. District 6 almost makes sense.

Lower westside intact. Other districts except upper westside mostly intact. ok
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

Refer to my answer to Question 1.
nothing.

Lower Ocean and Beach Flats are in one district, hopefully giving Latinx voters more representation
Nothing!
One of the borders should be Bay Ave. as is shown here.

My neighborhood #4 is grouped with other beach areas like Seabright Not sure I like anything.

Again, I like electing a mayor.

Nothing.

Nothing
This will work too
Not much — this is my least favorite
I want an elected mayor and 6 districts and it seems like a better way to divide the city.

Keeps West Cliff and lower westside together in district 6. Both sides of Western Drive in district 3.
downtown and eastside make sense (1, 2, 4).

Nothing.

UCSC is in two districts, District 3 and District 5 both connect to residential areas likely to be faculty/staff and students
Bad map
The districts are compact and reflect real regions of the city

1.17 What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #603? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #603?
UCSC is not its own district.

It splits up the University - the University should be its own district It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.

Same as 601, area from the river to the Yacht Harbor should be in zone 2 Districts 3 and 5 are silly. Why are you combining UCSC with upper westside neighborhoods? Why are you combining the Western end of the King Street neighborhood with the neighborhoods on the other side of Mission Street (they are not the same)? District 6 combines the Western end of the King Street neighborhood with the lower westside neighborhoods. I guess I could live with this, but... What happens to the houses on Escalona Drive? I see an absurdity: are the houses on one side of Escalona in district 6 and the houses and culdesac streets on the other side of Escalona in district 3? What? Someone is not looking closely at the map and is not familiar with the neighborhoods. There is a hill above Escalona Drive and the neighborhood on the top of the hill is somewhat disconnected from the bottom of the hill -- creating distinct neighborhoods. I can imagine the absurdity of having a neighbor directly across the street who has a different representative on the council...! I do not comprehend how a city council member could represent both UCSC students and the upper westside neighborhoods.

Badly splits upper westside
none
I am in favor of the transition for representation by district, however, the data is so detailed and difficult to decipher, I am unable to discern the differences between the mapping.

Refer to my answer to Question 1.
your including part of the university. They should be their own district.

UCSC is split in 2, making it more difficult for students to understand who to vote for, seems an arbitrary splitting of that neighborhood
Divides the ‘Seabright’ neighborhood south of Murray St from District 2. Divides the Upper and Lower Harbor areas between two districts (should be together in District 2).

These areas are geographically, historically and demographically part of District 2. To divide them off makes no sense. In addition, the strong interests and concerns of the Downtown and the beach/Boardwalk areas would overwhelm this smaller area, making it invisible.

Pretty much has all the problems of both maps 601 and 602.

Mission should be the other border.

It appears that the line between District 3 and District 6 splits the university neighborhood. Is that necessary? And again, where are the census tract lines for comparison on all 3 versions. At this point, I could not support any of the 3 maps s I do not have enough information about how the borders were determined.

I don't like that this map chops UCSC in half. THe UC should have its own voting bloc.

They need representation up there and chopping it up dilutes their participation as well as the permanent resident's input. Don't do that.

Prefer seven districts

1.18 splits ucsc
It splits up my neighborhood and splits up UCSC...which it should not do.

These districts are too big and local issues may get lost.

Nothing
It buckets too much of the West Side into a single representative block, and breaks up neighborhoods along roads versus community and commercial hubs.

I haven't been given all the information about who lives in each district. I did attend a ZOOM council meeting related to it.

East side of university split between districts 3 & 5.
splitting up the westside and the university seems strategic to mute the student vote.

Do not like.

The neighborhood divisions don’t make sense. The overlap seems random.

Beach Flats competes with downtown
artificial separation of Seabright area north and south of Murray Not representative of seabright
My neighborhood is cut off from the beach.

Districts #1 and #2 should be split so that Ocean St area is one district and far Eastside is another district to reflect the different communities.

Which map is your first choice? ¿Qué mapa es tu primera opción? Draȷ Map #601/Borrador del mapa #601 41% (14)
Draȷ Map #602/Borrador del mapa #602 41% (14)
Draȷ Map #603/Borrador del mapa #603 18% (6)
Which maps could you support? ¿Qué mapas podría apoyar? Question
Could
support/Podría
apoyar
Would Not Support/
No apoyaría
Draȷ Map #601/Borrador del mapa #601 62% 38%
Draȷ Map #602/Borrador del mapa #602 47% 53%
Draȷ Map #603/Borrador del mapa #603 34% 66%
Expand all / Collapse all
Could support/Podría apoyar Would Not Support/ No apoyaría

1.19 Draȷ Map #601/Borrador del mapa #601
Draȷ Map #602/Borrador del mapa #602
Draȷ Map #603/Borrador del mapa #603
What Neighborhood Do You Live In? ¿En qué vecindario vive? Downtown/Centro de la ciudad 8% (3)
Eastside/Lado Este 38% (15)
Upper Eastside/Lado Este Superior 8% (3)
Westside/Lado Oeste 33% (13)
Upper Westside/Lado Oeste Superior 13% (5)
Outside of the City of Santa Cruz/Fuera de la Ciudad de Santa Cruz 3% (1) What races/ethnicities do you identify with? Select all that apply. ¿Con qué razas/identidades étnicas se identifica usted? Seleccione todos los que correspondan.

American Indian/Alaska Native/Indígena Americano/Nativo de Alaska 0% (0) Asian/Pacific Islander/Asiático/Isleño del Pacífico 3% (1) Black/African American/Negro/ Afroamericano 0% (0)
62% 38%
47% 53%
34% 66%

1.20 Latino/ Hispano 5% (2)
White/Caucasian/Blanco/Caucásico 85% (34)
Multiple Races/Razas Múltiples 3% (1)
Other/Otra 10% (4)
In what category is your age? ¿En que categoría esta su edad? Under 20/Menos de 20 0% (0)
20-34 2% (1)
35-54 24% (10)
55-64 17% (7)
65 or older/65 años o más 56% (23)
How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) ¿Cuánto anticipa que serán los ingresos totales de su hogar antes de impuestos para el año en curso? (Incluya en su ingreso total el dinero de todas las fuentes para todas las personas que viven en su hogar).

Less than $25,000/Menos de $25,000 0% (0)
$25,000 - $49,999 6% (2)
$50,000 - $74,999 20% (7)
$75,000 - $99,999 14% (5)
$100,000 - $149,999 11% (4)
$150,000 - $199,999 17% (6)

1.21 $200,000 or more/$200,000 o más. 31% (11)
Do you rent or own your home? ¿Usted alquila o es dueño de su propia casa?
Rent/Alquiler 7% (3)
Own/Propia 93% (39)

1.22 1.23
From: Maria Cadenas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:07 AM
To: Casey Hemard <[email protected]>
Cc: Elizabeth Smith <[email protected]>; Lucia de la Torre <[email protected]>; Marley Morales <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City of Santa Cruz Outreach
Thank you, Casey. Per our conversation regarding districting, my only note is that the 7 district maps provide a better opportunity for diverse representation. Specifically in regards to Latino and working class families. A significant part of this is that the 7 district maps separate a business district (downtown) from a high-density working-class area – the beach flats. As the district effort is to guide representation, I believe the 7 district maps do a better job of this. All 6 district maps combine the business/high-income downtown with the beachflats, which in my opinion will make it hard to ensure representation.

Similarly, with regards of an at-large mayor vs rotating mayor seat, I believe the cost of a city-wide election may be a barrier to representative government unless this effort is tied to rank-choice voting and has strict donation limitations to that race.

As per the vendor ordinance, I would be happy to learn more and connect to Elizabeth prior to the SC Council meeting. Marley, copied here, can help schedule.

All my best,
M

1.24 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 7:43 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 3.29.22 District Elections 6 districts

3.29.22 District Elections 6 districts
Dear Council,
I can't say I have a preference between maps 601 and 602, but here is my opinion.

It makes little difference in this town what the district map is, elections are decided according to politics as the voters are not stupid. Sure, incumbents have an advantage with name recognition, but otherwise, it always goes like this.

The town is around 50 % left of center, about 30-35 % gonzo leftist, and the remaining 15-20% "other".

The informed ones look at the choices, and choose the "least worst" candidate that as closely as possibly matches their politics.

If there are more leftist candidates, their vote is diluted and they mostly lose. If the left of center candidates run too many candidates diluting the vote, they lose. "Other" has no chance, and other could be white males, or conservative candidates.

I can imagine in district elections far fewer candidates will run (only 10 ran for the whole city last year, a declining trend), but that process I described will still exists).

It's unfortunate the 6 district initiative requires runoffs, because I doubt many will occur, and will be very expensive as it's possible only one district will need one and running for office so early in the year could be problematic and expensive.

It's unfortunate the 6 district initiative mandates a 4 year Mayor, I would think a vote of the people would have been better deciding on a 2 year or 4 year term. I suspect this choice was at the convenience of the electeds and not the people.

Please clarify the details of what happens to existing council members with 2 more years on their term, and how you will decide what districts vote in '22 and why.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

1.25 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: District maps
Please keep the Lower Westside together in a district map! The Lower Westside is a neighborhood with many shared concerns: West Cliff Drive maintenance, Lighthouse Field, tourist traffic, etc.

Please keep the Lower Westside together by supporting any of these 3 maps: 102, 601 or 603.

The other proposed maps split the Lower Westside into 2 districts.

Thank you,
Dennis Hagen
Lower Westside

1.26 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Diane Sipkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 11:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: District Maps should keep the Lower Westside together The Lower Westside needs to be kept together in a the district mapping considerations! The Lower Westside is a neighborhood with many concerns that are specific and integral to the area ‐e.g.

Lighthouse Field, West Cliff Drive maintenance, heavy tourist traffic, abundant short‐term rental properties, etc.

Please keep the Lower Westside together by supporting any of these 3 maps: 102, 601 or 603.

All of the other proposed maps split the Lower Westside into 2 districts.

Thank you,
Diane Sipkin
Lower Westside

1.27 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: District Elections - 6 district map
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I favor 6 districts + an elected Mayor. I particularly like that it includes a primary and runoff elections.

However, in all three of the proposed 6 district maps, District 4 does not meet the important criteria of gathering communities of interest. Maps 601 and 603 run from the heart of the West Side at Bay and Mission Streets to through the Beach Flats all the way to far East side of the City at 7th Ave. Map 602 runs from High Street through the Beach Flats. To anyone who actually lives in the City, none of these proposed District 4s represent any sort of natural community of interest.

Please provide a better alternative for a 6+1 map.

Regards,
-Eric Grodberg

1.28 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Polhamus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 5:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: District Elections - Map input
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed maps for district elections.

I favor the six districts plus a directly elected Mayor, and particularly like the inclusion of a primary and a runoff election. I am not an expert on the district mapping process, but as I looked at the 6- district map models and tried to consider which represented the stated desired outcome of keeping communities of interest together, it seems as if 601 does this the best, and 604 does this the least.

Of the 7-district maps, 101 seems to keep the communities of interest together the best.

Thank you.

Carol Polhamus

1.29 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 9:22 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Justin Cummings; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Sandy Brown; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder Subject: City District Elections and District Maps
Dear City Council,
Writing in support of the 6 district map with an elected mayor. Choosing map 602 which keeps our Seabright area together. The other two maps cut off part of the Seabright area or the Seabright beach area from the main part of Seabright.

Should the 6 district vote fail, then for the 7 district, we choose map 101, which keeps the Seabright area together. Same objections as above to the other two maps.

Additionally we think it is very important to go to ranked choice voting in order to have an actual majority for candidates. When there are 10 or many candidates, the current method elects a member with a small number of voters. Ranked choice would correct that issue.

Thank you,
Maura Kelsea
Michael Brownlee
Seabright area

1.30 City of Santa Cruz
6-District Draft Maps
March 29, 2022 Dr. Douglas Johnson

1.31 National Demographics Corporation
2 Election Systems

1. “At Large”

2. “From District” or “Residence” Districts

3. “By District”
The California Voting Rights Act was
written to specifically encourage bydistrict elections.

1.32 March 29, 2022
3 Districting Process
Step Description
Two Initial Hearings
Aug. 31 & Sept. 18
Held prior to release of draft maps.

Education and to solicit input on the composition of districts.

Census Data Release
Aug. 12
Census Bureau releases official 2020 Census population data.

California Data Release
Mid/Late Sept. 2021
California Statewide Database releases California’s official ‘prisoneradjusted’ 2020 redistricting data.

Release draft maps Maps must be posted at least 7 days prior to 3rd hearing.

Two hearings on draft maps
March 29 and April 19, 2022
Two meetings to discuss and revise the draft maps and to discuss the election sequence.

Ballot Measure
June 7
Voters decide between seven districts with a rotating Mayor or six districts with a citywide elected Mayor
First By-District Elections
November 8
Initial districts hold their first by-district elections (the remaining districts will hold their first elections in November of 2024).

1.33 March 29, 2022
4 Number of Districts Question
 Currently the City has 7 Councilmembers and a rotating Mayor  Thus this initial discussion is on 7-district map options  Council voted to place a measure on the June ballot to move to 6 Councilmembers plus a citywide-elected Mayor
 A second agenda item will present 6-district options
 Tonight’s discussion will have two parts: one on six districts, another on seven districts
 This districting process aims to develop the best 6-district map and the best 7-district map.
 The ballot measure debate later in the year will focus on whether six or seven is a better option for the city.

1.34 March 29, 2022
5 Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
Minimize voters shifted to
different election years
Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
Future population growth
Preserving the core of existing
districts

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas
that should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant
group of people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against
a political party.”

3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Redistricting Rules and Goals

1.35 March 29, 2022
6 Latinos are more concentrated
in the Beach Flats area.

Latino CVAP
March 29, 2022
This is also a small concentration of African-Americans in the Beach Flats area, and Asian-Americans are slightly concentrated in the UCSC dorms. 1.36
7 Other Socio-Economic
Demographics
March 29, 2022
This is just one example of the socioeconomic data that can be mapped.

1.37 8
6-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 1.38 March 29, 2022
9 6-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 1.39 March 29, 2022
10 6-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 1.40 March 29, 2022
11 Election Sequencing
 Definition: Which districts are up in 2022 and which in 2024?  State law requires that each draft map include a “proposed election sequence,” which is available on the PDF maps posted to the website
 Where Councilmembers on different election terms are paired, an “alternative election sequence” is also provided
 Sequencing can get very complicated, so traditionally consideration of it is left until a final map or two final maps are decided upon

1.41 March 29, 2022
12 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Which of the six-district plan(s) do you prefer?
 Do you have any suggestions on how to improve your
preferred plans?

1.42 March 29, 2022
13 All six-district maps on one slide
March 29, 2022
Interactive review map

1.43 City Council Special Meeting

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 03/21/2022
AGENDA OF: 03/29/2022
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Receive Input from the Community Regarding the Selection of a Seven-District Map and Election Sequence (CN) RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from the City’s demographic consultant, National Demographics Corporation, regarding the draft seven-district maps and election sequencing and conduct a public hearing to receive public input on the draft maps and election sequencing.

The City released three draft seven-district maps and election sequencing in late January for community review in anticipation of the two legally required public hearings for public input into the drafts. This is the first of the two public hearings, and the second is scheduled for April

19. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this public hearing is for the public to provide input regarding the content of the draft seven-district maps and the proposed sequences of elections.

2.1 The City must comply with state and federally-mandated criteria when developing districts.

Prepared By:

Casey Hemard
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:

Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:

Matt Huffaker
City Manager

2.2 ATTACHMENTS:

1. DRAFT MAP 101.PDF

2. DRAFT MAP 102.PDF

3. DRAFT MAP 103.PDF

4. POLCO SURVEY RESULTS – SEVEN DISTRICT MAPS
Attachments 1 – 3 can be viewed online at www.cityofsantacruz.com/districtelections

2.3 4
5 2
7 1
6 California Santa
Univ of
3 Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
River St
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware
Ave
Fair Ave
Alta
Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
Beach
2n
St
d
St
W Cliff Dr
California St
King St
Palm
St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Broadway
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr
Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut
Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Trevethan Ave
Isbel Dr
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Wi
nd
ha
m St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, & Meyers), and either 6 (vacant) or 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and either6 (vacant) or 7 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant) 2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and5 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

2.4 Map 101
District 1
Total Pop 9,029
Deviation from ideal 16
% Deviation 0.18%
% Hisp 19.0%
% NH White 67%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 6,809
% Hisp 10%
% NH White 79%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 7%
Total 6,908
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 84%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,103
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 85%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,013
% Latino est. 8%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 2%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 88%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,063
age0-19 18%
age20-60 58%
age60plus 25%
immigrants 15%
naturalized 36%
english 80%
spanish 13%
asian-lang 4%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 8%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 20%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 15%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 10%
income 75-200k 43%
income 200k-plus 21%
single family 85%
multi-family 15%
rented 32%
owned 68%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

1.41%
20%
67%
2%
6%
7,340
12%
80%
1%
4%
6,754
11%
10%
2%
1%
86%
1%
5,862
10%
10%
2%
1%
86%
1%
4,822
8%
8%
2%
1%
88%
1%
8,912
14%
65%
20%
13%
45%
80%
13%
2%
5%
4%
39%
26%
22%
15%
76%
21%
14%
12%
42%
11%
62%
38%
64%
36%
3 9,047
34 0.38%
20%
64%
3%
8%
6,966
13%
74%
3%
7%
6,477
12%
11%
4%
1%
80%
2%
5,299
11%
10%
3%
1%
81%
2%
4,217
9%
9%
4%
0%
84%
2%
8,838
22%
56%
22%
12%
54%
81%
10%
5%
5%
4%
27%
33%
28%
24%
63%
19%
9%
12%
41%
20%
75%
25%
37%
63%
4 8,991
-22
-0.24%
35%
47%
3%
10%
5,823
18%
67%
5%
7%
4,623
19%
18%
4%
1%
71%
4%
3,613
17%
16%
4%
1%
73%
4%
2,808
16%
15%
4%
1%
75%
4%
8,654
18%
69%
13%
18%
24%
67%
23%
5%
5%
13%
36%
22%
22%
18%
74%
35%
24%
14%
21%
6%
33%
67%
80%
20%
5 9,005
-8
-0.09%
18%
66%
2%
9%
6,994
12%
77%
3%
6%
6,798
12%
11%
3%
1%
83%
2%
5,856
11%
10%
2%
1%
83%
2%
4,752
10%
10%
2%
1%
84%
2%
8,787
19%
57%
24%
14%
42%
82%
10%
3%
5%
4%
29%
33%
25%
20%
64%
21%
12%
10%
37%
19%
78%
22%
49%
51%
6 9,060
47 0.52%
16%
64%
2%
14%
8,031
15%
73%
1%
10%
6,371
11%
10%
5%
1%
83%
1%
5,499
10%
9%
4%
1%
85%
0%
4,398
9%
9%
4%
1%
85%
0%
9,872
15%
66%
19%
14%
47%
79%
9%
6%
5%
5%
27%
27%
36%
18%
62%
19%
19%
10%
35%
17%
70%
30%
47%
53%
7 8,821
-192
-2.13%
41%
27%
9%
21%
8,741
30%
36%
4%
28%
1,371
24%
22%
10%
1%
59%
5%
791
20%
19%
8%
1%
64%
4%
1,595
27%
25%
8%
2%
56%
5%
10,430
60%
39%
1%
17%
25%
51%
22%
19%
8%
6%
26%
26%
36%
31%
42%
36%
12%
15%
24%
14%
49%
51%
68%
32%
Total
63,093
319

3.54%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%

Page 1 of 1 ends

Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

2.5 2
4 7
5 6
1 3
Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Swift St
Delaware
Ave
Fair Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
2nd
St
W Cliff Dr
California St
King St
Palm
St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Broadway
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Western Dr
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr
Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut
Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Melrose Ave
Isbel Dr
Seabright Ave
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Wi
nd
ha
m St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, & Meyers), and either 6 (vacant) or 7 (vacant)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and either6 (vacant) or 7 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (vacant) and 7 (vacant) 2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and5 (Golder, Kalantari-Johnson, & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

2.6 Map 102
District 1
Total Pop 9,044
Deviation from ideal 31
% Deviation 0.34%
% Hisp 17.1%
% NH White 70%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 6%
Total 7,060
% Hisp 10%
% NH White 83%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 4%
Total 6,944
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black 1%
Total 6,226
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 87%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,265
% Latino est. 8%
% Spanish-Surnamed 7%
% Asian-Surnamed 2%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 89%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,136
age0-19 18%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 26%
immigrants 13%
naturalized 39%
english 83%
spanish 12%
asian-lang 2%
other lang 3%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 6%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 27%
graduatedegree 22%
Child in Household child-under18 26%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 65%
income 0-25k 14%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 10%
income 75-200k 46%
income 200k-plus 18%
single family 83%
multi-family 17%
rented 34%
owned 66%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 8,843
-170
-1.89%
25%
58%
3%
8%
6,750
14%
76%
1%
5%
5,701
14%
13%
3%
1%
79%
1%
4,793
13%
12%
3%
1%
80%
1%
3,777
10%
10%
3%
1%
85%
1%
8,174
13%
72%
15%
16%
34%
76%
15%
3%
5%
5%
37%
27%
23%
14%
78%
25%
19%
16%
30%
10%
45%
55%
73%
27%
3 9,198
185

2.05%
22%
62%
3%
9%
6,970
13%
73%
2%
10%
6,315
13%
12%
3%
1%
81%
2%
5,103
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
4,303
9%
9%
4%
1%
84%
2%
9,169
22%
57%
22%
12%
49%
79%
11%
6%
4%
7%
31%
31%
23%
24%
61%
21%
10%
10%
39%
20%
71%
29%
40%
60%
4 9,003
-10
-0.11%
33%
50%
2%
9%
5,909
17%
66%
6%
8%
5,023
19%
18%
4%
1%
73%
4%
4,008
17%
16%
3%
1%
75%
4%
3,086
15%
14%
3%
1%
77%
4%
8,628
17%
67%
16%
18%
25%
70%
21%
5%
4%
12%
39%
20%
21%
16%
72%
35%
20%
13%
26%
6%
46%
54%
75%
25%
5 9,018
5 0.06%
14%
71%
2%
8%
7,086
11%
81%
2%
5%
6,518
9%
9%
2%
1%
85%
2%
5,689
9%
8%
2%
1%
86%
2%
4,844
8%
8%
2%
1%
87%
2%
8,776
18%
55%
27%
11%
59%
82%
10%
3%
6%
4%
25%
36%
26%
22%
61%
17%
12%
9%
40%
22%
86%
14%
43%
57%
6 8,943
-70
-0.78%
16%
64%
2%
14%
7,996
15%
71%
1%
9%
7,240
11%
10%
5%
1%
83%
1%
6,264
10%
9%
4%
1%
84%
1%
4,617
10%
9%
4%
1%
84%
1%
10,003
17%
66%
17%
15%
41%
79%
10%
6%
5%
5%
27%
25%
38%
21%
66%
19%
15%
9%
38%
18%
71%
29%
45%
55%
7 9,044
31 0.34%
41%
28%
9%
21%
8,934
29%
37%
4%
28%
1,561
22%
21%
9%
1%
62%
4%
940
18%
17%
7%
1%
67%
4%
1,713
26%
24%
8%
2%
58%
4%
10,672
59%
39%
2%
17%
26%
52%
21%
19%
8%
6%
25%
27%
36%
30%
42%
32%
11%
14%
28%
16%
55%
45%
61%
39%
Total
63,093
355

3.94%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%

Page 1 of 1 ends

2.7 4
5 2
7 1
6 3
Univ of
California Santa
Cruz
Santa Cruz Main
Jail
Coast Rd
River St
Mission St
Shaffer Rd
Modesto Ave
Fair Ave
Alta
Ave
Almar Ave
Woodrow Ave
Younglove
Ave
Columbia St
Laurel St
Beach
2n
St
d
St
W Cliff Dr
California St
King St
Palm
St
Centennial St
Laguna St
Lighthouse Ave
Front St
Broadway
Highland Ave
Coral St Meadow Rd
Western Dr
Nobel Dr
Meder St
Hagar Dr
Glenn Coolidge Dr
Heller Dr
Mclaughlin Dr
Bay
St Laurent St
Walnut
Ave
Rincon St
Center St
High St
Jenne St
Upper Park R
Carb
d
onera Dr
Allerton St
Prospect Heights
Trevethan Ave
Isbel Dr
Frederick St
Water St
Emeline Ave
N Branciforte Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Wi
nd
ha
m St
Soquel Ave
Proposed Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 5 (Kalantari-Johnson &Meyers), and 6 (Golder)2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 7 (vacant)Alternate Election Sequence:2022: 4 (Cummings), 6 (Golder) and 7 (vacant) 2024: 1 (Watkins), 2 (Brunner), 3 (Brown) and 5 (Kalantari-Johnson & Meyers) �2021 CALIPER

2.8 Map 103
District 1
Total Pop 8,938
Deviation from ideal -75
% Deviation -0.83%
% Hisp 22.7%
% NH White 64%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 7%
Total 6,787
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 8%
Total 6,432
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black 1%
Total 5,632
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 84%
% NH Black 1%
Total 4,594
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 86%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 9,176
age0-19 18%
age20-60 59%
age60plus 22%
immigrants 14%
naturalized 36%
english 78%
spanish 15%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 10%
hs-grad 37%
bachelor 28%
graduatedegree 19%
Child in Household child-under18 26%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 18%
income 25-50k 11%
income 50-75k 8%
income 75-200k 41%
income 200k-plus 21%
single family 80%
multi-family 20%
rented 37%
owned 63%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

2.52%
22%
62%
3%
7%
7,288
13%
78%
1%
4%
6,201
13%
12%
3%
1%
81%
1%
5,321
12%
11%
3%
1%
82%
1%
4,282
10%
9%
2%
1%
86%
1%
8,887
16%
64%
20%
15%
38%
78%
14%
2%
6%
4%
39%
25%
23%
18%
73%
23%
16%
16%
36%
9%
53%
47%
63%
37%
3 8,838
-175
-1.94%
30%
45%
7%
15%
7,912
21%
50%
4%
22%
3,491
13%
12%
4%
1%
78%
4%
2,543
12%
11%
3%
1%
80%
4%
2,630
13%
13%
5%
1%
77%
4%
9,458
46%
45%
10%
14%
36%
63%
15%
14%
8%
4%
27%
34%
25%
22%
47%
17%
9%
14%
38%
22%
72%
28%
33%
67%
4 8,991
-22
-0.24%
33%
54%
2%
7%
5,932
18%
70%
4%
4%
5,568
17%
16%
3%
1%
77%
3%
4,546
15%
14%
3%
1%
79%
3%
3,590
12%
12%
2%
1%
81%
3%
8,906
18%
69%
14%
16%
32%
70%
23%
3%
4%
12%
37%
22%
21%
17%
76%
32%
20%
11%
30%
8%
48%
52%
77%
23%
5 9,049
36 0.40%
19%
65%
2%
10%
7,075
11%
77%
3%
7%
6,725
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
5,784
10%
10%
3%
1%
84%
2%
4,365
10%
9%
3%
1%
84%
2%
8,681
17%
59%
24%
16%
34%
82%
10%
4%
4%
4%
31%
31%
28%
19%
67%
22%
13%
12%
35%
18%
71%
29%
47%
53%
6 8,945
-68
-0.75%
16%
67%
2%
9%
7,145
13%
77%
1%
7%
6,500
11%
10%
3%
1%
84%
1%
5,598
10%
10%
3%
1%
85%
1%
4,690
9%
9%
2%
1%
86%
1%
8,806
18%
59%
23%
12%
55%
81%
9%
4%
6%
4%
26%
34%
27%
20%
62%
19%
14%
9%
37%
21%
80%
20%
46%
54%
7 9,092
79 0.88%
26%
47%
5%
20%
8,564
22%
55%
2%
17%
4,385
13%
12%
7%
1%
78%
1%
3,599
11%
10%
6%
1%
81%
1%
3,454
14%
13%
5%
1%
77%
1%
10,644
35%
55%
10%
15%
34%
67%
15%
12%
6%
5%
25%
23%
43%
22%
53%
20%
16%
11%
38%
15%
67%
33%
47%
53%
Total
63,093
402

4.46%
24%
58%
3%
11%
50,704
16%
68%
2%
11%
39,302
13%
12%
4%
1%
81%
2%
33,023
11%
11%
3%
1%
82%
2%
27,605
11%
10%
3%
1%
83%
2%
64,558
24%
58%
17%
15%
37%
74%
14%
7%
5%
6%
33%
28%
26%
20%
62%
22%
15%
11%
36%
15%
66%
34%
53%
47%

Page 1 of 1 ends

2.9 Transition to District
Elections/Transición a
elecciones de distrito -
Seven district
option/opción de siete
distritos
Survey Results

INTERIM
03/24/2022

2.10 What do you like about Draȷ Map #101? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #101?
Nada.

It seems not to tell me how many votes are likely to be diluted in each proposed district. Are you providing such probabilities later or is this impossible from your professional point of view?
I am opposed to a transition to District Elections because (1) there is no need for it here based on the importance of racial, ethnic or sexual diversity as our Council has had a good history of such diversity as it is and (2) Santa Cruz is a small community and as such what happens in one area affects others...........therefore we should continue with At-Large Council Representation where each Council Member looks at all issues from an "at large" perspective.

Looks fine to me
It is the most representative of the "Seabright" part of town It feels like it accurately puts downtown and lower east side in separate districts.

These two locations are radically diff and have radically diff cultures/needs. I like that UCSC is more or less its own district and UC has its own unique concerns as well.

Gerrymandering of both UCSC & downtown/Beachflats, which was done in other map iterations, is transparently bad faith and will clearly not result in the Latino demographic outcome the city claims to want out of this.

The borders are very clear and easily distinguished. Plan addresses each area individual characteristics sensibly.

It reflects geographic and historical neighborhoods rather than creating gerrymandered political divisions. Gives potentially strong and independent voice to Beach Flats, Downtown and UCSC areas.

Map 101 preserved the integrity of the Seabright neighborhood.

Arana Gulch is connected to the streets around it and the harbor not much
It divides the business section of Soquel Avenue away from downtown, and gives a stronger sense of neighborhoods to all 7 districts. Each area designated will have similar identities and problems to solve
My neighborhood, blue 2, is well drawn and the borders are along neighborhood lines.

This keeps certain neighborhoods distinct, such as downtown (including one side of Ocean Ave), Seabright, etc. and seems to reflect some real differences in the population (downtown vs anywhere, eastside vs westside, etc.) It groups upper and lower seabright together.

Map 101 keeps the Seabright neighborhood together with commonality of interests and concerns, including the harbor area, which are different than those associated with the downtown area or boardwalk area.

Map 101 is the best choice among the 3 to keep neighborhoods contiguous with similar interests. Better for representation and those who are represented as a result.

Best alignment of people and businesses vs Maps 102 and 103.

I live in the Seabright neighborhood, below Clinton Street , designated #2 . I do not approve of being forced into district elections in the way we were forced to comply, I feel it will be worse than at large elections for representation. I prefer map #101 for my area because it groups together areas of similar needs, wants and common interests.

I live in the Seabright neighborhood. I like that district 2 keeps all of lower Seabright together. I liked that everything seemed balanced across demographics. abc
It follows geological boundaries in my senses

2.11 It represents the interlinked neighborhoods together Each neighborhood in Santa Cruz has its unique issues, and should have it’s own representation. This looks like a good representation of the neighborhoods. largely maintains current "neighborhoods" within the same districts keeps whole south-east corner together, Lower and Upper Seabright (#4) It is OK.

Seabright Neighborhood is intact
Geo extant of the districts are circles or squares instead snake shaped it follows some natural neighborhood lines
...

UCSC in its own district---YAS! 4 is great because it concentrates downtown.

Most logical/historical breakdown
It’s colorful
The people living around the campers on the San Lorenzo river are (mostly) together in District 3.
n/a
Seems to match the general neighborhoods of the city.

Looks rational.
???
On map #101, I like District 7, which isolates UCSC to its own district. I think UCSC should be isolated. It is a state institution and not part of any city neighborhood.

Faculty, Staff, and students who live on campus have different concerns because their streets and homes are not technically in a city neighborhood. I can say this because many decades ago, I lived on campus, and I have also known faculty who lived on campus. The UCSC campus even has its own fire and police departments! On map #101, the boundaries of District 1 make sense, even though the district is bisected by Highway 1. In 1948, prior to the construction and opening of the freeway, this area was one neighborhood. The relation between parts of District 3 around King/Walnut/High and the Harvey West/Coral Street/Pogonip area are interesting because these very different areas of the city are physically connected through the boundaries of Pogonip. no preference
I like that UCSC is it's own district. Students and staff should have representation a say in what happens in the City, however, their currently overly weighted voice in elections as well as representation on council in past elections is not what's best for our City in my opinion.

I like that UCSC is it's own district. We need that separate.

UCSC is its own district
This groups our neighborhood with nearby neighborhoods that are similar. ???
That District 4, with high % Hispanic, does NOT include Seabright. South of Laurel and Beach Flats need representation, not dilution by the white voices of Seabright. I also like that the west side coastal region is split into District 6 with industrial and less residential zoning from District 5. With so much focus on downtown development and expansion south of Laurel, I'm hoping that District 3 and District 4 will be cooperative voices.

I like that UCSC (district 7) and Downtown/Beach Flats both have their own, distinct districts.

This is the most reasonable one that keeps neighborhoods pretty much together I like that the neighborhoods of beach flats and lower ocean are more-or-less in the same district so that vote isn't split; I like that the eastside districts break along Wqter

2.12 St; I like that Treefrog Ln, and the other townhomes at Neary Lagoon are grouped with the lower west side rather than with downtown.

I like how it keeps neighborhoods of like interest intact. the boundaries seem very good. UCSC is not split.

It clearly delineates the district areas, neighborhood-wise.

The boundaries seem clear and simple. The districts seem compact.

Not ideal, but the “city center” (strong business and evolving residential) is given some heȷ. See my comments on 102.

The university is in its own district
I like that the University is in it’s own district
I like this one best. Seems to make sure various sub-populations are divided into groups where they will be able impact who gets elected, more than the other options.

The biggest problem with all three of these maps is that they create districts that span natural/transportation barriers, most significantly, Hwy 1 from Hwy 9 to Mission Street and Pogonip. The result will be to create districts that have no basis in community and that include minorities without giving them much chance of representation. These barriers are an assault on common sense. The biggest problem in all three maps is with District 3.

Easy to recognize boundaries. Corresponds with geographical features and major roads.

Even dispersement of area
Very clear districts based on easily understood, recognizable historic geographical areas.

Best of 3: contiguous area of similar interest
Map #101 is my first choice, it seems pretty fair
Clear divisions and “makes sense”
As a Seabright resident, I like that this map represents Seabright as a whole. nothing, worst of the three options
Clear boundaries using natural geographic areas, majority minority representation, It separates UCSC from the rest of us.

Areas 1 - 3 and 7 have good boundaries
Most compact districts, most natural districts
This is the best. It keeps neighborhoods together. It makes sense geographically, but it still mixes neighborhoods with renters and homeowners.

Ucsc is by itself and the Westside is together
the demographics seem to correspond fairly equally. I personally identify with the grouping of my neighborhood. I think there are definite personalities to each area, and the boundaries seem to be set up to define roughly each personality. like the idea of a mayor serving only one term, elected by the council. No one could have power for longer than a university education and the mayor will have the support of the current council.

UCSC remains intact in one district
Maintains District 2’s geographic and historic neighborhood connections.

Establishes distinct districts that are representative of the neighborhood and boundaries.

It makes sense to place the UCSC campus within its own district (7).

Well-ordered and fair map for Beach Flats, Circles, Downtown, Eastside, Upper Eastside, Westside and UCSC Districts
My neighborhood looks right. My house is connected to the harbor and the general Seabright neighborhood.

2.13 It keeps my neighborhood together and keeps UCSC together which it should be.

This map aligns representation with community and commercial hubs.

The two neighborhoods that offer services for unhoused and neighborhoods where services are provided to unhoused and low income will have more voices in the panel.

Nothing
We like that UCSC is in it's own district, the other districts look well balanced.

Districts are more regular in shape not long strange looking gerrymanders and seem to represent neighborhood characteristics well.

Na
It looks like you’re trying to take into account population density over neighborhood continuity.

The districts are compact
Clear minority representation, natural geographical/ neighborhood boundaries, logical non-gerrymandered districts with approximately equal populations. Does not give skewed influence to any one area or demographic.
ucsc is contained as one district
What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #101? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #101?
None of these maps indicate the population of eligible voters within any of the districts. UCSC students comprise one half of the city's population, and the majority of voters; they are ghetto-ized by all of the maps. None of the maps divide the city into districts with equal populations of eligible voters. They all violate the principal of equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and backed by voting rights federal legislation.

You do not suggest the criteria upon which each citizen should evaluate whether to transition to districts at all, or to favor one set of maps over another. Have you already published such suggestion? If not, will you do this soon? See above response........I think moving to "elective districts" will end up dividing our community into elected fiefdoms with political dynamics that will take us in the wrong direction.

Looks fine to me
Nothing
Not sure, it looks reasonably well formulated as drawn in relation to neighborhood context
Proposed election sequence and alternative unclear. No population numbers available.

How many residents in each area?
Nothing
Natural Bridges area should be combined with Lighthouse area. Those areas are more similar demographically than the neighborhoods above highway 1. The entire UCSC campus and upper westside should form one district to keep the student vote together. Areas where homeless are situated should be grouped together as much as possible so those residents have a voice on managing the encampments. For that reason, it seems the Emeline area is misplaced since the county offices are frequented by homeless individuals.

Segregation

2.14 Nothing
The differential in racial makeup is a bit larger between districts (2020 voters: 86% white in district 2 vs zone 4 - UCSC skews any map) but frankly that make-up is a very real difference in the city.

Nothing
There is nothing to complain about ... maybe voter turnout in district 4 is low, but that is a solvable problem without redrawing the map.

It doesn’t make sense to me
Buena Vista Ave. is cut off from rest of neighbors
I don’t see anything to dislike
no dislikes
Where I live is just on the Western border,
considering the other maps, it IS the best choice
it really isolates UCSC as it's own district which could be find or could be a further divide between town and gown
Coast is split up
5 and 6 might be in conflict since both have coastal population.

The streets south if Mission/west of Fair share more neighborhood issues with district 5 than the area of Western/Meder
n/a
It breaks up area with similarities like those that live close to the water The western side of district 3 is actually quite remote from the eastern side because of Hwy 1.

Upper west side is combined with lower west side
I dislike that the Westside residents get two representatives. They already have 3 councilmembers who are next-door neighbors.

UCSC should not be able to vote in city elections.

Divides West Cliff Drive neighborhoods, which have much in common. district 3 too large
I live on King Street in the area designated as District 7 on Map #101. I dislike the boundaries of District 7 on this map because my general neighborhood has no relation to the neighborhoods on the other side of Mission Street -- I sometimes walk on the other side of Mission Street, but it is a different world -- it feels different physically and culturally, set apart by the highway. I know a lot of people who live across the highway from my neighborhood, and I oȷen walk to businesses on that side of the highway, but that area just feels different -- I'm sure there are different issues and concerns over there, especially with homelessness and tourism related to state and city parks. My neighborhood, in contrast, doesn't contain any specific tourist destinations. My neighborhood does, however, have a lot of traffic related to UCSC and occasional cutthrough traffic from Highway 1. In my extended King Street neighborhood, there are a lot of neighbors walking on the sidewalks, walking their dogs, baby strollers, etc., but no tourists. The lower westside neighborhood is different because it includes state beaches, etc. It is connected by West Cliff Drive to the Boardwalk and Wharf.

Breaks up the lower Westside
no preference
District 3 seems odd connecting a wealthy set of neighborhoods with Coral St and I wonder if representation for the homeless community would be drowned out by the extremely wealthy constituents in the upper Westside.

Id like to see district 4 expand into district 3 - more up the main jail feel like the bottom of district 3 by the levee should be in district 4 district 3 too large 2.15
I don't like the concentration of the University into District 7. I think that will make getting a candidate from there difficult and will minimize the representation. The City is basically hostile to the Univ, and concentrating in one district reinforces that.

If you are in a border, one side of the street is in one district, the otherside in another It puts me (District 4) with other people who live near the beach rather than downtown. like map 101.

I don't like that the westside districts 5 and 6 break at King st rather than Mission; I don't like that the lower west side of town is split into two districts; I don't like that District 7 consists entirely of the University.I don't like that the Ocean Street Corridor lands into 4 different districts.

Nothing. It looks good.

The map layers. What does it all mean? Use clear language that anyone would be able to understand.
does the council candidate need to live in the district they are running for? are there seven separate seat races? overall, this map breaks the city into too many pieces. there should be at most three districts. two council members from each and one atlarge The lower westside along west Cliff is split into two districts, when they share so much in common.

The lower West side is split into 2 districts
split of lower west side
The biggest problem with all three of these maps is that they create districts that span natural/transportation barriers, most significantly, Hwy 1 from Hwy 9 to Mission Street and Pogonip. The result will be to create districts that have no basis in community and that include minorities without giving them much chance of representation. These barriers are an assault on common sense. The biggest problem in all three maps is with District 3.

Nothing
Nothing to dislike.

It's OK. Much better than the other two.

I don't see any negatives
Nothing
n/a
neighborhoods that experience different issues are connected No real dislikes, best of the 3 choices
It covers to far an area. Should not include the east side of the river in Zone 3. the lower westside is split into 5 & 6
It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.

NA
I think it is pretty spot on. except maybe parts of the upper west side may not enjoy being grouped with the jail and the Costco/shelter neighborhoods. I can't really speak for them though. My neighborhood is a pretty good mix of the Emeline shelter services, the working class Emeline and Ocean street neighborhoods, and the upper income Carbonera/ Banana belt areas.

Latinx neighborhoods are diluted
Nothing.

Looking at the district that includes my address, I see that my block of King Street is included in a district that includes neighborhoods on the hill above me (which is

2.16 disconnected from my part of the neighborhood), and neighborhoods across Highway 1 to the west of Fair Avenue. These neighborhoods have no relation whatsoever to my block of King Street. Also, this map appears to actually split King Street to the West of Bay Street so that residences on either side of the street would be in different districts! I'm trying to imagine what that would be like on my block...how would it feel if my neighbors directly across the street were in a different district and had a different representative? I happen to know someone who lives in the section of King Street on this map that is split between districts 6 and 5. It would make much more sense to split neighborhoods along Highway One, or another heavily traveled corridor (Such as Bay Street) where it would be more difficult for neighbors to get to know each other. I fail to comprehend how streets on either side of San Lorenzo River have any logical relation to one another. Are you trying to combine neighborhoods that are unrelated? Is there some logic to the mapping process other than having districts with equivalent numbers of residents?
It does seem strange to split the lower Westside at Fair Avenue.

Nothing.

Not much — this is my favorite.

Lower westside & west cliff is split between 2 separate districts.

District 5 runs from west cliff to Meder Street.

I do not like the way Draȷ Map #101 splits the Lower Westside into two different districts. The Lower Westside should be one district.

N/A don't dislike anything about it
nothing
Lower west side is split in two areas.

Draȷ map #101 looks just a little too broken up, especially the Westside neighborhoods near the ocean, which share some of the same issues.

The areas around Ocean street are split among 4 districts, I consider Ocean street one area.

Not much
na
What do you like about Draȷ Map #102? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #102?
Nada
Please email me answers to my above 2 questions ([email protected]) --1- 21-2022: 1:15pm
not much!
nothing
I like UC being a separate district. Lower Westside also seems decently represented here as distinct from upper westside.

I like that it keeps the university together and also that it has a district that is mostly renters and people of color.

Not much
Good unification to West Cliff area.
does not preserve integrity of Seabright

2.17 This is my preferred map as a resident of the lower westside. It segregates the student voter zones and separates the boardwalk area from downtown since they have different challenges. I also like district 3 lines.

Nothing
Wealthy vs moderately wealthy. Not based on race as much Nothing
Preserves the west side in 2 distinct districts - at the expense of other neighborhoods Don't like being lumped in the downtown and Boardwalk areas.

While this maps groups coastal zones together, there already are many government agencies advocating for the coastal zones. So I DO NOT see this as an advantage. This is my least favorite map.
nothing
This is a bit less representative than 101.

I like how the partitioning looks. area 4 keeps people who have to deal with the Beach Street area together. It also looks more balanced as far as the demographic in all areas.
district 5 is the only one that really makes sense here Nothing. Prefer 101
Coast is one area
UCSC in its own district! 5 concentrates coastal population. 2 concentrates downtown population.

Very much like district 5 as south of Mission/east of Bay. Seems a very logical area District 5 boundries
More representative of neighborhoods and areas of town
I like including Emeline Ave in District 3.

Lower west side is in one district
I like that the West side neighborhood gets only one councilmember, which is appropriate because the westside already has outsized representation on the current city council. Moreover, westsiders are always renting out their homes as vacation rentals. Seems fair that they should just get one representative on city council.

The lower westside is one group.

I like that it keeps the West Cliff neighborhoods in one district UCSC is more on it's own 1st choice
It most closely matches the Santa Cruz City Schools Trustee Area Maps On map #102, I like the isolation of UCSC to District 7. UCSC is not part of any city neighborhood and it makes sense to keep it separate. On map #102, District 6 makes more sense because the King Street neighborhood is connected across Bay Street.

This is a very walkable large neighborhood and should remain intact as one district.

Escalona Drive is a good boundary East of Bay Street. On map #102, the neighborhoods between Mission Street and West Cliff Drive, in District 5, are brought together as one District and this makes sense (Bay Street is a good boundary).

Districts 2 and 4 (Downtown areas) that are separated by Laurel Street make some sense, but I'm not sure that the Eastside of town has much relation to downtown (although they are close to each other and are both very urban).

Keeps the lower Westside together
I like that it includes Arana Gulch with Prospect Heights area I like this map the best. I like that nearly all of King St is one district and also like that like draȷ 101, UCSC is it's own district. I believe that is THE MOST important part of setting up these districts. UCSC needs its own district, that is abundantly clear to me and an overwhelming majority of residents outside some who use student votes to further their own pet projects, duping students into blindly following along a path few

2.18 outside the university support. I also like District 2 and 4 and am hopeful we will achieve the goal of a more accurate representation of our community's diversity on council.

I like this one. I like that UCSC is it's own district. We need that separate. feel pretty neutral towards this one
UCSC is more on it's own 1st choice
Not much. The only thing might be that there will be multiple voices to represent the interests of Downtown and expansion and that folks affected by the Coastal Act are going to be
Map #102 represents the way I think of my neighborhood on the West Side, above Highway 1 but extending across Bay St.

UCSC has its own district (#7)
It uses major streets as borders except #1 where the freeway is what splits "neighborhoods"
I like the boundary between districts 5 and 6, I like that district 7 now grabs some voters outside the University.

Not as good as map 101. I prefer the way the westside is broken up on map 101 to this map. But I like how UCSC is not split.

Not alot
The best map. It maintains a coherence of many city “regions” with similar geography (e.g., heights, coastal, intermediate), neighborhood similarity (e.g. Westside; university, east side), and shared major transportation corridors. There are more "common interests’ shared in these groupings.

District 5. It includes all of the lower west side along west cliff.

District 5 includes all of the lower west side along the entire length of West Cliff Dr lower west side in one district
The biggest problem with all three of these maps is that they create districts that span natural/transportation barriers, most significantly, Hwy 1 from Hwy 9 to Mission Street and Pogonip. The result will be to create districts that have no basis in community and that include minorities without giving them much chance of representation. These barriers are an assault on common sense. The biggest problem in all three maps is with District 3.

Dislike
How west side is divided more simply into lower and upper districts.

It is okay, not my favorite
I do not like this map.
logical groupings of neighborhoods
Not much, district 5 is drawn better in terms of common interests Areas 3 - 7 haved good boundaries
NA
this one includes me with the upper west side where I work, but don't belong.

District 4 holds lower income renters, and I think Latinx voters in a district where they are more likely to have representation; UCSC remains intact Upper westside is a single district.

I like the way the Westside of Santa Cruz is mapped on Map #102. The neighborhoods make a bit more sense in this map. I understand that it is difficult to divide the neighborhoods into population groups given the divisions created by highways and the river. Laurel Street provides a good division (I lived downtown on Laurel Street nearly 50 years ago, so I'm familiar with that part of town). Seabright Avenue is also a good boundary, as is Mission Street and Bay Street. This map keep most of the King Street neighborhood intact, except for the section East of Walnut Avenue. The streets

2.19 as they appear on a map do not actually correspond to how they function on the ground. For example, High Street is disconnected from Escalona Drive. Those two areas are not part of the same neighborhood. I frequently walk from the area around Miramar all the way to Peyton Street, but seldom walk up the hill on Laurent to reach the neighborhoods on the hill.

Nothing. I hate this map. It splits up the East side traffic patterns. I do not think of this as my neighborhood. I would be in district one in this map despite never going north of hwy one or have any reason to think their concerns are mine. It splits up the Harbor area and and Seabright neighborhood. Not good.

It keeps my neighborhood together and keeps UCSC together which it should be.

Not much — this is my least favorite.

Lower westside and west cliff together in district 5.

I like Draȷ Map #102 because it keeps the Lower Westside as a single district for the most part.

UCSC is in it's own district
It's OK but I like 101 better
Lower west side is in one area
Draȷ map # 102 is the best representation of the neighborhoods. Each has its own unique challenges, and deserves representatives who understand those issues.

Ocean St only has 3 districts, district #1 covers the Eastside well maybe second choice.
ucsc is contained as one district
What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #102? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #102?
None of these maps indicate the population of eligible voters within any of the districts. UCSC students comprise one half of the city's population, and the majority of voters; they are ghetto-ized by all of the maps. None of the maps divide the city into districts with equal populations of eligible voters. They all violate the principal of equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and backed by voting rights federal legislation.

Same response as to the previous 3 questions!!!!
Do not like the distribution of areas 2 & 4
This does not represent the Seabright neighborhood.......Downtown is a very different place
Downtown district is clearly being gerrymandered. Downtown & Beachflats are an obvious community distinct from the east side neighborhoods they’re being grouped with here. Beachflats is prob the most diverse area of Santa Cruz, along with the UC.

Splitting districts in this way will result in the Latino representation of Beachflats being drowned out by the enormously white east side residents.

Unclear and inconsistent border lines. Different sections of town with different issues in this map. Will be hard to gain local consensus.

Splits up Seabright and Downtown neighborhoods
This is horrible. The impact of the harbor area should not be in two different districts.

People who live on Beach Hill are not the best for making decisions for the area around the harbor. Also those of us on the far east side have no representation for traffic issues.

2.20 The segment of district 6 below Mission should be added to either district 4 or 5.

It divides the east side so that two districts will have the same problems to attend to instead of one district. It puts the east side business corridor and downtown together whereas the strength of each is better divided in map 1.

My neighborhood, purple 4, is lumped with the beach flats and downtown areas. I think we have different priorities in these areas and it doesn’t make sense to be lumped together.

Splits downtown into #2 & #4, as well as the Seabright neighborhood.

Lower seabright is grouped with the beach flats and the boardwalk. Lower seabright is similar to the rest of seabright, because it is residential. It is much different than the boardwalk.

The Seabright neighborhood is lumped together with the Boardwalk commercial districts and downtown, which I do not like as our interests and concerns are very different than those areas of the city. We are more of neighborhood, those are more commercial.

For Seabright area this map makes no sense to me. The Seabright areas are divided in a poor way , with some going into Prospect Heights ,some into downtown and some into the Westside. Who would benefit and who would be most likely to lose out from this division of a historic neighborhood ? Will Beach Flats residents find common needs and and equally strong representational responses by being placed with one of the wealthier areas , meaning with the below Murray Street Seabright beach community ? I think not.

Breaks up neighborhoods, splitting up Seabright, downtown from the beach flats that have similar problems. Breaking Seabright at Clinton seems random, contrived.

It splices up neighborhoods. Puts neighborhoods together that have little in common.

This is a bit less representative than 101.

Less closely follows current understanding of existing neighborhoods separates Upper and Lower Seabright; combines Lower Seabright with parts of downtown.

Nothing.
2&4 seem to split the density neighborhoods of lower ocean and flats it chops downtown in half which doesn't make sense and feels like it really divides up the area significantly
the way eastside is broken up
...

Nothing
Downtown/Business district boundries
Nothing in particular
The western side of district 3 is disconnected from the eastern side because of Hwy 1. n/a
UCSC students should not be able to vote in city elections. some districts are too large and show poor distribution of diversity On Map #102, I'm concerned about District 3. I don't think the upper westside, around High Street and Highland, have any relationship to the Emeline Avenue area. n/a
I think its weird still that Coral St is connected to one of the wealthiest areas in the City. I think it would be very hard to represent the interests of wealthy constituents without neglecting those living on Coral St
nothing
make district 3 smaller (too much territory covered)

2.21 This groups our neighborhood with dissimilar areas in the City. some districts are too large and show poor distribution of diversity In several districts, I'm concerned that district representation will be skewed by a part of the district over another. District 4, e.g. by the east side residents. District 2 by those that killed the corridors plan, and District 5 by westside coastal residents.

Division of 2,4,5 & 6 into "coastal" and "inland" doesn't get much, and loses the Downtown/Beach Flats identity.
the borders are longaged and neighborhoods split
I don't like splitting the Seabright neighborhood, I don't like splitting the lower ocean neighborhood, I don't like splitting downtown at Laurel; I don't like splitting Ocean Street into three districts. Districts 1 and 3 are tricky to reconcile as they cross the highway.

The way westside Santa Cruz is broken up.

Zone numbers are not in a good sequence, or flow.
coastal areas have fewer districts consolidating coastal interests may dilute other neighborhoods like downtown.
splits up downtown
In my estimation, the one region that is not highlighted in 102 is the central city on both sides of the San Lorenzo River; the most dynamic business region, but also an important and evolving residential character. The solution in 101 gets at this some, but leaves out a good chunk of the central core, and divides other regions non-optimally.

Nothing
I do not dislike anything
The biggest problem with all three of these maps is that they create districts that span natural/transportation barriers, most significantly, Hwy 1 from Hwy 9 to Mission Street and Pogonip. The result will be to create districts that have no basis in community and that include minorities without giving them much chance of representation. These barriers are an assault on common sense. The biggest problem in all three maps is with District 3.
less logical divisions
Not evenly dispersed
Downtown should not be lumped together with part of the east side. This could create too many conflicting interests within one district.

It doesn't seem like the areas are drawn that make sense I feel that the neighborhoods on either side of the river have different issues/concerns. circles section of section 5 should be with section 6
Breaks up some areas of common interest
area 1 & 2 boundaries seem arbitrary
It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.

Districts 2 and 4 are not representative of natural neighborhoods; California St to the Harbor and Seabright Ave don't represent any neighborhoods.

NA
I don’t like that ucsc is down into bay and the Westside is split I identify with groups outside my neighborhood boundaries. I think you are lumping the hispanic neighborhoods together.

My own residence is lumped with wealthy people who do not share my interests and values

2.22 Divides the historic ‘Eastside’ between two districts it doesn’t relate to (historically, geographically, demographically).

Unfairly divides the Eastside.

It's difficult to read these maps to see if a street, such as Seabright Avenue, is actually the dividing line between districts, with residences on opposite sides of the street in different districts. I'm familiar with this odd artifact of mapping because the Nextdoor social media platform has some very odd mapping details, some of which place residences on top of a hill with those at the foot of a hill, and there is no connection at all between the streets and the neighbors. There is no way that the people who live on some of the streets in a "neighborhood" would ever meet each other -- they are so disconnected. I worry that if the maps are not carefully drawn, the city will have neighbors disagreeing with friends who live across the street, or in the adjacent block.

In the Nextdoor maps, my residence is in a different "neighborhood" from the next block and I cannot communicate with friends who live on the same street on the next block!
Confusing when below Water St is removed from District 2 and below King St is removed from District 5
I hate this map. It splits up the East side traffic patterns. I do not think of this as my neighborhood. I would be in district one in this map despite never going north of hwy one or have any reason to think their concerns are mine. It splits up the Harbor area and and Seabright neighborhood. Not good.

Nothing.

This makes strange divisions based on roads versus community and commercial hubs.

Nothing.

Don't like the way the neighborhoods are broken up
not much
Na
Are a couple of awkward spots, i.e. Walnut/Laurent Street up to high Street District #3 is a mess, spread across several different regions na
What do you like about Draȷ Map #103? ¿Qué te gusta del borrador del mapa #103?
Nada
Same response as to all the previous questions!!!!
nnot much
nothing
Nothing
Nothing
Is the most like our current non-district system.

I could live with districts 1, 2 and 4.

Nothing
Nothing
don't like being lumped in with the Boardwalk and downtown areas Nothing.

2.23 Wait a minute; did I say 102 was my least favorite? Let's change that to 103 which looks completely gerrymandered. It not only breaks up Seabright and downtown, but also the UC?
I do not like how the neighborhoods have been broken up.

I like how the partitioning looks. area 4 keeps people who have to deal with the Beach Street area together. It also looks more balanced as far as the demographic in all areas.
this one connects UCSC more to other neighborhoods nearby better No
...
6 concentrates coastal population.

Nothing
Nothing!
It’s colorful and horizontally divided on the east side of the map.

Nothing
Even though shapes are not as compact as other maps, this seems to be a good balance of representation, for best overall Council decision making. I've heard that West Side has historically had relatively high numbers on the Council, and #103 might split that up while not excluding well qualified people.

Seems the most disjointed
n/a
Nothing great.
a fairer distribution of districts and diversity. 2nd choice On map #103, District 6 makes some sense, although the neighborhoods along Western Drive have no relation to the areas along West Cliff Drive. na
NOTHING! This map is terrible. This is the exact map those who use students' votes to further their pet projects would support because their platform is incredibly unpopular with the majority of actual residents so they use the student body to further their terrible ideas. Please discard this map, it's not good for the City and will only help those stymying efforts to make Santa Cruz a more liveable City.

NOTHING
absolutely nothing
a fairer distribution of districts and diversity. 2nd choice That the university is split - I think that will strengthen the representation with two voices to help with town/gown. I'm fine with district 1, 3, 5, 6 Can't think of anything.

This is a mess. Splits the University with neighborhoods that have no connection with it
It seems to dilute the power of the leȷ-leaning bloc of UC and also the right-leaning West Cliff. Mixed neighborhoods seem more likely to be willing to compromise and get more done.

I like the boundaries of District 4 better here than in map 102, I like splitting the university into multiple districts with both also including significant areas of offcampus residential areas.

I don't like this map at all. UCSC is split into the surrounding communities. This is like gerrymandering to increase the influence of the university vote. It is diluting the vote of the university terrace neighborhood by lumping it in with UCSC. These are not natural boundaries like map 101 is. Bad map!
Dont like it

2.24 Nothing
Nothing is good about this map
lower west side mostly in one district
The biggest problem with all three of these maps is that they create districts that span natural/transportation barriers, most significantly, Hwy 1 from Hwy 9 to Mission Street and Pogonip. The result will be to create districts that have no basis in community and that include minorities without giving them much chance of representation. These barriers are an assault on common sense. The biggest problem in all three maps is with District 3.

Nothing
Nothing.

Nothing - it's terrible.

I don't like map #103
I do not like this map.
logical grouping of neighborhoods
Least favorite
100% Nothing do I like.
not much
NA
My own residence in district 5 is more in line with common interests Do not like.

The "lower westside" of Santa Cruz, to the south of Mission street, is properly connected.

Not much. At least Soquel is one district. This splits up the Harbor area and and Seabright neighborhood. Not good.

My neighborhood is together.

Not much — the West Side portion is strangely divided, as is the East Side.

District 7 encapsulates a portion of a city residential area where many UCSC students live.

I don't like Draȷ map #103.

NOTHING!
not much
Na
Nothing
Ocean street is only 3 districts
Not much
na
What do you dislike about Draȷ Map #103? ¿Qué es lo que no te gusta del borrador del mapa #103?
None of these maps indicate the population of eligible voters within any of the districts. UCSC students comprise one half of the city's population, and the majority of voters; they are ghetto-ized by all of the maps. None of the maps divide the city into districts with equal populations of eligible voters. They all violate the principal of 2.25 equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and backed by voting rights federal legislation.

Same response as to all the previous questions!!!!
Do not like the distribution of areas 2 & 4
This does not represent the Seabright area.....Downtown is a VERY different place ! This map is clearly designed as a way to gerrymander away the voice of every coherent low income, diverse neighborhood in the city by arbitrarily grouping them with incongruent nearby wealthier neighborhoods. The splitting of the UC area, downtown, and Beachflats, so that each includes wealthier whiter counterbalancing neighborhoods, seems obvious and will obviously not result in the intended effect of increasing Latino representation.

It splits the university in half
Inconsistent hard to understand borders. Areas with different needs and issues. Very hard to organize and communicate.

Convoluted. Why bother to move to district elections when they no longer represent neighborhoods.
does not preserve integrity of Seabright
Who is this gerrymandered for? The Arana Gulch area should not be lumped in with downtown. Yes there are traffic concerns all up Water and Soquel, but it feels very divided.

Natural Bridges/Lower Westside has little in common with areas above highway 1. I don't understand the rationale of the way UC and student neighborhoods were delineated.

Again, it isn't as cohesive as map one. I feel the beach flats area needs the strength of the downtown area
My neighborhood, purple 4, is lumped with the beach flats and downtown areas. I think we have different priorities in these areas and it doesn’t make sense to be lumped together.

Artificially tries to split UCSC (and downtown) to have somewhat even racial diversity.

This is the most un-natural division and "dilutes" the differences in neighborhoods more than the other maps.

Lower seabright is grouped with the beach flats and the boardwalk. Lower seabright is similar to the rest of seabright, because it is residential. It is much different than the boardwalk.

Again, Seabright is strangely divided and includes Beach Flats , which I feel should be better represented .

It breaks up the Hispanic vote across districts instead of letting them have a bigger voice in the communities where they live.

It doesn’t make sense
Spreads districts into neighborhoods that have little in common.

I do not like how the neighborhoods have been broken up. splitting UCSC campus - all students should be within same district separates Upper and Lower Seabright; combines Lower Seabright with parts of downtown.

I do not think the areas in the flood plane near Neary Lagoon should be split up.

To snaky
it still divides up downtown in an odd way but almost connects the major commercial districts better than others 2.26
Pretty clueless about eastside neighborhoods
Coast is split up
Downtown population is split between two districts. UCSC doesn't have its own district and would influence too much City population.

Upper west side (Western/Meder) does not seem to belong with lower west side UCSC split. Also, active/registered UCSC students should vote in whatever draȷ map include the boundaries of the campus.

It again breaks things up horizontally instead of vertically. The lower westside has more in common than the upper westside for instance.

Splits up those of us living with the camping disaster along the San Lorenzo river. We need a voice.

West side should only get one representative on City Council. The current city council make-up (3 wealthy property owners who are next door neighbors in the most affluent neighborhood in the county) is a joke. Thanks for choosing map 102 so that we can have fair representation in this city.

Lower westside split seem arbitrary.
district 3 is too large
On Map # 103, it makes no sense at all to split UCSC in half and include it in parts of the upper westside and King Street neighborhoods. District 7 on Map #103 makes no sense at all. Please do not include UCSC in upper westside neighborhoods! As a resident of the King Street Neighborhood, I would not want to share a representative with UCSC -- that relationship makes no sense to me. There may be houses rented to students in parts of my neighborhood, but, as a 25-year resident of this part of town (and a resident of Santa Cruz for nearly 50 years), I'm seeing more and more nearby homes selling for very, very high prices and these are not student rentals.

Ridiculously slices off a large section of West Cliff Drive from the coastal Woodrow/Circles neighborhood, and adds it to District 5? The lower Branciforte neighborhoods have a much more urban perspective than Prospect Heights
Splitting UCSC's vote. UCSC is best represented as ONE district.

UCSC should be it's OWN. I do NOT like UCSC coming into district 3 which is residential and not student housing
seems like it’s gerrymandering the local vote by making 2 ucsc-concentrated districts. really dislike this one.
district 3 is too large
In several districts, I'm concerned that district representation will be skewed by a part of the district over another. District 4, e.g. by the east side residents. District 2 by those that killed the corridors plan. District 6 has that potential, but doesn't include all the westside coastal residents. I am concerned that the westside is split into 3 - which will limit development that should happen over there.

Everything seems wrong.

As above
I don't like breaking up the upperwest side between western and Nobel, I don't like breaking Ocean Street Corridor into 3 districtsI don't like the boundary between district 1 and 2 going up to the freeway east of Morrissey and then down to water west of morrissey, and I don't like splitting downtown at Laurel This map is not good. It splits the UCSC community unnecessarily. It also breaks up westside communities unnaturally and lumps them in with the University. The only reason to do that is to dilute the vote of the upper westside communities and give the UCSC 2 districts instead of one. Gerrymandered map!
Again, the number flow sequence seems awkward.
looks badly gerrymandered, very long thin districts.

2.27 splits up UCSC, splits up downtown
Splits up many areas that have coherence with regard to geography, extent of business, and transportation corridors.

District 5 and 6 splits the lower west side along west Cliff and it combines downtown the east side as far as Frederick St
District 5 and 6 splits the lower west side along West Cliff Dr. Also it combines downtown and the east side as far as Frederick St.

Does create a majority minority community for UCSC as effectively UCSC should not be mingled with neighborhood
The boundaries are too illogically broken up. 7 takes away too much from 6 and 3 takes too much from 7 and 1.

Lumps my neighborhood in with dissimilar population: UCSC UCSC needs to be its own district
I feel that the neighborhoods on either side of the river have different issues/concerns. section 5 and 6 coastal neighborhoods divided
Not drawn with common interests intact
half the university is in my zone. They have zero business voting on city issues in the first place.
everything
It promotes parochial focus over attention to common concerns, I'd prefer giving each voter 6 votes that they can assign to either a single candidate or spread across up to six candidates. It seems this would effectively avoid under representation of any subset of voters.

District 7, splitting UCSC is an unnatural split of neighborhoods; D1, D2 and D3 are split in unnatural, non-neighborhood ways.

NA
Ucsc should not be part of the city
wondering why the university populations are divided between zones 3, 6 and 7. kind of gives the students control over 1/3rd of the decisions. - a lot of power for a transient population.

Beach Flats and Lower Ocean are split off from Neary's Lagoon, diluting Latinx vote; UCSC is split in two.

Divides the historic ‘Eastside’ among districts it has no relationships with.

Divides districts in a manner that separates neighborhoods..

Do not put UCSC in the same neighborhoods as actual neighborhoods. This map is a mess. The people on Highland, Meadow, and in Harvey West, have no relation to UCSC. My neighborhood, on the West end of King Street, has no relation to UCSC.

Confusing when Bay St is not a District border and Western Dr and Circles are combined in District 6
Everything. Too many neighborhoods split.

UCSC is split up which it should not be.

It is a strange division, with some skinny sections seemingly created to fill gaps. It’s not as bad as 102, but still not good.

Lower westside/westcliff split up and western drive included in district 6.

2.28 District 3 crosses over the river.

I dislike the fact that Draȷ map #103 cuts off 1/3 of the Lower Westside and allocates it to another district.

EVERYTHING!
Districts are looking like gerrymanders
Lower west side is lumped with parts of upper west side It’s all wrong.

Districts are too long and thin over awkward areas, districts #1 and #2 reach too far west
Stretches district 2 to dilute the eastside Laurel and Seabright corridor to blend two distinctly different neighborhoods. The point of neighborhood elections is to hav those be homogeneous.
ucsc is split into multiple districts
Which map is your first choice? ¿Qué mapa es tu primera opción? Draȷ Map #101/Borrador del mapa #101 60% (59)
Draȷ Map #102/Borrador del mapa #102 35% (35)
Draȷ Map #103/Borrador del mapa #103 5% (5)
Which maps could you support? ¿Qué mapas podría apoyar? Question
Could
support/Podría
apoyar
Would Not Support/
No apoyaría
Draȷ Map #101/Borrador del mapa #101 72% 28%
Draȷ Map #102/Borrador del mapa #102 52% 48%
Draȷ Map #103/Borrador del mapa #103 15% 85%
Expand all / Collapse all
Could support/Podría apoyar Would Not Support/ No apoyaría Draȷ Map #101/Borrador del mapa #101
72% 28%

2.29 Draȷ Map #102/Borrador del mapa #102
Draȷ Map #103/Borrador del mapa #103
What Neighborhood Do You Live In? ¿En qué vecindario vive? Downtown/Centro de la ciudad 13% (14)
Eastside/Lado Este 31% (34)
Upper Eastside/Lado Este Superior 6% (7)
Westside/Lado Oeste 34% (38)
Upper Westside/Lado Oeste Superior 10% (11)
Outside of the City of Santa Cruz/Fuera de la Ciudad de Santa Cruz 6% (7) What races/ethnicities do you identify with? Select all that apply. ¿Con qué razas/identidades étnicas se identifica usted? Seleccione todos los que correspondan.

American Indian/Alaska Native/Indígena Americano/Nativo de Alaska 4% (4) Asian/Pacific Islander/Asiático/Isleño del Pacífico 7% (7) Black/African American/Negro/ Afroamericano 3% (3)
Latino/ Hispano 8% (9)
White/Caucasian/Blanco/Caucásico 77% (82)
Multiple Races/Razas Múltiples 14% (15)
52% 48%
15% 85%

2.30 Other/Otra 9% (10)
In what category is your age? ¿En que categoría esta su edad? Under 20/Menos de 20 0% (0)
20-34 7% (8)
35-54 26% (29)
55-64 18% (20)
65 or older/65 años o más 48% (53)
How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) ¿Cuánto anticipa que serán los ingresos totales de su hogar antes de impuestos para el año en curso? (Incluya en su ingreso total el dinero de todas las fuentes para todas las personas que viven en su hogar).

Less than $25,000/Menos de $25,000 4% (4)
$25,000 - $49,999 8% (7)
$50,000 - $74,999 19% (17)
$75,000 - $99,999 12% (11)
$100,000 - $149,999 19% (17)
$150,000 - $199,999 14% (13)
$200,000 or more/$200,000 o más. 24% (22)

2.31 Do you rent or own your home? ¿Usted alquila o es dueño de su propia casa?
Rent/Alquiler 9% (10)
Own/Propia 91% (100)

2.32 2.33
From: Maria Cadenas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:07 AM
To: Casey Hemard <[email protected]>
Cc: Elizabeth Smith <[email protected]>; Lucia de la Torre <[email protected]>; Marley Morales <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: City of Santa Cruz Outreach
Thank you, Casey. Per our conversation regarding districting, my only note is that the 7 district maps provide a better opportunity for diverse representation. Specifically in regards to Latino and working class families. A significant part of this is that the 7 district maps separate a business district (downtown) from a high-density working-class area – the beach flats. As the district effort is to guide representation, I believe the 7 district maps do a better job of this. All 6 district maps combine the business/high-income downtown with the beachflats, which in my opinion will make it hard to ensure representation.

As per the vendor ordinance, I would be happy to learn more and connect to Elizabeth prior to the SC Council meeting. Marley, copied here, can help schedule.

All my best,
M

2.34 From: Zennon Ulyate-Crow (zennonuc) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:10 PM
To: Casey Hemard <[email protected]>
Cc: SUA Lobby Corps Director <[email protected]>; Joe Thompson <[email protected]>; Pablo V. <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Draft District Maps
Hey!
First off, huge thanks for emailing me and letting me know this went live! I must admit I’ve been sitting on this email the whole month because I’ve been super busy and waiting to catch enough time where I could do a deep dive into what students are thinking.

A TON of thought is put into maps, so I’m really appreciative of the work you’ve done.

We finally went through and created a map that we are interested in pursuing further, and we’d love to meet with you to talk about it. We want to get your thoughts on our draft, insight into how you weigh the potential lawsuit talking about keeping communities of interest together while also not packing districts, and ask other questions.

Here’s the draft map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/339fe51e-3702-49b5-8afc-b85b61a67ee6 Who is CC’d is below:

Mitra Zarinebaf, Student Union Assembly’s Lobby Corp Director Nick Mazzotti, Student Union Assembly Lobby Corp Local Affairs Joe Thompson, President of YDSA at UCSC
Pablo Velasquez, President of College Democrats at UCSC Let us know when you’d be available to meet, and we’ll go from there.

Thank you!
All the Best,
Zennon Ulyate-Crow
President, The Student Housing Coalition

2.35 6$4$456%&/5%3"'5130104"-

2.36 3XEOLF
'LVWULFW
7RWDO3RS

'HYLDWLRQIURPLGHDO
'HYLDWLRQ
+LVS
1+:KLWH
1+%ODFN
$VLDQ$PHULFDQ
7RWDO
+LVS
1+:KLWH
1+%ODFN
$VLDQ3DF,VO
7RWDO
/DWLQRHVW
6SDQLVK6XUQDPHG
$VLDQ6XUQDPHG
)LOLSLQR6XUQDPHG
1+:KLWHHVW
1+%ODFN
7RWDO
/DWLQRHVW
6SDQLVK6XUQDPHG
$VLDQ6XUQDPHG
)LOLSLQR6XUQDPHG
1+:KLWHHVW
1+%ODFN
7RWDO
/DWLQRHVW
6SDQLVK6XUQDPHG
$VLDQ6XUQDPHG
)LOLSLQR6XUQDPHG
1+:KLWHHVW
1+%ODFNHVW
$&63RS(VW 7RWDO
DJH

DJH
DJHSOXV
LPPLJUDQWV
QDWXUDOL]HG
HQJOLVK
VSDQLVK
DVLDQODQJ
RWKHUODQJ
/DQJXDJH)OXHQF\ 6SHDNV(QJ/HVVWKDQ9HU\:HOO
KVJUDG
EDFKHORU
JUDGXDWHGHJUHH
&KLOGLQ+RXVHKROG FKLOGXQGHU
3FWRI3RS$JH HPSOR\HG
LQFRPHN
LQFRPHN
LQFRPHN

LQFRPHN
LQFRPHNSOXV
VLQJOHIDPLO\
PXOWLIDPLO\

UHQWHG
RZQHG
7RWDOSRSXODWLRQGDWDIURPWKH'HFHQQLDO&HQVXV
6XUQDPHEDVHG9RWHU5HJLVWUDWLRQDQG7XUQRXWGDWDIURPWKH&DOLIRUQLD6WDWHZLGH'DWDEDVH /DWLQRYRWHUUHJLVWUDWLRQDQGWXUQRXWGDWDDUH6SDQLVKVXUQDPHFRXQWVDGMXVWHGXVLQJ&HQVXV3RSXODWLRQ'HSDUWPHQWXQGHUFRXQWHVWLPDWHV1+:KLWHDQG1+%ODFNUHJLVWUDWLRQDQGWXUQRXWFRXQWVHVWLPDWHG E\1'&&LWL]HQ9RWLQJ$JH3RS$JH,PPLJUDWLRQDQGRWKHUGHPRJUDSKLFVIURPWKH $PHULFDQ&RPPXQLW\6XUYH\DQG6SHFLDO7DEXODWLRQ\HDUGDWD

7RWDO

3DJHRI
7RWDO3RS
&LWL]HQ9RWLQJ$JH3RS
9RWHU5HJLVWUDWLRQ

1RY

9RWHU7XUQRXW

1RY

9RWHU7XUQRXW

1RY

$JH
,PPLJUDWLRQ
/DQJXDJHVSRNHQDWKRPH
(GXFDWLRQ

DPRQJWKRVHDJH

+RXVHKROG,QFRPH
+RXVLQJ6WDWV
6$4$456%&/5%3"'5130104"-

2.37 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 9:36 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 3.29.22 Council Agenda 7 district maps hearing

3.29.22 Council Agenda 7 district maps hearing
Dear Council,
I suppose I favor maps 102 or 103, but my same comments as to the 6 district maps apply.

How to decide which districts vote in the '22 election needs disclosure.

How the Mayor will be elected needs disclosure.

What happens or required actions of the council members who have 2 more years on their terms needs disclosure.

If answers to the questions are not forth coming, I favor the 7 district model, although people would probably prefer electing more than one person every 4 years in the 6 district model especially if a) they had the choice of deciding a 2 or 4 year Mayor term b) the same questions were answered.

Garrett Philipp - Westside

2.38 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 10:37 AM
To: City Council
Subject: District maps
Please keep the Lower Westside together in a district map! The Lower Westside is a neighborhood with many shared concerns: West Cliff Drive maintenance, Lighthouse Field, tourist traffic, etc.

Please keep the Lower Westside together by supporting any of these 3 maps: 102, 601 or 603.

The other proposed maps split the Lower Westside into 2 districts.

Thank you,
Dennis Hagen
Lower Westside

2.39 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Diane Sipkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2022 11:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: District Maps should keep the Lower Westside together The Lower Westside needs to be kept together in a the district mapping considerations! The Lower Westside is a neighborhood with many concerns that are specific and integral to the area ‐e.g.

Lighthouse Field, West Cliff Drive maintenance, heavy tourist traffic, abundant short‐term rental properties, etc.

Please keep the Lower Westside together by supporting any of these 3 maps: 102, 601 or 603.

All of the other proposed maps split the Lower Westside into 2 districts.

Thank you,
Diane Sipkin
Lower Westside

2.40 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 2:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: District Elections - 7 district map
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I favor 6 districts + an elected Mayor. I particularly like that it includes a primary and runoff elections.

However, I believe Map 101 is the best choice of the proposed 7 district maps, because it does the best job in keeping communities of interest together.

Regards,
-Eric Grodberg

2.41 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Polhamus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 5:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: District Elections - Map input
Dear Mayor Brunner and City Council Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed maps for district elections.

Of the 7-district maps, 101 seems to keep the communities of interest together the best.

Thank you.

Carol Polhamus

2.42 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 9:22 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Justin Cummings; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Sandy Brown; Donna Meyers; Renee Golder Subject: City District Elections and District Maps
Dear City Council,
Writing in support of the 6 district map with an elected mayor. Choosing map 602 which keeps our Seabright area together. The other two maps cut off part of the Seabright area or the Seabright beach area from the main part of Seabright.

Should the 6 district vote fail, then for the 7 district, we choose map 101, which keeps the Seabright area together. Same objections as above to the other two maps.

Thank you,
Maura Kelsea
Michael Brownlee
Seabright area

2.43 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Janel Garvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:51 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 7 districts with no directly elected mayor
I prefer to have 7 equally important districts rather than 6 which includes one that has 2 representatives ‐ which has to happen if the mayor is required to live within the city.

Thanks

2.44 City of Santa Cruz
7-District Draft Maps
March 29, 2022 Dr. Douglas Johnson

2.45 National Demographics Corporation
2 Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
Minimize voters shifted to
different election years
Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
Future population growth
Preserving the core of existing
districts

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas
that should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant
group of people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against
a political party.”

3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Redistricting Rules and Goals

2.46 March 29, 2022
3 7-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 2.47 March 29, 2022
4 7-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 2.48 March 29, 2022
5 7-District Draft Map
Interactive review map 2.49 March 29, 2022
6 Public Hearing & Discussion
 Which of the seven-district plan(s) do you prefer?
 Do you have any suggestions on how to improve your
preferred plans?

2.50 March 29, 2022
7 All seven-district maps on one slide
March 29, 2022
Interactive review map

2.51

Santa Cruz City CouncilMarch 29, 2022

Santa Cruz City Council
March 29, 2022